```

[House Report 106-987]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                            Rept. 106-987
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1

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

 
  MARINE RESEARCH AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

                October 18, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1552]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1552) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 
and fiscal year 2001 for the Marine Research and related 
environmental research and development program activities of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 
National Science Foundation, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................5
 III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................5
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................6
   V. Committee Actions...............................................9
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................11
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views................18
VIII. Cost Estimate..................................................22
  IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................23
   X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................24
  XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............24
 XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform..............................................24
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................25
 XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................25
  XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................25
 XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........25
XVII. Committee Recommendations......................................29
XVIII.Supplemental Views.............................................32

 XIX. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup.....................33

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Marine Research and Related 
Environmental Research and Development Programs Authorization Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For purposes of this Act, the term--
          (1) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
          (2) ``Director'' means the Director of the National Science 
        Foundation; and
          (3) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

  (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of the National Ocean Service $200,343,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $200,343,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain 
available until expended.
  (b) Navigation Services.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(a), $82,967,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $82,967,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Navigation Services, of which--
          (1) $33,335,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $33,335,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Mapping and Charting;
          (2) $14,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,900,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Hydrographic Survey Backlog;
          (3) $19,849,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,849,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Geodesy; and
          (4) $14,883,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,883,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Tide and Current Data.
  (c) Ocean Resources and Conservation Assessment.--Of the amounts 
authorized under subsection (a), $99,650,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$99,650,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for Ocean Resources and 
Conservation Assessment, of which--
          (1) $7,970,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,970,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Oceanic and Coastal Research;
          (2) $7,085,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,085,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
        Laboratory;
          (3) $46,281,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $46,281,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Ocean Assessment Program;
          (4) $18,884,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $18,884,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Response and Restoration; and
          (5) $19,430,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,430,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Coastal Ocean Program.
  (d) Acquisition of Data.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(a), $17,726,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $17,726,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

SEC. 4. OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

  (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research $44,320,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $44,320,000 for fiscal 
year 2001, to remain available until expended.
  (b) Marine Environmental Research.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $22,300,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $22,300,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Marine Environmental Research.
  (c) NURP.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection (a), $9,000,000 
for fiscal year 2000 and $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Undersea Research 
Program (NURP).
  (d) Acquisition of Data.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(a), $13,020,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,020,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

  (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of Program Support $63,769,000 for fiscal year 
2000 and $63,769,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until 
expended.
  (b) Administration and Services.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $52,750,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $52,750,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Administration and Services, of which--
          (1) $19,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,200,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Executive Direction and 
        Administration;
          (2) $700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $700,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Systems Acquisition Office;
          (3) $31,850,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $31,850,000 for 
        fiscal year 2001 shall be for Central Administrative Support; 
        and
          (4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2001 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and 
        Universities.
  (c) Aircraft Services.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(a), $11,019,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $11,019,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Aircraft Services.
  (d) Independent Audit of Aircraft Services.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, using available 
        funds, enter into appropriate arrangements with an independent 
        external auditor capable of providing an audit to determine 
        whether outsourcing of aircraft services is a more cost-
        effective alternative to in-house operation of aircraft in 
        meeting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
        aircraft requirements of the conduct of marine and atmospheric 
        research and related environmental research and development 
        activities, and for other data and mission needs.
          (2) Auditing procedures.--
                  (A) In general.--The audit under paragraph (1) shall 
                be conducted in accordance with generally accepted 
                government auditing standards.
                  (B) Access to information.--The Secretary shall 
                provide the independent external auditor the 
                information such auditor requires to conduct the audit 
                under paragraph (1). The independent external auditor 
                may inspect any records of and have access to personnel 
                of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
                to obtain such information.
          (3) Report of the results of the audit.--Not later than 180 
        days after the initiation of the audit required by this 
        subsection, the independent external auditor shall submit a 
        report concerning the results of the audit to the Committee on 
        Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
        Science, Commerce, and Transportation of the Senate.

SEC. 6. FACILITIES.

  (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities required to carry out Facilities Maintenance and 
Repairs and Environmental Compliance $5,717,000 for fiscal year 2000 
and $5,717,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until 
expended.
  (b) Facilities Maintenance and Repairs.--Of the amounts authorized 
under subsection (a), $1,818,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,818,000 
for fiscal year 2001 shall be for Facilities Maintenance and Repairs.
  (c) Environmental Compliance.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $3,899,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,899,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Facilities Environmental Compliance.

SEC. 7. FLEET MAINTENANCE, PLANNING AND REPLACEMENT.

  (a) Fleet Maintenance and Planning.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of Fleet Maintenance and Planning $9,243,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $9,243,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain 
available until expended.
  (b) Fleet Replacement.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the National Science Foundation $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until expended, 
to meet the marine research and related environmental research and 
development data requirements of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration set forth in the ``NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition 
Plan'', dated September 1998, and that could also help meet the 
Nation's marine research and related environmental research and 
development needs. The National Science Foundation, in consultation 
with the Department of the Navy, the University-National Oceanic 
Laboratory System, academia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the private sector, and any other parties it considers 
appropriate, shall develop a strategy for meeting such requirements and 
other Federal marine research and related environmental research and 
development requirements, using funds appropriated under this 
subsection and at the lowest possible cost. The National Science 
Foundation shall consider all options, including various methods of 
acquiring vessel services, remote sensing, and any other possible 
means.
  (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall submit 
to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 
report detailing the strategy developed pursuant to subsection (b) and 
a plan for implementing such strategy. The Director shall include in 
such report an analysis of the extent to which funds authorized by 
subsection (b) will be sufficient to implement such strategy.
  (d) Notification Requirement for Reduction in Authorized Number of 
NOAA Corps Commissioned Officers.--Section 2(a)(3) of the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
853a(a)(3)) is amended by inserting ``and the Committee on Science'' 
after ``Committee on Resources''.

SEC. 8. MARINE SERVICES.

  (a) Service Contracts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall 
enter into contracts, including multiyear contracts, subject to 
subsection (c), for the use of vessels to conduct marine research and 
related environmental research and development activities, monitoring, 
enforcement, and management, and to acquire other data necessary to 
carry out the missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. The Secretary shall enter into these contracts unless--
          (1) the cost of the contract is more than the cost (including 
        the cost of vessel operation, maintenance, and all personnel) 
        to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of 
        obtaining those services on vessels of the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration;
          (2) the contract is for more than 7 years; or
          (3) the data are acquired through a vessel agreement pursuant 
        to subsection (d).
  (b) Vessels.--The Secretary may not enter into any contract under 
this section for the construction, lease-purchase, upgrade, or service 
life extension of any vessel.
  (c) Multiyear Contracts.--
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and 
        notwithstanding section 1341 of title 31, United States Code, 
        and section 11 of title 41, United States Code, the Secretary 
        may acquire data, including marine research and related 
        environmental research and development data, under multiyear 
        contracts.
          (2) Required findings.--The Secretary may not enter into a 
        contract pursuant to this subsection unless the Secretary finds 
        with respect to that contract that there is a reasonable 
        expectation that throughout the contemplated contract period 
        the Secretary will request from Congress funding for the 
        contract at the level required to avoid contract termination.
          (3) Required provisions.--The Secretary may not enter into a 
        contract pursuant to this subsection unless the contract 
        includes--
                  (A) a provision under which the obligation of the 
                United States to make payments under the contract for 
                any fiscal year is subject to the availability of 
                appropriations provided in advance for those payments;
                  (B) a provision that specifies the term of 
                effectiveness of the contract; and
                  (C) appropriate provisions under which, in case of 
                any termination of the contract before the end of the 
                term specified pursuant to subparagraph (B), the United 
                States shall only be liable for the lesser of--
                          (i) an amount specified in the contract for 
                        such a termination; or
                          (ii) amounts that were appropriated before 
                        the date of the termination for the performance 
                        of the contract or for procurement of the type 
                        of acquisition covered by the contract and are 
                        unobligated on the date of the termination.
  (d) Vessel Agreements.--The Secretary shall use excess capacity of 
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System vessels where 
appropriate and may enter into memoranda of agreement with the 
operators of these vessels to carry out this requirement.

SEC. 9. REPEAL.

  The NOAA Fleet Modernization Act (33 U.S.C. 891 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 10. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

  The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home page 
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the abstracts 
relating to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized 
by this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or 
permit the release of any information prohibited by law or regulation 
from being released to the public.

SEC. 11. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator and the Director shall exclude 
from consideration for grant agreements made after fiscal year 1999 by 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National 
Science Foundation, under the activities for which funds are authorized 
by this Act, any person who received funds, other than those described 
in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 
1999, under a grant agreement from any Federal funding source for a 
project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
process, except as specifically authorized by this Act. Any exclusion 
from consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a 
period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of 
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a 
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of 
the class according to a formula provided by law.
  (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant 
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to 
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public 
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United 
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or 
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative 
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as 
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1552 is to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years (FYs) 2000 and 2001 for the marine research and 
related environmental research and development (R&D) program 
activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation 
(NSF).

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    NOAA was created on October 3, 1970, by President Nixon's 
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 to consolidate many of the 
Nation's civil programs related to the oceans and atmosphere. 
NOAA's stated mission is ``to describe and predict changes in 
the Earth's environment, and to conserve and manage the 
Nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable 
economic opportunities.''
    The NOAA programs for which the Committee on Science has 
sole jurisdiction include the National Weather Service, the 
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, 
and the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 
Climate and Atmospheric programs. In addition, the Subcommittee 
has jurisdiction over the associated line accounts for the 
aforementioned programs under the Facilities and Construction 
accounts. The Committee on Science also shares jurisdiction 
(with the Committee on Resources) over the National Ocean 
Service (NOS) office's Navigation Services, Ocean Resources and 
Conservation Assessment, and Acquisition of Data programs; 
OAR's Ocean and Great Lakes, National Undersea Research, and 
Sea Grant Programs; Program Support; associated Facilities; and 
Fleet Maintenance, Planning, and Replacement.
    Since its creation NOAA has obtained most of its program 
funding through direct appropriation without annual legislative 
authorization. In the 98th Congress, legislation authorizing 
NOAA activities for fiscal year (FY) 1984, S. 1097 has vetoed 
on October 19, 1984. In the 99th Congress, the Consolidated 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public Law (P.L.) 
99-272) authorized various NOAA activities, including nautical 
and aeronautical chart programs, marine research and 
monitoring, ocean pollution research, and weather modification 
research. During the 100th Congress, provisions authorizing FY 
1989 appropriations for NOAA's satellite, atmospheric, and 
weather programs (previously approved by the House of 
Representatives and the Senate as S. 1667) were included in 
Title IV of S. 2209, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration Authorization Act for FY 1989, which was signed 
into law on November 17, 1988 (P.L. 100-685).
    During the 102nd Congress, the first comprehensive NOAA 
authorization bill was approved and signed into law, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-567). With three exceptions, P.L. 102-567 
only authorized funding for fiscal years (FYs) 1992 and 1993. 
These exceptions include portions of the Next Generation 
Weather Radar (NEXRAD) program and the Geostationary 
Operational Environmental Satellites I, J, K, L, and M (GOES I-
M), which are authorized to completion. No comprehensive NOAA 
authorization bills have been signed into law since the 102nd 
Congress.
    In the 104th Congress, a one-year NOAA authorization bill 
(H.R. 3322), which focused on NOAA's weather, satellite, and 
atmospheric programs, passed the House but was not acted on in 
the Senate. And in the 105th Congress, a two-year authorization 
bill (H.R. 1278) was reported by the Committee on Science and 
the Committee on Resources, but was not acted on by the House.
    The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 authorizes and 
directs the NSF to initiate and support basic research and 
programs to strengthen research potential and education at all 
levels in the sciences and engineering. The Act reinforces that 
basic research and education have traditionally constituted the 
heart of the NSF's mission. P.L. 105-207 authorized 
appropriations for the NSF for FY 1998, FY 1999, and FY 2000.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee 
on Science held hearings on February 24, 1999 and April 15, 
1999, to hear testimony on the Administration's FY 2000 budget 
request for NOAA.
    Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee hearing on 
February 24, 1999, titled ``Fiscal year 2000 Budget 
Authorization Request: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration,'' were Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for 
Oceans and Atmosphere, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 
Administrator, NOAA; Mr. Joel C. Willemssen, Director, Civil 
Agencies Information Systems, Accounting and Information 
Management Division, U.S. General Accounting (GAO), accompanied 
by Mr. L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Management and 
Workforce Issues, General Government Division, GAO; and Dr. 
Richard A. Anthes, Chair, National Research Council National 
Weather Service Modernization Committee, and President, 
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 
Colorado.
    With respect to items authorized in this legislation, Dr. 
Baker testified that NOAA's FY 2000 request is for $2.6 billion 
in total budget authority, which includes $2.5 billion in 
discretionary budget authority. This request collectively 
represents a 12.9% increase over the total budget authority 
appropriated for FY 1999, and Dr. Baker highlighted the 
following items relevant to the programs authorized in this 
bill:
           Includes funding to address NOAA's data 
        acquisition needs by providing for the first of four 
        new Fisheries Research Vessels (FRVs) and to increase 
        the number of days-at-sea for University-National 
        Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) ship time for 
        critical data collection needs;
           Recurring lease and/or operations costs at a 
        number of NOAA facilities coming on-line in FY 1999 and 
        FY 2000, including the David Skaggs Research Center in 
        Boulder, Colorado. At the same time funds are requested 
        to complete the planning and design of a new state-of-
        the-art NMFS research facility near Juneau, Alaska;
           FY 2000 pay raise for the Line Offices;
           Reflects the Administration's intent to 
        restructure and maintain the NOAA Corps and includes 
        payments of retirement benefits for Commissioned 
        Officers as mandatory funding;
           Includes $1.0 million to establish 
        educational training relationships through a joint 
        partnership with a consortium of Historically Black 
        Colleges and Universities (HBCU); and
           Provides funds to accelerate the 
        implementation of the Commerce Administrative 
        Management System (CAMS).
    Mr. Willemssen's testimony, among other things, addressed 
the most cost-effective alternatives for acquiring NOAA's 
marine data. GAO findings included the following:
     In the NOAA fleet area, continuing congressional 
oversight of NOAA's budget requests for replacement or upgraded 
ships is needed to ensure that NOAA is pursuing the most cost-
effective alternatives for acquiring marine data.
    Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommittee hearing on 
April 15, 1999, titled ``Fiscal year 2000 Budget Authorization 
Request: NOAA Fleet Maintenance and Planning, Aircraft 
Services, and NOAA Corps,'' were Mr. Bob J. Taylor, Acting 
Deputy Director, Office of NOAA Corps Operations; accompanied 
by Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Dr. 
Michael P. Sissenwine, Science and Research Director, NOAA 
Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, 
Massachusetts; Mr. George E. Ross, Assistant Inspector General 
for Auditing, U.S. Department of Commerce; Dr. Craig E. Dorman, 
Senior Scientist, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania 
State University, College Station, Pennsylvania, and Special 
Assistant to the Executive Director and Technical Director, 
Office of Naval Research; and Dr. Robert A. Knox, Chair, 
University-National Laboratory Oceanographic System, and 
Research Oceanographer and Associate Director, Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San 
Diego.
    Mr. Taylor's testimony addressed NOAA's FY 2000 budget 
request for Fleet Maintenance and Planning, Aircraft Services, 
NOAA Corps, and included the following:
     Many of NOAA's ships, while serviceable, are well 
over 30 years of age and must be replaced.
     In addition to the $51.6 million, NOAA hopes to 
spend a total of $184.6 million for four new replacement ships 
over the 5-year period ending in FY 2004--$51.6 million in 
2000, $51.0 million in 2001, $39.8 million in 2002, $40.2 
million in 2003, and $2.1 million in 2004.
     NOAA is requesting $350,000 for aircraft services 
to support a second flight crew on NOAA's Gulfstream-IV high 
altitude hurricane reconnaissance jet.
     NOAA Corps had been downsized from 400 officers in 
1995 to about 240 officers presently and has made strides in 
increasing the amount of outsourcing.
     The Administration has changed its position on the 
need to downsize the NOAA Corps in response to P.L. 105-384.
     NOAA is currently beginning to work on a national 
plan for conducting marine fisheries research which includes 
academic and private sector input.
     Because any new ships built would simply be for 
replacement purposes, there will still be an increased need for 
chartering.
    Mr. Ross discussed NOAA's need to expand private sector 
participation in order to more efficiently and cost-effectively 
utilize its resources. Mr. Ross also discussed the following 
findings and recommendations by the Inspector General's (IG) 
office:
     NOAA must identify and thoroughly assess 
alternative approaches to relying on its own vessels.
     NOAA could outsource many areas of fishery 
research to academia, the private sector, and other government 
ship operators. This would allow NOAA to change its focus from 
designing, owning, and operating ships to a more research-
oriented direction.
     The aircraft services cost 42 percent more than 
similarly chartered aircraft from the private sector and 
therefore NOAA must privatize this operation. Factors 
contributing to this cost include: (1) NOAA's overhead 
structure; (2) low level of aircraft utilization; (3) rising 
operation costs due to the age of the aircraft; and (4) high 
training costs due to the periodic rotation of pilots.
     NOAA Corps needs to be downsized in order to 
achieve significant cost savings and management efficiencies. 
As such, the IG recommends no more than 70 officer positions 
should be allocated to ship- and aircraft-related activities.
    Dr. Dorman presented reports he had submitted in 1998 to 
the NOAA Administrator, Dr. D. James Baker, and to the Office 
of Management and Budget that included many observations and 
recommendations concerning the fisheries research programs:
     A national plan must be devised in order to 
achieve maximum efficiency out of any new fisheries research 
vessel (FRV) that may be constructed.
     Two actions are required to justify the cost of 
any new vessel built, including: (1) the use of advanced 
acoustics technology and (2) an attitude change by NOAA to 
consider the FRVs as a national asset and not a replacement 
vehicle solely dedicated to the National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
     Any such plan, and subsequent FRV, must be done in 
conjunction with other federal agencies, private interests, and 
academic communities.
     There is a need to reintegrate fisheries 
oceanography mandates operated as part of the national research 
fleet, preferably at the university level. NOAA Corps is not 
needed for this task.
     In a very few years, virtually all hydrographic 
survey in U.S. waters can be done by industries, and as such, 
Dr. Dorman recommends that NOAA's fleet of the future should 
number half a dozen ships or less.
     A new FRV should be expected to operate for over 
300 days a year.
    Dr. Knox testified on the status of UNOLS operations and 
their ability to work with NOAA on a wide range of projects:
     The UNOLS fleet is a very modern and highly 
capable fleet capable of taking on many of the tasks required 
by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in addition 
to its academic research support function.
     A closer cooperation between UNOLS and NMFS would 
benefit both the academic community and the taxpayers by 
ensuring efficient use of resources for research projects and 
decreasing risk of using federal funds for repairs and 
replacements that are not warranted.
     There is a need for a long-range ship renewal plan 
that treats UNOLS, NOAA, and other U.S. research vessel fleets 
comprehensively.

                          V. Committee Actions

    As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment of the Committee on Science heard testimony 
relevant to the programs in authorized in H.R. 1552 at hearings 
held on February 24, 1999 and April 15, 1999.
    On April 26, 1999, Mr. Ken Calvert, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment introduced H.R. 1552, 
the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and 
Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999, to authorize 
appropriations for FYs 2000 and 2001 for the marine research 
and related environmental R&D of NOAA and NSF, and for other 
purposes.
    The Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 1552 on 
Thursday, April 29, 1999, and entertained the following 
amendments and report language.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the Science 
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, offered a 
manager's amendment making technical and conforming changes. 
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment on behalf of 
himself and Ms. Rivers that provides an additional $1,000,000 
authorization--for a total of $7,085,000--in each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, 
and simultaneously reduces the authorization of the Response 
and Restoration line item by $1,000,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001--for a total of $18,884,000. The amendment was adopted 
by voice vote.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Udall offered an amendment that would 
authorize an additional $10,118,000 in each of FYs 2000 and 
2001 for ORF Program Support, including: (1) an additional 
$373,000 in each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for Executive Direction 
and Administration; (2) $12,000 in each of FYs 2000 and 2001 
for the Systems Acquisition Office; and (3) $9,733,000 in each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for Central Administrative Support. The 
amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 16 ayes to 20 
noes.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. Green offered an amendment that requires 
the NSF Director to include in the report she is required to 
submit to the Committee an analysis of the sufficiency of the 
funds authorized in the bill. The amendment was adopted by 
voice vote.
    Amendment 5.--Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to strike 
subsection 8(b), which prohibits the Secretary from entering 
into any contract under this section for the construction, 
lease-purchase, upgrade, or service life extension of any 
vessel. The amendment was rejected by voice vote.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Kuykendall offered an amendment requiring 
the NOAA Administrator to make available through NOAA's 
Internet home page abstracts relating to all research grants 
and awards made with funds authorized by this Act, with the 
proviso that nothing in the amendment shall be construed to 
require or permit the release of any information prohibited by 
law or regulation from being released to the public. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Costello offered an amendment providing a 
3-percent increase above the levels authorized for FY 2000 for 
all ORF accounts in the bill. The amendment was rejected by a 
vote of 17 ayes to 21 noes.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Costello moved that the 
Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1552, as amended, to 
the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do 
pass, 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. The motion was approved by 
voice vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner asked and received unanimous consent 
that: (1) the bill be reported in the form of a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting amendments 
adopted today; (2) that pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII of 
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Chairman may 
offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 1552 or a similar Senate 
bill; and (3) Members have two subsequent calendar days in 
which to submit supplemental, minority or additional views on 
the measure.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    As shown in Table 1, H.R. 1552 authorizes a total of 
$373,392,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for the NOAA and 
NSF, including: (1) $323,392,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 
for NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA's Office of 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), Program Support, 
Facilities, and Fleet Maintenance, Planning and Replacement; 
and (2) $50,000,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for NSF for 
Fleet Maintenance, Planning and Replacement. For FY 2000 and 
for FY 2001, this represents an increase of $50.425 million, or 
15.6 percent, above the FY 1999 appropriated level. Specific 
NOAA authorizations include: (1) $200,343,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001 for NOS; (2) $44,320,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 
2001 for OAR; (3) $63,769,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for 
Program Support; (4) $5,717,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 
for Facilities; and (5) $9,243,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 
2001 for Fleet Maintenance, Planning and Replacement. A 
detailed breakdown of the authorizations contained in the bill 
is contained in Table 2.
    Excluded from the bill is NOAA's Sea Grant College Program, 
which is authorized at $65,800,000 for FY 1999 and $66,800,000 
for FY 2001 under separate authorization legislation (P.L. 105-
160).
    Other provisions of the bill include the following:
           Requires an independent audit to determine 
        whether out-sourcing of aircraft services is a more 
        cost-effective alternative to in-house operation of 
        aircraft in meeting NOAA's aircraft requirements;
           Requires the Secretary of Commerce to enter 
        into contracts, including multiyear contracts to 
        conduct marine research and related environmental R&D, 
        and to use excess capacity of University-National 
        Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) vessels where 
        appropriate;
           Repeals the NOAA Fleet Modernization Act;
           Excludes from consideration for grant 
        agreements, for a period of five years, any person who 
        received funding for a project not subject to a 
        competitive, merit-based award process; and
           Requires NOAA to make available through the 
        Internet the abstracts relating to all research grants 
        and awards made with funds authorized by the bill.
        
        
          VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 cites the Act as the ``Marine Research and 
Related Environmental Research and Development Programs 
Authorization Act of 1999.''

Section 2. Definitions

    Section 2 defines: (1) the ``Administrator'' as the 
Administrator of the NOAA; (2) the ``Secretary'' as the 
Secretary of Commerce; and (3) the ``Director'' as the Director 
of the NSF.

Section 3. National Ocean Service

    Subsection 3(a) authorizes $200,343,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001, to remain available until expended, to carry out 
the Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) marine research 
and related environmental R&D activities of the National Ocean 
Service (NOS).
    Subsection 3(b) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 3(a) for NOS ORF marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, $82,967,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 shall be for Navigation Services, including--(1) 
$33,335,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for Mapping and 
Charting; (2) $14,900,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for 
Hydrographic Survey Backlog; (3) $19,849,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001 for Geodesy; and (4) $14,883,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001 for Tide and Current Data.
    Subsection 3(c) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 3(a) for NOS ORF marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, $99,650,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 shall be for Ocean Resources and Conservation 
Assessment, including--(1) $7,970,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 
2001 for Oceanic and Coastal Research; (2) $7,085,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
Laboratory; (3) $46,281,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for 
the Ocean Assessment Program; (4) $18,884,000 for each of FYs 
2000 and 2001 for Response and Restoration; and (5) $19,430,000 
for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for the Coastal Ocean Program.
    And Subsection 3(d) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 3(a) for NOS ORF marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, $17,726,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

Section 4. Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

    Subsection 4(a) authorizes $44,320,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001, to remain available until expended, to carry out the 
ORF marine research and related environmental R&D activities of 
the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).
    Subsection 4(b) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 4(a) for OAR ORF marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, $22,300,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 shall be for Marine Environmental Research.
    Subsection 4(c) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 4(a) and OAR ORF marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, $9,000,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 shall be for the NOAA Undersea Research Program.
    And Subsection 4(d) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 4(a) for OAR ORF marine research and related 
environmental research and development activities, $13,020,000 
for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

Section 5. Program support

    Section 5(a) authorizes $63,769,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001, to remain available until expended, to carry out the 
ORF marine research and related environmental R&D activities of 
Program Support.
    Subsection 5(b) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 5(a) for Program Support ORF marine research 
and related environmental R&D activities, $52,750,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 shall be for Administration and Services, 
including--(1) $19,200,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for 
Executive Direction and Administration; (2) $700,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 for the Systems Acquisition Office; (3) 
$31,850,000 for each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for Central 
Administrative Support; and (4) $1,000,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
    Subsection 5(c) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 5(a) for Program Support ORF marine research 
and related environmental R&D activities, $11,019,000 for each 
of FYs 2000 and 2001 shall be for Aircraft Services.
    Subsection 5(d)(1) requires the Secretary, not later than 
60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, using 
available funds, to enter into appropriate arrangements with an 
independent external auditor capable of providing an audit to 
determine whether outsourcing of aircraft services is a more 
cost-effective alternative to in-house operation of aircraft in 
meeting NOAA's aircraft requirements for the conduct of marine 
and atmospheric research and related environmental R&D 
activities, and for other data and mission needs.
    Subsection 5(d)(2)(A) requires the audit under subsection 
5(d)(1) to be conducted in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards.
    Subsection 5(d)(2)(B) requires the Secretary to provide the 
independent external auditor the information such auditor 
requires to conduct the audit under subsection 5(d)(1). The 
independent external auditor may inspect any records of and 
have access to NOAA personnel to obtain such information.
    And Subsection 5(d)(3) provides that not later than 180 
days after the initiation of the audit required by this 
subsection, the independent external auditor shall submit a 
report concerning the results of the audit conducted under this 
subsection to the Committee on Science of the House and the 
Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation of the 
Senate.

Section 6. Facilities

    Subsection 6(a) authorizes $5,717,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001, to remain available until expended, to enable NOAA to 
carry out the ORF marine research and related environmental R&D 
activities of Facilities Maintenance and Repairs and 
Environmental Compliance.
    Subsection 6(b) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 6(a) for Facilities ORF marine research and 
related environmental R&D activities, $1,818,000 for each of 
FYs 2000 and 2001 shall be for Facilities Maintenance and 
Repairs.
    Subsection 6(c) provides that of the amounts authorized 
under subsection 6(a) for Facilities ORF marine research and 
related environmental R&D activities, $3,899,000 for each of 
FYs 2000 and 2001 shall be for Environmental Compliance.

Section 7. Fleet maintenance, planning and replacement

    Subsection 7(a) authorizes $9,243,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001, to remain available until expended, to enable NOAA to 
carry out the ORF marine research and related environmental R&D 
activities of Fleet Maintenance and Planning.
    Subsection 7(b) authorizes $50,000,000 for each of FYs 2000 
and 2001, to remain available until expended, to enable the NSF 
to meet the marine research and related environmental R&D data 
requirements of the NOAA set forth in the ``NOAA Fisheries Data 
Acquisition Plan'', dated September 1998, and that could also 
help meet the Nation's marine research and related 
environmental R&D needs. The NSF--in consultation with the 
Department of the Navy, the University-National Oceanic 
Laboratory System (UNOLS), academia, NOAA, the private sector, 
and any other parties it considers appropriate--shall develop a 
strategy for meeting such requirements and other Federal marine 
research and related environmental R&D requirements, using 
funds appropriated under this subsection and at the lowest 
possible cost. The NSF shall consider all options, including 
various methods of acquiring vessel services, remote sensing, 
and any other possible means.
    Subsection 7(c) provides that no later than 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the NSF shall submit a 
report detailing the strategy developed pursuant to subsection 
7(b) and a plan for implementing such strategy to the Committee 
on Science of House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate. The report 
shall also include an analysis of the extent to which the funds 
authorized under subsection 7(b) will be sufficient to 
implement the strategy.
    Subsection 7(d) requires the NOAA Administrator to provide 
notice to the Committee on Science if the Administrator reduces 
the number of commissioned officers on the active list of the 
NOAA Corps below 264 in FYs 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003.

Section 8. Marine services

    Subsection 8(a) requires the Secretary to contract out for 
the use of vessels to conduct marine research and related 
environmental R&D activities, monitoring, enforcement, and 
management, and to acquire data necessary to carry out NOAA's 
missions unless: (1) the cost of the contract (including the 
cost of vessel operation, maintenance, and all personnel) is 
more than the cost for NOAA to perform the service using its 
own vessels; (2) the contract is for more than seven years; and 
(3) the data is acquired through a vessel agreement pursuant to 
subsection (d).
    Subsection 8(b) prohibits the Secretary from entering into 
any contract under this section for the construction, lease-
purchase, upgrade, or service life extension of any vessel.
    Subsection 8(c)(1) allows the Secretary to acquire data, 
including marine research and related environmental R&D data, 
under multiyear contracts.
    Subsection 8(c)(2) prohibits the Secretary from entering 
into a contract pursuant to this subsection unless the 
Secretary finds that there is a reasonable expectation that 
throughout the contemplated contract period the Secretary will 
request from Congress funding for the contract at the level 
required to avoid contract termination.
    Subsection 8(c)(3) prohibits the Secretary from pursuing a 
multiyear contract unless such contract includes: (A) a 
provision obligating the U.S. to make payments for any fiscal 
year subject to appropriations provided in advance for those 
payments; (B) a provision that specifies the term of 
effectiveness of the contract; and (C) appropriate provisions 
in case of any termination of the contract that the U.S. shall 
be liable for the lesser of an amount specified in the contract 
for such a termination or amounts that were appropriated before 
the date of the termination for the performance of the contract 
or for procurement of the type of acquisition covered by the 
contract and are unobligated on the date of the termination.
    Subsection 8(d) requires the Secretary to use excess 
capacity of the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory 
System (UNOLS) vessels where appropriate.
            Committee views
    Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit NOAA from 
entering into contracts for the maintenance of its existing 
ships or vessels as long as such contracts are not multiyear 
contracts.

Section 9. Repeal

    Section 9 repeals the NOAA Fleet Modernization Act (33 
U.S.C. 851 note), which authorized the Secretary of Commerce to 
implement a 15-year program to replace and modernize the NOAA 
fleet.

Section 10. Internet availability of information

    Section 10 requires the NOAA Administrator to make 
available through the NOAA Internet home page the abstracts 
relating to all research grants and awards made with funds 
authorized by this Act. Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to require or permit the release of any information 
from being released to the public.
            Committee views
    The Committee believes that by giving public access to 
information about how tax dollars are spent, it is acting as a 
responsible steward of taxpayer resources. Such information can 
also stimulate additional public and private sector research by 
informing the research community.

Section 11. Eligibility for awards

    Subsection 11(a) requires the NOAA Administrator and the 
NSF Director to exclude from consideration for grant agreements 
made after FY 1999 by the NOAA and the NSF, under the programs 
for which funds are authorized under this Act, any person who 
received funds, other than those described in subsection (b) 
appropriated for a fiscal year after FY 1999, under a grant 
agreement from any Federal funding source for a project that 
was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. 
Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall 
be effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives 
such Federal funds.
    Subsection 11(b) provides that subsection 11(a) shall not 
apply to the receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the 
membership of that person in a class specified by law for which 
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a 
formula provided by law.
    Subsection 11(c) defines the term ``grant agreement'' to 
mean a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer 
a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose 
of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United 
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, 
lease, or barter) of property or services for the direct 
benefit or use of the United States Government. Such term also 
does not include a cooperative agreement (as such term is used 
in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or a 
cooperative R&D agreement (as such term is defined in section 
12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 
1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

                          VIII. Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution contain: (A) an estimate 
by the committee of the costs that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in 
which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years 
following that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five years); (B) a comparison of the estimate of 
costs described in subdivision (A) made by the committee with 
any estimate of such costs made by a Government agency and 
submitted to such committee; and (C) when practicable, a 
comparison of the total estimated funding level for the 
relevant programs with the appropriate levels under current 
law. However, House Rule XIII clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that 
this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been included in the report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been 
timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the 
filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this 
report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee providing new 
budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new 
spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in 
revenues or tax expenditures include the statement required by 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except 
that an estimate of new budget authority shall include, when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under 
current law. H.R. 1552 does not contain any new budget 
authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority, or 
changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums 
authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1552 does 
authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in 
the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is 
contained in Section IX of this report.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include an 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the 
committee before the filing of the report. The Committee on 
Science has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 1552 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 7, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1552, the Marine 
Research and Related Environmental Research and Development 
Programs Authorization Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gary Brown 
and Kathleen Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1552--Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and 
        Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999

    Summary: H.R. 1552 would authorize the appropriation of 
$373 million in each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for marine 
and environment programs of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science 
Foundation (NSF). All but $50 million for each year would be 
for NOAA.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1552 would result in 
additional outlays of $747 million over the 2000-2004 period, 
assuming the appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting 
the bill would not affect direct spending or receipts; 
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 1552 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 
impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 1552 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 
(general science, space, and technology) and 300 (natural 
resources and environment).
    For the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 
1552 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 1999 and that 
all amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated for 
each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical 
spending rates for these programs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\........................................     381       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     377     136      45      23       0       0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.........................................       0     373     373       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0     239     329     112      45      22
Spending Under H.R. 1552:
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................     381     373     373       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................     377     375     374     135      45      22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the marine and environmental programs conducted
  by NOAA and NSF that would be authorized by H.R. 1552.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and Private-sector impact: This bill 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in this bill 
would be used to provide grants for research at public 
universities.
    Estimate prepared by: NOAA Costs: Gary Brown. NSF Costs: 
Kathleen Gramp.
    Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1552 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include 
oversight findings and recommendations under clause 2(b)(1) of 
rule X. The Committee of Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

    XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include a 
summary of oversight findings and recommendations made by the 
Committee on Government Reform under clause 4(c)(2) of rule X 
if such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the 
reporting committee in time to allow it to consider such 
findings and recommendations during its deliberations on the 
measure. The Committee on Science has received no such findings 
or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

                XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of 
Representative requires that each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution contain a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1552.

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1552 does not establish or authorize the establishment 
of any advisory committee.

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1552 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

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

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

 SECTION 2 OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS' ACT 
                                OF 1948

                      authorized numbers in grades

  Sec. 2. (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) At least 90 days before beginning any reduction as 
described in paragraph (2), the Administrator shall provide 
notice of such reduction to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Resources 
and the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              

                      NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION ACT

                  [TITLE VI--NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION

[SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

  [This title may be cited as the ``NOAA Fleet Modernization 
Act''.

[SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

  [In this title, the term--
          [(1) ``NOAA'' means the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration within the Department of 
        Commerce.
          [(2) ``NOAA fleet'' means the fleet of research 
        vessels owned or operated by NOAA.
          [(3) ``Plan'' means the NOAA Fleet Replacement and 
        Modernization Plan described in section 604.
          [(4) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.
          [(5) ``UNOLS'' means University-National 
        Oceanographic Laboratory System.

[SEC. 603. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

  [The Secretary is authorized to implement, subject to the 
requirements of this Act, a 15-year program to replace and 
modernize the NOAA fleet.

[SEC. 604. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PLAN.

  [(a) In General.--To carry out the program authorized in 
section 603, the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress 
a replacement and modernization Plan for the NOAA fleet 
covering the years authorized under section 610.
  [(b) Timing.--The Plan required in subsection (a) shall be 
submitted to Congress within 30 days of the date of enactment 
of this Act, and updated on an annual basis.
  [(c) Plan Elements.--The Plan required in subsection (a) 
shall include the following--
          [(1) the number of vessels proposed to be modernized 
        or replaced, the schedule for their modernization or 
        replacement, and anticipated funding requirements;
          [(2) the number of vessels proposed to be 
        constructed, leased, or chartered;
          [(3) the number of vessels, or days at sea, that can 
        be obtained by using the vessels of the UNOLS;
          [(4) the number of vessels that will be made 
        available to NOAA by the Secretary of the Navy, or any 
        other federal official, and the terms and conditions 
        for their availability;
          [(5) the proposed acquisition of modern scientific 
        instrumentation for the NOAA fleet, including acoustic 
        systems, data transmission positioning and 
        communication systems, physical, chemical, and 
        meteorological oceanographic systems, and data 
        acquisition and processing systems; and
          [(6) the appropriate role of the NOAA Corps in 
        operating and maintaining the NOAA fleet.
  [(d) Contracting Limitation.--The Secretary may not enter 
into any contract for the construction, lease, or service life 
extension of a vessel of the NOAA fleet before the date of the 
submission to Congress of the Plan required in subsection (a).

[SEC. 605. DESIGN OF NOAA VESSELS.

  [(a) Design Requirement.--Except for the vessel designs 
identified under subsection (b), the Secretary, working through 
the Office of the NOAA Corps Operations and the Systems 
Procurement Office, shall--
          [(1) prepare requirements for each class of vessel to 
        be constructed or converted under the Plan; and
          [(2) contract competitively from nongovernmental 
        entities with expertise in shipbuilding for vessel 
        design and construction based on the requirements for 
        each class of vessel to be acquired.
  [(b) Exception.--The Secretary shall--
          [(1) report to Congress identifying any existing 
        vessel design or design proposal that meets the 
        requirements of the Plan within 30 days after the date 
        of enactment of this Act and shall promptly advise the 
        Congress of any modification of these designs; and
          [(2) submit to Congress as part of the annual update 
        of the Plan required in section 604, any subsequent 
        existing vessel design or design proposals that meet 
        the requirements of the Plan.

[SEC. 606. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

  [(a) Multiyear Contracts.--
          [(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
        and notwithstanding section 1341 of title 31, United 
        States Code and section 3732 of the Revised Statutes of 
        the United States (41 U.S.C. 11), the Secretary may 
        acquire vessels for the NOAA fleet by purchase, lease, 
        lease-purchase, or otherwise, under one or more 
        multiyear contracts.
          [(2) Required findings.--The Secretary may not enter 
        into a contract pursuant to this subsection unless the 
        Secretary finds with respect to that contract that--
                  [(A) there is a reasonable expectation that 
                throughout the contemplated contract period the 
                Secretary will request from Congress funding 
                for the contract at the level required to avoid 
                contract termination; and
                  [(B) the use of the contract will promote the 
                best interests of the United States by 
                encouraging competition and promoting economic 
                efficiency in the operation of the NOAA fleet.
          [(3) Required contract provisions.--The Secretary may 
        not enter into a contract pursuant to this subsection 
        unless the contract includes--
                  [(A) a provision under which the obligation 
                of the United States to make payments under the 
                contract for any fiscal year is subject to the 
                availability of appropriations provided in 
                advance for those payments;
                  [(B) a provision that specifies the term of 
                effectiveness of the contract; and
                  [(C) appropriate provisions under which, in 
                case of any termination of the contract before 
                the end of the term specified pursuant to 
                subparagraph (B), the United States shall only 
                be liable for the lesser of--
                          [(i) an amount specified in the 
                        contract for such a termination; or
                          [(ii) amounts that--
                                  [(I) were appropriated before 
                                the date of the termination for 
                                the performance of the contract 
                                or for procurement of the type 
                                of acquisition covered by the 
                                contract; and
                                  [(II) are unobligated on the 
                                date of the termination.
  [(b) Service Contracts.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Secretary may enter into multiyear contracts for 
oceanographic research, fisheries research, and mapping and 
charting services to assist the Secretary in fulfilling NOAA 
missions. The Secretary may only enter into these contracts 
if--
          [(1) the Secretary finds that it is in the public 
        interest to do so;
          [(2) the contract is for not more than 7 years; and
          [(3)(A) the cost of the contract is less than the 
        cost (including the cost of operation, maintenance, and 
        personnel) to the NOAA of obtaining those services on 
        NOAA vessels; or
          [(B) NOAA vessels are not available or cannot provide 
        those services.
  [(c) Bonding Authority.--Notwithstanding any other law, the 
Secretary may not require a contractor for the construction, 
alteration, repair or maintenance of a NOAA vessel to provide a 
bid bond, payment bond, performance bond, completion bond, or 
other surety instrument in an amount greater than 20 percent of 
the value of the base contract quantity (excluding options) 
unless the Secretary determines that requiring an instrument in 
that amount will not prevent a responsible bidder or offeror 
from competing for the award of the contract.

[SEC. 607. RESTRICTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN SHIPYARD SUBSIDIES.

  [(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce may not award a 
contract for the construction, repair (except emergency 
repairs), or alteration of any vessel of the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration in a shipyard, if that vessel 
benefits or would benefit from significant subsidies for the 
construction, repair, or alteration of vessels in that 
shipyard.
  [(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``significant 
subsidy'' includes, but is not limited to, any of the 
following:
          [(1) Officially supported export credits.
          [(2) Direct official operating support to the 
        commercial shipbuilding and repair industry, or to a 
        related entity that favors the operation of 
        shipbuilding and repair, including but not limited to--
                  [(A) grants;
                  [(B) loans and loan guarantees other than 
                those available on the commercial market;
                  [(C) forgiveness of debt;
                  [(D) equity infusions on terms inconsistent 
                with commercially reasonable investment 
                practices; and
                  [(E) preferential provision of goods and 
                services.
          [(3) Direct official support for investment in the 
        commercial shipbuilding and repair industry, or to a 
        related entity that favors the operation of 
        shipbuilding and repair, including but not limited to 
        the kinds of support listed in paragraph (2)(A) through 
        (E), and any restructuring support, except public 
        support for social purposes directly and effectively 
        linked to shipyard closures.
          [(4) Assistance in the form of grants, preferential 
        loans, preferential tax treatment, or otherwise, that 
        benefits or is directly related to shipbuilding and 
        repair for purposes of research and development that is 
        not equally open to domestic and foreign enterprises.
          [(5) Tax policies and practices that favor the 
        shipbuilding and repair industry, directly or 
        indirectly, such as tax credits, deductions, 
        exemptions, and preferences, including accelerated 
        depreciation, if such benefits are not generally 
        available to persons or firms not engaged in 
        shipbuilding or repair.
          [(6) Any official regulation or practice that 
        authorizes or encourages persons or firms engaged in 
        shipbuilding or repair to enter into anticompetitive 
        arrangements.
          [(7) Any indirect support directly related, in law or 
        in fact, to shipbuilding and repair at national yards, 
        including any public assistance favoring shipowners 
        with an indirect effect on shipbuilding or repair 
        activities, and any assistance provided to suppliers of 
        significant inputs to shipbuilding, which results in 
        benefits to domestic shipbuilders.
          [(8) Any export subsidy identified in the 
        Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in the Annex to 
        the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of 
        Articles VI, XVI, and XXIII of the General Agreement on 
        Tariffs and Trade or any other export subsidy that may 
        be prohibited as a result of the Uruguay Round of trade 
        negotiations.

[SEC. 608. USE OF VESSELS.

  [(a) Vessel Agreements.--In implementing the NOAA fleet 
replacement and modernization program, the Secretary shall use 
excess capacity of UNOLS vessels where appropriate and may 
enter into memoranda of agreement with the operators of these 
vessels to carry out this requirement.
  [(b) Report to Congress.--Within one year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
States shall provide a report to Congress, in consultation with 
the Secretary, comparing the cost-efficiency, accounting, and 
operating practices of the vessels of NOAA, UNOLS, other 
Federal agencies, and the United States private sector in 
meeting the missions of NOAA.

[SEC. 609. INTEROPERABILITY.

  [The Secretary shall consult with the Oceanographer of the 
Navy regarding appropriate measures that should be taken, on a 
reimbursable basis, to ensure that NOAA vessels are 
interoperable with vessels of the Department of the Navy, 
including with respect to operation, maintenance, and repair of 
those vessels.

[SEC. 610. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary for carrying out this title--
          [(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1993;
          [(2) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1994; and
          [(3) such sums as are necessary for each of the 
        fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997.
  [(b) Limitation on Fleet Modernization Activities.--All 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fleet 
modernization shipbuilding, and conversion shall be conducted 
in accordance with this title.]

                    XVII. Committee Recommendations

    On April 29, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported H.R. 1552, the Marine Research and Related 
Environmental Research and Development Programs Act of 1999, 
amended, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

                       XVIII. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

    The minority continues to be concerned about the level of 
funding provided in the bill for Program Support. Holding 
funding at FY 1999 enacted levels for the accounts designated 
for salaries, administrative costs, and rent amounts to a cut 
in funding which will be taken at the program level. Much of 
the funding increases in this area are mandated by law: annual 
cost-of-living increases and negotiated rent and lease payment 
escalators. These funds must be paid. If they are not paid 
through increases in the administrative cost account, the funds 
will come from the research and program accounts throughout the 
agency. This problem is compounded in FY 2001, when once again, 
no increases are provided for either research and program 
accounts or for mandatory administrative cost increases.
    The minority continues to have concerns about Section 8(b) 
of the Chairman's bill which bars the Secretary from entering 
into any contract under Section 8 of the bill. Until such time 
as the Congress and the Administration agree to eliminate the 
NOAA fleet, NOAA must be able to pursue any least-cost option 
available to obtain statutorily mandated data and to maintain 
the fleet. These ships represent a considerable investment of 
taxpayer dollars and they should be maintained in working 
order. Although the majority indicated that the intention of 
Section (b) was to bar the use of multi-year contracts only and 
has included report language to that effect, the language of 
the bill appears to indicate a broader intention. Also, to the 
extent that a multi-year contract might prove less expensive 
than multiple, single-year contracts a least-cost option 
remains unavailable to the Secretary for ship maintenance and 
repair.
    The Chairman's bill shows flat funding in program accounts 
from FY 2000 to FY 2001. The minority are concerned that these 
out-year funding numbers are insufficient to provide for the 
real needs of the Nation. This flat funding authorization will 
produce a decline in the real work being done by NOAA as 
inflation has to be absorbed from those numbers. Reduced 
funding may inhibit marine research and reduce efforts to track 
and protect fishing stocks. While the nominal dollars from FY 
2000 to FY 2001 appear to be the same, the level of services 
supported will decline in real terms.
    Consequently, Mr. Costello offered an amendment to raise 
the authorization levels for FY 2001 by 3%. A 3% increase would 
increase program authorizations by approximately $9.7 million. 
This level of increase is consistent with the Committee's past 
three Views and Estimates produced by the majority. The 
majority endorsed a 3% increase in FY 1998 and FY 2000 and a 4% 
increase in FY 1999. We would add that in February, the 
majority released an analysis of the President's outyear 
request numbers for science and technology accounts. That 
analysis criticized the President for weak outyear numbers for 
the programs under the Science Committee's jurisdiction. 
Specifically, the Chairman's press release noted that ``in the 
out years, the Administration's civilian R&D budget fails to 
keep pace with inflation.'' Ironically, the numbers used for FY 
2000 in H.R. 1552 came from the President's request for FY 
2000.
    We would add that the Costello amendment was consistent 
with the findings in Representative Ehlers' report on Federal 
Science policy. That report called for stable and substantial 
funding for science programs. It is hard to see how funding can 
be stable and substantial if we routinely let inflation eat 
away at our programs.
    The goal of this amendment was to send a signal to the 
Administration, as it develops its FY 2001 budget request for 
NOAA, that the Committee values these programs. Further, we 
wanted to offer some flexibility to the appropriators in FY 
2001 in case the budget situation continues to improve and 
there is fiscal room to enhance our funding for NOAA's work. In 
any event, these arguments produced a straight party line vote 
in which the amendment was defeated and NOAA's authorization 
will fail to keep pace with inflation in FY 2001.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   John B. Larson.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Nick Lampson.
                                   Jim Barcia.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Sheila Jackson-Lee.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Michael E. Capuano.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.

            SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS BY REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

    While I supported H.R. 1552 at the Science Committee's 
April 29 mark-up, I regret that the amendment I proposed to 
restore NOAA salaries and administrative costs was not adopted.
    The President's request for FY2000 included $41.6 million 
for Central Administrative Support, which includes salaries, 
administrative costs, rent, and the like. H.R. 1552 reduces the 
authorization for this account by about $10 million. My 
amendment would have authorized the requested amount for FY2000 
and the same amount again in FY2001.
    I understand that in response to a request from the 
Appropriations Committee, NOAA grouped together salaries, rent, 
and administrative costs that had been contained in various 
NOAA program accounts, and added these costs to its Central 
Administrative Support line item. It is important to note that 
this line item has increased in FY2000 because it contains 
costs that were previously spread out among several accounts, 
not because costs themselves have increased.
    Much of what is contained in the Central Administrative 
Support line item is mandated by law, such as annual cost-of-
living-adjustments (COLAs) and General Services Administration 
negotiated rent and lease payment escalators. Cutting this 
amount saves no money--in fact, it costs money. Cutting this 
account does not cut personnel at NOAA. In order to comply with 
the law and meet NOAA's audited financial requirements, NOAA 
will be required to assess its line ``programs and offices'' to 
pay for these fixed and unavoidable costs. In order to fund 
necessary management and computer upgrades to comply with 
federal financial and management laws, like the Federal 
Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, NOAA will have to 
offset these cuts against its operational program.
    In other words, what we don't put in this line item will 
come out of NOAA research and operations. Instead of 
eliminating bureaucracy and overhead, we will be putting the 
budget cutting tools into the hands of NOAA, which will then be 
responsible for deciding which programs will bear the brunt of 
the $10 million in cuts.
    If other programs are taxed to pay for the flat-lining of 
this funding, major NOAA operations will be cut. With a major 
NOAA facility in Boulder, Colorado, I want to avoid these cuts 
to federal operations in my district. But these cuts will 
affect other Members' districts as well. Major cuts will be 
expected in Silver Spring, Maryland, to pay for the flat-lining 
of this account. Cuts will occur in Seattle, Washington; 
Norman, Oklahoma; Charleston, South Carolina; Miami, Florida--
and the list goes on.
    I regret that the Committee did not adopt my amendment. As 
it stands, the bill does not enable NOAA to do its job. I hope 
that as the legislative process moves forward, the bill will be 
improved. While government efficiency is a worthy goal, it 
should not be pursued in an indirect and irresponsible manner.
                                                        Mark Udall.

            XIX. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next bill up is H.R. 1552, the 
Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and 
Development Authorization Act of 1999, which authorizes a total 
of $373.4 million for each of the Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 
for NOAA, of which $50 million each year is authorized for the 
National Science foundation to meet the marine research and 
related environmental R&D data requirements of NOAA as well as 
the Nation's other marine research and related environmental 
R&D needs.
    All of the programs in this bill are authorized at the 
Fiscal Year 2000 level requested by NOAA and are consistent 
with the Fiscal Year 2001 estimates contained in the NOAA 
Fiscal Year 2000 budget request, except that this bill does not 
authorize any additional funds for NOAA's Sea Grant Program, 
which is authorized under separate authorization legislation, 
Public Law 105-160.
    It also does not include a requested increase of more than 
$9.7 million, or a 30.6 percent over the Fiscal Year 1999 
appropriated level for Central Administrative Support. NOAA has 
not provided justification for this increase, and the bill 
retains the Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated levels for Fiscal 
Year 2000 and 2001.
    Finally, NOAA requested $51.6 million for Fiscal Year 2000 
and $51.0 million in Fiscal Year 2001 to replace two of the 
nine current fisheries research vessels.
    As I noted above, rather than authorizing funds to NOAA, 
the bill authorizes $50 million each year to the NSF to meet 
the marine research and related environmental R&D requirements 
of NOAA as well as the Nation's other marine research and 
related environmental R&D needs.
    At this point, the Chair recognizes the Subcommittee Chair, 
the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank the Chairman. Today we mark up H.R. 
1552, the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research 
and Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999 and H.R. 
1553, the National Weather Service Related Activities 
Authorization Act of 1999, which is a total of $1.765 billion 
in Fiscal Year 2000 and $1.832 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 for 
NOAA programs.
    These amounts represent $111.5 million, or a 6.7 percent 
increase above Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated levels. For Fiscal 
Year 2001, it authorizes $178.6 million, or 10.8 percent 
increase from Fiscal Year 1999 appropriated levels.
    For programs under the sole jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee, NOAA requests $1.4 billion, or an increase of 5.3 
percent from last year's funding. Over the last three months, 
my Subcommittee has held several oversight hearings on NOAA's 
operation.
    Two major areas of concern emerged. First was finding the 
most cost-effective way to fill NOAA's marine research 
requirements. The second was the National Weather Service's 
modernization program.
    I believe that these concerns are properly addressed in the 
two bills before the committee today. Regarding NOAA's research 
fleet, we have heard the GAO and others urge more cost-
effective approaches to marine research and data collection. In 
the past few years, NOAA has increasingly contracted with the 
private sector, universities, and other entities to fulfill 
their mission. However, they continue to rely all too heavily 
on their archaic in-house fleet.
    Additionally, for Fiscal Year 2000, NOAA requests $51.6 
million, the first installment of a proposed $184.6 million 
multi-year shipbuilding program to build four new research 
vessels. This is all that remains of a much more ambitious 
shipbuilding program proposed just a few short years ago.
    I remain unconvinced that authorizing NOAA to purchase and 
operate these vessels is the most practical way to enhance our 
nation's marine research. Therefore, H.R. 1552 calls on the 
National Science Foundation to examine alternatives that meet 
NOAA's research needs while leveraging scarce budget resources.
    I feel this provision strikes the proper balance between 
fiscal responsibility and scientific integrity.
    As my colleagues may know, implementation of the National 
Weather Service's modernization program has been plagued by 
management problems and cost overruns.
    As the modernization program nears completion, concerns 
linger about its capabilities. While there is little doubt that 
improved weather forecasts and data will benefit the American 
people, we need to ensure that the system lives up to its 
potential and is properly implemented. I believe that the 
funding authorized in H.R. 1553 goes a long way toward 
responsibly completing this goal.
    Mr. Chairman, I urge the members of the Committee to 
support these important authorization bills, and I thank you 
for your time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, 
is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will 
submit my opening for the record. I do want to commend you and 
Chairman Calvert for bringing this bill before the Committee 
today.
    I am generally satisfied with the overall authorization for 
Fiscal Year 2000. However, I do have some concerns with the 
numbers authorized for Fiscal Year 2001.
    NOAA is just now developing its budget request for Fiscal 
Year 2001, but the Chairman's mark shows all the program 
accounts at flat funding. I hope we can work together to build 
a little flexibility into this authorized amount, and I will be 
offering an amendment to that effect later in the bill.
    In general, this seems to be a good bill. I think it can be 
improved with a couple of amendments, and I hope the Chairman 
and Members of the Committee will support those amendments.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman's 
opening statement will appear at this point in the record.
    [The information follows:]

               Statement of the Honorable Jerry Costello

    Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on this bill. The numbers 
contained in this authorization generally track the President's request 
for these accounts. Consequently, I am satisfied with the overall 
authorization for FY2000.
    I have some concern about the numbers authorized for FY2001. NOAA 
is just now embarking on developing its budget request for FY2001, but 
the Chairman's mark shows all the program accounts at flat funding. I 
hope we can work together to build a little flexibility into those 
authorized amounts and I will be offering an amendment to that effect 
later in the bill.
    In general, this seems a good bill. I think it can be improved with 
just a couple of amendments. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you can support 
those amendments and that we can all support this bill. Thank you.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And also without objection, all 
Members opening statements will appear following Mr. 
Costello's.
    Without objection, the bill is read a first time and open 
for amendment at any point.
    [The information follows:]

                               H.R. 1552

    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 ``Marine Research and Related 
Environmental Research and Development Programs Authorization Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act, the term--
    (1) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
    (2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

    (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of the National Ocean Service $200,343,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $200,343,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain 
available until expended.
    (b) Navigation Services.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $82,967,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $82,967,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Navigation Services, of which--
    (1) $33,335,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $33,335,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Mapping and Charting;
    (2) $14,900,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,900,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Hydrographic Survey Backlog;
    (3) $19,849,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,849,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Geodesy; and
    (4) $14,883,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $14,883,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Tide and Current Data.
    (c) Ocean Resources and Conservation Assessment.--Of the amounts 
authorized under subsection (a), $99,650,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$99,650,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for Ocean Resources and 
Conservation Assessment, of which--
    (1) $7,970,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $7,970,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Oceanic and Coastal Research;
    (2) $6,085,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $6,085,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory;
    (3) $46,281,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $46,281,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for the Ocean Assessment Program;
    (4) $19,884,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,884,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Response and Restoration; and
    (5) $19,430,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,430,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for the Coastal Ocean Program.
    (d) Acquisition of Data.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $17,726,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $17,726,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

SEC. 4. OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

    (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research $44,320,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $44,320,000 for fiscal 
year 2001, to remain available until expended.
    (b) Marine Environmental Research.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $22,300,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $22,300,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Marine Environmental Research.
    (c) NURP.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection (a), 
$9,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $9,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 
shall be for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Undersea Research Program (NURP).
    (d) Acquisition of Data.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $13,020,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $13,020,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Acquisition of Data.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

    (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of Program Support $63,769,000 for fiscal year 
2000 and $63,769,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until 
expended.
    (b) Administration and Services.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $52,750,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $52,750,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Administration and Services, of which--
    (1) $19,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $19,200,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Executive Direction and Administration;
    (2) $700,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $700,000 for fiscal year 2001 
shall be for Systems Acquisition Office;
    (3) $31,850,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $31,850,000 for fiscal 
year 2001 shall be for Central Administrative Support; and
    (4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
    (c) Aircraft Services.--Of the amounts authorized under subsection 
(a), $11,019,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $11,019,000 for fiscal year 
2001 shall be for Aircraft Services.
    (d) Independent Audit of Aircraft Services.--
    (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall, using available funds, enter into 
appropriate arrangements with an independent external auditor capable 
of providing an audit to determine whether outsourcing of aircraft 
services is a more cost-effective alternative to in-house operation of 
aircraft in meeting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's aircraft requirements of the conduct of marine and 
atmospheric research and related environmental research and development 
activities, and for other data and mission needs.
    (2) Auditing procedures.--
    (A) In general.--The audit under paragraph (1) shall be conducted 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
    (B) Access to information.--The Secretary shall provide the 
independent external auditor the information such auditor requires to 
conduct the audit under paragraph (1). The independent external auditor 
may inspect any records of and have access to personnel of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to obtain such information.
    (3) Report of the results of the audit.--Not later than 180 days 
after the initiation of the audit required by this subsection, the 
independent external auditor shall submit a report concerning the 
results of the audit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Science, Commerce, and 
Transportation of the Senate.

SEC. 6. FACILITIES.

    (a) Operations, Research, and Facilities.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities required to carry out Facilities Maintenance and 
Repairs and Environmental Compliance $5,717,000 for fiscal year 2000 
and $5,717,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until 
expended.
    (b) Facilities Maintenance and Repairs.--Of the amounts authorized 
under subsection (a), $1,818,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,818,000 
for fiscal year 2001 shall be for Facilities Maintenance and Repairs.
    (c) Environmental Compliance.--Of the amounts authorized under 
subsection (a), $3,899,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $3,899,000 for 
fiscal year 2001 shall be for Facilities Environmental Compliance.

SEC. 7. FLEET MAINTENANCE, PLANNING AND REPLACEMENT.

    (a) Fleet Maintenance and Planning.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Operations, Research, and 
Facilities marine research and related environmental research and 
development activities of Fleet Maintenance and Planning $9,243,000 for 
fiscal year 2000 and $9,243,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain 
available until expended.
    (b) Fleet Replacement.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the National Science Foundation $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available to expended, to 
meet the marine research and related environmental research and 
development data requirements of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration set forth in the ``NOAA Fisheries Data Acquisition 
Plan'', dated September 1998, and that could also help meet the 
Nation's marine research and related environmental research and 
development needs. The National Science Foundation, in consultation 
with the Department of the Navy, the University-National Oceanic 
Laboratory System, academia, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, the private sector, and any other parties it considers 
appropriate, shall develop a strategy for meeting such requirements and 
other Federal marine research and related environmental research and 
development requirements, using funds appropriated under this 
subsection and at the lowest possible cost. The National Science 
Foundation shall consider all options, including various methods of 
acquiring vessel services, remote sensing, and any other possible 
means.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall submit 
to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 
report detailing the strategy developed pursuant to subsection (b) and 
a plan for implementing such strategy.
    (d) Notification Requirement for Reduction in Authorized Number of 
NOAA Corps Commissioned Officers.--Section 2(a)(3) of the Coast and 
Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
853a(a)(3)) is amended by inserting ``and the Committee on Science'' 
after ``Committee on Resources''.

SEC. 8. MARINE SERVICES.

    (a) Service Contracts.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall 
enter into contracts, including multiyear contracts, subject to 
subsection (c), for the use of vessels to conduct marine research and 
related environmental research and development activities, monitoring, 
enforcement, and management, and to acquire other data necessary to 
carry out the missions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. The Secretary shall enter into these contracts unless--
    (1) the cost of the contract is more than the cost (including the 
cost of vessel operation, maintenance, and all personnel) to the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of obtaining those 
services on vessels of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration;
    (2) the contract is for more than 7 years; or
    (3) the data is acquired through a vessel agreement pursuant to 
subsection (d).
    (b) Vessels.--The Secretary may not enter into any contract under 
this section for the construction, lease-purchase, upgrade, or service 
life extension of any vessel.
    (c) Multiyear Contracts.--
    (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and 
notwithstanding section 1341 of title 31, United States Code, and 
section 11 of title 41, United States Code, the Secretary may acquire 
data, including marine research and related environmental research and 
development data, under multiyear contracts.
    (2) Required findings.--The Secretary may not enter into a contract 
pursuant to this subsection unless the Secretary finds with respect to 
that contract that there is a reasonable expectation that throughout 
the contemplated contract period the Secretary will request from 
Congress funding for the contract at the level required to avoid 
contract termination.
    (3) Required provisions.--The Secretary may not enter into a 
contract pursuant to this subsection unless the contract includes--
    (A) a provision under which the obligation of the United States to 
make payments under the contract for any fiscal year is subject to the 
availability of appropriations provided in advance for those payments;
    (B) a provision that specifies the term of effectiveness of the 
contract; and
    (C) appropriate provisions under which, in case of any termination 
of the contract before the end of the term specified pursuant to 
subparagraph (B), the United States shall only be liable for the lesser 
of--
    (i) an amount specified in the contract for such a termination; or
    (ii) amounts that were appropriated before the date of the 
termination for the performance of the contract or for procurement of 
the type of acquisition covered by the contract and are unobligated on 
the date of the termination.
    (d) Vessel Agreements.--The Secretary shall use excess capacity of 
University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System vessels where 
appropriate and may enter into memoranda of agreement with the 
operators of these vessels to carry out this requirement.

SEC. 9. REPEAL.

    The NOAA Fleet Modernization Act (33 U.S.C. 891 et seq.) is 
repealed.

SEC. 10. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for grant agreements for marine research and related environmental 
research and development activities made by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration after fiscal year 1999 any person who 
received funds, other than those described in subsection (b), 
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1999, under a grant 
agreement from any Federal funding source for a project that was not 
subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion 
from consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a 
period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of 
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a 
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of 
the class according to a formula provided by law.
    (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant 
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to 
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public 
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United 
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or 
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative 
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as 
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the first amendment on the 
roster is one by the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert. 
For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. En bloc amendment to H.R. 1552----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendments 
will be considered en bloc, will be considered as read, and the 
gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

         En Bloc Amendments to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Calvert

  Page 2, line 9, strike ``and''.
  Page 2, after line 9, insert the following new paragraph:
          (2) ``Director'' means the Director of the National Science 
        Foundation; and
    Page 2, line 10, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
    Page 9, line 6, strike ``available to expended'' and insert 
``available until expended''.
    Page 13, lines 12 through 16, strike ``shall exclude'' and all that 
follows through ``fiscal year 1999'' and insert ``and the Director 
shall exclude from consideration for grant agreements made after fiscal 
year 1999 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 
the National Science Foundation, under the activities for which funds 
are authorized by this Act,''.
    Page 13, line 21, insert ``, except as specifically authorized by 
this Act'' after ``award process''.

    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, this amendment merely makes 
technical and conforming changes to the bill and I would urge 
its passage.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. Is there further discussion on the en bloc 
amendments?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the 
amendments are agreed to.
    The next amendments on the roster are by the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, on behalf of himself and the gentlewoman 
from Michigan, Ms. Rivers.
    For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Ehlers. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552 offered by Mr. Ehlers and 
Ms. Rivers----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read, and the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

      Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Ehlers and Ms. Rivers

    Page 3, line 21, strike ``$6,085,000'' and insert ``$7,085,000''.
    Page 3, line 22, strike ``$6,085,000'' and insert ``$7,085,000''.
    Page 4, line 4, strike ``$19,884,000'' and insert ``$18,884,000''.
    Page 4, line 5, strike ``$19,884,000'' and insert ``$18,884,000''.

    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The essence of the 
amendment is to increase funding for the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory by approximately $1 million 
from the bill that was presented by the Subcommittee. The 
amount they presented was reflected in the request from the 
administration, which represents a cut from the previous year.
    In order to finance this restoration and modest increase, I 
am asking that we take $1 million out of funds that are 
designated under the act for restoration and response, which is 
restoration of a coral reef, and that is receiving in the 
President's budget an $11.1 million increase, which represents 
a 127 percent increase.
    I am quite certain they don't need quite that much 
increase, and, therefore, I believe we can continue the funding 
for the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and not 
do damage to any other program.
    I would like to mention that--and commend the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Laboratory. It has provided 25 years of 
service to all of our coastal marine areas with an emphasis on 
the Great Lakes. And it is unfortunate that the Administration 
did not recognize the important of the Great Lakes. And often 
this Congress also doesn't recognize it.
    This emphasis on the Great Lakes in this bill is critical, 
for although its shores are not commonly considered in the same 
category as our East or West Coast, the total of miles of 
coastline in Michigan is greater than that of any other state 
except Alaska. And the total Great Lakes coastline rivals that 
found on our Nation's East and West Coast.
    Furthermore, the Great Lakes contain 95 percent of our 
Nation's surface fresh water. These bodies of water are 
extremely important to the future of our Nation, important for 
the fisheries of this Nation, and it is essential that we 
continue the research effort that the Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory has done.
    Their mission is to conduct integrated, interdisciplinary 
environmental research in support of resource management and 
environmental services in both coastal and estuarine waters. It 
is the only research laboratory in the Great Lakes region with 
both personnel and instrumentation to document and understand 
the interplay of the physical lake phenomena such as 
temperature and water level with the biological and chemical 
ecosystem processes.
    The Great Lakes laboratory has demonstrated history of 
problem-oriented research activities that have produced data 
and research management tools that benefit our Nation's coastal 
and marine areas.
    Research projects within the laboratory seek to improve 
short-term warning and season climate forecasts in order to 
enhance public safety as well as prevent economic losses due to 
climate cycles and our understanding of the tools for 
intelligent and prudent environmental stewardship are enhanced 
through the research investigating sustainable fishery 
development and identification of environmental indicators to 
promote both ecosystem health and economic prosperity in our 
coastal zones.
    This laboratory is also active in educational outreach 
opportunities for both high school and undergraduate students.
    This amendment seeks to sustain the research endeavors and 
capabilities of this valuable facility. The requested increase 
will restore and maintain the Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory's research potential and allow its 
scientists to continue their significant and valuable work.
    I certainly want to voice my support for the transfer of 
the Great Lakes Regional Environmental Laboratory from the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to the National 
Ocean Service. This transfer allows the laboratory to better 
focus on the scientific issues of coastal stewardship in the 
expansive Great Lakes region.
    This bill will move toward that end, and we hope that the 
Appropriations Committee will agree with us on this issue this 
year.
    In sum, the Great Lakes are an immense natural resource to 
the United States, not always appreciated by those who have not 
lived there. I encourage your adoption of this amendment. It 
will allow this important research effort to continue.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Speaker.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. 
Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I join----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you. I join Mr. Ehlers in support for 
this particular amendment. You may recall, those of you who had 
served for any time on this Committee, that we have been here 
many times on behalf of the Great Lakes Environmental Research 
Laboratory, talking to you about issues like non-indigenous 
species, which at one time were simply a Great Lakes issue, but 
now have spread across to many other bodies of water throughout 
the country.
    The Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory is 
considered by many to be the premiere coastal science 
laboratory in NOAA and that they have a lab that houses a broad 
spectrum of sciences, including chemists, biologists, 
hydrologists, physical oceanographers, and ecologists, all 
under one roof working together.
    And they do not limit their inquiry only to issues relative 
to the Great Lakes. As a matter of fact, they have been 
involved in environmental research having to do with the 
Mississippi River and, particularly in Louisiana and the runoff 
and the problems that it is causing there.
    This is an organization that has created a tremendous body 
of work that has been useful not only to the Great Lakes 
region, where the Great Lakes are, of course, a huge economic 
engine for all of the States that surround it, but across the 
country as many States and localities struggle with non-
indigenous species, like zebra mussels and other kinds of 
invasive species that cost each and every year more and more 
and more resources that can't be devoted to other kinds of 
things.
    This is a national organization, and I hope that everyone 
will support the amendment.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back.
    Ms. Stabenow. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The other gentlewoman from 
Michigan.
    Ms. Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would rise today to support my colleagues in this 
amendment. This is an excellent amendment. It is needed. They 
have been very eloquent in describing the importance of the 
Great Lakes. This is the 25th year of Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Laboratory. They have been involved in incredibly 
important, effective research and service efforts as well as 
educational opportunities.
    It is, indeed, a major national resource for all of us, and 
it is very important that we have these additional resources.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back the 
balance of her time.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Smith. I move to strike the last word and like to 
associate myself----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Smith. I would like to associate myself with the 
comments of the previous three speakers.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Do you yield back the balance of 
your time, sir?
    Mr. Smith. And I yield back all of the balance of my time.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. To associate myself with the previous 
speakers in support of the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there further discussion on the 
Ehlers-Rivers amendment?
    Hearing none. All those in favor of agreeing to the 
amendment will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from 
Colorado, Mr. Udall. For what purpose do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552----
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered, and 
the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

              Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Udall

  Page 5, line 19, strike ``$63,769,000'' both places it appears and 
insert ``$73,887,000'' in both places.
  Page 5, line 22, strike ``$52,750,000'' and insert ``$62,868,000''.
  Page 5, line 23, strike ``$52,750,000'' and insert ``$62,868,000''.
  Page 6, line 1, strike ``$19,200,000'' and insert ``$19,573,000''.
  Page 6, line 2, strike ``$19,200,000'' and insert ``$19,573,000''.
  Page 6, line 4, strike ``$700,000'' both places it appears and insert 
``$712,000'' in both places.
  Page 6, line 7, strike ``$31,850,000'' and insert ``$41,583,000''.
  Page 6, line 8, strike ``$31,850,000'' and insert ``$41,583,000''.

    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The President's request included $41.6 million for NOAA's 
Central Administration Support line item. H.R. 1522 would 
reduce that amount by about $10 million. This amendment 
restores those funds.
    In response to the Appropriations Committee, NOAA created 
this comprehensive line item to group together salaries, 
administrative costs, rent, and the like that used to be buried 
within various NOAA programs. Much of what is contained in the 
Central Administration Support line item is mandated by law, 
such as annual cost-of-living adjustments and the rent that 
NOAA has to pay the GSA, the General Services Administration.
    Cutting this account saves no money. In fact, it costs 
money. Cutting this account does not cut personnel at NOAA. In 
order to comply with the law and meet NOAA's audited financial 
requirements, NOAA will be required to assess its line programs 
and offices to pay for these fixed and unavoidable costs.
    In order to fund necessary management and computer upgrades 
to comply with Federal financial and management laws, like the 
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1966, NOAA will 
have to offset these cuts against its operational program.
    In other words, what we don't put in this line item will 
come out of NOAA research and operations. If other programs are 
taxed to pay for the flat-lining of this funding, shortchanging 
NOAA by about $10 million, major NOAA operations will be cut. 
With a major NOAA facility in Boulder, Colorado, in my 
district, I want, of course, to avoid those cuts to Federal 
operations in my district.
    But these cuts will affect other members districts as well. 
Major cuts can be expected in Silver Spring, Maryland, to pay 
for the flat-lining of this account. Cuts will also occur in 
Seattle, Washington; Norman, Oklahoma; Charleston, South 
Carolina; Miami, Florida, and the list goes on. If you have a 
NOAA facility in your district, I ask your support for this 
amendment.
    And, Mr. Chairman, even members who don't have a NOAA 
facility should support this amendment if we are going to 
enable NOAA to continue to do its job.
    I thank you, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I oppose----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this 
amendment. It the--NOAA has not provided this Committee with a 
shed of--with a shred of justification in its budget 
documentation to agree to this. And I believe that the primary 
purpose of this Committee is to provide money for research, not 
for additional administrative services.
    And I see no reason why NOAA should cut research to provide 
for its administrative needs. And I would oppose this 
amendment.
    I think it is consistent with this Congress, and certainly 
in trying to make Government more efficient that we would 
certainly strike this amendment down.
    And I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise to support this amendment. My concern is that 
cutting this account isn't going to save any money. There is 
not going to be any jobs lost here at NOAA, that once again we 
are to see this money come out of research projects. And, you 
know, these are tough times, and monies are very limited.
    I don't think we have the luxury to see even $10 million 
come out of the research R&D accounts at NOAA, and I am afraid 
if this amendment does not pass, that is exactly where the 
money is going to come from. And we are not going to see any 
reductions in personnel.
    So I would hope that my colleagues would consider that and 
support the Udall amendment.
    I yield back my time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I rise in opposition to this----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, what we are talking about here 
is not research. This is not money that is going into research. 
It is going into salaries. And Mr. Calvert has done a very good 
job in trying to keep control of a budget over at NOAA. And I 
know that when I was the Chairman of that Subcommittee, we 
first started to try to say that there are ways that we can 
reduce the spending at NOAA and actually make NOAA a more 
efficient organization.
    That is what Mr. Calvert is trying to do. We might note 
that one of the issues before us today has to do with the NOAA 
fleet--the NOAA fleet. Now how many of us know that NOAA has 
uniformed officers just like--they wear their little uniform 
like they do in the Navy. They have all the privileges of 
military officers but yet they are with NOAA.
    Not to say that this is not an honorable profession. It is 
certainly is. But they have--but these people have salaries and 
benefits far beyond what is justified for people who are not in 
the military service of the United States.
    Retirement benefits are equal to that, of those in the 
military.
    Furthermore, it has been proven that you can be more cost-
effective, for example, and not--and going to the private 
sector or working with universities rather than having NOAA 
have their own fleet.
    So there are ways that we can spend less money and actually 
be more efficient in the Federal Government. Supposedly that is 
what this administration talked about when they talked about 
reinventing government. But here we have an attempt after Mr. 
Calvert is trying to be, and the other members of the Committee 
are trying--Subcommittee--are trying to be responsible, we have 
nothing but an attempt to increase salaries of Government 
employees saying that is going to make things more--more 
efficient.
    And I think that we should be, even though we do have a 
surplus, we wouldn't have gotten to that surplus if we would 
have gone by a different philosophy. And we should maintain our 
philosophy of being effective and frugal with the taxpayers' 
dollars.
    So I oppose this amendment.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of is time. Further discussion on the Udall amendment?
    Mr. Lampson. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized.
    Mr. Lampson. I too want to associate myself with Mr. Udall 
and his amendment, and ask that you support it. And I know that 
Mr. Calvert and his Committee has done a good job at trying to 
put together as we possibly can put together, but while we have 
been seeking greater efficiency and accountability from these 
agencies, we are indeed imposing greater administrative and 
management reforms. And those are going to have an effect.
    If we don't give some kind of direction toward where other 
cuts are going to come from to pay for this, it is going to 
have a continued effect like it has already had in Galveston, 
Texas, in my district, on the upper Texas Gulf coast, that is 
affecting fisheries, and is affecting the uses of facilities, 
buoys that are supporting a lot of different activities.
    I would ask that we pass this amendment.
    And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time.
    Further discussion on the Udall amendment?
    Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
    Mr. Weiner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to strike 
the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Weiner, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Weiner. I would like to yield to Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Weiner.
    Just to conclude, I want to point out that I respect the 
intent of the Congressman from California, Mr. Calvert, but I 
think in the end we are going to be counterproductive if we 
don't put this amendment on the bill.
    Salaries are--salary increases are mandated by Federal law. 
Those are going to have to be put into place if this amendment 
is not passed. And eventually we are going to cut the 
programming and the research that we believe is so important on 
behalf of NOAA.
    So I think this, although motivated by the right reasons, 
and I believe in fiscal responsibility as much as my colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle, I think this would be 
counterproductive and shortsighted, and I strongly urge a yes 
vote on the amendment.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Udall. I will yield.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Did the Administration come to 
you with this request and ask you to offer this amendment?
    Mr. Udall. I am in close contact with the NOAA laboratory 
in my district. It is an important part of----
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. No. But did they come to you?
    Mr. Udall. I have talked with my friends at NOAA. Yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. I yield to the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Udall, would--did you go to the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee and talk to him about this and 
make a serious effort to go through the normal procedures, and 
go through the process on this?
    Mr. Udall. Thank you for your question, Mr. Rohrabacher. As 
you know, there was no Subcommittee hearing on the bill, and so 
a lot of the time has been compressed. The amendment--I would 
add, too, to the other gentleman who asked me the question--the 
amendment was my idea, and I felt it was important to bring 
this issue to the Committee's attention.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You did not go through your Subcommittee 
Chairman. You didn't go and discuss this with him and try to 
see, you know, how the budget could be worked out and maybe 
accommodated?
    Mr. Udall. As I mentioned, the time of this was very 
compressed. It came to my attention in the last few days, and I 
take your suggestion to heart. But I think this is important 
enough that I wanted to bring it to the Committee's attention.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Just another question, and I believe 
that--and I am a Subcommittee Chairman as well. My door has 
always been open, and we have always found ways of 
accommodating this without having to come to a confrontation at 
markup. Or most of the time. Sometimes you have philosophical 
differences.
    Has Mr. Calvert given you some idea that his door isn't 
open to you to discuss these and try to reach accommodations 
without having to blind-side somebody at a markup?
    Mr. Weiner. If I can briefly reclaim my time. I was under 
the impression that a markup is where we identify imperfections 
in the legislation. Try to address them through something 
called amendments. We offer them, try to justify them, and then 
we have votes on them. This is what the markup process is 
supposed to do, especially given the fact this wasn't marked up 
in Subcommittee.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time is controlled by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Doyle. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Weiner. I would certainly yield. I don't know to whom, 
but----
    Mr. Doyle. I would just say to my good friend, Dana 
Rohrabacher, that maybe it has been a long time since you have 
been a freshman member of Congress, but perhaps Mr. Udall 
wasn't acquainted with all the, you know, finer points of 
coming to a Subcommittee Chair. And I don't think his intent 
was to blind-side anyone. He is a pretty decent guy. 
[Laughter.]
    So maybe just cut him a break.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will stipulate to that 
fact. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The gentleman from New York 
still has a minute left.
    Mr. Weiner. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. For what purpose does the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania rise?
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I don't necessarily fault the 
distinguished gentleman for offering the amendment. What 
bothers me is, as a strong supporter of NOAA and a good 
personal friend of Jim Baker, I resent the fact that this is an 
issue within NOAA, I would have liked to have heard about this 
from NOAA.
    I mean it is not like we have some distant relationship. I 
meet with NOAA on a regular basis. I have never heard this 
issue. It seems to me like something I would want to know more 
about. And I just talked to the distinguished Chairman who I am 
going to yield to in a moment, and I will ask him, have you 
heard from NOAA on this issue, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Calvert. Not only I have not heard from NOAA, but they 
have--did not give any justification to this Committee for the 
30-percent increase in administrative services that they 
requested.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, that is what 
bothers me. Again, I am not an enemy of NOAA. I have supported 
NOAA on the floor. I feel that Jim Baker does a good job in 
that agency. What I resent is if NOAA is playing, and I am not 
saying they are, but if they are playing politics and only 
communicating with one side of the aisle, that is the surest 
way to have a vote come on the floor, or on the Committee that 
becomes totally partisan.
    I mean, there are Republicans that are strong supporters of 
NOAA as any Democrat, and this should be a bipartisan effort. 
And what offends me most is that the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee, and I just asked him, has not even been informed 
on the merits of this, which is why I, as a supporter of NOAA, 
am going to oppose the amendment but ask the Chairman if he can 
get the facts for us for when the bill hits the floor.
    And with that I would yield to the chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I would be more than happy to work with Mr. 
Baker on any occasion, to understand why he is asking for this 
30-percent increase, $9.7 million over last year's base amount.
    Certainly he has a lot of justification to do before I 
would go along with that, but I would be more than happy to 
talk to the gentleman.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. And reclaiming the balance of 
my time, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman is correct that the markup 
process is available so that any member can offer any 
amendment. But the problem is, I think, if you really want to 
achieve success, the agencies understand that you build 
bipartisan consensus and support for that issue.
    Otherwise, when it comes to this Committee for a markup, 
you tend to only get those partisans who want to support the 
member, and the other side who feels left out, opposes it, 
perhaps on the--for the wrong reasons.
    And I, unfortunately, think that is where we are today. And 
that is unfortunate for NOAA in this regard.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from----
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I would be happy to yield to 
the distinguished gentlelady.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you. Thank you for yielding.
    I just simply want to add my support for NOAA also, in the 
hopes that the Chairman of the Committee, working with other 
Members of the Subcommittee, will look into this and report 
back to us when the bill comes on the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
yields back the balance of his time. Further discussion? The 
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed that there 
is an outrage that someone would have an amendment to a bill 
that came up. And I an even more flabbergasted that when you 
don't have a Subcommittee markup, that a freshman or any Member 
of Congress should be chastised for not giving adequate notice 
when you have to have notice of the bill first. I am even more 
amazed that just because the source of the amendment might be 
from the Administration, that would mean that some people would 
automatically have to oppose it. I mean if----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think everybody has had plenty of 
notice on both the bill and the amendment. It is on the 
amendment roster. It is something that is a legitimate matter 
of debate. I would hope that we would direct the debate toward 
whether or not there should be the increase proposed by the 
gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall. I think that is what we are 
here for.
    Mr. Gordon. And I reclaim my time. I would hope that is the 
case too. Unfortunately, what we found is he has put forth an 
amendment and it is being opposed not on the merits. It wasn't 
arguments about the merits of his amendment. But rather who 
might have submitted it, where he got the idea, and that he 
didn't come before his Chairman and let him know in advance 
when he has got to have notice in the first place. I mean it is 
just an example of why the regular order in the legislative 
process is beneficial. And I think that this is something of an 
anomaly, and I want to at the appropriate time speak to that, 
but, again, I am somewhat concerned----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, will the gentleman from 
Tennessee yield to me again?
    Mr. Gordon. Certainly.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think that in his opening 
comments in opposition to the amendment, the gentleman from 
California did say that there was not any justification that 
was submitted by NOAA in support of the increase that is being 
proposed by the gentleman from Colorado. That was said before 
we got off the track of having this amendment before us. Well, 
the Chair does not like to point fingers. [Laughter.]
    The time belongs to the gentleman from Tennessee. The 
gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Further 
discussion on the Udall amendment? Hearing none----
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. I will yield my time to Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. I thank the gentlewoman from California. I 
appreciate the tone of the discussion. I want to make it clear 
to the Subcommittee Chairman, the gentleman from California, I 
was not attempting to put him in a tough situation. I do want 
to emphasize though that a lot of this activity happened very 
quickly. I felt it was important at least to bring this 
amendment to the attention of the full Committee. One of the 
reasons I wanted to be on this Committee is the reputation it 
has for being bipartisan. I want to extend my hand and ask 
people on the other side to consider the importance of what we 
are trying to do here.
    I would also mention to you that this was a part of the 
Administration's budget. The amendment is aimed at making sure 
that NOAA continues to be able to deliver the services and the 
research that we all depend on and that many of the costs that 
NOAA has are fixed and that if we turn this over to this--if we 
don't pass this amendment, we are turning over to NOAA the 
responsibility, which I think is our responsibility, to 
determine where those cuts or where those increases, whatever 
the case may be, would occur.
    So I would ask that as we move ahead on this, that we 
continue our discussion and perhaps there is a way by the time 
this legislation comes to the Floor that we can find some 
common ground.
    I yield back the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman from 
California yield back the balance of her time?
    Ms. Woolsey. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it. The noes have it.
    Mr. Udall. Could we have a roll call, Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Roll call is requested. Those in 
favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. And the clerk 
will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith of Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. Ewing. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing votes no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    Mr. Brady. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes no. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes no. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    Mr. Sanford. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no. Mr. Metcalf.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members who 
desire to cast their votes? Are there any Members who desire to 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes 16; no. 20.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next amendment on the roster is 
one by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. For what 
purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
    Mr. Green Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552, offered by Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

        Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Green of Wisconsin

    Page 10, line 7, insert ``The Director shall include in such report 
an analysis of the extent to which funds authorized by subsection (b) 
will be sufficient to implement such strategy.'' after ``implementing 
such strategy.''.

    Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 1552 requires the 
National Science Foundation to consult with appropriate parties 
and to develop a strategy for meeting marine and environmental 
research requirements that have been laid out in NOAA's 
Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan. It also directs NSF to 
formulate a plan to implement that strategy. And, finally, it 
requires NSF to submit to Congress a report detailing this 
strategy and the plan for implementing it.
    What this simple amendment does is to merely add another 
provision to the reporting requirements. It requires NSF to 
include an analysis of whether the authorized funding levels 
will actually be sufficient to successfully implement the plan. 
Now one of the options that NSF will probably consider is the 
construction and procurement of new fisheries research vessels. 
NOAA has included this program in the President's Fiscal Year 
2000 budget request. However, this Committee, as I have 
learned, has a healthy skepticism over the accuracy of NOAA's 
funding requests for this program. Consequently, this Committee 
has decided to allow NSF to determine the best and most cost-
effective way to meet our marine research needs. Whatever 
determinations, whatever conclusions NSF makes, I think it 
makes sense to ask NSF to analyze the authorized spending 
levels and let Congress know if it is going to be enough to 
enable us to reach our stated goals. The goal of my amendment 
is to ensure that Congress has the information it needs to make 
accurate and responsible funding decisions.
    I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this 
amendment. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Green 
amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor will signify by saying 
aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    Next amendment on the roster is by the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Woolsey. For what purpose does the gentlewoman 
seek recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552, offered by Ms. Woolsey.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

    Page 10, line 18, strike ``subsection (c)'' and insert ``subsection 
(b)''.
    Page 11, line 9, strike ``subsection (d)'' and insert ``subsection 
(c)''.
    Page 11, lines 10 through 12, strike subsection (b).
    Page 11, line 13, and page 13, line 3, redesignate subsections (c) 
and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively.

    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been thinking 
things have been going well, so I am looking forward to a 
vigorous discussion on this and some good support I believe.
    Section 8(b) of H.R. 1552 would restrict NOAA from carrying 
out maintenance and repairs of existing Government assets, the 
NOAA fleet. Banning NOAA from upgrading or repairing existing 
ships closes out the option and the choice of the least cost 
solution that we have been trying to obtain with NOAA and with 
NIST. And I would suggest that we consider changing the 
language so that they can go for the least cost considerations.
    As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has 
recently invested $50 million in the Ronald H. Brown and the 
Kaimimoana ships. And these ships that are being used to obtain 
data that is necessary for predicting large-scale weather 
events, such as El Nino, have been very important in the NOAA 
fleet. Blocking repair and maintenance contracts for marine 
services would actually squander this investment by preventing 
NOAA from making repairs to their ships. Even if required data 
could be acquired through contracts, the cost of a repair to an 
existing vessel could be far less expensive than contracting 
out the work. The least-cost solution of data acquisition would 
be cut off. And in the meantime, Government assets worth a lot 
to this Nation would not be maintained and we would be I think 
acting very irresponsibly when it comes to maintaining our in-
house fleet.
    Now there are a lot of Members of this Committee who have 
an interest in the NOAA port facilities. In Seattle, Mr. 
Metcalf either represents or represents a district nearby, the 
Pacific Marine Center and Mr. Sanford has the Coastal Services 
Center in Charleston, South Carolina. And Miller and Mr. 
Kuykendall both have interests I'm sure in the Southwest Marine 
Support Facility in San Diego. So I am looking forward and 
hoping for the support they can bring to these arguments 
because in a previous section of the National Science 
Foundation, we are asking that NOAA meet data requirements. And 
by discontinuing this support for them, I and suggesting that 
we are doing ourselves a great disfavor in this Nation and 
doing a disfavor to NOAA wasting our valuable assets that we 
have in our in-house fleet.
    And I will yield back my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much. The Chair 
strikes the last word to speak in opposition to the amendment. 
The amendment goes back on decisions that have been made 
earlier to try to get the most bang for the buck at NOAA. And 
the National Performance Review that was headed by Vice 
President Gore recommended in 1995 that there is no need for a 
NOAA fleet. In 1996, the Inspector General of the Commerce 
Department, who is an appointee of President Clinton's came out 
against the continuation of the NOAA fleet. And it said that 
the fleet is more expensive than available alternatives. Their 
billion dollar proposed modernization plan should be 
terminated. NOAA's actions have impeded attempts to form 
external partnerships----
    Ms. Woolsey. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, I will finish my statement, 
please. And that NOAA should cease all investments in its 
active ships and immediately begin de-commissioning the in-
house vessels.
    That Inspector General's recommendation was reaffirmed on 
April 15th by the Assistant Inspector General for Auditing in 
his testimony before the Subcommittee that is headed by the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert. And I will just quote a 
part of that testimony. It says: ``We continue to question the 
propriety of NOAA focusing its efforts on designing, owning, 
maintaining, and operating ships. Instead, the agency should 
clearly articulate its program need for ship services to the 
private sector, academia, and other Government ship operators 
with the goal of identifying modern, more cost-effective 
platforms for its data collection needs.''
    The specific provision in the bill that the gentlewoman 
from California proposes to strike is one that prohibits multi-
year contracting by NOAA. There is nothing that would prohibit, 
according to the information I have, single-year contracting 
for maintenance.
    In light of all of this, I believe that the amendment 
should be rejected, and I will yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, one of my 
most adamant points is until we determine that we are going to 
de-commission these ships and if we do, in the meantime, we 
must maintain them. And if it is determined that the best way 
to go is to decommission them, wouldn't it be a shame to 
decommission ships that are worthless, and we won't be able to 
sell back at any value.
    Ms. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, will you yield, please?
    Ms. Woolsey. So that would be one of my major concerns 
until it is decided.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, yes, reclaiming my time. Here 
we have had three recommendations that we do what is in the 
bill and which is undone by the gentlewoman's amendment. One is 
from the Vice President's National Performance Review. The 
second was from the Inspector General of the Commerce 
Department in 1996 and that was just reiterated last month when 
the IG came before the Subcommittee and testified that what is 
in the bill is something that the Administration supports, and 
it certainly I think is a more cost-effective manner of using 
the money that is available to the Commerce Department and to 
NOAA specifically.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I think the point that you made 
the entire Committee, needs to understand. Nothing in this 
legislation denies NOAA to enter into ongoing maintenance 
contracts which are renewed annually. So saying that these 
ships will go into disrepair is not true. The ships will be 
maintained in good order. The only thing we want to prevent, 
if, in fact, NOAA is to be decommissioned, that they don't 
enter into 10-year contracts on maintenance which would have to 
be bought out and then in effect the cost of getting rid of 
those multi-year contracts become so prohibitive that it would 
be impossible to decommission NOAA, which is precisely what I 
suspect some people would like the end result to be.
    Ms. Woolsey. Well, will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Calvert. So we maintain the ships and make sure that 
they are made in good order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Yes, I control the time. I yield to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I thank the distinguished 
Chairman. Just to counter what the gentlelady said in terms of 
singling out individual Members who may have an interest in the 
NOAA fleet, let me respond for those Members who might be near 
one of the institutions who will benefit from the action: Woods 
Hole in Massachusetts; Scripps in California; Lamont-Doherty; 
University of Washington; University of Miami; University of 
Florida; University of Massachusetts; University of Rhode 
Island; Rutgers; Penn State; University of Wisconsin; and 
University of Alaska. They would all benefit from having the 
ability, because they are the institutions academically who are 
doing the type of work that the recommendations that the 
Chairman has pointed out would benefit from.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. My time has expired.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania. I thank the Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Further discussion on the 
Woolsey amendment?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have a question actually on 
the bill. On page 10, under Section 8, and this might be either 
directed to you or Chairman Calvert, if you will. I am trying 
to clarify a point here. It says, page 10, Section 8, Marine 
Services, it says: ``Service contracts. Notwithstanding any 
other provision of the law and subject to the availability of 
appropriations, the Secretary shall enter into contracts 
including multi-year contracts.'' Then if you will turn to page 
11, line 10, it says: ``Vessels. The Secretary may not enter 
into any contract under this Section for the construction, 
lease, purchase, upgrade, or service life extension of any 
vessel.'' And I read that to mean that the Secretary is 
prohibited from entering into any contract to upgrade or 
service an existing vessel. And I just want a clarification on 
that, if you will?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield?
    Mr. Costello. I will be happy to yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And I would hope that if I am 
incorrect, the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, would 
butt in. The purpose of this is to prevent a capital infusion 
into the existing old ships or the multi-year contracts, which 
might be signed because it would be more expensive to buy out a 
contract, as the gentleman from California just explained to 
us. But it is not intended to prohibit the maintenance of the 
existing ships as long as it is a single-year contract. Am I 
correct in that assumption?
    Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield? That's correct. 
The intent of this is to have annual contracts and to maintain 
the ships in good order on an annual basis.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I would hope, reclaiming my 
time, that when we go to the Floor with this bill that we can 
have language that clarifies that so it is very clear. I 
understand the intent, so it is very clear that they can at 
least maintain the vessels that they have.
    Mr. Calvert. That's correct, and we can certainly do 
everything we can to clear that up.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair would also direct the 
staff to put language to that effect in the Committee report 
before it is filed to make it clear of error as well.
    Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back the 
balance of his time?
    Mr. Costello. I do.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Woolsey 
amendment? Hearing none, the question is agreeing to the 
Woolsey amendment?
    All those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it and the amendment is not agreed 
to.
    The next amendment on the roster is by the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Kuykendall. For what reason does he arise?
    Mr. Kuykendall. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552, offered by Mr. 
Kuykendall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

            Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Kuykendall

    Page 13, after line 10, insert the following new section:

SEC. 10. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

    The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home 
page of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration the 
abstracts relating to all research grants and awards made with funds 
authorized by this Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
require or permit the release of any information prohibited by law or 
regulation from being released to the public.
    Page 13, line 11, redesignate section 10 as section 11.

    Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes the same 
form as the others that I have offered this morning on the two 
preceding bills and that is it allows the accessibility via the 
Internet of information concerning grants from this particular 
authorization. I urge your aye vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. Further discussion on the Kuykendall 
amendment?
    Hearing none, all those in favor of agreeing to the 
amendment will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment is one by the gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Costello. For what purpose does he seek recognition?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552, offered by Mr. Costello.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Illinois is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information follows:]

             Amendment to H.R. 1552 Offered by Mr. Costello

    Page 14, after line 18, insert the following new section:

SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION INCREASE.

    Each of the amounts authorized for fiscal year 2001 by this Act, 
except for the amount authorized by section 7(b), shall be increased by 
3 percent.

    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The bill before us 
today leaves funding for NOAA program accounts flat from Fiscal 
Year 2000 to Fiscal Year 2001. My amendment would rectify and 
increase the authorization level for Fiscal Year 2001 by 3 
percent. Excluded from this increase would be construction and 
procurement accounts because in those cases we are working with 
real projected out-year numbers.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, the level of increase is 
consistent with the Committee's past views and estimates which 
called for a 3-percent increase in Fiscal Year 1998, a 4-
percent increase in Fiscal Year 1999, and a 3-percent increase 
in Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, Mr. Chairman, this Committee 
has gone on record time and again calling for steady, stable 
funding for our programs. The Ehlers Report called for Federal 
funding to be stable and substantial. It can't be stable and 
substantial if we let inflation erode that funding from year to 
year. Flat funding means that all the increased inflationary 
costs for doing work will be absorbed by the programs, leading 
in effect to a cut in funding.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, we will be providing needed 
flexibility to appropriators and the Administration for Fiscal 
Year 2001. We can't know what we may need 18 months out of GPRA 
performance evaluations may suggest.
    Mr. Chairman, a 3-percent increase is a modest 
authorization. It is consistent with the acts of this Committee 
in the past, and I would ask for your consideration and for 
approval of this amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the Chairman and with regret----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Calvert [continuing]. To oppose my good friend's 
amendment. But I would like to point out with the exception for 
not providing for an increase for the NOAA bureaucracy, the 
operating accounts in this bill are consistent with the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2001 efforts. Furthermore, we 
should be considering this bill and the National Weather 
Service bill as a NOAA package. Together, for these two bills, 
the Fiscal Year 2000 recommended total is $67.1 million or 3.8 
percent above the recommended 2000 level and is more than 
consistent with the Committee's position and its views and 
estimates.
    Furthermore, it is important to remember the Committee's 
commitment to the goal of stable and sustainable R&D funding 
over the next 5 years. Sustaining increases at the levels 
already in those two NOAA bills will be difficult enough. And, 
quite frankly, with the budget caps that we are operating on, 
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, this is as good as we can go.
    I appreciate the gentleman's concern.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
Mr. Costello's amendment. It is a modest increase and it is in 
line with the level of increase that has been offered in past 
years. And, Mr. Chairman, this increase isn't going to tie 
anyone's hands. The appropriators can accept or reject the 
recommendation based on the fiscal conditions we face when they 
get to do their work in the summer of 2001. And, obviously, we 
can send a different signal ourselves through our views and 
estimates next March if it looks like our authorization was too 
high. However, no amount of huffing and puffing can raise 
authorization levels once they are passed and carved in stone.
    I hope we could agree that given the importance of the work 
that is being done here, that this amendment would be supported 
by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I yield back my 
time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back the 
balance of his time. Further discussion on the Costello 
amendment?
    Mr. Lampson. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here again, a 
situation occurs in my own district, in Galveston, where we 
face the opportunity of not being able to continue to do 
services that have been provided for in the past. A 3-percent 
increase is perhaps not even consistent with keeping up with 
inflation. I read some comments that have been made by this 
Chairman, the Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner. And 
if it is possible for us to reconsider and look at how we might 
be able to support this amendment of Mr. Costello, I can assure 
you that the people in Galveston, Texas where I represent a 
number of these interests would be most beneficial. Obviously, 
all across our coastlines and so many very states will be 
adversely effected. We are not asking for a huge amount of an 
increase. I think this is a very reasonable one, and I would 
hope that you would consider supporting it.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the 
Costello----
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Bartlett.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Maryland who is 
way off on the left wing is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bartlett. I am not very used to sitting on the left, 
Mr. Chairman. Might I ask the proposer, Mr. Costello, what 
offsets he would propose for this funding increase?
    Mr. Costello. Yes, there are no offsets proposed. It is in 
addition to the authorization level.
    Mr. Bartlett. Then this would bust the budget caps?
    Mr. Costello. It gives them, as you know, as I think Mr. 
Doyle pointed out, is that when we authorize, when we pass an 
authorization, what we are doing is giving flexibility to the 
appropriators. We do not lock them in stone by any means and, 
of course, if, in fact, as the administration puts their budget 
together for Fiscal Year 2001, as that budget is delivered to 
the Congress, if the appropriators feel that they cannot 
appropriate the level that has been authorized, as has happened 
in many times in the past with this Committee and other 
Committees, they are not bound by the authorization that we 
pass. What we are merely doing is giving them flexibility to 
increase the authorization by 3 percent.
    Mr. Bartlett. I have a question, Mr. Chairman, that if we 
propose--if we authorize more than the budget, would that not 
give the appropriators license to consider our authorization 
somewhat irrelevant since we are proposing more than they are 
going to authorize? I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman withholds yielding 
back the balance of his time to yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois.
    Mr. Costello. My final comment is as we know there is no 
budget for Fiscal Year 2001 yet. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Now the gentleman from 
Maryland yields back.
    The question is on agreeing to the Costello amendment.
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Colorado is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Udall. I just want to briefly say that given that the 
amendment I offered didn't pass that I think it is all the more 
important that we meet inflationary levels in our funding for 
this part of the NOAA operation. And in that spirit, I support 
this amendment strongly. I would also yield any additional time 
to Mr. Costello if he needed additional time?
    Mr. Costello. I appreciate the gentleman's statement in 
support, and I will yield back the balance of the time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Colorado yields 
back the balance?
    Mr. Udall. I yield back the balance.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Any further discussion on the 
Costello amendment?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to strike the last 
word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. I won't take 5 minutes. I would 
like to remind everybody on this Committee that our 
responsibility is to authorize but to also be the spokespersons 
for these programs here in our country. If we don't ask the 
appropriators to do the right thing, then we shouldn't expect 
anybody to. So we should be pushing for what we need and what 
we want because we are the voice for these programs. And I 
yield.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I will try to keep this short, just say 
many people--we have to view our jobs the way we view it. Some 
people view themselves as spokesmen for programs. Others of us 
view ourselves as spokesmen for the people of the country who 
have to earn the tax dollars that pay for these programs. An 
across-the-board, 3-percent increase without offsets is not 
being responsible. And if we have a situation where if we are 
very serious about our job, we prioritize within the money that 
the taxpayers have given us and say this is more important and 
this is less important.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair will point out that 
unless we get this bill out, we are not advocating anything.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back. Is there 
further discussion on the Costello amendment? Hearing none, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
    Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The noes appear to have it.
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman. roll call.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The noes have it. A roll call is 
requested.
    Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sensenbrenner.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sesenbrenner votes no. Mr. Boehlert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no. Mr. Weldon of 
Pennsylvania.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Barton of Texas.
    Mr. Barton. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barton votes no. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Smith of Michigan.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Weldon of Florida.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing.
    Mr. Ewing. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ewing votes no. Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon votes no. Mr. Brady.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook.
    Mr. Cook. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cook votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    Mr. Nethercutt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt votes no. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green votes no. Mr. Kuykendall.
    Mr. Kuykendall. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Kuykendall votes no. Mr. Miller.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert.
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no. Mr. Sanford.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. Metcalf. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Metcalf votes no. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes yes. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Hastings.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow.
    Ms. Stabenow. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stabenow votes yes. Mr. Etheridge.
    Mr. Etheridge. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Etheridge votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner votes yes. Mr. Capuano.
    Mr. Capuano. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Capuano votes yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there Members in the room that 
desire to cast their votes? The gentleman from South Carolina.
    Mr. Sanford. Yes, how am I recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford is not recorded.
    Mr. Sanford. Vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sanford votes no.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I am not recorded, I 
vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Texas votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Brady.
    Mr. Brady. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recorded as no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brady votes no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And batting clean up from Texas, 
Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Any further Members in the chamber 
who desire to cast their votes or wish to change their votes. 
No. [Laughter.]
    If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes is 16. No is 21.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. How am I recorded?
    The Clerk. You are not recorded.
    Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. Aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That makes it ayes 17, noes 21.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is still not 
agreed to. That concludes the number of amendments that are 
listed on the roster. The Chair is informed by minority staff 
that is what is listed in your packet as amendment number eight 
by Mr. Wu is in effect an amendment for the next bill. So are 
there further amendments to H.R. 1552? If there are no 
amendments, is there any proposed report language to H.R. 1552? 
If there is no proposed report language, the chair will 
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, for a 
motion to report the bill?
    Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 1552, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended to pass. Furthermore, I 
move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming amendments 
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the 
bill before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on reporting the 
bill. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, the Chair 
notes the presence of a reporting quorum.
    All those in favor of the motion to favorably report the 
bill will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill 
is favorably reported. Without objection, the bill will be 
reported in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute reflecting the amendments adopted here today. 
Without objection, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII of the 
Rules of the House, the Committee authorizes the Chairman to 
offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on the bill and Members will have 
two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental 
minority or additional views on the legislation.

                                  

```