U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

31–026PS 2007

H.R. 50

COMPILATION OF MARKUPS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 31, 2006

Serial No. 109–67

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BART GORDON, Tennessee, RMM*

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

∂SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

AL GREEN, Texas

∂BART GORDON, Tennessee

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan, Chairman

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

∂SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

MARK UDALL, Colorado

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

∂BART GORDON, Tennessee

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

∂SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

VACANCY

∂BART GORDON, Tennessee

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

∂SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

∂BART GORDON, Tennessee

* Ranking Minority Member appointments/Full Committee and Subcommittee assignments.

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

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

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

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

(V)

C O N T E N T S

2005

Page

H.R. 50—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act ......................

Proceedings of the markup held by the Subcommittee on Environment,

Technology, and Standards, March 15, 2005 .............................................. 1

Proceedings of the markup held by the Full Committee, May 17, 2005 ...... 43

(1)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 50, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vernon Ehlers

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Chairman EHLERS. Good afternoon. I am pleased to welcome you

to the first—Subcommittee’s first markup of the year. Pursuant to

notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the subcommittee.

Given the number of bills we need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief, and then I will explain each bill in

more detail as it is brought up.

First we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation

I authored last Congress, would created an organic act for NOAA.

This is a term that puzzled me when I first got here because, to

me, organic had something to do with organic chemistry or organic

gardening or organic food stores; but an organic act in the Congress

is an act which is an original act establishing an agency and outlining its functions and purposes. This organic act for NOAA would

provide the underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency

was formed by executive order in 1970—established by executive

order. It has been modified by executive order and by law since,

but we have never had an organic act, so today we are trying to

remedy that.

Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology

Competitiveness Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress and which passed the House last July. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive action in the Senate, and so we

are proposing it once again.

The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the Department

of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.

2

And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member

Gordon, Representative Calvert, and Chairman Boehlert, would

create a research program at the Environmental Protection Agency

to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and to provide

important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean

up former meth laboratories. I suspect many people are not aware

of the extent of this problem and the dangers involved, but meth

labs are springing up, primarily in rural areas, particularly wooded

areas—and I know Oregon is having considerable problems with

them; we have in Michigan as well because both states have substantial wooded areas where you can conceal a shack and try to

manufacture methamphetamine.

There are several aspects of danger there. One is that very frequently, because of the danger of the components—and in fact, the

explosive nature of the components—frequently an explosion occurs, which obliterates the shack and the people within it, so we

lose a number of young people every year who are engaged in this

dangerous pursuit. Even more frequently, they use a particular

structure for this; it becomes very—it collects a lot of toxic materials because there is a great deal of toxic material going into the

production of methamphetamine. They actually become not quite

superfund sites, but pretty close to it, and local governments are

having a great deal of trouble cleaning them up to a reasonable

standard, and the expense is substantial for small units of government.

Now, I am pleased that Mr. Wu has introduced this bill, which

will deal with this problem, not only in Oregon and Michigan, but

throughout the country. With that, I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu

from Oregon, the Subcommittee’s new Ranking Member. I have

worked before with Mr. Wu on a number of issues. I know he has

a strong interest and considerable experience in the issues before

the Subcommittee. I am very happy that he has joined us in this

position.

I want to thank Mr. Udall. He is on the way but not here yet.

I want to thank Mr. Udall from Colorado, who was a Ranking

Member for the past four years. We had a very productive relationship, and now he is Ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee,

where spacey Members end up. And I am sorry to lose him for that

purpose, but delighted that Mr. Wu is his replacement. I am

pleased that Mr. Udall will continue to be a Member of the Subcommittee.

I am now pleased to yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

Good afternoon! Welcome to the Subcommittee’s first markup of the year. Pursuant to notice, we will consider three important measures today that together underlie the breadth of jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. Given the number of bills we

need to get through today, my opening statement will be brief and then I will explain each bill in more detail as it is brought up.

First, we will consider H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Act. This bill, a reintroduction of legislation I authored last Congress, would create an ‘‘organic act’’ for NOAA. This organic act would provide the

underlying statute of missions and functions to be carried out by the NOAA, something that has not existed since the agency was formed by executive order in 1970.

3

Next, we will consider H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness

Act. This bill is nearly identical to legislation I introduced last Congress, and which

passed the House last July. The main focus of the bill is an authorization for the

Department of Commerce’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.

And finally, we will consider H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. This bill, introduced by Ranking Member Gordon, Representative Calvert and Chairman Boehlert, would create a research program at the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and provide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former

‘‘meth’’ laboratories.

I am proud to introduce Mr. Wu from Oregon, the Subcommittee’s new Ranking

Member. I know that Mr. Wu has a strong interest and considerable experience in

the issues before the Subcommittee, and I am very happy that he has joined us.

I want to thank Mr. Udall, from Colorado, who was our Ranking Member for the

past four years. We had a very productive relationship and now he is the Ranking

Member of our Space Subcommittee. I am pleased he will still be a Member of our

subcommittee.

I now yield to Mr. Wu for an opening statement.

Mr. WU. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I look forward to working with you in a very productive relationship concerning the broad range of this subcommittee’s jurisdiction in technology transfer, competitiveness, and other crucial issues for our

research, our tech transfer, and our economy. And in your spirit,

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief, even laconic. I am very pleased to

be here with you to participate in our subcommittee’s first markup,

markup of the NOAA Organic Act, the Manufacturing Technology

Competitiveness Act, and the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance

of my time.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman and would just correct

myself. I mentioned this was your bill; it is actually Mr. Gordon’s

bill, joined with the methamphetamine. But it is certainly a bill

which is worthy of your attention.

Mister—without object, all Members—all other Members may

place statements in the records, and I ask unanimous consent to

recess the Subcommittee at any point, and without objection it is

so ordered; I hear no objection.

We will now consider the bill H.R. 50, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration Act. This bill is identical to the legislation that I introduced last year and that passed the Subcommittee

at the end of the Congressional session. Unfortunately, time ran

out before we could consider it at Full Committee. H.R. 50 provides

NOAA with an organic act. An organic act defines the overall missions and functions of an agency. As an example, H.R. 50 states

that the mission of NOAA is, first, to understand and predict

changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere; second, to conserve

and manage coastal, ocean, and great lakes ecosystems; and third,

to educate the public about these topics. The bill also describes the

specific functions NOAA should carry out to fulfill its mission, such

as issuing weather forecasts and warnings.

I should note that H.R. 50 contains very little language about

fisheries or research management at NOAA because those topics

are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, and particularly the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland,

Mr. Gilchrest, who is also, now, a Member of this committee. I look

forward to working with Mr. Gilchrest, my other colleagues, and

4

the administration, as well as with the full Resources Committee,

to pass truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA.

I am pleased to recognize Mr. Wu if he wishes to make any comments about this bill.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I fully support your interest

in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA

with a statutory foundation to guide its missions and functions. I

congratulate you for introducing H.R. 50.

NOAA is this nation’s lead agency charged with conserving and

managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a

vital role in public safety through the programs of the National

Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must

ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to

meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource

management and public safety missions.

H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and I look forward to

working with you further before this legislation is considered by

the full House. And I might add that I also look forward to working

with you and Mr. Gilchrest to have a more robust component with

respect to fisheries, which are of great interest to us on either

coast, and I assume, also, in the Great Lakes.

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

Good afternoon, everyone. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here this afternoon

to participate in our subcommittee’s first markup of legislation. I realize your interest in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA with the statutory foundation to guide its missions and functions. I congratulate you for introducing H.R. 50.

NOAA is this nation’s lead agency charged with conserving and managing our

coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through

the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings.

We must ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to meet

its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public

safety missions.

H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and I look forward to working with you

further before this legislation is considered by the Full Science Committee.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank you for your comments, and let me

just note the presence of Mr. Udall. Mr. Udall, I paid you several

compliments in your absence. I won’t repeat them, but I expressed

my appreciation for your good service as Ranking Member of this

subcommittee. We will miss you, and I am happy that you are

going to continue to be on the Subcommittee.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of the old

adage, you never get in trouble for something you didn’t say. I

would just say I think probably those compliments are undeserved,

and I do look forward to working with you as a Member of the

Committee, and with Ranking Member Wu. Thank you.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and

I disagree with him; they are deserved.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and

open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed

with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection,

so ordered.

5

The first amendment on the roster is an en bloc amendment offered by Mr. Wu. Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?

Mr. WU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have amendment at the desk.

Chairman EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 50 offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon.

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WU. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, does three things. The

first part of my amendment clarifies current policy of having the

National Weather Service serve as the Nation’s source for issuing

forecasts and warnings. The public safety function performed by

the National Weather Service should not be contracted to outside

providers. There are numerous commercial weather providers that

also have an important role to play in weather forecasting. They

and the National Weather Service have developed a productive

partnership that serves our nation well. This language ensures

that it will continue to do so.

The second part of my amendment ensures the continuance of

the agreements between NOAA and its established employee organization. The final part of my amendment requires NOAA to engage the agency’s client base, this Congress, and their own employees in the development of any organizational changes.

NOAA partners include State and local governments, commercial

interests in recreation, fishing, navigation, and weather forecasting, the research and education communities, and conservation

organizations. NOAA reorganizations should not occur without the

involvement of the many organizations that work with NOAA.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you will be supporting my

amendment. I yield back.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank Mr. Wu for working with us on his

amendment. It is a worthy amendment. I believe it strengthens the

bill, and the Chair is pleased to support this amendment.

Is there any further discussion on this amendment? None?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman may proceed for five minutes.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of moving the legislation forward, I don’t have an amendment, but I would like clarification on an issue of concern to me, and I believe to all of the Members of the Committee. The mission we are defining for NOAA is

a broad one, and I certainly agree that NOAA’s mission should be

defined broadly to include the many important operation and research functions it performs for our nation. However, I am concerned about the potential for overlap with NASA’s mission. And

as you know, reports have surfaced at various times, indicating the

possibility that NASA’s Earth science programs might be transferred to NOAA. And I was curious if it was your intention to endorse or facilitate that type of transfer through this legislation.

Chairman EHLERS.—with your comment.

Mr. UDALL. I would be happy to yield to the——

Chairman EHLERS. I thank gentleman for yielding.

There is no intent in this bill to favor that one way or the other

and no plans to do any such thing. It is true there is overlap between NOAA and NASA. There is also overlap between NOAA and

the armed services with the new satellite program. And I think—

6

my personal opinion is that there is going to have to be much

greater effort made in NOAA—and I hope it will occur under this

bill—to work more closely with other agencies with which they

have joint interests. And that, of course, includes NASA as well as

the armed forces and perhaps other government agencies, perhaps

the Department of Interior as an example. So my hope is that operating under an organic act, it will be easier for them to develop

interagency agreements to deal with these issues. At this point, it

has been pretty much on an ad hoc basis, as far as I can see, particularly with the satellite program.

So there is no ulterior motive in the bill to deal with this, and

so far as I know, nothing in the bill would encourage that sort of

thing. But it would be something that we would be involved in

judging on a case-by-case basis, as they present.

Mr. UDALL. I thank the Chairman. And reclaiming my time, if

I could ask just one follow-on question?

I understand we are planning a hearing on NASA’s Earth

sciences program in the near future, and it would be my hope

that—and this is the thrust of my question—we would have that

hearing before we markup H.R. 50 in the Full Committee. And I

would be happy to yield to the gentleman again.

Chairman EHLERS. I assume that hearing would be on the Space

Subcommittee rather than this subcommittee, so I would suggest

that since you are on that committee that you make that request

known to the Chairman. I would not want to hold up H.R. 50 at

any point, but if that Subcommittee wishes to conduct such a hearing early on, that would be most helpful.

Mr. UDALL. Reclaiming my time, I hear the gentleman suggesting that he would be amenable to the Space Subcommittee taking a look at that this, but you don’t want to slow down the process

that H.R. 50——

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman is correct, and that is based

on consideration of how rapidly or not rapidly bills tend to move

through Committee—through the House, through the Senate, and

I want to make certain that this gets passed during this Congress

and preferably this year if at all possible. But I would be happy to

work with the Chair of the Space Subcommittee on a joint hearing

if he would wish to do it.

Mr. UDALL. That seems to be the general thrust here, and I will

talk to Chairman Calvert as well, and I look forward to working

with you, and we will prove, Mr. Chairman, Ross Perot wrong

where he said a committee is a cul-de-sac down which great ideas

go to die. So we have, I think a bigger load to shoulder here when

it comes to proving Mr. Perot wrong.

Chairman EHLERS. Well, you also have to remember that was a

goal of the founders of this nation, to make a structure so complicated that very few things would pass, assuming that only the

best would survive. But since this bill is so superb, we are not worried about what the process might do to it.

Any further comments on the amendment? Hearing none, the

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed

say no. The yeas have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

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

on the bill. H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:18 Jan 02, 2007 Jkt 031026 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\109MAR~1\COMP\COMP.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
7

tion Act, as amended—all those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Wu for a motion.

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that

the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 50, as amended, to

the Full Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the

staff be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming

changes to the bill as amended, in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee.

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

bill as amended favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify

by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries, and the bill favorably reported. Without object, the motion to reconsider is laid upon

the table.

I thank the Committee very much.

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

I wish to express my appreciation to all of the Members of the

Committee for the rapid action on this group of bills and the good

spirit in which we have all approached these bills and trying to improve them. So I appreciate your consideration. I thank the Committee Members for their attendance. This concludes our subcommittee markup.

[Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(9)

Appendix:

H.R. 50, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 50,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

Section 1. Short Title.

The short title of this Act is the ‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’

Section 2. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the Act.

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within

the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.

Section 4. Administration Leadership.

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be

responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency,

and must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations and

management.

Section 5. National Weather Service.

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather Service within

NOAA.

Section 6. Operations and Services.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational

and service functions. These functions would include all the activities of NOAA’s

National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the

mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.

Section 7. Research and Education.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support

research and education functions.

Section 8. Science Advisory Board.

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.

Section 9. Reports.

Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and

provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. The National Academy

of Sciences (NAS) shall review each report prior to delivery to Congress.

Section 10. Effect of Reorganization Plan.

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.

Section 11. Savings Provision.

Provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were

previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this Act.

Section 12. Transition.

Makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five through

seven.

Section 13. Facility Evaluation Process.

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a facility without

a 60-day public comment period, 90 days notification to Congress, review by the

Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), preparation of anticipated costs and savings, and preparation of a statement of the impacts of the facility change on NOAA

and its part

40

41

(43)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.R. 50, NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room

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

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone here today for

this markup of bills concerning the heavens and the Earth and to

the agencies that explore them, NOAA and NASA.

Now let me just say this before I give you the rest of this wonderful statement.

The Committee on Science will come to order. Pursuant to notice,

the Committee on Science meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Act; H.R. 2363, To establish a Science and Technology Scholarship

Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for

careers in the National Weather Service and in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration marine research, atmospheric

research, and satellite programs; H.R. 426, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2005, and H.R. 1022, the George E. Brown, Jr. NearEarth Object Survey Act.

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of these matters, and

without objection, it is so ordered.

We will now proceed with the markup beginning with the opening statements, and I will continue mine.

The main bill before us today is the NOAA Organic Act introduced by Dr. Ehlers, which we had initially planned to markup last

week. This bill will give NOAA a firm legislative grounding, something that was called for by the Ocean Commission, among others.

The Administration has also called for an Organic Act for NOAA.

But our bill will do more than merely found NOAA into law. It

will raise the profile of science at NOAA and improve its management. The bill also will greatly improve oversight of the agency by

ensuring that Congress and the public get the information needed

to evaluate NOAA’s organizational structure, facilities plans, budgeting, and satellite programs. This is a solid bill that will strengthen the agency.

44

And now we look forward to working with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over portions of NOAA, to get this

bill to the Floor. Also related to NOAA, we will take up Congressman Rohrabacher’s bill to create a Scholarship for Service Program

at NOAA. And he is a real leader on that effort, and we applaud

that. We have done the same thing with NASA and the Department of Energy. Service scholarships are a great way to entice students into science, math, and engineering while also helping the

Federal Government develop the workforce it will need. These

scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman

Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that.

We are running the scholarship program through as a separate

bill, because specific program authorizations generally are not part

of agency Organic Acts. We will also take up two bills related to

space today. These were last-minute additions to today’s roster,

which is something we have generally avoided on this committee.

But this seemed like an opportune time to move these bills, and

we continue to work on them through manager’s amendments on

the Floor.

Mr. Udall’s bill, which the Committee also passed last Congress,

concerns remote sensing. Mr. Udall will offer an amendment that

will take care of concerns raised by companies in the remote sensing data business, concerns that have stymied progress on this bill

in the past. I know that Mr. Bonner and I, perhaps some others,

have some further ideas for perfecting the bill, and we will work

on those as the bill moves forward.

Mr. Rohrabacher’s bill focuses on near-Earth objects, a subject

that has long concerned him and has gotten quite a bit of publicity

lately. Congressman Rohrabacher has helped us all understand

that asteroids may present a real threat to Earth and that we need

to pay greater attention to them. All of these bills will improve our

lives through increasing our understanding of the Earth, how it

works, and what may threaten it.

As usual, these bills represent a bipartisan effort, and I take

pride in that. I look forward to their passage.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon.

Mr. Gordon.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here today for this markup of bills concerning the

heavens and the Earth—and to the agencies that explore them, NOAA and NASA.

The main bill before us today is the NOAA Organic Act, introduced by Dr. Ehlers,

which we had initially planned to mark up last week. This bill will give NOAA a

firm legislative grounding, something that was called for by the Ocean Commission

among others. The Administration has also called for an Organic Act for NOAA.

But our bill will do more than merely found NOAA in law. It will raise the profile

of science at NOAA and improve its management. The bill also will greatly improve

oversight of the agency by ensuring that Congress—and the public—get the information needed to evaluate NOAA’s organizational structure, facilities plans, budgeting and satellite programs. This is a solid bill that will strengthen the agency.

And now we look forward to working with the Resources Committee, which shares

jurisdiction over portions of NOAA, to get this bill to the Floor.

Also related to NOAA, we will take up Congressman Rohrabacher’s bill to create

a scholarship for service program at NOAA, as we have at NASA and the Department of Energy. Service scholarships are a great way to entice students into science,

math and engineering while also helping the Federal Government develop the workVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:18 Jan 02, 2007 Jkt 031026 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\109MAR~1\COMP\COMP.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
45

force it will need. These scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that.

We are running the scholarship program through as a separate bill because specific program authorizations generally are not part of agency organic acts.

We will also take up two bills related to space today. These were last minute additions to today’s roster, which is something we have generally avoided on this committee. But this seemed like an opportune time to move these bills, and we can continue to work on them through manager’s amendments on the Floor.

Mr. Udall’s bill, which the Committee also passed last Congress, concerns remote

sensing. Mr. Udall will offer an amendment that will take care of concerns raised

by companies in the remote sensing data business—concerns that have stymied

progress on this bill in the past. I know that Mr. Bonner and I and perhaps some

others have some further ideas for ‘‘perfecting’’ the bill, and we will work on those

as the bill moves forward.

Mr. Rohrabacher’s bill focuses on Near-Earth Objects, a subject that has long concerned him and that has gotten quite a bit of press lately. Congressman Rohrabacher has helped us all understand that asteroids may present a real threat to

Earth and that we need to pay greater attention to them.

All of these bills will improve our lives through increasing our understanding of

the Earth, how it works and what may threaten it. As usual, these bills represent

a bipartisan effort. I look forward to their passage.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have summed up

what we are going to do this morning very well. I just want to concur that it is a good idea, I think, to take up these additional three

bills today, and I want to give my thanks to the staff on both sides

for the good cooperative work that they have done over the last

week in trying to bring NOAA together as well as these three bills,

and I look forward to the markup.

And I yield my time back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

I want to thank the Chairman for scheduling this markup.

Originally we were to just take up H.R. 50 today, but I think it is to the advantage of our Members that we will expeditiously take up three other bills, all of

which can probably move on suspension on the Floor.

In addition to the NOAA organic act, I am especially pleased to see the Remote

Sensing Act move through Committee. We have dealt with this in past Congresses

and I am happy the Chairman agrees that we can move that bill forward today.

I don’t want to delay the process here this morning with an extensive preliminary

statement, but let me take a moment to thank staff on both sides of the aisle for

their work to handle these bills. I think the Members have been well served through

their efforts.

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record

at this point.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

Good morning, everyone. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to participate in the Science Committee’s markup of H.R. 50. I appreciate your interest in

moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA with the statutory

foundation to guide its missions and functions.

NOAA is this nation’s lead agency charged with conserving and managing our

coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a vital role in public safety through

the programs of the National Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to meet

its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public

safety missions. H.R. 50 makes a good start on this effort, and we want to continue

46

to work with Chairman Boehlert and the majority on the dollar figures for facility

changes.

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act is an important piece

of legislation that deserves strong consideration along with the appropriate Amendments. NOAA was created through the merger of a number of organizations in the

1970s. However, it still has no legislation that establishes it as an Agency or formally defines it missions.

The legislation before this committee today will help to refine the mission of

NOAA and allow the agency to succeed in the future. Specifically, the legislation authored by my colleague Mr. Ehlers will define broad mission areas and general authorities and to codify the existing primary administrative positions at NOAA.

Based upon text from the Ocean Commission report this bill defines the mission and

function of NOAA. The bill codifies the current senior positions of the agency: Administrator/Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere. The current positions of Deputy

Under Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere are

also specifically authorized and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs.

Among the provisions I am most supportive of is Section 5 of the bill which calls

upon NOAA to maintain the National Weather Service as a distinct entity. The National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) is very supportive of this

position. NWS forms a major part of NOAA’s operational mission and I have long

advocated that accurate weather forecasting is not only useful for planning purposes, but can also be used in possible life saving capacity as the technology continues to develop.

This legislation needs to be clearer on certain issues; I am especially concerned

about the issue of separation between the mission of NOAA and the Earth science

programs at NASA. As we heard last week from testimony provided by Mr. Diaz

of NASA at last week’s Full Committee hearing, he indicated NASA’s plan for a

number of their missions (Landsat, Glory) will be to transfer these Earth science

programs to NOAA. In addition, the Ocean Commission Report suggests that NOAA

should take on NASA’s Earth sciences programs. Firstly, I am against the idea that

Earth science programs should be diminished at NASA. Secondly, NOAA’s budget

cannot absorb these programs in its current budget. The current mission statement

in the bill does create overlap with the mission statement for NASA. Clarifying language should be inserted to ensure that these necessary Earth science programs are

continued in one fashion or another.

Again, I believe this legislation is pertinent and should be implemented with due

consideration for all amendments. NOAA deserves to have proper mission which is

achievable under the right parameters.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 50, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I recognize Dr.

Ehlers to present some introductory remarks.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

explain my bill.

This is certainly an important bill, and I say that not because I

have a large ego, but because it is very rare that we have an opportunity to pass an organic act through this committee. And this bill,

H.R. 50, establishes an organic act for NOAA, the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration Act.

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an

agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA

is to, first, understand and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans

and atmosphere; second, conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and

47

Great Lakes ecosystems; and third, educate the public about these

topics.

NOAA was created in 1970 by an Executive Order that placed

the agency in the Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the

new NOAA. Since that time, NOAA has operated under a confusing

collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission, therefore, the need for an organic act.

In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its final report, which called for Congress to pass an organic

act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and program

goals of the agency. The Bush Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA and organic act and made it a priority

in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th Congress, witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed this bill.

Today, I will offer a manager’s amendment, which makes technical corrections and reflects negotiations with the minority. I will

explain the amendment further when it is offered.

I should note that H.R. 50 contains little language about fisheries management at NOAA, because that topic is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee, and in particular, the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland,

Mr. Gilchrest.

I look forward to working with the Members of that committee

to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. I

urge my colleagues today to support H.R. 50, and I yield back the

balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill. H.R. 50, the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA.

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to:

(1) understand and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere;

(2) conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems; and

(3) educate the public about these topics.

NOAA was created in 1970 by an executive order that placed the agency in the

Department of Commerce and transferred various oceanic and atmospheric functions from other agencies into the new NOAA. Since that time, NOAA has operated

under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an

overarching mission.

In September 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its final report,

which called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place

the mission and program goals of the agency. The Bush Administration supports

Congressional passage of a NOAA organic act, and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th Congress

witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed my bill.

Today I will offer a manager’s amendment which makes technical corrections and

reflects negotiations with the minority. I will explain the amendment further when

it is offered.

I should note that H.R. 50 contains little language about fisheries management

at NOAA because that topic is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee,

in particular the Subcommittee chaired by my colleague from Maryland, Mr.

Gilchrest. I look forward to working with the Members of that committee to join us

in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.

48

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, and a

special thanks from all of us for your hard work to bring us to the

point where we find ourselves today.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, let me say that I think Mr. Ehlers has done a good

job in evaluating this bill, and I want to thank him for the work

with his staff in putting it together.

A couple of concerns I do have, though, is that we are still trying

to determine what is an appropriate value to be triggering the review process. The bill has a $5 million limit, but I think the Committee needs to do some more work on this to make sure that that

really is a valid number, and I am sure we will be doing that before

it goes to the Floor. And I do appreciate Mr. Ehlers’ work in the

past.

Finally, let me just say that the bill defines a broad mission for

NOAA to allow this agency to grow and change as needed to serve

our resource needs as our nation grows and changes. However, I

do not believe the broadly-defined mission in this bill should serve

as an invitation to this or future Administrations to transfer programs from other agencies to NOAA without sufficient planning

and adequate funding. And I think that is very important.

We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the

Committee of Resources as this bill continues to move forward, and

I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for bringing H.R. 50 before the Committee this morning. I would also like to thank Rep. Ehlers for introducing the NOAA Organic Act.

I recognize H.R. 50 is not yet a true organic act for NOAA. The bill does not include important authorities and functions in fisheries, coastal zone management,

ocean mapping and charting, and a number of other important operations that are

in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.

This committee’s programs, however, are well-treated in this legislation. I am especially pleased that we are including explicit language to ensure that the structure

and function of the National Weather Service remains unchanged.

The 3,700 employees of the National Weather Service fulfill a vital public safety

mission across this nation everyday in cooperation with the network of professionals

in the private sector.

We have worked well together on language to try to establish a regular procedure

for proposed changes in NOAA facilities. However, I want to keep working to understand what an appropriate dollar value is to trigger that review process. The bill

has $5 million, but I think the Committee needs to do more work before this bill

gets to the floor to understand all the implications of this language. We do have

some information from NOAA on this, but since they prefer the $5 million number

I think we need to double check some of that information.

We have achieved steady improvements to our weather forecasting through investments in research and technology and the expansion of our system of weather

observing satellites. We should ensure continued progress in weather forecasting

and understanding the Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic systems.

The bill defines a broad mission for NOAA to allow this agency to grow and

change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes.

However, I do not believe the broadly defined mission in this bill should serve as

an invitation to this or a future Administration to transfer programs from other

agencies to NOAA without sufficient planning and adequate funding.

We look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the Committee on Resources as this bill moves forward.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

49

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and

open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with

the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so

ordered.

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in

the nature of a substitute offered by Dr. Ehlers. I ask unanimous

consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be treated as original text for purposes of amendment under the fiveminute rule. Without objection, so ordered.

Dr. Ehlers, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Excuse me, Dr. Ehlers.

The Clerk will report the amendment, and then we will hear the

eloquent words of Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R.

50 offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with

the reading. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50, as it was reported by the Environment, Technology, and Standards Committee. Specifically, as compared to the

bill as reported, my amendment first provides technical clarification. It also provides additional authorities of the Administrator of

NOAA, such as conducting education and outreach activities. It emphasizes NOAA’s role in forecasting of and warning for tsunamis.

It also provides for input from the National Academy of Sciences

earlier in the process of NOAA developing its strategic plan for

management of its environmental data and information systems. It

requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite

programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major

changes to existing satellite programs, and finally clarifies that

nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities or authorities of

other federal agencies.

These changes were developed after careful consultation with the

Administration, outside experts, NOAA stakeholders, and other

Members of this committee.

I urge my colleagues to support this substitute amendment for

H.R. 50 and yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

This substitute amendment strengthens and clarifies certain sections of H.R. 50

as it was reported by the Environment, Technology and Standards Committee.

Specifically, as compared to the bill as reported, my amendment:

• Provides technical clarifications;

• Provides additional authorities for the Administrator of the NOAA, such as

conducting education and outreach activities;

• Emphasizes NOAA’s role in forecasting of and warning for tsunamis;

50

• Provides for input from the National Academy of Sciences earlier in the process of NOAA developing its strategic plan for management of its environmental data and information systems;

• Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with or makes major changes to existing

satellite programs; and

• Clarifies that nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities or authorities

of other federal agencies.

These changes were developed after careful consultation with the Administration,

outside experts, NOAA stakeholders, and other Members of this committee. I urge

my colleagues to support this substitute amendment for H.R. 50 and yield back the

balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to thank Dr. Ehlers for his work on

the bill, and the Chair supports his amendment.

Is there further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I would move to strike the last word.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition?

Mr. Udall, my distinguished colleague and good friend from Colorado.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief, I hope.

I am pleased to see some of the changes included in my good

friend, Dr. Ehlers’ amendment regarding the evaluation process for

the closures, relocation, or consolidation of NOAA facilities. Particularly, I am pleased to see that the Congress must be notified

if any NOAA facility will be closed, relocated, or consolidated. This

covers 183 facilities that could have been closed without Congressional notification under the original definition of a facility as having a budget greater than $1 million.

I am also pleased that the language has been included to evaluate National Weather Service’s field offices by involving a similar

evaluation process used in the National Weather Modernization

Act.

These are both good government provisions, and I am pleased

that they have been included in Dr. Ehlers’ amendment.

However, I would like to express my concern that there are at

least 28 NOAA facilities with budgets between $1 million and $5

million. NOAA will merely have to notify Congress of closures, relocations, or consolidations of these facilities without going through

an evaluation process. I do not believe that we know enough about

how this will affect these 28 facilities at this time to set the number at $5 million.

While I do not want to try to amend this language in an effort

to move the bill through Committee, I plan to continue to work on

the issue in an effort to ensure that any changes to the organization of NOAA facilities is thoroughly evaluated and services are not

degraded.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Chairman and Dr. Ehlers

for working with me on this issue, and I look forward to continuing

this working relationship in the future as we move this bill forward.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back any time I have remaining. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

51

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I am pleased to see some of the changes included in this amendment regarding

the evaluation process for the closures, relocation, or consolidation of NOAA facilities.

Particularly, I am pleased to see that Congress must be notified if any NOAA facility will be closed, relocated or consolidated. This covers 183 facilities that could

have been closed without Congressional notification under the original definition of

a facility as having a budget greater than $1 million.

I am also pleased that language has been included to evaluate National Weather

Services field offices by involving a similar evaluation process used in the National

Weather Modernization Act.

These are both good government provisions and I am pleased they have been included in Mr. Ehlers amendment.

However, I would like to express my concern that there are at least 28 NOAA facilities with budgets between $1 and $5 million. NOAA will merely have to notify

Congress of closures, relocations or consolidations of these facilities without going

through an evaluation process.

I do not believe that we know enough about how this will affect these 28 facilities at this time to set the number at $5 million.

While I do not want to try to amend this language in an effort to move the bill

through Committee, I plan to continue to work on issue in an effort to ensure that

any changes to the organization of NOAA facilities is thoroughly evaluated and

services are not degraded.

I would like to thank the Chairman and Mr. Ehlers for working with me on this

issue and hope to continue this working relationship in the future.

With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall, and we

will be glad to continue our work with you, because you bring up

a very good point. It is one that should concern us all, and we will

work cooperatively to get the best possible result.

The vote, then, is on—all right.

The second amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman

from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Are you ready to proceed?

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am. My amendment is at the

desk.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask that we dispense with the

reading of the amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered.

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his

amendment.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

And Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a ‘‘buy American and protect American jobs’’ amendment. The amendment is straightforward, and it will protect American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses two contracting issues

with NOAA. One, it prohibits federal jobs from being outsourced to

foreign nations, and two, it requires NOAA contracts for goods and

services to be performed in the United States.

In cases where NOAA issues a contract for goods or services to

a private-sector contractor, NOAA would have to ensure that the

contract work is being done in the United States. Foreign labor

may not be substituted for U.S. labor.

The amendment provides exceptions to this policy. One, the new

Administrator may waive the requirement if an essential instrument or service is only produced outside the United States or is

only produced by non-U.S. manufacturers. Two, the President may

52

waive the requirement if, in his opinion, it is in the interest of national security. Three, the restriction does not apply to goods or

services that are now obtained for use outside of the United States

or in case where the functions are performed by U.S. federal workers outside the United States.

Regardless of how Members of the Committee feel about the A–

76 process on either side of the aisle, we should have an agreement

that tax dollars should not be spent to create jobs in other countries and put Americans out of work. We must look for ways to protect our national economy. NOAA should be getting its goods and

services here in America, not abroad. We may not be able to keep

the big multi-national firms from moving offshore or setting up

supply chains that stretch from China to our local retailers, but we

ought to be able to block NOAA from doing exactly that.

And Mr. Chairman, I ask for your support and ask for the support of Members of the Committee, and I——

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. COSTELLO. I would be happy to yield to the Ranking Member.

Mr. GORDON. Let me just quickly say that, as you pointed out,

we are all aware that the Administration has launched an aggressive effort to cut government jobs through the A–76 circular out of

OMB. And we all want to see government work as efficiently as

possible, but I think the jury is still out on this outsourcing, whether it really is effective. But clearly, your niche in this of not sending jobs overseas is an important one. I think that it is something

that we can all agree upon, and I commend you for this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

The gentleman’s time has expired.

I know the gentleman’s amendment is well-intended, and none of

us would argue with its thrust to keep and create jobs in the

United States. I always say that ‘‘jobs’’ is my favorite four-letter

word.

But here is the problem with the amendment.

In many ways, it runs afoul of our international trade obligations. We all know the world is flat. We are constantly reminded

of that every single day. Specifically, we have signed treaties in

which we and the other signatories agree not to limit most government procurements. And guess why we do that. We do it because

we think it will help keep and create jobs in the United States by

enabling U.S. companies to compete for government contracts

abroad. There is no way to know for sure, but it is perfectly likely

that this amendment would actually cost jobs in the United States

by preventing U.S. companies from winning procurement contracts

overseas.

Moreover, the amendment is at odds with our international obligations and possibly endangers American jobs, even though no one

can point to a particular problem that this amendment is designed

to resolve.

Is there any indication that NOAA has been loose with the taxpayers’ money by needlessly sending money overseas? The answer

is no. This amendment is a well-meaning, symbolic expression of

53

the concern we all have with outsourcing, but it is not designed to

combat a specific known problem.

But it would create specific known problems by conflicting with

trade agreements. And I would add that the Administration strenuously objects for that same reason.

So I will offer a second-degree amendment that says that the

Costello language can not override an international obligation of

the United States. I imagine Mr. Costello will claim, and I know

him from long experience working closely with him, and we are

very good friends, but he will claim, probably, that this amendment, my second-degree amendment, would gut his amendment. If

that is so, then it just confirms that Mr. Costello’s language would

create an international trade incident, which may hurt the United

States. If my language will not gut Mr. Costello’s effort, then there

is no reason not to pass it.

So I urge passage of my amendment, which will balance Mr.

Costello’s good intentions. Let me emphasize that. Good intentions.

But we also have to match that with our obligation to ensure that

the United States abides by its international commitments.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I know the gentleman’s amendment is well intentioned. And none of us would

argue with its ostensible purpose—to keep and create jobs in the U.S. I always say

that ‘‘jobs’’ is my favorite four-letter word.

But here’s the problem with the amendment. In many ways, it runs afoul of our

international trade obligations. Specifically, we have signed treaties in which we

and the other signatories agree not to limit most government procurements. And

guess why we do that? We do it because we think it will help keep and create jobs

in the U.S. by enabling U.S. companies to compete for government contracts abroad.

There’s no way to know for sure, but it’s perfectly likely that this amendment would

actually cost jobs in the U.S. by preventing U.S. companies from winning procurement contracts overseas.

Moreover, this amendment is at odds with our international obligations and possibly endangers American jobs even though no one can point to a particular problem

that this amendment is designed to resolve. Is there any indication that NOAA has

been loose with the taxpayers money by heedlessly sending money overseas? No.

This amendment is a well meaning, symbolic expression of the concern we all

have with outsourcing, but it’s not designed to combat a specific, known problem.

But it would create specific, known problems by conflicting with trade agreements.

And I would add that the Administration strenuously objects for that same reason.

So, I will offer a second-degree amendment that says that the Costello language

cannot override an international obligation of the United States.

I imagine Mr. Costello will claim that this would ‘‘gut’’ the amendment. If that

is so, then it just confirms that Mr. Costello’s language will create an international

trade incident, which may hurt the U.S. If my language will not ‘‘gut’’ Mr. Costello’s

effort, then there’s no reason not to pass it.

So I urge passage of my amendment, which will balance Mr. Costello’s good intentions with our obligation to ensure that the U.S. abides by its international commitments.

Mr. COSTELLO. I would ask the Chair to yield.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Chair is pleased to yield to his good

friend and colleague.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me respond, if I may. I was not

going to suggest that it guts my amendment, but apparently it

does.

Let me make a couple of points.

One, you make the point of a foreign country or someone objecting and challenging this provision because of the international

54

trade agreements that we have through the WTO. And I would just

suggest that this committee should not be in the business of attempting to protect trade agreements, and in fact, a provision such

as this that we are offering as this amendment has never been

challenged at all by the International Trade Commission. There

has not been a foreign country ever challenge an issue with the

U.S. Government to go to court over this issue before.

Number two is let me suggest that we have offered and debated

several amendments to other bills in the past, and the Chair has

been very protective in the past of having amendments adopted

that would result in referring a bill from this committee to another

committee. And it—I would suggest that—I am told at least that

your amendment to my amendment would, in fact, result in this

bill being referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

So I would just raise that issue and last say that, you know,

Members of the Committee have a choice today regarding NOAA.

And the choice is, with exceptions, with—giving the President the

exception that if it is in the interest of national security, NOAA

would not have to abide by this. If they are buying products now

that are only made outside of the United States, there would be an

exception. So I am—it is pretty clear to me that, you know, instead

of this committee protecting or trying to protect international trade

agreements that have never been challenged in the past on this

issue, I would just suggest that we have a choice to make today

and that is we can either protect American jobs from going overseas through contracts and services or we can sit here and try and

protect trade agreements that I think many of us do not support

to begin with.

But I would ask again for Members—for their support of my

amendment and to respectfully reject the Chairman’s amendment.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I am glad you noted respectfully.

Let me—first of all, let me just say before we proceed, and the

way I would like to proceed, I will just respond initially briefly to

you, and then I will have my amendment reported, and then we

can continue the debate. Okay.

Our advice from counsel is this will not result in a referral to

Ways and Means or any other committee, so we are getting conflicting advice on both sides. But be that as it may——

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we would like to take our counsel’s advice.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I don’t blame you, but guess what, I have

got the advantage of sitting in the Chair. And my counsel is pretty

darn good. But we will get some clarification on that, too.

The Clerk will report——

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT.—the amendment to the amendment.

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We are going to—here is what we are

going to do. She is going to report, and then we will have further

discussion.

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert of New York

to the amendment offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois.

55

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read, and so the Chair is recognized for five

minutes. We will continue this.

Ms. Biggert, you are next.

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move to strike the last word.

I have just a couple of points.

First of all, to the—to Mr. Costello’s amendment, I have concerns

when he talks about we will let the courts decide and it can always—or that we are protecting international trade agreements.

We are not protecting international trade agreements. Trade agreements are a legal, binding contract on the United States and all

of the other countries involved, and we can’t protect them, but we

really have to make sure that our actions do not violate the law.

Second of all, the grandfathering in those contracts with others

right now, I think that locks us into an old technology that if we

can not make new agreements with other countries who might

have the quality of goods that we need that the United States

doesn’t need and we have grandfathered them in, then they are not

going to be able to proceed with—we can’t go to another country

with—that has better technology and that we don’t have. So I have

concerns just with the way that that is written.

Second of all, with the proposed secondary amendment, I think

that that helps to overcome the legality of trade agreements. My

only concern with the secondary amendment is that it doesn’t say

who is going to decide. And in most cases like this, there usually

is a provision as—that USTR will be the deciding body whether—

you know, whether that would violate the trade agreement whether

to be able to go ahead or not.

So with that, I think there is a little bit of the language that

would need to be looked at if we decide to go with the secondary

amendment.

And with that, I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Is there anyone—Ms. Jackson Lee has departed.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for your perfecting amendment here, but I do want to congratulate Mr. Costello

for bringing this issue forward. And for those of you who have

never been out to NOAA’s headquarters out in Colorado, I would

encourage you to make a trip out there. And after I was out there,

I came back believing that this was an agency that not only had

a point of view, but was willing to do whatever it took to prove that

particular point of view. And that was discouraging for me.

But I also want to say this. It is also discouraging to me that a

lot of our partners around the world are more than eager to allow

the United States to shoulder 90 percent of the cost of doing research of this type and then have little to offer except criticism of

the United States. And so this may be a ham-fisted way to make

a point, but I think it is an important point that Congress needs

to make.

And I guess if you boiled it all down, it comes to this: he who

pays, plays. And a lot of our trading partners in Europe and in

other parts of the world, who are supposedly our allies, will—are

56

not willing to put up much money in terms of doing this kind of

research but they are constantly critical of the United States for

not doing enough. And so this may not be the perfect way to make

a statement to some of our friends around the world, but at least

it is an attempt.

I will vote for the Chairman’s perfecting amendment, but I would

encourage all Members to pay very close attention not only to what

NOAA is up to but sometimes to what our friends are up to as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman very much.

I wish my colleagues would look specifically at Mr. Costello’s language, and I think it is, if anything, leans toward absolute fairness.

It particularly talks about procurement. It talks about contractors

and subcontractors located outside of the United States. Time after

time, Members have voted for this very same language on the Floor

of the House. I hate to use the term ‘‘buy American’’ to defend

someone, but I think part of the connection of Mr. Costello’s language and intent, and I don’t want to read my analysis into his

language, but over and over again, we talk about building the

science capacity, technology capacity here in the United States, the

number of scholars that we can generate to begin to foster a greater involvement in this work. NOAA is a scientific entity. Albeit, it

deals with our weather predictions and other scientific efforts.

What Mr. Costello is doing is even more far-reaching than the concept of ‘‘buy American.’’ It is investing in America. I think he

makes provisions if it is to the necessity of national security that

he provides an exemption.

And I am concerned, though I appreciate the intent of the Chairman’s amendment, I am concerned that this throws this particular

legislation into Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over treaties. And this doesn’t speak—he does not speak specifically to treaties, and by its silence, I think that this legislation can track and

parallel the obligations of a treaty. What it says, where NOAA can,

abiding by law, use the services and goods from within the United

States, goods and services from the United States, they should do

it. Why should we be against that? All of the protections are in the

amendment.

And I would hope that we would see this two-fold: one, investing

in America, and three, investing in America’s human resources, investing in America’s small businesses, investing in America’s technology, investing in America’s science.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment, and I yield

back.

Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Before going to Mr. Hall, I just want it known that the Parliamentarian’s office has confirmed that this will—my substitute

amendment, second-degree amendment, will not trigger a referral

to Ways and Means, so let us strike that from your thinking.

Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

You know, the lady from Texas was absolutely correct in saying

it is not an unfair thrust, but I was a judge for 12 years, and most

57

of them I ran into wanted a favorable treatment more than they

wanted fair treatment. And I think from the manner that you had

with Mr. Costello evidences the respect that you have for one another.

But actually, ‘‘buy American’’ is a wonderful thrust and one that

we have all supported and voted—all of us have voted for it many

times in many shapes and in many forms. And I read this amendment over and looked at it with my advisor in my office. And my

thought was if there is some way that the U.S. could get last

chance at any underseller or underbuyer, and I don’t know what

your amendment does, but I would like something like that.

Mr. Chairman, you put it to him pretty hard. If it harms, it

should harm, and if it doesn’t harm, there is no damage done. I

will—you are going to explain your amendment, aren’t you, a little

more fully, your amendment to his amendment?

Chairman BOEHLERT. I already did.

Mr. HALL. And—well——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Do you want me to repeat?

No, I mean, as the fact—look, we are not——

Mr. HALL. Well, maybe you could just talk louder for some of us

older people. You know, your statement to the gentleman who has

the amendment, Mr. Costello, is a lot like a guy standing in front

of a judge in Texas that is about to condemn him to death and explained his actions, how horrible they were and how many children

that the deceased left and what painful death it was for him, and

he says, ‘‘Now do you have anything to say before I sentence you

to death?’’ And he says, ‘‘No, sir. Under the circumstances, I feel

like I am getting off pretty light.’’

So I don’t know if Mr. Costello feels that way or not, but I want

to vote for his amendment, but I am going to support your correcting amendment, if it corrects the amendment. If it doesn’t correct the amendment, it shouldn’t correct the amendment. That is

taking a page out of your book.

I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

And you just, once again, gave us testimony to why it is such a

delight to have you serving on this committee.

This—let me just say that this is unlike past ‘‘buy American’’

amendments, which did not supersede trade agreements. What we

are saying with my language is that the Costello language can not

override an international obligation of the United States. You

know, I have been in the ranks with all of us here. We all have

the same general intent. We want everybody to buy American. But

we have some international agreements that have been entered

into, and you know, we want to—we don’t want to override those

international agreements based on this amendment.

So with that, let us see, who is next up? Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Will the Chairman, as the author of the second-degree amendment, yield to a question or two?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Will I yield or will——

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, do you agree with Mr. Costello that there is not

now any clear provision of treaty or any clear ruling of law that

58

would apply to this amendment to make it either permissible or

not permissible under the WTO or any other trade agreement?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah.

Mr. MILLER. You do agree with that?

Chairman BOEHLERT. The answer is essentially yes.

Mr. MILLER. But it is—okay. So then who would decide whether

this was consistent or not? Would it simply be the Administration

that would decide, and if so, what would be—on what basis would

they decide?

Mr. COSTELLO. If the gentleman would yield while the Chairman

is conferring, would you yield?

Mr. MILLER. I do yield.

Mr. COSTELLO. That is my whole point.

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Mr. COSTELLO. My whole point in the issue with the—when we

are talking about international trade agreements, and my friend

from Illinois made the point, I would tell you that, in my judgment,

it is not clear what our international trade obligations are under

the WTO treaties. And number two, you know, are we going to interpret treaties here, in this committee, or are we going to leave

it up to the courts or the International Trade Association to determine what treaties are violated and what treaties are not violated?

And I would just leave you with this thought. Are we going to

be cautious about trying to protect trade agreements where we do

not even know, as we sit here today, if this violates a trade agreement? I would just say, as opposed to being cautious about trade

agreements, we ought to be aggressive about protecting American

jobs.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Costello, it did occur to me that my line of questioning might actually help the point you were making.

Mr. COSTELLO. And I thank the gentleman for that.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, but let me just say

we do know that this would violate existing trade agreement, and

what would happen under the WTO? And it would be NOAA, in

consultation with the U.S. Trade Representative, that would give

us guidance and make the initial interpretation.

We are not going to get into the treaty business here in the

House. I agree with you on that. But we are involved in a number

of treaties, and it seems that we are obligated, under the provisions

of those treaties, to honor them, and we don’t want to do anything

that would be in violation that would trigger an action by WTO.

Mr. MILLER. I am sorry. Was that in answer to the question of

who decides and on what basis?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah. Yeah. The—NOAA, in consultation

with USTR, and incidentally, WTO procurement agreement would

be violated. The CRS review determined that.

Mr. MILLER. Okay. My third—actually, I have just a couple more

questions, if I am not——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Have at it.

Mr. MILLER. All right. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, do you agree with Ms. Biggert’s point that Congress can not exempt this from WTO, or any other trade agreement, anyway?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Restate your question, please.

59

Mr. MILLER. I believe Ms. Biggert made the point that we cannot—Mr. Costello’s amendment could not exempt NOAA’s procurement from WTO requirements anyway. Is that—do you agree with

that? Do you agree with Ms. Biggert?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, but then there is no reason to oppose my amendment.

Mr. MILLER. But then that also raises the question of whether

it is necessary or whether it is redundant, not that redundancy has

ever been particularly a political sin. We would all be in deep trouble were it.

Mr. GORDON. Would my friend from North Carolina yield? I

think I can maybe sum this up.

Mr. MILLER. All right.

Mr. GORDON. The—in my opinion, in my legal opinion, the fact

of the matter is, we can not, through this committee, pass some

type of law that would make us be in non-compliance with an

international treaty. So, I mean, you know, we can’t do that.

And so here is the practical part of this. There is a lot of gray

area in this law, and what—and this amendment, or this—by putting this secondary amendment, it really puts us into a burden of

proof situation. In other words, we can’t pass a law that says that

we are going to be in violation of an international treaty. But—that

is very vague. And so what this amendment would do, secondary

amendment would do, it would put the—really the burden of proof

on leaning more toward the international treaties than it would on

leaning toward trying to be aggressive and protecting American

jobs.

So it is really dealing in that gray area, and the kind of message

you are going to send out, it is—under no circumstances are we in

this Science Committee going to pass a law that would allow us to

violate an international treaty.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, and it——

Mr. GORDON. And I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And we are not the people who are going

to sit in judgment. It is going to be the Administrator of NOAA in

consultation with U.S. Trade Representative. We are not getting

into that business.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I did have one more question.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who else seeks recognition?

Mr. MILLER. Actually, could I just ask——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson.

Mr. MILLER. I guess I can’t ask one more?

Chairman BOEHLERT. Your time is expired now.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to

Mr. Costello before me.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And I would—

you know, we could sit here for the next half-hour and go back and

forth on this issue, but I think it is pretty clear. The Chairman

stated it just a second ago. We are not going to get into the business of determining international treaties in this committee. But

any time that we can try and protect American jobs, we should.

And if, in fact, this, at some point in time, that it is determined

60

that it is a violation of an international trade agreement, which I

doubt very seriously that it is, then we can come back and address

that. But today, we ought to be protecting American jobs.

And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have one more question for you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Why am I not surprised?

The gentleman will ask the question.

Mr. MILLER. All of the discussion so far, Mr. Chairman, has been

about jobs and about buying American. But does this not also allow

the contracting outside the United States of services? Are we going

to be building scientific expertise somewhere other than here? Of

course, I prefer to buy American goods, but I am particularly concerned about building scientific expertise in the United States, not

somewhere else.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We don’t have any problem with Subsection A of the amendment. Get the amendment. Read it. What

my second-degree amendment simply says, and I will repeat, ‘‘can

not override an international obligation of the United States.’’

Mr. MILLER. Right.

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is not the responsibility of the

Science Committee to determine. That is the responsibility of the

Administrator of NOAA in consultation with the World—with the

U.S. Trade Representative of any Administration.

Who else seeks recognition?

Ms. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Let me just take that one step further.

The reason that it is so important that we have this secondary

amendment is because if we don’t, and there is a—we are cited by

the—and it goes to court to decide, then what happens is that the

World Trade Organization will, if they say yes we are in violation

of a trade agreement, then they can sanction us. And it doesn’t

mean that they are going to sanction NOAA or anything. They can

sanction any product in our—in this country, like, say, agriculture

or financial services, anything. And so it is so important that we

make this decision prior to going to court. And that is why it is so

important that it is with NOAA and with the USTR to give us an

opinion before this is done whether it would be a violation or not.

Mr. COSTELLO. And I wonder if my friend from Illinois would

yield?

The point that I have made, as I am trying to make, is that, to

my knowledge, and staff has informed me, that there has never

been a challenge to a ‘‘buy American’’ agreement through the World

Trade Organization. So there is not a ruling by a court, there is

not a ruling by anyone on any of these issues. And what I am saying is, at some point in time, we have to stand up and say enough

is enough. And we have to begin to protect American jobs.

Now this is not an amendment that says that NOAA can not contract out for services, can not contract out for other goods to foreign

countries or to foreign labor. There are exceptions. If the President

determines that it is in the interest of national security or if there

are products that are only made outside of the United States that

can not be obtained here in the country, or if, in fact, the goods are

being made by U.S. workers in other countries, those exceptions

61

are clear in the amendment. And I would say, you know, at some

point in time, we need to not be so concerned about protecting a

gray area in an international trade agreement and start protecting

jobs here at home.

Ms. BIGGERT. If I might reclaim my time.

We also have to be protective of our legal obligations and to

make sure that those are not violated. I just think it is one more—

all of your exceptions are very good. Your premise is very good of

buying American, but this one makes it even better.

Mr. COSTELLO. And I would say that the courts are there for a

reason, that we shouldn’t be—we are the Judicial Branch. They are

the Judicial Branch, we are the Legislative Branch, but the branch

that will determine this will be the Judicial Branch, not the Legislative Branch, and if we are going—every action that we take, if

we are going to be concerned that it is going to be overruled by a

court, you know, I don’t think we would ever get anything done

around here.

Ms. BIGGERT. I don’t think that we are worried about whether

what we are doing is legal under the WTO. And this is a global

economy, and we are participating.

I yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

And thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Just one more, I guess, comment.

If we get too over concerned about the language of the treaties

and not allow the appropriate ones to get concern, it—then I would

like to explore what our treaty says with China, because apparently they have an open-ended agreement, if we are going to get

into treaty agreements, because they certainly don’t respect any of

our guidelines.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I was just advised by the distinguished

Chief of Staff of the Science Committee that China is not part of

WTO and therefore—the procurement agreement, and therefore it

wouldn’t apply.

But just let me say this in summing up everything. I must admire the skill of the gentleman from Illinois’ presentation. I agree

with the rhetoric, but not the reasoning. The rhetoric is something

we can all identify with. We are all anxious to do as much as we

can to protect American jobs. That is the desire of every single

Member of this panel, no matter where he or she may sit.

But it is also the intent of this committee not to go forward with

anything that would be in violation of existing commitments of the

United States of America. And the Costello Amendment violates

the WTO procurement agreement on its face, according to the Congressional Research Service, a highly-regarded operation, CRS,

non-partisan. We need my language, because the Costello language

goes further in contradicting trade agreements than past ‘‘buy

American’’ language does.

[The information follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Chairman BOEHLERT. So with that, the vote will be on——

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes.

Mr. GORDON. I know we have got to finish this thing up, and I

will try to be quick.

Once again, we can’t pass legislation here that is going to be in

violation of an international treaty, so we can all, you know, go

home comfortable about that tonight.

Let me tell you how it really can make a difference. I had—I

have got—the school in my hometown is called Middle Tennessee

State University, and they have got a very good dyslexia center

there. And they have done some work on treating dyslexia and

treating—and also with distant learning in trying to help teachers

around the state learn how to treat people with dyslexia. So I was

persuasive and had $1 million put in the Defense budget for—so

we could do the same sort of thing with our military schools around

the Nation—around the world to try to help—you know, teach

those teachers how to deal with dyslexic students. And what wound

up happening—and parochially, I will admit, my university was a

good one, and so I was thinking they were going to get this bid.

But instead, what happened, it—there was a little company in New

Jersey that had a front there who got the bid and then shipped everything to India to be done.

And I think this amendment would have given the Defense Department or NOAA or someone else the ability, you know, to take

that back. And so I mean, I think this is the kind of—the real war,

it is really where are you going to put the burden of proof. And I

think that is what Mr. Costello does is puts the burden of proof on

keeping the jobs here.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for reminding me of

the outstanding work being done at Middle Tennessee State University.

And let me, on behalf of all of us, congratulate you on your abil- ity to get $1 million earmark in the DOD bill. We are all wondering

how you achieved that.

But I would point out that the procurement agreement allows for

exceptions for Defense.

And so with that, I think we have pretty much exhausted it.

The vote is on the amendment to the amendment. If—all in

favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello asks for a recorded vote. The

Clerk will call the roll.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes yes.

Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall votes yes.

Mr. Smith.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher.

69

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.

Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes yes.

Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.

Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes yes.

Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes.

Mr. Lucas.

Mr. LUCAS. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes yes.

Mrs. Biggert.

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes yes.

Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes.

Mr. Akin.

Mr. AKIN. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes yes.

Mr. Johnson.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner.

Mr. BONNER. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes yes.

Mr. Feeney.

Mr. FEENEY. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes yes.

Mr. Inglis.

Mr. INGLIS. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes yes.

Mr. Reichert.

Mr. REICHERT. Yes.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes yes.

Mr. Sodrel.

Mr. SODREL. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes yes.

Mr. Schwarz.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes yes.

Mr. McCaul.

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes yes.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes no.

70

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes no.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes no.

Ms. Woolsey.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes no.

Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes no.

Mr. Udall.

Mr. UDALL. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes no.

Mr. Wu.

Mr. WU. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes no.

Mr. Honda.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes no.

Mr. Davis.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan.

Mr. CARNAHAN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes no.

Mr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes no.

Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes no.

Mr. Baird.

[No response.]

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson.

Mr. MATHESON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes no.

Mr. Costa.

Mr. COSTA. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes no.

Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes no.

Mr. Melancon.

Mr. MELANCON. No.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes no.

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any other Member who seeks recognition?

71

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. I didn’t really understand fully what Mr. Wu said.

Like when you were speaking earlier, I couldn’t hear you. You

weren’t talking loud enough for some of us older people, and I

didn’t understand Mr. Wu, and I would like to know what Mr. Wu

said, and then I would also like to really know what he meant. And

I would like to see it in writing. I would like to have time to have

him——

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is called a filibuster.

Mr. HALL. That is what I was waiting to hear, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will record.

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 18; no, 17.

72

73

Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is passed, and the vote is

on the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no.

The ayes have it. The amendment, as amended, is passed.

Are there any other amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment in

the nature of a substitute, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Those

opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed

to.

Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on

the bill H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Act, as amended. All of those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no.

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

I recognize Dr. Ehlers to offer a motion.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 50, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I

move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and

make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the

House for consideration.

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

bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is

favorably reported.

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in

which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the

measure. I would move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the

Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the

House to adopt and pass H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. Without objection, so ordered.

I want to thank everybody for participating and for your attendance and indulgence.

This concludes our Committee markup.

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(75)

Appendix:

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

MARKUP OF H.R. 50 MEMORANDUM; H.R. 50, AS AMENDED; SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 50, AS AMENDED; AMENDMENT

ROSTER; SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 50,

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT, AS AMENDED

Section 1. Short Title.

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’

Section 2. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the Act.

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within

the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.

Section 4. Administration Leadership.

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be

responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency,

and must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations and

management.

Section 5. National Weather Service.

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a National Weather Service within

NOAA.

Section 6. Operations and Services.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational

and service functions. These functions would include all the activities of NOAA’s

National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the

mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.

Section 7. Research and Education.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support

research and education functions.

Section 8. Science Advisory Board.

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.

Section 9. Reports.

Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and

provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. The National Academy

of Sciences (NAS) shall review each report prior to delivery to Congress.

Section 10. Effect of Reorganization Plan.

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.

Section 11. Savings Provision.

Provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were

previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this Act.

Section 12. Transition.

Makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five through

seven.

Section 13. Facility Evaluation Process.

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a facility without

a 60-day public comment period, 90 days notification to Congress, review by the

Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), preparation of anticipated costs and savings, and preparation of a statement of the impacts of the facility change on NOAA

and its part.

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT TO

H.R. 50, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

Section 1. Short Title.

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act′′

Section 2. Definitions.

Defines terms used in the Act.

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within

the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA.

Section 4. Administration Leadership.

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be

responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency,

and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under

Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations

and management.

Section 5. National Weather Service.

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service

within NOAA.

Section 6. Operations and Services.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational

and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA,

but the functions listed include all the activities of NOAA’s National Environmental

Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service.

Section 7. Research and Education.

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support

research and education functions.

Section 8. Science Advisory Board.

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA.

Section 9. Reports.

Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report, by the National Academy of Sciences should assess the adequacy of the environmental data

and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report is strategic plan for research at NOAA.

Section 10. Public-Private Partnerships.

Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five

years. Clarifies the no changes in NOAA’s current policy are required.

Section 11. Effect of Reorganization Plan.

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970.

Section 12. Savings Provision.

Provides that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter.

Section 13. Reorganization Plan.

Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18

months after enactment of this Act.

Section 14. Facility Evaluation Process.

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities

without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 19:18 Jan 02, 2007 Jkt 031026 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\109MAR~1\COMP\COMP.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
146

priate), analysis of anticipated costs and savings and impact on NOAA services, and

notification to Congress.

Section 15. Budget Reprogramming.

Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming

requests submitted to Appropriations Committees.

Section 16. Satellite Notification.

Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs.

Æ