69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPT. 110–701 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2 

NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 

JULY 11, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5618] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5618) to reauthorize and amend the National 

Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 5 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 5 

IV. Hearing Summary ....................................................................................... 6 

V. Summary of Committee Actions ................................................................ 7 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions as Reported ............................................... 8 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill as Reported ................................. 8 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 10 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 11 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 11 

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104–4 .......................................................... 12 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 12 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 12 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 12 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 12 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 12 

XVII. Earmark Identification ............................................................................... 12 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 13 

XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 13 

XX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 22 

XXI. Additional Views ......................................................................................... 23 

XXII. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup ................................................ 25 

XXIII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 43 

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Sea Grant College Program Amendments 

Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Except as otherwise expressly provided therein, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section 

or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other 

provision of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.). 

SEC. 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

(a) FINDINGS.—Section 202(a) (33 U.S.C. 1121(a)) is amended—

(1) by amending paragraph (1)(D) to read as follows: 

‘‘(D) encourage the development of preparation, forecast, analysis, mitigation, response, and recovery systems for coastal hazards;’’; 

(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘program of research, education,’’ and inserting ‘‘program of integrated research, education, extension,’’; and 

(3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(6) The National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy issued by the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology on January 26, 2007, identifies research priorities for compelling areas of interaction between society and the 

ocean, and calls for the engagement of a broad array of ocean science sectors 

(government, academia, industry, and non-government entities) to address the 

areas of greatest research need and opportunity. 

‘‘(7) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through the national sea grant college program, offers the most suitable locus and means for 

such commitment and engagement through the promotion of activities that will 

result in greater such understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and 

conservation. The most cost-effective way to promote such activities is through 

continued and increased Federal support of the establishment, development, 

and operation of programs and projects by sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, and other institutions, including strong collaborations between Administration scientists and research and outreach personnel at academic institutions.’’. 

(b) PURPOSE.—Section 202(c) (33 U.S.C. 1121(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘to promote research, education, training, and advisory service activities’’ and inserting ‘‘to 

promote integrated research, education, training, and extension activities’’. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 203 (33 U.S.C. 1122) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (11) by striking ‘‘advisory services’’ and inserting ‘‘extension 

services’’; 

(2) in each of paragraphs (12) and (13) by striking ‘‘(33 U.S.C. 1126)’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(17) The term ‘regional research and information plan’ means a plan developed by one or more sea grant colleges or sea grant institutes that identifies 

regional priorities to implement the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan 

and Implementation Strategy. 

‘‘(18) The term ‘National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation 

Strategy’ means such plan and strategy issued by the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology on 

January 26, 2007.’’. 

(b) REPEAL.—Section 307 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the designation 

of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary’’ (Public Law 102–251; 106 

Stat. 66) is repealed. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

SEC. 5. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM, GENERALLY. 

(a) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—Section 204(b) (33 U.S.C. 1123(b)) is amended—

(1) by amending in paragraph (1) to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) sea grant programs that comprise a national sea grant college program 

network, including international projects conducted within such programs and 

regional and national projects conducted among such programs;’’; 

(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows: 

‘‘(2) administration of the national sea grant college program and this title by 

the national sea grant office and the Administration;’’; 

(3) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

(4) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows: 

‘‘(4) any regional or national strategic investments in fields relating to ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes resources developed in consultation with the board 

and with the approval of the sea grant colleges and the sea grant institutes; 

and’’; and 

(5) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(5) methods for the national sea grant college program to explore the environmental and scientific considerations, including providing scientifically sound 

data, relative to the production of ocean and coastal offshore petroleum, natural 

gas, geothermal, wind, and ocean thermal energy resources, including the siting 

of energy related facilities in the coastal zone.’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 204(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1123(c)(2)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘Within 6 months of the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant 

College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998, the’’ and inserting ‘‘The’’. 

(c) FUNCTIONS OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.—Section 204(d) (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘long-range’’; 

(2) in paragraph (3)(A)—

(A) by striking ‘‘(A)(i) evaluate’’ and inserting ‘‘(A) evaluate and assess’’; 

(B) by striking ‘‘activities; and’’ and inserting ‘‘activities;’’; and 

(C) by striking clause (ii); and 

(3) in paragraph (3)(B)—

(A) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses (iv) through (vi), 

respectively, and by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

‘‘(ii) encourage collaborations among sea grant colleges and sea grant 

institutes to address regional and national priorities established under 

subsection (c)(1); 

‘‘(iii) encourage cooperation with Minority Serving Institutions—

‘‘(I) to enhance collaborative research opportunities for faculty 

and students in the areas of atmospheric, oceanic, and environmental sciences, and remote sensing; 

‘‘(II) to improve opportunities for, and retention of, students and 

faculty from Minority Serving Institutions in the NOAA related 

sciences; and 

‘‘(III) to increase the number of such students graduating in 

NOAA science areas;’’; and 

(B) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated) by striking ‘‘encourage’’ and inserting ‘‘ensuring’’. 

SEC. 6. PROGRAM OR PROJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS. 

(a) EXEMPTION FROM LIMITATION ON COST SHARE.—Section 205(a) (33 U.S.C. 

1124(a)) is amended in the matter following paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or that are 

appropriated under section 208(b)’’ before the period at the end. 

(b) SPECIAL GRANTS; MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—Section 205(b) (33 U.S.C. 1124(b)) is 

amended by striking the matter following paragraph (3) and inserting the following: 

‘‘The total amount that may be provided for grants under this subsection during any 

fiscal year shall not exceed an amount equal to 5 percent of the total funds appropriated for such year under section 212.’’. 

SEC. 7. EXTENSION SERVICES BY SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA GRANT INSTITUTES. 

Section 207(a) (33 U.S.C. 1126(a)) is amended in each of paragraphs (2)(B) and 

(3)(B) by striking ‘‘advisory services’’ and inserting ‘‘extension services’’. 

SEC. 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO FELLOWSHIPS. 

Section 208(a) (33 U.S.C. 1127(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘Not later than 1 year 

after the date of the enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 

Amendments of 2002, and every 2 years thereafter,’’ and inserting ‘‘Every 2 years,’’. 

SEC. 9. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD. 

(a) REDESIGNATION OF SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL AS BOARD.—


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

(1) REDESIGNATION.—The sea grant review panel established by section 209 

of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1128), as in effect 

before the date of the enactment of this Act, is redesignated as the National 

Sea Grant Advisory Board. 

(2) MEMBERSHIP NOT AFFECTED.—An individual serving as a member of the 

sea grant review panel immediately before the enactment of this Act may continue to serve as a member of the National Sea Grant Advisory Board until the 

expiration of such member’s term under section 209(c) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

1128(c). 

(3) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to such sea grant review panel is deemed 

to be a reference to the National Sea Grant Advisory Board. 

(4) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128) is amended by striking so 

much as precedes subsection (b) and inserting the following: 

‘‘SEC. 209. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD. 

‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be an independent committee to be known as 

the National Sea Grant Advisory Board.’’. 

(B) DEFINITION.—Section 203(9) (33 U.S.C. 1122(9)) is amended to read 

as follows: 

‘‘(9) The term ‘Board’ means the National Sea Grant Advisory Board established under section 209.’’; 

(C) OTHER PROVISIONS.—The following provisions are each amended by 

striking ‘‘panel’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Board’’: 

(i) Section 204 (33 U.S.C. 1123). 

(ii) Section 207 (33 U.S.C. 1126). 

(iii) Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128). 

(b) DUTIES.—Section 209(b) (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) DUTIES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall advise the Secretary and the Director concerning—

‘‘(A) strategies for utilizing the sea grant college program to address the 

Nation’s highest priorities regarding the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; 

‘‘(B) the designation of sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes; and 

‘‘(C) such other matters as the Secretary refers to the Board for review 

and advice. 

‘‘(2) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Board shall report to the Congress every two 

years on the state of the national sea grant college program. The Board shall 

indicate in each such report the progress made toward meeting the priorities 

identified in the strategic plan in effect under section 204(c). The Secretary 

shall make available to the Board such information, personnel, and administrative services and assistance as it may reasonably require to carry out its duties 

under this title.’’. 

(c) EXTENSION OF TERM.—Section 209(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1128(c)(2)) is amended by 

striking the second sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘The Director may extend 

the term of office of a voting member of the Board once by up to 1 year.’’. 

(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEES.—Section 204(c) (33 U.S.C. 1123(c)) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) The Board may establish such subcommittees as are reasonably necessary to 

carry out its duties under subsection (b). Such subcommittees may include individuals who are not Board members.’’. 

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Section 212(a) (33 U.S.C. 1131(a)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 

carry out this title—

‘‘(1) $66,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

‘‘(2) $72,800,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

‘‘(3) $79,600,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

‘‘(4) $86,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

‘‘(5) $93,200,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 

‘‘(6) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.’’. 

(b) REPEAL OF DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT.—Section 212 (33 U.S.C. 1131) is 

amended by striking subsection (c), and by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 

subsections (c) and (d), respectively. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

1 Evaluation of the Sea Grant Program Review Process. Ocean Studies Board. 2006. National 

Research Council. Washington, DC. 210 pp. 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of this bill is to reauthorize and amend the National 

Sea Grant College Program Act. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The National Sea Grant College Program was established in 

1966 upon the enactment of the National Sea Grant College Act (33 

U.S.C. 1121–1131) with the goal of improving marine resource conservation, management, and utilization. The Act was last reauthorized by the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments 

of 2002 (Public Law 107–299), and the authorization of appropriations expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2008. The National Sea 

Grant College Program is patterned after the Land Grant College 

System, which was created in 1862. Though originally assigned to 

the National Science Foundation, the National Sea Grant Office 

(NSGO) is now housed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Today, Sea Grant, as it is commonly called, is a nationwide network of over 30 Sea Grant College programs comprised of researchers, educators, and marine extension agents at some of the nation’s 

top academic institutions. Sea Grant Colleges sponsor a wide range 

of applied and basic marine science research, education, training, 

and technical assistance programs promoting the understanding 

and utilization of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources. Sea 

Grant advisory and extension staff provide informal education for 

the general public, disseminate research findings to user groups, 

and communicate local needs and problems to Sea Grant and other 

marine-related program managers and researchers. 

The system also supports education and training through its two 

fellowship programs, the John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship 

and the Sea Grant/NOAA Fisheries Graduate Fellowship. Sea 

Grant benefits from the input and support of the Sea Grant Review 

Panel (Review Panel). This panel is made up of 15 members with 

marine science backgrounds or knowledge and experience in the 

fields where Sea Grant works. 

The most significant developments over the past six years pertain to Sea Grant’s strategic planning and program evaluation procedures. The National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002 directed NOAA to contract with the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate Sea Grant’s process of reviewing 

individual programs and recommend ways to improve the overall 

effectiveness of the evaluation process to ensure fairness, consistency, and enhancement of performance. In its 2006 report, the 

NRC noted that ‘‘real improvements have occurred’’ in Sea Grant 

since changes were instituted after the last NRC evaluation in 

1994.1 The 2006 report recommended strengthening the strategic 

planning process for the individual programs; increasing the interaction between the NSGO and the individual programs; and improving the program rating and ranking process through annual 

assessments by the national office. In addition, the report provided 

recommendations to improve the independent reviews that are conVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:44 Jul 14, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

2 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Bluepint for the 21st Century. Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Washington, DC. 3 U.S. Ocean Action Plan: The Bush Administration’s Response to the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy. December 17, 2004. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC. 39 pp. 

http://www.oceans.ceq.gov. 

ducted on a four-year cycle. Sea Grant’s response to the NRC report dovetailed with the Bush Administration’s efforts to carry out 

the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.2

The Administration’s 2004 U.S. Ocean Action Plan 3 called for 

the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee 

on Ocean Science and Technology to prepare an Ocean Research 

Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy (Strategy). Issued in 

2007 after significant input from the ocean research community, 

the Strategy established priorities for ocean science and technology 

for the next decade. Using this new interagency priorities plan for 

ocean science, NSGO and the Sea Grant colleges nationwide have 

developed a new strategic plan that links Sea Grant’s priorities 

with the larger interagency effort. The realigned strategic planning 

effort, combined with the improvements in the review process recommended by the National Academy of Sciences, is intended to set 

Sea Grant on a more strategic course for the future. 

Funding for the Sea Grant Program has not kept pace with the 

growing needs of our coastal communities. With the costs of research and education rising, the near flat funding of Sea Grant 

during the last few years has forced programs to reduce a number 

of education and outreach activities, leaving numerous high-quality 

research and outreach projects unsupported. These growing needs 

juxtaposed with the current budgetary landscape underpin the reasonable and justifiable increases in authorized appropriations reflected in H.R. 5618. 

The National Sea Grant College Program has established an impressive record over the course of its 42-year history. H.R. 5618 

builds on the experience of the Sea Grant Association, the Review 

Panel, NSGO, and Sea Grant’s national network of stakeholders to 

strengthen this important extramural marine science and outreach 

program. 

IV. HEARING SUMMARY

The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing in 

the 110th Congress on May 21, 2008 to hear testimony on H.R. 

5618, from the following witnesses: 

• Mr. Craig McLean, Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Programs and Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oceanic and Atmospheric Research 

• Mr. Paul S. Anderson, President, Sea Grant Association 

and Director, Maine Sea Grant College Program 

• Mr. M. Richard DeVoe, Executive Director, South Carolina 

Sea Grant Consortium 

• Mr. Patrick Riley, General Manager, Western Seafood, 

Freeport, TX 

The hearing focused on the legislation to reauthorize the National Sea Grant Program through fiscal year 2014. The hearing 

also examined the program’s major accomplishments, program activities, and the effectiveness of the extension and outreach aspects 

of program development. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

Mr. Craig McLean discussed the mission and importance of the 

Sea Grant Program, future plans for the program, some programmatic issues, and issues the administration would like to see 

addressed in the reauthorization. Mr. Paul Anderson represented 

the institutions through the association of the 32 Sea Grant Programs from around the nation. He discussed the importance of supporting the National Sea Grant College Program, as well as the 

program’s activities, accomplishments, and its contribution to 

NOAA’s mission. Mr. Anderson also offered recommendations on 

how to strengthen the research, education and training components 

of the program. Mr. M. Richard DeVoe discussed the South Carolina Sea Grant program and its relationship to the overall Sea 

Grant program and summarized his key recommendations and expressed strong support for H.R. 5618. Mr. Patrick Riley represented the partners and stakeholders of the National Sea Grant 

College Program and he discussed the use of information generated 

through the programs extension and outreach efforts, and commented on its usefulness. Mr. Riley expressed his support for the 

Sea Grant program and for the reauthorization bill. 

V. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On March 13, 2008, Rep. Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, for herself 

and Rep. Faleomavaega, Rep. Saxton, Rep. Abercrombie, Rep. 

Gilchrest, and Rep. Farr introduced H.R. 5618, the National Sea 

Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008, which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and subsequently to 

the Committee on Science and Technology. 

In the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met to consider H.R. 5618 as reported from the Committee 

on Natural Resources on June 18, 2008. Mr. Baird moved that the 

Subcommittee favorably report the bill, H.R. 5618, to the Full Committee on Science and Technology without amendment. The motion 

was agreed to by a voice vote. 

The Committee on Science and Technology met on June 25, 2008, 

to consider H.R. 5618 as reported by the Subcommittee and to consider the following amendments to the bill: 

An amendment offered by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX) to 

expand the functions of the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program to encourage the Sea Grant program to collaborate 

with Minority Serving Institutions in the atmospheric, oceanic, and 

environmental science research areas to improve the retention of 

the students and faculty from Minority Serving Institutions and increase the number of students graduating in these science fields. 

The amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

An amendment offered by Rep. W. Todd Akin (R–MO) to amend 

Section 5 of the bill to add a new program element to the National 

Sea Grant College Program to require support for methods to minimize conflicts and delays in the expedited production of ocean and 

coastal energy resources including those associated with siting refineries in coastal areas. 

A second degree amendment was offered to Mr. Akin’s amendment by Rep. Bartlett, Rep. Wu, and Rep. Akin to amend Section 

5 of the bill to add a new program element to the National Sea 

Grant College Program to require support for development of methods to explore the environmental and scientific considerations, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:44 Jul 14, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

cluding provision of scientifically sound data, in connection with 

the production of ocean and coastal energy resources, including the 

siting of energy-related facilities in the coastal zone. 

The second degree amendment was adopted by voice vote. 

The amendment, as amended, was adopted by voice vote. 

An amendment offered by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R–GA) that would 

require the Director of the Sea Grant Program to advise the Secretary of Commerce on ways to incorporate programs and research 

on the expedited production of ocean and coastal energy resources 

into the curriculum of the program. 

The amendment failed by a recorded vote. 

Rep. Gingrey moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, 

H.R. 5618, to the House, as amended. The motion was agreed to 

by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS AS REPORTED

H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 2008, 

amends current law to expand the scope and purposes of the National Sea Grant College Program. The bill expands the responsibilities of the Sea Grant Review Panel and renames this panel 

the ‘‘National Sea Grant Advisory Board.’’ The bill directs the 

Board to provide advice to the Secretary of Commerce to ensure 

Sea Grant activities are consistent with and supportive of national 

objectives. In addition, the bill increases the percentage of funds 

exempt from the non-federal match requirement from the current 

1 percent to 5 percent. The bill also amends the Sea Grant program 

performance review standards. H.R. 5618 replaces the ranking system review requirements adopted as part of the 2002 amendments 

with NRC-recommended measures for program review, combined 

with program planning requirements. 

In addition the bill amends the duties of the Director of the Sea 

Grant Program to include encouragement of cooperation and research collaborations with Minority Serving Institutions. The bill 

adds a new program element to the National Sea Grant College 

Program to require support for development of methods to explore 

the environmental and scientific considerations, including provision 

of scientifically sound data, in connection with the production of 

ocean and coastal energy resources, including the siting of energyrelated facilities in the coastal zone. 

Authorized funding levels would increase incrementally from $66 

million to $100 million for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 

through Fiscal Year 2014. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 entitles the legislation as the ‘‘National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008.’’

Section 2. References 

Section 2 clarifies that all amendment references in the legislation are made to the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 

U.S.C. 1121 et seq.). 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

Section 3. Findings and purposes 

Section 3 amplifies the extension aspects of the Sea Grant program and cites the relevance of the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy to the Sea Grant Program. 

Section 4. Definitions 

Section 4 defines key terms included within the text of the proposed legislation, including ‘‘regional research and information 

plan’’ and ‘‘National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy’’ where they appear in the bill. 

Section 5. National Sea Grant College Program, generally 

Section 5 amends the Program Elements to expand Sea Grant 

programs to include regional and national projects among Sea 

Grant institutions; to add regional strategic investments in projects 

undertaken through sea grant projects; and for the program to support development of methods to explore the environmental and scientific considerations in connection with the production of ocean 

and coastal energy resources, including the siting of energy-related 

facilities in the coastal zone. Section 5 also augments the functions 

of the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program to include encouragement of collaborations among participating colleges 

and institutions in the Sea Grant Program and encouraging collaborations with Minority Serving Institutions. This section also 

strikes the sea grant program performance ranking system for allocating additional resources on the basis of performance. 

Section 6. Program or project grants and contracts 

Section 6 exempts the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship Program from having to match grant awards in order to 

achieve parity between fellows placed in Congressional offices with 

those fellows placed in federal agencies. 

This section also increases the percentage of funds exempt from 

the non-federal match requirement from the current 1 percent to 

5 percent. 

Section 7. Extension services by Sea Grant colleges and Sea Grant 

institutes 

Section 7 clarifies that one of the requirements for designation 

includes an extension program (as opposed to an ‘‘advisory service’’). 

Section 8. Technical Correction relating to fellowships 

Section 8 updates the statutory language requiring a report 

every two years on efforts to include minority and economically disadvantaged students. 

Section 9. National Sea Grant Advisory Board 

Section 9 expands the responsibilities of the National Sea Grant 

Review Panel, renaming the panel as the ‘‘National Sea Grant Advisory Board’’ to more appropriately and accurately describe its 

purpose and function. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

4 Jearld, A., Jr., and D. Peloquin, compilers. 2005. Expanding Opportunities in Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Sciences III: Proceedings of the Third National Conference to Strengthen the Links 

among HBMSCUs, NOAA, Business, and Graduate Studies in Marine and Atmospheric 

Sciences, Held at Jackson State University, Jackson, 8MS. April 1–3, 2001. Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center Reference Document 05–11. 

Section 10. Authorization of appropriations 

Section 10 increases authorized funding levels from $66 million to $100 million for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 through 

Fiscal Year 2014. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

It is the view of the Committee that the National Sea Grant College program plays an essential role in promoting knowledge-based 

management of our ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources. The 

Committee strongly supports the education, research, and extension missions of Sea Grant and believes this partnership between 

federal and state governments continues to provide many benefits 

to the nation. The Committee believes The National Sea Grant College Program has established an impressive record over the course 

of its 42-year history. 

The Committee is aware that many Sea Grant programs address 

issues of local as well as national concern. In the case of local Sea 

Grant projects within states, the general match requirement is appropriate. The Committee recognizes the concern of the Sea Grant 

community that the match requirement may constrain the ability 

of the Sea Grant Program to participate in joint competitive programs with other NOAA offices or other federal agencies because 

of the fact that incoming proposals for Sea Grant funding require 

a match. Thus, the Committee believes increasing the percentage 

of funds exempt from the non-federal match requirement from the 

current 1 percent to 5 percent will alleviate this constraint. 

The Committee recognizes the ranking system review requirements adopted as part of the Sea Grant 2002 amendments created 

some disincentives for Sea Grant institutions to work cooperatively 

or form partnerships. The Committee recognizes the implementation of the National Academies’ recommended measures for program review, combined with improved planning may provide a better mechanism to achieve continuous program improvement. 

The Committee believes there are many potential benefits that 

could be gained through greater collaboration between the Sea 

Grant colleges and institutions and Minority Serving Institutions. 

The Committee encourages the Sea Grant Program to adopt recommendations from the third national conference held by NOAA in 

conjunction with the Historical Black Colleges and Universities and 

Minority Serving Institutions outlined in the report: Expanding 

Opportunities in Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences III.4

The Committee is aware that the needs for information, training, 

technology and management options of our coastal communities 

have increased, and that the funding for the Sea Grant program to 

support these needs has not been adequate. The Committee is also 

aware that the near flat funding of Sea Grant during the last few 

years has forced programs to reduce a number of education and 

outreach activities, leaving numerous high-quality research and 

outreach projects unsupported. The Committee supports modest increases of funding for the Sea Grant Program and H.R. 5618 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:44 Jul 14, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

flects this support through the increased authorized funding levels 

for the Program of $66 million to $100 million for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2014. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science and Technology prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section XI of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, 

clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 5618 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the 

sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 5618 does 

authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the 

Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained 

in Section XI of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

H.R. 5618—National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act 

of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 5618 would authorize funding for the national 

sea grant program, which is administered by the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Assuming appropriation 

of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that spending for the 

program from those appropriations would total $316 million over 

the 2009–2013 period. An additional $182 million would be spent 

after 2013, including $100 million authorized to be appropriated for 

2014. Enacting H.R. 5618 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 5618 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

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

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5618 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ................................................................................... 66 73 80 86 93 398 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 20 55 74 80 87 316 

Basis of estimate: H.R. 5618 would authorize the appropriation 

of $498 million, including $398 million over the 2009–2013 period 

and $100 million for fiscal year 2014, for the national sea grant 

program. Those amounts are used by NOAA for grants, fellowships, 

and related administrative functions under the program. For this 

estimate, CBO assumes that all amounts authorized by H.R. 5618 

will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow historical spending patterns for the sea grants program. In 2008, $57 million was appropriated for this program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5618 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The bill would benefit public universities by reauthorizing 

the national sea grant college program, which provides grants to 

improve marine resource conservation, management, and utilization. Any costs state, local, or tribal governments might incur, including matching funds, would result from complying with conditions of aid. 

Previous estimate: On May 6, 2008, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 5618 as ordered reported by the House Committee 

on Natural Resources on April 30, 2008. The two versions of the 

legislation are similar and the estimated costs are the same. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: Tyler Kruzich; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil Hood; Impact on the 

Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

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

Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

H.R. 5618 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The oversight findings and recommendations of the Committee 

on Science and Technology are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of H.R. 

5618 is to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college 

program act. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5618. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 5618 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of 

any advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 5618 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 5618 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

XVIII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XIX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT 

TITLE II—NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 202. DECLARATION OF POLICY. 

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds and declares the following: 

(1) The national interest requires a strategy to—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(D) encourage the development of forecast and analysis 

systems for coastal hazards;¿ 

(D) encourage the development of preparation, forecast, 

analysis, mitigation, response, and recovery systems for 

coastal hazards; 

* * * * * * * 

(2) Investment in a strong øprogram of research, education,¿ 

program of integrated research, education, extension, training, 

technology transfer, and public service is essential for this 

strategy. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(6) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

through the national sea grant college program, offers the most 

suitable locus and means for such commitment and involvement through the promotion of activities that will result in 

greater such understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation. The most cost-effective way to promote 

such activities is through continued and increased Federal support of the establishment, development, and operation of programs and projects by sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, 

and other institutions, including strong collaborations between 

Administration scientists and scientists at academic institutions.¿ 

(6) The National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy issued by the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and 

Technology on January 26, 2007, identifies research priorities 

for compelling areas of interaction between society and the 

ocean, and calls for the engagement of a broad array of ocean 

science sectors (government, academia, industry, and non-government entities) to address the areas of greatest research need 

and opportunity. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

(7) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

through the national sea grant college program, offers the most 

suitable locus and means for such commitment and engagement 

through the promotion of activities that will result in greater 

such understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and 

conservation. The most cost-effective way to promote such activities is through continued and increased Federal support of the 

establishment, development, and operation of programs and 

projects by sea grant colleges, sea grant institutes, and other institutions, including strong collaborations between Administration scientists and research and outreach personnel at academic 

institutions. 

* * * * * * * 

(c) PURPOSE.—It is the purpose of the Congress to achieve the objective of this title by extending and strengthening the national sea 

grant program, initially established in 1966, øto promote research, 

education, training, and advisory service activities¿ to promote integrated research, education, training, and extension activities in 

fields related to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. 

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this title—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(9) The term ‘‘panel’’ means the sea grant review panel established under section 209.¿ 

(9) The term ‘‘Board’’ means the National Sea Grant Advisory 

Board established under section 209. 

* * * * * * * 

(11) The term ‘‘project’’ means any individually described activity in a field related to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources involving research, education, training, or øadvisory 

services¿ extension services administered by a person with expertise in such a field. 

(12) The term ‘‘sea grant college’’ means any institution, or 

any association or alliance of two or more such institutions, 

designated as such by the Secretary under section 207 ø(33 

U.S.C. 1126)¿ of this Act. 

(13) The term ‘‘sea grant institute’’ means any institution, or 

any association or alliance of two or more such institutions, 

designated as such by the Secretary under section 207 ø(33 

U.S.C. 1126)¿ of this Act. 

* * * * * * * 

(17) The term ‘‘regional research and information plan’’ means a plan developed by one or more sea grant colleges or sea 

grant institutes that identifies regional priorities to implement 

the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. 

(18) The term ‘‘National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and 

Implementation Strategy’’ means such plan and strategy issued 

by the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology on January 26, 

2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

SEC. 204. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM. 

(a) * * * 

(b) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—The national sea grant college program shall consist of the financial assistance and other activities 

authorized in this title, and shall provide support for the following 

elements— ø(1) sea grant programs which comprise a national sea grant 

college program network, including international projects conducted within such programs; 

ø(2) administration of the national sea grant college program 

and this title by the national sea grant office, the Administration, and the panel;¿ 

(1) sea grant programs that comprise a national sea grant 

college program network, including international projects conducted within such programs and regional and national 

projects conducted among such programs; 

(2) administration of the national sea grant college program 

and this title by the national sea grant office and the Administration; 

(3) the fellowship program under section 208; øand¿ 

ø(4) any national strategic investments in fields relating to 

ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources developed with the 

approval of the panel, the sea grant colleges, and the sea grant 

institutes.¿ 

(4) any regional or national strategic investments in fields relating to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources developed in 

consultation with the board and with the approval of the sea 

grant colleges and the sea grant institutes; and 

(5) methods for the national sea grant college program to explore the environmental and scientific considerations, including 

providing scientifically sound data, relative to the production of 

ocean and coastal offshore petroleum, natural gas, geothermal, 

wind, and ocean thermal energy resources, including the siting 

of energy related facilities in the coastal zone. 

(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.— (1) The Secretary, in consultation with the øpanel¿ Board, sea grant colleges, and sea grant institutes, shall develop at 

least every 4 years a strategic plan that establishes priorities 

for the national sea grant college program, provides an appropriately balanced response to local, regional, and national 

needs, and is reflective of integration with the relevant portions of the strategic plans of the Department of Commerce 

and of the Administration. 

(2) øWithin 6 months of the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1998, 

the¿ The Secretary, in consultation with the øpanel¿ Board, 

sea grant colleges, and sea grant institutes, shall establish 

guidelines related to the activities and responsibilities of sea 

grant colleges and sea grant institutes. Such guidelines shall 

include requirements for the conduct of merit review by the sea 

grant colleges and sea grant institutes of proposals for grants 

and contracts to be awarded under section 205, providing, at 

a minimum, for standardized documentation of such proposals 

and peer review of all research projects. 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

(8) The Board may establish such subcommittees as are reasonably necessary to carry out its duties under subsection (b). 

Such subcommittees may include individuals who are not 

Board members. 

(d) DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.—

(1) * * * 

(2) Subject to the supervision of the Secretary, the Director 

shall administer the national sea grant college program and 

oversee the operation of the national sea grant office. In addition to any other duty prescribed by law or assigned by the 

Secretary, the Director shall—

(A) facilitate and coordinate the development of a ølongrange¿ strategic plan under subsection (c)(1); 

* * * * * * * 

(3) With respect to sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes, the Director shall—

(A)ø(i) evaluate¿ evaluate and assess the performance of 

the programs of sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes, using the priorities, guidelines, and qualifications 

established by the Secretary under subsection (c), and determine which of the programs are the best managed and 

carry out the highest quality research, education, extension, and training øactivities; and¿ activities; 

ø(ii) rate the programs according to their relative performance (as determined under clause (i)) into no less than 

5 categories, with each of the 2 best-performing categories 

containing no more than 25 percent of the programs;¿ 

(B) subject to the availability of appropriations, allocate 

funding among sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes 

so as to—

(i) promote healthy competition among sea grant colleges and institutes; 

(ii) encourage collaborations among sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes to address regional and 

national priorities established under subsection (c)(1); 

(iii) encourage cooperation with Minority Serving Institutions—

(I) to enhance collaborative research opportunities for faculty and students in the areas of atmospheric, oceanic, and environmental sciences, and 

remote sensing; 

(II) to improve opportunities for, and retention 

of, students and faculty from Minority Serving Institutions in the NOAA related sciences; and 

(III) to increase the number of such students 

graduating in NOAA science areas; 

ø(ii) encourage¿ (iv) ensuring successful implementation of sea grant programs; 

ø(iii)¿ (v) to the maximum extent consistent with 

other provisions of this Act, provide a stable base of 

funding for sea grant colleges and institutes; and 

ø(iv)¿ (vi) encourage and promote coordination and 

cooperation between the research, education, and outVerDate Aug 31 2005 01:10 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

reach programs of the Administration and those of 

academic institutions; and 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 205. CONTRACTS AND GRANTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may make grants and enter into 

contracts under this subsection to assist any sea grant program or 

project if the Secretary finds that such program or project will—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

The total amount paid pursuant to any such grant or contract may 

equal 662⁄3 percent, or any lesser percent, of the total cost of the 

sea grant program or project involved; except that this limitation 

shall not apply in the case of grants or contracts paid for with 

funds accepted by the Secretary under section 204(c)(4)(F) or that 

are appropriated under section 208(b). 

(b) SPECIAL GRANTS.—The Secretary may make special grants 

under this subsection to implement the objective set forth in section 202(b). The amount of any such grant may equal 100 percent, 

or any lesser percent, of the total cost of the project involved. No 

grant may be made under this subsection unless the Secretary 

finds that— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) the same or equivalent benefit cannot be obtained 

through the award of a contract or grant under subsection (a). 

øThe total amount which may be provided for grants under this 

subsection during any fiscal year shall not exceed an amount equal 

to 1 percent of the total funds appropriated for such year pursuant 

to section 212.¿ 

The total amount that may be provided for grants under this subsection during any fiscal year shall not exceed an amount equal to 

5 percent of the total funds appropriated for such year under section 

212. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 207. SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA GRANT INSTITUTES. 

(a) DESIGNATION.— 

(1) A sea grant college or sea grant institute shall meet the 

following qualifications— 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) meet such other qualifications as the Secretary, in 

consultation with the øpanel¿ Board, considers necessary 

or appropriate. 

(2) The Secretary may designate an institution, or an association or alliance of two or more such institutions, as a sea 

grant college if the institution, association, or alliance— 

(A) * * * 

(B) maintains a program of research, øadvisory services¿ 

extension services, training, and education in fields related 

to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

(3) The Secretary may designate an institution, or an association or alliance of two or more such institutions, as a sea 

grant institute if the institution, association, or alliance— (A) * * * 

(B) maintains a program which includes, at a minimum, 

research and øadvisory services¿ extension services. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) DUTIES.—Subject to any regulations prescribed or guidelines 

established by the Secretary, it shall be the responsibility of each 

sea grant college and sea grant institute—

(1) to develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary and the øpanel¿ Board, a program that is consistent 

with the guidelines and priorities established under section 

204(c); and 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 208. FELLOWSHIPS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—To carry out the educational and training objectives of this Act, the Secretary shall support a program of fellowships for qualified individuals at the graduate and post-graduate 

level. The fellowships shall be related to ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes resources and awarded pursuant to guidelines established by 

the Secretary. The Secretary shall strive to ensure equal access for 

minority and economically disadvantaged students to the program 

carried out under this subsection. øNot later than 1 year after the 

date of the enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program 

Act Amendments of 2002, and every 2 years thereafter,¿ Every 2 

years, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Congress describing the efforts by the Secretary to ensure equal access for minority 

and economically disadvantaged students to the program carried 

out under this subsection, and the results of such efforts. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 209. SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL. 

ø(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be established an independent 

committee to be known as the sea grant review panel. 

ø(b) DUTIES.—The Panel shall advise the Secretary and the Director concerning—

ø(1) applications or proposals for, and performance under, 

grants and contracts awarded under section 205 ; 

ø(2) the sea grant fellowship program; 

ø(3) the designation and operation of sea grant colleges and 

sea grant institutes, and the operation of sea grant programs; 

ø(4) the formulation and application of the planning guidelines and priorities under section 204(a) and (c)(1); and 

ø(5) such other matters as the Secretary refers to the panel 

for review and advice. 

The Secretary shall make available to the panel such information, 

personnel, and administrative services and assistance as it may 

reasonably require to carry out its duties.¿ 

SEC. 209. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There shall be an independent committee to 

be known as the National Sea Grant Advisory Board. 

(b) DUTIES.—


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall advise the Secretary and 

the Director concerning—

(A) strategies for utilizing the sea grant college program 

to address the Nation’s highest priorities regarding the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; 

(B) the designation of sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes; and 

(C) such other matters as the Secretary refers to the 

Board for review and advice. 

(2) BIENNIAL REPORT.—The Board shall report to the Congress every two years on the state of the national sea grant college program. The Board shall indicate in each such report the 

progress made toward meeting the priorities identified in the 

strategic plan in effect under section 204(c). The Secretary shall 

make available to the Board such information, personnel, and 

administrative services and assistance as it may reasonably require to carry out its duties under this title. 

(c) MEMBERSHIP, TERMS, AND POWERS.—(1) The øpanel¿ Board 

shall consist of 15 voting members who shall be appointed by the 

Secretary. The Director and a director of a sea grant program who 

is elected by the various directors of sea grant programs shall serve 

as nonvoting members of the øpanel¿ Board. Not less than 8 of the 

voting members of the øpanel¿ Board shall be individuals who, by 

reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified in one or more of the disciplines and fields included in marine 

science. The other voting members shall be individuals who, by reason of knowledge, experience, or training, are especially qualified 

in, or representative of, education, marine affairs and resource 

management, extension services, State government, industry, economics, planning, or any other activity which is appropriate to, and 

important for, any effort to enhance the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, or conservation of ocean, coastal, 

and Great Lakes resources. No individual is eligible to be a voting 

member of the øpanel¿ Board if the individual is (A) the director 

of a sea grant college or sea grant institute; (B) an applicant for, 

or beneficiary (as determined by the Secretary) of, any grant or 

contract under section 205; or (C) a full-time officer of employee of 

the United States. 

(2) The term of office of a voting member of the øpanel¿ Board 

shall be 3 years for a member appointed before the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments 

of 2002, and 4 years for a member appointed or reappointed after 

the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program 

Act Amendments of 2002. The Director may extend the term of office of a voting member of the øpanel¿ Board appointed before the 

date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 

Amendments of 2002 by up to 1 year. At least once each year, the 

Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register soliciting 

nominations for membership on the øpanel¿ Board. 

(3) Any individual appointed to a partial or full term may be reappointed for one addition full term. øA voting member may serve 

after the date of the expiration of the term of office for which appointed until his or her successor has taken office.¿ The Director 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

may extend the term of office of a voting member of the Board once 

by up to 1 year. 

(4) The øpanel¿ Board shall select one voting member to serve 

as the Chairman and another voting member to serve as the Vice 

Chairman. The Vice Chairman shall act as Chairman in the absence or incapacity of the Chairman. 

(5) Voting members of the øpanel¿ Board shall—

(A) receive compensation at a rate established by the Secretary, not to exceed the maximum daily rate payable under 

section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, when actually engaged in the performance of duties for such øpanel¿ Board; 

and 

(B) be reimbursed for actual and reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of such duties. 

(6) The øpanel¿ Board shall meet on a biannual basis and, at 

any other time, at the call of the Chairman or upon the request of 

a majority of the voting members or of the Director. 

(7) The øpanel¿ Board may exercise such powers as are reasonably necessary in order to carry out its duties under subsection (b). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

ø(a) AUTHORIZATION.—

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

to the Secretary to carry out this title—

ø(A) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; 

ø(B) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; 

ø(C) $77,500,000 for fiscal year 2005; 

ø(D) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

ø(E) $82,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

ø(F) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

ø(2) PRIORITY ACTIVITIES.—In addition to the amounts authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008—

ø(A) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on the biology and control of zebra mussels and 

other important aquatic nonnative species; 

ø(B) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on oyster diseases, oyster restoration, and oyster-related human health risks; 

ø(C) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on the biology, prevention, and forecasting of harmful algal blooms, including Pfiesteria piscicida; and 

ø(D) $3,000,000 for competitive grants for fishery extension activities conducted by sea grant colleges or sea grant 

institutes to enhance, and not supplant, existing core program funding.¿ 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to 

the Secretary to carry out this title—

(1) $66,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; 

(2) $72,800,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

(3) $79,600,000 for fiscal year 2011; 

(4) $86,400,000 for fiscal year 2012; 

(5) $93,200,000 for fiscal year 2013; and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

(6) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2014. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In any fiscal year in which the appropriations made under subsection (a)(1) exceed the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the purposes described in such 

subsection, the Secretary shall distribute any excess amounts (except amounts used for the administration of the sea grant program) 

to any combination of the following: 

ø(1) sea grant programs, according to their rating under section 204(d)(3)(A); 

ø(2) national strategic investments authorized under section 

204(b)(4); 

ø(3) a college, university, institution, association, or alliance 

for activities that are necessary for it to be designated as a sea 

grant college or sea grant institute; and 

ø(4) a sea grant college or sea grant institute designated 

after the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College 

Program Act Amendments of 2002 but not yet evaluated under 

section 204(d)(3)(A).¿ 

ø(d)¿ (c) AVAILABILITY OF SUMS.—Sums appropriated pursuant to 

this section shall remain available until expended. 

ø(e)¿ (d) REVERSION OF UNOBLIGATED AMOUNTS.—The amount of 

any grant, or portion of a grant, made to a person under any section of this Act that is not obligated by that person during the first 

fiscal year for which it was authorized to be obligated or during the 

next fiscal year thereafter shall revert to the Secretary. The Secretary shall add that reverted amount to the funds available for 

grants under the section for which the reverted amount was originally made available. 

SECTION 307 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 9, 1992 

(Public Law 102–251) 

AN ACT to provide for the designation of the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary. 

øNATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM

øSEC. 307. (a) DEFINITIONS.—Section 203(6) of the National Sea 

Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1122(6)) is amended—

ø(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (E); 

ø(2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 

and 

ø(3) by inserting immediately after subparagraph (E) the following new subparagraph: 

ø‘‘(F) the areas referred to as eastern special areas in Article 

3(1) of the Agreement between the United States of America 

and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime 

Boundary, signed June 1, 1990; in particular, those areas east 

of the maritime boundary, as defined in that Agreement, that 

lie within 200 nautical miles of the baselines from which the 

breadth of the territorial sea of Russia is measured but beyond 

200 nautical miles of the baselines from which the breadth of 

the territorial sea of the United States is measured; and’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

ø(b) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM.—Section 3(a)(6) of the Sea Grant 

Program Improvement Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a(a)(6)) is 

amended by inserting ‘‘and special areas’’ immediately after ‘‘exclusive economic zone’’.¿ 

XX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 25, 2008, the Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported H.R. 5618, as amended, by a voice vote and recommended its passage by the House of Representatives. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(23) 

XXI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

I applaud Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall as well 

as Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Lampson 

and Ranking Member Inglis for bringing forward H.R. 5618 in a bipartisan manner. H.R. 5618 is important legislation that improves 

and expands upon the scope of the National Sea Grant College Program in a number of key ways to improve marine resource conservation, management, and utilization. 

While I supported favorably reporting this bill to the House, I 

wholeheartedly believe that the Committee missed a golden opportunity to improve this bill and address the single biggest concern 

that Americans face on a daily basis: the cost of energy. When it 

was established in 1966, one of the original goals of the National 

Sea Grant College Program was to better understand and utilize 

our oceanic resources as an important energy supply; yet I do not 

feel that H.R. 5618 fully addresses this issue. 

Therefore, I offered an amendment that would have brought together some of the nation’s top academic institutions through the 

National Sea Grant College Program to find ways to expand the 

focus of the energy component of the program in order to better utilize our offshore resources for energy production in an environmentally sensitive manner. At a time when families are paying 

well over $4.00 for a gallon of regular gas, it is long overdue that 

we utilize every federal component possible to put in place the 

processes to explore American offshore energy resources. 

Unfortunately, my amendment failed on a near party-line vote. 

I am disappointed that some Members of the Committee chose to 

put partisan politics above the need to find common-sense solutions 

to our nation’s energy crisis. Ultimately, it is my hope that we will 

be able to utilize all available domestic sources of energy by including offshore research and exploration within the National Sea 

Grant College Program. 

PHIL GINGREY. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(25) 

XXII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 5618, THE NATIONAL SEA 

GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS 

ACT OF 2007 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Lampson 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Good morning. This Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment meets to consider the 

following measures: H.R. 4174, Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2007, H.R. 5618, National Sea Grant 

College Program Amendments Act of 2008, and a bill to establish 

a research, development, demonstration and commercial application program to promote research of appropriate technologies for 

heavy-duty plug-in hybrid vehicles and for other purposes. 

We will now proceed with the markup. Beginning with the opening statements, I will begin. 

Today the Subcommittee will consider three good bills. 

The first is H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research 

and Monitoring Act. This bill establishes an interagency ocean 

acidification research and monitoring program. H.R. 4174 was introduced by our colleague from Maine, Congressman Tom Allen, 

and is sponsored by a Member of this Subcommittee, Mr. Baird. 

On June 5th we heard from a panel of experts on ocean and atmospheric sciences testify in strong support of this legislation. The 

bill authorizes the formation of an interagency research and monitoring program to better understand ocean acidification and its potential impacts on marine organisms and marine ecosystems. 

The second bill we will is consider is H.R. 5618, the National Sea 

Grant College Program Amendments Act. H.R. 5618 was introduced 

by Congresswoman Bordallo, Chair of the Committee on Natural 

Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. This 

bill reauthorizes and amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act to implement changes in the program recommended by 

the National Academies of Science. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

The National Sea Grant College Program was last reauthorized 

in 2002. It is a partnership between states and the Federal Government to promote understanding, conservation, and management of 

our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grants research, education, and extension programs have been very effective 

in training future scientists and resource managers, generating information to support sound resource management, and delivering 

applied research results to the people who rely on our coastal areas 

and Great Lakes for their livelihoods. 

Finally, the Subcommittee will consider draft legislation authored by Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, to enhance the Department of 

Energy’s research program in heavy-duty hybrid trucks. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner does not sit on this subcommittee, and thus 

will not be joining us today. I understand that the manager’s 

amendment has only one small technical change that needs to be 

made prior to introduction. This bill addresses a narrow segment 

of the automobile market with a tremendous potential impact. We 

heard in a Subcommittee hearing last week from witnesses who described the substantial oil savings and emissions reductions to be 

had in medium-to-heavy hybrid trucks, as well as the benefit to the 

whole domestic automotive sector from the invaluable lessons 

learned in designing and manufacturing these systems. 

I believe this is a very important piece of legislation in the large 

and complex puzzle that is our transportation sector, and I look forward to moving this bill through Committee and on to the Floor for 

consideration by the House. 

I urge the support of all Members of the Subcommittee for the 

three bills we will consider today. I look forward to working with 

all of you to further improve these important bills as we move to 

their consideration by the Full Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lampson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN NICK LAMPSON

Good morning. Today the Subcommittee will consider three bills. The first is H.R. 

4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act. 

This bill establishes an interagency ocean acidification research and monitoring 

program. H.R. 4174 was introduced by our colleague from Maine, Congressman Tom 

Allen, and is sponsored by a Member of this subcommittee, Mr. Baird. 

On June 5th we heard from a panel of experts on ocean and atmospheric sciences 

testify in strong support of this legislation. The bill authorizes the formation of an 

interagency research and monitoring program to better understand ocean acidification and its potential impacts on marine organisms and marine ecosystems. 

The second bill we will is consider is H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College 

Program Amendments Act. 

H.R. 5618 was introduced by Congresswoman Bordallo, Chair of the Committee 

on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. 

This bill reauthorizes and amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act 

to implement changes in the program recommended by the National Academy of 

Sciences. 

The National Sea Grant College Program was last reauthorized in 2002. It is a 

partnership between states and the Federal Government to promote the understanding, conservation, and management of our ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grants research, education, and extension programs have been very effective in training future scientists and resource managers, generating information 

to support sound resource management, and delivering applied research results to 

the people who rely on our coastal areas and Great Lakes for their livelihoods. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

Finally, the Subcommittee will consider draft legislation authored by Mr. Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, to enhance the Department of Energy’s research program in heavy-duty hybrid trucks. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner does not sit on this subcommittee, and thus will not be joining 

us today. I understand that the manager’s amendment has only one small technical 

change that needs to be made prior to introduction, and that we will take up any 

additional amendments in a Full Committee markup. 

This bill addresses a narrow segment of the automobile market with a tremendous potential impact. We heard in a Subcommittee hearing last week from witnesses who described the substantial oil savings and emissions reductions to be had 

in medium-to-heavy hybrid trucks, as well as the benefit to the whole domestic automotive sector from the invaluable lessons learned in designing and manufacturing 

these systems. 

I believe this is a very important piece of legislation in the large and complex puzzle that is our transportation sector. I look forward to moving this bill through Committee and on to the Floor for consideration by the House. 

I urge the support of all Members of the Subcommittee for the three bills we will 

consider today. I look forward to working with all of you to further improve these 

important bills as we move to their consideration by the Full Committee. 

Chairman LAMPSON. I now recognize Mr. Inglis to present his 

opening remarks. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this markup. Today we will consider three bills before this Subcommittee. H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research 

and Monitoring Act would organize and coordinate federal agency 

efforts to address ocean acidification into a comprehensive research, monitoring, and assessment program. Two weeks ago, this 

subcommittee held a hearing in which we received several recommended changes from the expert panel of witnesses. Representative Baird and I will introduce an amendment that acts upon these 

recommendations. As we move forward to Full Committee, I hope 

that we can further improve the international components of this 

bill and encourage our scientists to work with their colleagues overseas. 

Secondly, we will consider H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant 

College Program Amendments Act. Since its inception in 1966, the 

National Sea Grant Program has been a successful collaborative effort of the Federal Government, State governments, and universities. Under the program, these groups work together to understand, develop, and conserve our coastal and ocean resources. As 

we mark up H.R. 5618, our goal should be a reauthorization that 

equips the Sea Grant Program to continue providing sound science 

and management products that benefit our coastal regions and conserve our coastal resources. 

Finally, we will consider draft legislation introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner that would steer federal dollars toward research, development, and demonstration in the area of commercial truck hybrid 

technologies. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with 

you to advance this legislation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BOB INGLIS

Thank you for holding this markup, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we’ll consider three bills before this subcommittee. H.R. 4174, the Federal 

Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, would organize and coordinate 

federal agency efforts to address ocean acidification into a comprehensive research, 

monitoring and assessment program. Two weeks ago, this subcommittee held a 

hearing in which we received several recommended changes from the expert panel 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

of witnesses. Rep. Baird and I will introduce an amendment that acts upon these 

recommendations. As we move forward to Full Committee, I hope that we can further improve the international components of this bill and encourage our scientists 

to work with their colleagues overseas. 

Secondly, we’ll consider H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program 

Amendments Act. Since its inception in 1966, the National Sea Grant Program has 

been a successful collaborative effort of the Federal Government, State governments, 

and universities. Under the program, these groups work together to understand, develop, and conserve our coastal and ocean resources. As we markup H.R. 5618, our 

goal should be a reauthorization that equips the Sea Grant Program to continue 

providing sound science and management products that benefit our coastal regions 

and conserve our coastal resources. 

Finally, we will consider draft legislation introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner that 

would steer federal dollars toward research, development, and demonstration in the 

area of commercial truck hybrid technologies. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you to advance this legislation. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Without objection, 

Members may place additional opening statements in the record at 

this point. 

We will now consider H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College 

Program Amendments Act for 2008. 

I would again like to express my strong support for both the Sea 

Grant Program and Ms. Bordallo’s bill, and I now recognize Mr. 

Inglis to present any remarks on the bill. 

Mr. INGLIS. I would simply add, Mr. Chairman, that as I said in 

the opening statement, I support the bill and think it is—I would 

urge my colleagues to do likewise. 

Chairman LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Does anyone else 

wish to be recognized? I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that 

Members proceed with the amendments in order in the order of the 

roster. Without objection, it is so ordered. Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act for 2008. All 

those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. In the Chair, the ayes 

have it. 

I recognize Mr. Baird to offer a motion. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chair, I move that the Subcommittee favorably 

report H.R. 5618 to the Full Committee. Furthermore, I move that 

staff be instructed to prepare the Subcommittee legislative report 

and make necessary technical and conforming changes to the bill 

in accordance with the recommendations of the Subcommittee. 

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

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye, those opposed no. The ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 

table. Subcommittee Members may submit additional or Minority 

views on the measure. 

And I want to thank Members for their attendance. This concludes our Subcommittee markup. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(29) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 5618, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618a.eps
31 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618b.eps
32 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618c.eps
33 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618d.eps
34 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618e.eps
35 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618f.eps
36 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618g.eps
37 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618h.eps
38 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618i.eps
39 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618j.eps
40 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618k.eps
41 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 5618, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE

PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE 

Section 1 entitles the legislation as the ‘‘National Sea Grant College Program 

Amendments Act of 2008.’’

SECTION 2. REFERENCES 

Section 2 clarifies that all amendment references in the legislation are made to 

the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.). 

SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES 

Section 3 amplifies the extension aspects of the Sea Grant program and cites the 

relevance of the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy to the Sea Grant Program. 

SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS 

Section 4 defines key terms included within the text of the proposed legislation, 

including ‘regional research and information plan’ and ‘National Ocean Research 

Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy’ where they appear in the bill. 

SECTION 5. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM, GENERALLY 

Section 5 amends the Program Elements to expand Sea Grant programs to include regional and national projects among Sea Grant institutions and to add regional strategic investments in projects undertaken through sea grant projects. Section 5 also augments the functions of the Director of the National Sea Grant College 

Program to include encouraging collaborations among Sea Grant colleges and institutions. This section also strikes the sea grant program performance ranking system 

for allocating additional resources on the basis of performance. 

SECTION 6. PROGRAM OR PROJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS 

Section 6 exempts the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship Program 

from having to match grant awards in order to achieve parity between fellows 

placed in Congressional offices with those fellows placed in federal agencies. 

This section also increases the percentage of funds exempt from the non-federal 

match requirement from the current one percent to five percent. 

SECTION 7. EXTENSION SERVICES BY SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA 

GRANT INSTITUTES 

Section 7 clarifies that one of the requirements for designation includes an extension program (as opposed to an ‘‘advisory service’’). 

SECTION 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO FELLOWSHIPS 

Section 8 updates the statutory language requiring a report every two years on 

efforts to include minority and economically disadvantaged students. 

SECTION 9. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD 

Section 9 expands the responsibilities of the National Sea Grant Review Panel, 

renaming the panel as the ‘‘National Sea Grant Advisory Board’’ to more appropriately and accurately describe its purpose and function. 

SECTION 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Section 10 increases authorized funding levels from $66 million to $100 million 

for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2014. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(43) 

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 5618, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman GORDON. This committee will come to order. The first 

order of business is to introduce our new Member, Mr. Carson, to 

serve on the Committee of Science and Technology. We currently 

have two open Subcommittee spots, on Research and Science Education Subcommittee and Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that Mr. Carson be elected to those Subcommittees. 

Without objection, so ordered. Congratulations, and welcome to 

the Committee, Mr. Carson. I know you will be a great addition. 

We will now proceed with the markup. Today we will be marking 

up two important bills. The first bill we will consider is H.R. 5618, 

the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act, and 

H.R. 5618 was introduced by Delegate Bordallo, Chair of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Natural Resources Committee. 

Our committee shares jurisdiction over the Sea Grant College 

Program with the Resources Committee. Our staff has been working closely with them. 

This bill reauthorizes and amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 2002, to implement changes recommended by 

the National Academies of Science. 

The bill increase the interaction between the National Sea Grant 

Office and the individual programs, improve the programmatic performance reviews, and strengthens strategic planning for the program. 

This program, created nearly 40 years ago, has matured into a 

state-Federal Government partnership to improve the conservation, 

management, and utilization of our oceans, coastal, and Great 

Lakes resources. 

The research, education, and extension programs of Sea Grants 

have been very effective in training future scientists and resource 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
44 

managers, providing education to the general public, generating information to support sound resource management, and delivering 

applied research results to the people who rely on our coastal areas 

and the Great Lakes for their livelihoods. 

Next, we will take up H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification 

Research and Monitoring Act, which was introduced by our colleague from Maine, Congressman Tom Allen, and co-sponsored by 

Dr. Baird and Dr. Ehlers. 

This committee has continued to be a leader in the discussion of 

climate change and its consequences. Ocean Acidification is yet another phenomenon caused by the increase in atmospheric carbon 

dioxide, and it poses a significant threat to marine organisms and 

marine ecosystems. 

Earlier this month the Energy and Environmental Subcommittee 

heard from a distinguished panel of ocean and atmospheric scientists who testified in strong support of this legislation. 

These witnesses provided a number of recommendations to improve the bill. The staff exemplified bipartisan cooperation by 

working together to craft an amendment to the bill in the last 

week’s Subcommittee markup to incorporate the recommendations 

of the witnesses. 

The bipartisan effort continued and is reflected in a final agreement that will be offered today. 

I strongly support each of these bills and look forward to working 

with my colleagues on the Committee to advance this important 

legislation. 

I now recognize Mr. Hall to present his opening remarks. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the 

Committee is marking up these bills. Each of them addresses 

issues that are certainly of national importance. 

Mr. Chairman, the Committee’s work on the National Sea Grant 

College Program amendments continues a tradition of ensuring the 

continuation of programs that produce sound science. H.R. 5618 reauthorizes a program that brings local, State, and federal resources 

together to do research on issues that are of great importance 

today. This bill also encourages regional collaboration on research 

projects, recognizing that problems do not stop at the state border. 

Additionally, H.R. 4174 organizes the Federal Government’s approach to research and monitoring of ocean acidification. Oceans 

are a valuable resource, essential to our collective well-being. Although the government is conducting some research and monitoring of ocean acidification, it is still done in a very ad hoc manner; most of the time as part of another project. Due to the potential impacts of ocean acidification, this phenomenon requires a very 

comprehensive federal plan that will produce the sound science 

upon which we can make informed decisions on how to mitigate 

and how to adapt to it. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your staff for working with us on these bills today. I yield back the balance of my 

time, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
45 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that this committee is marking up these 

bills today. Each of them addresses issues that are of national importance. 

Mr. Chairman, the Committee’s work on the National Sea Grant College Program 

Amendments continues its tradition of ensuring the continuation of programs that 

produce sound science. H.R. 5618, reauthorizes a program that brings local, State 

and federal resources together to do research on issues that are important today. 

This bill also encourages regional collaboration on research projects, recognizing 

that problems do not stop at the state border. 

Additionally, H.R. 4174 organizes the Federal Government’s approach to research 

and monitoring of ocean acidification. Oceans are invaluable resources, essential to 

our collective well-being. Although the government is conducting some research and 

monitoring of ocean acidification, it is being done in a very ad hoc manner—most 

of the time as part of another project. Due to the potential impacts of ocean acidification, this phenomenon requires a comprehensive federal plan that will produce 

the sound science upon which we can make informed decisions on how to mitigate 

and adapt to it. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your staff for working with us on 

these bills before us today. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection Members may place statements in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HARRY E. MITCHELL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we will mark up two important bills, H.R. 4174, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, and H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College 

Program Amendments Act. 

The Sea Grant Colleges sponsor a number of vital marine science research, education, training, and technical assistance programs to promote the understanding 

and utilization of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. 

Today we will consider amendments to H.R. 5618 that will encourage the National Sea Grant College Program to explore methods for producing offshore energy 

sources such as petroleum, natural gas, geothermal, wind, and ocean thermal resources. According to the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service, of all of 

the gas and oil believed to exist in the Outer Continental Shelf, 82 percent of natural gas and 79 percent of oil is located in areas that are already open to leasing. 

However, despite record-high gas prices, oil and gas companies have stockpiled 

over 10,000 permits for domestic drilling. 

I encourage the Sea Grant Colleges to examine methods for energy production in 

these areas of the Outer Continental Shelf that are already open to leasing. 

I urge my colleagues to support both H.R. 4174 and H.R. 5618. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GORDON. We will now consider H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008. I have 

already mentioned the purpose of the bill, and I would just like to 

state again my support for the Sea Grant Program and for the good 

bipartisan bill. 

I now recognize Mr. Hall to present any remarks on the bill. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you. The National Sea 

Grant College Program was established in 1966, and it is a program modeled after the Land Grant College Program. The intent 

of the Sea Grant Program was to focus studies on oceanic work and 

reap the benefits that the Land Grant Program got from teaching 

generations of Americans about agriculture, economics, and military tactics. 

The Sea Grant network has grown to include more than 30 programs based at top universities in every coastal and Great Lakes 

state, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The program focuses its investments 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
46 

on high-priority research. These pressing issues include population 

growth and development of coastal communities, preparation and 

response to hurricanes and coastal storms and fisheries management, to name a few. 

Sea Grant is one of the few programs that are able to make an 

impact at the local and State levels and still be a national force for 

change. H.R. 5618 continues this great tradition of utilizing our nation’s universities to train the next generation of ocean researchers 

while at the same time providing invaluable benefits to coastal 

communities and other stakeholders. 

I believe the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments 

Act of 2008, creates a strong foundation upon which future challenges can be addressed and overcome. 

And I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The National Sea Grant College Program was established in 1966, a program modeled after the Land Grant College Program. The intent of the Sea Grant Program was to focus studies on oceanic work and reap the 

benefits that the Land Grant Program got from teaching generations of Americans 

about agriculture, economics, and military tactics. 

The Sea Grant network has grown to include more than 30 programs based at 

top universities in every coastal and Great Lakes state, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The 

program focuses its investments on high-priority research. These pressing issues include: population growth and development of coastal communities; preparation and 

response to hurricanes and coastal storms; and fisheries management, to name a 

few. Sea Grant is one of the few programs that are able to make an impact at the 

local and State levels, and still be a national force for change. 

H.R. 5618 continues this great tradition of utilizing our nation’s universities to 

train the next generation of ocean researchers while at the same time, providing invaluable benefits to coastal communities and other stakeholders. I believe the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008 creates a strong foundation upon which future challenges can be addressed and overcome. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Does anyone else wish to be recognized? 

Oh, Ms. Johnson is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have an amendment at the desk if you are ready. 

Chairman GORDON. We are not quite ready there, but so if no 

one else wants to be—address the body of the bill, then I ask unanimous consent that the resolution is considered as read and open 

to amendments at any point and that Members proceed with 

amendments in the order of the roster. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is amendment offered by the 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you ready to proceed with 

your amendment? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am, sir. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5618 offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

And without objection, so ordered. 

I now recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her 

amendment. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
47 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Hall, for considering my amendment to H.R. 5618. 

The amendment would encourage corporation with minority-serving institutions through research collaboration. It states that the 

Director of the National Sea Grant College Program shall encourage collaborations among Sea Grant colleges and Sea Grant institutions to address regional and national priorities. The Director 

should also encourage cooperation with minority-serving institutions to enhance collaborative research opportunities for faculty 

and students in the area of ocean, environmental, and atmospheric 

sciences. 

The amendment also indicates that the Director shall improve 

opportunities for and retention of students and faculty from minority-serving institutions in these areas. 

And finally, the amendment tasks the Director to increase the 

number of students from minority-serving institutions graduating 

in NOAA-related areas. 

To summarize this amendment aims to increase the participation 

of people of color and research related to marine source conservation, management, and utilization. Support collaboration with minority-serving institutions is good for our nation. These institutions 

produce a high percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics 

with advanced degrees, and minority-serving institutions are 

powerhouses when it comes to the pipeline of highly-trained, intelligent individuals who are prepared for careers in science. 

And I am proud to offer this provision that is designed to increase the diversity of our scientific workforce. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on the amendment, and I 

yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Hall, for considering my amendment to H.R. 5618. 

The amendment would encourage cooperation with minority-serving institutions 

through research collaboration. 

It states that the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program shall encourage collaborations among sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes to address 

regional and national priorities. 

The Director shall also encourage cooperation with minority-serving institutions 

to enhance collaborative research opportunities for faculty and students in the areas 

of ocean-, environmental-, and atmospheric sciences. 

The amendment also indicates that the Director shall improve opportunities for, 

and retention of, students and faculty from minority-serving institutions in these 

areas. Finally, the amendment tasks the Director to increase the number of students 

from minority-serving institutions graduating in the NOAA-related areas. 

To summarize, this amendment aims to increase the participation of people of 

color in research relating to marine resource conservation management, and utilization. 

Supporting collaboration with the minority-serving institutions is good for our nation. 

These institutions produce a high percentage of African Americans and Hispanics 

with advanced degrees. 

Minority-serving institutions are powerhouses when it comes to the pipeline of 

highly-trained, talented individuals who are prepared for careers in the sciences. 

I am proud to offer this provision that is designed to increase the diversity of our 

scientific workforce. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on my amendment. I yield 

back. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
48 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, not only for the 

amendment but for your continuing championing of this very important issue. It has been clearly documented in this committee 

that we need to encourage minorities and women in these areas, 

that it is really the best way to get bumps up in that kind of talent 

since they are so unrepresented. 

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? 

If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. 

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to. 

The second amendment on the roster is the amendment offered 

by the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Akin. Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. AKIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment. 

It is at the desk. I guess it is amendment two. 

Chairman GORDON. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment number 004 offered by Mr. Akin of Missouri. 

Chairman GORDON. Let us see, Mr. Akin. Do you think we are 

in sync on that one? 

Mr. AKIN. Excuse me? I was distracted here. Could you repeat 

the question? 

The CLERK. Amendment 004, amendment to H.R. 5618, offered 

by Mr. Akin of Missouri. 

Mr. AKIN. 004 is the amendment number? 

Chairman GORDON. Counsel seems to think that is correct, so 

why don’t we proceed. 

Mr. AKIN. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment adds a focus on exploring energy resources and attempting to 

minimize conflicts between attempts to utilize coastal energy resources and the environment to the program elements of the Sea 

Grant College Program. And this is consistent with the findings 

and purposes of the original Sea Grant Program. 

The findings are actually listed, and this is a quote. ‘‘The vitality 

of our nation and the quality of life of its citizens depend increasingly on the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, 

and conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. 

These resources supply food, energy, and the minerals and contribute to human health, the quality of the environment, national 

security, and the enhancement of commerce.’’

Now, what I was intending to do with this amendment, Mr. 

Chairman, was to build on what had been done in successful 

projects, for instance, one that was called the digital ocean. In this 

project Sea Grant funded and produced detailed maps of the Gulf 

of Mexico that gave oil and gas producers highly-detailed information on where to lay pipelines and locate platforms. This information allowed oil and gas production to take place in a manner that 

promoted the sustainability of our marine ecosystem. 

It seems to me that whether we like it or not we are a little bit 

in a vise here between demand for oil and gas resources and our 

desire in this committee to make sure that those things are developed in a way that do the absolute most to protect the environment 

and to be in balance with everything else that are priorities that 

this bill lays out. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
49 

And so I felt that this would be a good amendment that would 

further allow for a very well-controlled and well-thought-out process in development of energy to make sure that it is in balance 

with the environment and all of the other different competing 

needs in these areas of water. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would move for the adoption of the 

amendment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Akin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE W. TODD AKIN

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment adds a focus on exploring energy resources and attempting to 

minimize conflicts between attempts to utilize coastal energy resources and the environment to the program elements of the Sea Grant College Program. This is consistent with the findings and purposes of the original Sea Grant Program, that we 

seek to amend here today, which is intended to help train individuals in the best 

way to utilize our ocean and coastal resources as well as our Great Lake resources. 

The underlying act declares that it is in the national interest to formulate a strategy to provide for the understanding and wise use of these resources and the environment. The findings of the Act further declare that ‘‘The vitality of our nation and 

the quality of life of its citizens depend increasingly on the understanding, assessment, development, utilization, and conservation of ocean, coastal and Great lakes 

resources. These resources supply food, energy, and minerals and contribute to 

human health, the quality of the environment, national security, and the enhancement of commerce.’’

This commitment is exemplified by projects such as the Digital Ocean. In this 

project, Sea Grant funded and produced detailed maps for the Gulf of Mexico that 

gave oil and gas producers highly detailed information on where to lay pipelines and 

locate platforms. This information allowed oil and gas production to take place in 

a manner that promoted the sustainability of our marine ecosystem. 

The amendment I offer here seeks to build on these ideas by trying to get these 

varying groups to work together to address the crisis of our time, which is a shortage of viable energy resources that are necessary to our economic independence and 

national security. 

The amendment will ensure that the partners to the Sea Grant College Program 

will look at ways to minimize conflicts between the environmental community and 

the development of energy resources. It will require the program to provide support 

to research and training within education programs to ensure that the various 

needs of the country are balanced. As we seek to site windmills or utilize natural 

gas or geothermal resources in the ocean’s floors, my amendment will require an 

approach to this program that will balance these competing interests. 

I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Akin. I will recognize myself 

for just a moment. 

I think we all share your interest and objective here. I have a 

concern that the Sea Grant Program has no budget for this and 

that it could constrain other programs, and right now there are already six federal agencies involving in citing of energy facilities in 

coastal areas; the Minerals Management Service, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, the Coast Guard, the Department of 

Transportation, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as 

NOAA. 

So, again, I appreciate and understand your interest here, and 

I am not going to object to your amendment. I just hope that it is, 

we need to keep it in context with this relatively small budget of 

this agency. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, yes. Mr. Rohrabacher is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

agree with the statement you just made, but I think we also have 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
50 

to put in perspective the importance of America’s offshore resources. For 30 years we have not been permitted, this country has 

been denied the right to develop its offshore resources by basically 

cowering in front of groups of people who are shouting at us when 

we should have had the courage to stand up and say, I am sorry. 

We need the oil, or there are going to be serious repercussions. 

And right now our people are living with those serious repercussions from a lack of courage on the part of the U.S. Congress to 

tell these folks who were screaming at us, no. We will need the energy, and it will have a dramatic impact on our life if we do nothing. And we can’t just rely on solar energy, which is years away. 

And thus, yes, you are right. There are other priorities within 

this program. We also have to put it in perspective, not only of 

those other programs, but of the suffering that is going on among 

the people of the United States. 

And I say suffering, I don’t use that word lightly. All of the discretionary income of average citizens is being sucked out of their 

pockets. They are not being able to live a decent life and pay for 

their expenses. Their car needs to have tires. They can’t put new 

tires on their car because all of that income is being taken away 

from them at the gas pump. And what is happening at the gas 

pump was totally predictable by not prioritizing the development of 

our offshore resources, as well as other types of areas where we 

could have. For example, it is nuclear energy where we didn’t have 

one nuclear plant built within the last 30 years, we haven’t had 

any new oil refineries in the last 30 years. So we need to keep that 

in context as well when we are thinking about good amendments 

like Mr. Akin has suggested to us today. 

So thank you very much. I would strongly support this amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. And I would hope that you would explain to 

Governor Schwarzenegger, who—some may be cowering before 

him——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If you would allow me to answer the question, I am one of only two surfers in Congress. I have scuba dived 

off of the offshore oil——

Chairman GORDON. I am just kidding with you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—and Arnold knows that very well. I was 

Arnold’s first supporter in California just for the record. 

Chairman GORDON. Ms. Woolsey is recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, as a Member who has a Sea Grant institution in 

her district, the University of California–Davis, Bodega Bay Marine 

Laboratories, I strenuously object to the Akin amendment. In fact, 

yes, I am screaming because the Sea Grant Program is about empowering institutions to study and protect our oceans. It is not 

about pandering to the oil and gas industry, and that, I believe, is 

what this amendment would do. 

The Akin amendment directs the Sea Grant colleges to work to 

expedite energy production, placing this above all other uses. This 

would completely redirect the Sea Grant Program to an activity incompatible with its mission, with its resources, and actually with 

its expertise. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
51 

Public support for the Sea Grant Program has always been 

strong because its educational mission and its support of resource 

management approaches balance other competing needs. That support will be eroded if Sea Grant is perceives as biased towards the 

single goal of drilling or exploration in the coastal zone. 

Beyond that I would challenge anyone who thinks that drilling 

for oil on our coast is a good idea to come and see the beautiful 

coastline in my district. My district is across the Golden Gate 

Bridge, north of San Francisco, 40 miles or 40 miles north of San 

Francisco, and it is full of natural treasure. It is home of whales, 

seals, sea lions, fish, and birds, and then after you have visited it, 

tell me you think it would look good covered in oil. I can tell you 

it would not. 

You know, you don’t tear down a cathedral to make firewood, 

and you must not destroy a natural wonder to drill for oil. 

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Akin amendment, and I urge all of 

my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am personally kind of pleased 

that we haven’t yet drilled in these offshore regions because had 

we drilled there we would have, and I am using the words of 

Hyman Rickover of a speech given 51 years ago. We would have 

used what he referred to as riotous living, denying it to our children and our grandchildren. 

I think we now are at the place where we really need to look at 

all of our energy resources. I will be opposed to drilling in ANWAR, 

offshore on our public lands, unless the revenues that we get from 

that are totally invested in renewables. 

Mr. Chairman, we have squandered 28 years when we knew to 

an absolute certainty that we were going to be here today with oil 

at prices like this and with the demand exceeding the supply. So 

I think that it is entirely appropriate that we look to environmentally responsible exploitation of these relatively small reserves 

of oil. 

If we have 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWAR, that will last the 

world and there is no alternative to share your oil with the world, 

because if we don’t use the Saudi oil, someone else will use it. That 

will last the world 120 days. Big deal. 

So I am very supportive of this amendment, and we really need 

to use all of the energy and all of the revenues that we get from 

this little bit of undiscovered oil to invest it in alternatives. We 

now have wasted 28 years where we should have been doing this, 

and so now we are paying $4 a gallon for oil at the pump. We 

didn’t need to be here, Mr. Chairman. This is a good amendment, 

and we need to pass it. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Akin, I will, unless, does anyone, Dr. 

Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. My question here is Mr. Akin has described a prior 

Sea Grant activity that apparently mapped the ocean floor, which 

seems to me consistent with the purpose of the Sea Grant and the 

research mission as I understand it, which is the focus of Sea 

Grant. But this amendment seems to rather dramatically change 

one of the missions of Sea Grant schools, and it seems that what 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
52 

they are now, we are asking them to do is engage in almost lobbying. 

I mean, I will read from the amendment. ‘‘To minimize the conflicts and delays in the expedited production.’’ There is an assumption here that expedited production is a desired outcome and that 

it is, therefore, part of the Sea Grant mission to deal with expedited production of oil and gas. 

That is a dramatically different mission than I envision and understand Sea Grant to be. I don’t think if you look at the legislation 

that the intent of establishing the Sea Grant Program was to expedite oil and gas production. I just find that rather contradictory, 

and hence, I don’t see that this is really consistent with the mission 

of the legislation, the underlying bill, and I don’t think it is consistent with preservation of the oceans. And, therefore, I think it 

would be advisable for us to defeat this amendment in order to preserve the integrity of the underlying mission. 

I do believe there is urgent challenges to meet our energy needs. 

I believe that have we had a responsible energy policy at the beginning of this Administration, I believe that had the President of the 

United States responded to the events of September 11 by suggesting the American people begin to conserve energy, develop alternative energies, we would be in a much different situation than 

we are, and I think he failed in that leadership opportunity. 

So I believe we need to produce more energy domestically. I profoundly believe it, but I think this is not the vehicle or the appropriate way to do that, and I would urge defeat of this amendment. 

Mr. INGLIS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BAIRD. Certainly. 

Mr. INGLIS. I think that the gentleman makes a good point about 

the language here, and I wonder if Mr. Akin might entertain a 

friendly amendment to change the language. It is a good point that 

you are putting in legislation something that is quite directive in 

an unspecific kind of way. 

So if Mr. Akin might consider changing some of those words. 

Otherwise I would have to agree with the gentleman from Washington. 

Mr. AKIN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. INGLIS. Yes. Surely. 

Mr. AKIN. Let me just, I happen to have——

Chairman GORDON. Just for protocol I guess it is, really it is the 

gentleman——

Mr. BAIRD. Yeah. I am happy to yield to Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. That is who I was asking. I have the National Sea 

Grant College Program Act here in front of me, and it is the section 

four, and it says part-way into that paragraph, ‘‘These resources 

supply food, energy, and minerals and contribute to human health 

and quality of the environment, national security, and the enhancement of commerce.’’ So that is part of the National Sea Grant currently, what it does, and then you go over to basically about three 

pages into it, ‘‘the term, resource, means living resources including 

natural and culture, plant life, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, 

wildlife,’’ and B, it says, ‘‘non-living resources including energy 

sources, minerals, and chemical substances.’’


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
53 

So this is all part of what is going on, and I guess what I am 

trying to do is not change the focus. It seems to me the focus is 

that we take a holistic approach to solving our problems, and the 

whole point of this act is to bring all of these interests together and 

to come up with a balance. It seems to me that if we don’t do the 

balance proactively now, the problem is going to be that there will 

be enough demand eventually that regardless of how we vote or 

what we think, we are going to have something shoved down our 

throat that does not do a good job balancing it. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the perspective, and I am aware of the 

language the gentleman refers to. My concern, however, is the language is talking about broadly the resources available in the seas. 

The language of the gentleman’s amendment is specifically directing towards expedited production of the resources, not the research 

in, of what is there or how it is impacted and how it changes, but 

expediting production of one certain, one of those resources, and potentially, and here is my other concern, potentially at the expense 

of those other resources. And I think this is of substance. Potentially expediting the production of oil and gas can be at the expense 

of the other resources. We will shortly be marking up a bill about 

the study of ocean acidification. We have looked at, in this committee, extensively at global warming. One of my concerns is you 

are sort of mandating one side of this equation, which may well be 

in contrast, not only to the underlying intent of the bill, but the 

broader findings that I think are emerging from some of the research at Sea Grant. So—— Mr. AKIN. If the gentleman would yield—— Mr. BAIRD. I don’t know if have any time left to yield, but I will 

ask the Chair for his indulgence. 

Chairman GORDON. With unanimous consent we will allow Mr. 

Baird to have an additional five minutes, which he then will yield 

a portion of that to Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. I would be open-minded to an amendment to the 

amendment if you wanted to say, because my objective is to balance the environmental piece with the other and to pull that together. And it seemed like this is a good way to do that, because 

we are not, in environmental I am using it in the broadest sense 

of the word, because we are talking about wind, we are talking 

about geothermal, all of these different types. 

The question is how do we balance all of these different needs, 

and it seemed like this was the best program or best forum to do 

that. I think the whole point of doing this is to prevent this sort 

of political reaction, we will drill anywhere, kind of thing. It 

seemed like this gets out in front a little bit on it, but I am quite 

open-minded to amendment to say that this has got to be done in 

balance and harmony with everything else. 

And so that, if you want to say in an environmentally-friendly 

way or in balance, I am open-minded to that. 

Mr. BAIRD. I would certainly be willing to work with—— Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would, let me tell you, if I 

could—— Mr. AKIN. Please. 

Chairman GORDON.—where I think we are at least procedurally. 

I think we are a group in harmony in terms of trying to do the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
54 

right thing here. This is a bill that we have really a small part, 

this is really, came out of the Natural Resources, and there is going 

to have to be an agreement with Natural Resources before this can 

get to the Floor. 

Now, I wish that we were at Subcommittee level so that we could 

then say, we will work on this going to out Full Committee, but we 

are not. We are at the Full Committee. 

Now, I would suggest that we work in good faith to try to get 

that amendment to Mr. Inglis and Mr. Baird and everybody can be 

right. But let me, I want to be clear that we are not working with 

just this family, and basically we have worked out everything this 

year, you know, pretty much, and so we are going to have an outside force. And so I cannot, you know, with this good conscience, 

you know, tell you that this can absolutely be worked out, because 

we got a whole other committee to have to deal with. 

But if you would like to take that approach, you know, we can 

move forward or you can, you know, I will let you, Mr. Akin, I will 

let you decide how you would like to——

Mr. AKIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just ask something. My 

understanding was that this amendment, that we would have complete jurisdiction in this area as heard from the Parliamentarian. 

Is that information correct or not correct? 

Chairman GORDON. But they can stop the—yes. But the Resource Committee can stop the bill from going to the Floor. 

Mr. AKIN. So they have got veto powers is what you are saying. 

Chairman GORDON. In essence, yes. 

Mr. AKIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, what I would—let me just ask 

procedurally if we could do this, I would prefer if I could offer the 

amendment and then if they want to veto it based on that, then 

I would be happy to work with them and let them modify it to 

where they are comfortable with it. Procedurally can we do that? 

Chairman GORDON. I think, yes. I mean, we can certainly move 

forward. I mean, that is one more way to go about it. As I say——

Mr. AKIN. One thing we could do, Mr. Chairman——

Chairman GORDON.—I can’t make any guarantees to you because 

it is——

Mr. AKIN. I know there are no guarantees. I am not asking for 

guarantees. One thing we could do is there is a word here as we 

look at it, it says, expedited. If that would make people a little 

more comfortable, I am open-minded to take the word, expedited, 

out if that softens the language somewhat, if people want to look 

at that. 

Otherwise, I would just as soon go ahead and offer this amendment, we will vote on it, and just see how it goes. 

Chairman GORDON. Mr. Bilbray, did you have——

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, again, this 

committee has been very bipartisan in our approach, but I think 

that the amendment’s intention is to be proactive at something 

that we all know is coming down the pipeline. I would rather us 

have a proactive position that this needs, you know, the environmental impacts of energy development being renewable, whatever 

we do, needs to be a comprehensive approach, proactively rather 

than reacting to proposals or pressures. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
55 

So I just think from both sides of the aisle this is somewhere, if 

you take, you know, you can soften the words around, but it is 

something we should take the leadership on that science should be 

leading the way to addressing the issues of offshore energy capabilities, be whatever the source, and this is the vehicle you want 

to use. You want to use the Sea Grant, not have to tag something 

on an Interior bill or an Energy bill off the side as having the environmental approach being an add-on rather than the leading factor 

in the consideration. 

So I would just ask both sides of the aisle to at least try to accommodate this, because I think that is what we are here for is to 

lead through science. And this is an issue we are not going to get 

away from, not going to avoid, so we might as well move forward 

with it together. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Would the gentleman yield? 

Chairman GORDON. I think Mr. Baird’s time is over with, so let 

us get back to regular order. Who would seek to—okay. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me just note that, again, I am a 

scuba diver, and Brian and I are the only surfers in Congress, and 

we are not deadly afraid of offshore oil wells because we realize the 

oil disasters we have had in the last 20 years can almost all be 

traced back to tankers, and to the degree that we do not develop 

our offshore oil resources is the degree to which we depend more 

on tankers, which are much more dangerous to the ocean environment than an offshore oil rig. 

Also, they are dangerous to our economy, and they are also dangerous to our national security because those oil tankers are transferring oil to us but cash to people overseas who hate our way of 

life. What this amendment does and the vehicle that we are talking 

about placing this amendment in, this is precisely where you want 

to have something dealing with offshore oil drilling because this is 

aimed at trying to make it even safer than it is. If someone is saying, oh, we should oppose this because offshore oil drilling isn’t 

safe, which I take exception with, that is no reason for us not to 

actually pass this amendment, because this would make it safer. 

We are actually asking people and our institutions to get involved 

with developing ways of, yes, expediting it, but expediting these 

things in a way that can be used, these resources can be used in 

an environmentally-safe way. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. I certainly would. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman’s last statements. My 

problem is I don’t see language in the amendment that refers to 

anything that he just spoke about. I don’t see any language in the 

amendment, and I may have missed something. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But that is what this bill is all about. 

Mr. BAIRD. Speaking—no. I understand what the bill is about. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is what the Sea Grant Program is all 

about. 

Mr. BAIRD. I understand what the Sea Grant Program is about. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Mr. BAIRD. What I don’t understand is where in this amendment 

we see any language seeking about safety of extraction or environVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:44 Jul 14, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
56 

mental, reducing environmental impacts of the extraction. I don’t 

see that in this amendment. What I see instead is the reverse. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, reclaiming my time, let me just note 

that is the whole purpose of the Sea Grant Program. We are not 

giving them money to try to find ways of doing things that make 

it more environmentally damaging. You have to assume that when 

we are putting it in, when we are trying to move money forward 

in this way to meet the challenge of our energy resources, that we 

are talking about, yeah, they are going to help us find ways to do 

this in an environmentally-safe way. And of course, the author of 

the amendment made it very clear that if you want to add those 

words to it, he is perfectly willing to add those words to it right 

now if you want to add them. 

But the fact is by its very nature that is what this amendment 

is all about, putting this in this bill, putting this language in this 

bill is talking about making offshore oil drilling safer for the people 

of this country. 

Chairman GORDON. If the gentleman would further yield. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes. 

Chairman GORDON. I think we need to be clear here that this 

amendment is not about having offshore drilling or not. We have 

offshore drilling. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Chairman GORDON. We have millions of acres that are available 

for offshore drilling. We are drilling offshore right now. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Chairman GORDON. What we are trying to do is put together a 

bill on really a different topic, and I am afraid what has happened 

here is, and you know, it does happen sometimes, but we are out 

of the regular order. You know, if we had an opportunity to look 

at this at the Subcommittee level, then we could have gotten this 

wording out. 

Again, there is no mischief on Mr. Akin’s part whatsoever here, 

but, again, I want to be sure that is understood. There is offshore 

drilling. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I still have the time, and reclaiming my time 

for one moment. Let me say, we have, it has been 30 years of this 

type of, well, we can’t agree, and let us find exact wording or this 

or—one reason or another of why we haven’t been developing our 

energy resources. We haven’t had one new nuclear plant, we 

haven’t had any new offshore oil. Even as the tankers are breaking 

up off our coastline and putting oil onto our beaches, realizing that 

if we don’t do our offshore wells we are going to have to rely on 

those tankers, we still haven’t developed our offshore oil. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Actually, it is my time, Brian. Yes, but I 

would be happy to yield to my friend, my fellow surfer, Brian 

Bilbray. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, we are, let us get back to what we 

are, this is any type of, we may be talking about geothermal development, offshore wind. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
57 

Mr. BILBRAY. We may be talking about all this. My biggest concern is if we ignore this issue and are not proactive, I have witnessed what happens. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge was exempted 

from environmental regulations because the obstructionism basically made Congress exempt all environmental regs for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The obstructionism that occurred in the California Coastal Commission over the border fence ended up creating 

a situation where the border fence was exempted. 

I would rather be proactive, address these environmental issues, 

and this is the vehicle to talk about the big pictures, not just oil. 

We are talking wind, we are talking geothermal, we are talking 

about what are the challenges environmentally and economically. 

Where do we go from here? But look at the picture. Now is the time 

to do it with science, not wait until the proposal and the crisis 

makes us try to find exemptions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilbray, and I 

would just then note that also there are, there is lots of science 

going into energy production, the tides and waves and the fact 

is——

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER.—this is part of this as well. 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. The gentlelady from California is recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would just like to remind the author of the legislation that it says oil and gas exploration in the amendment. It 

doesn’t say wind, doesn’t say geothermal. 

Mr. AKIN. Yes, it does. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, it does? But it does say oil and gas. Thank 

you. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. Dr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to ask unanimous consent for a text change that would remove the offending 

language and replace it with language that I think all of us can 

agree with? 

Chairman GORDON. It is my—Majority Counsel thinks we can. I 

will ask Minority Counsel if you have any——

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Do you have the language before you? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes, sir, I do. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, why don’t you present it. With unanimous consent you can do most anything, so why don’t you——

Mr. BARTLETT. All right. Thank you. If you have the text in front 

of you, this is number five in red at the bottom of the page. I would 

strike the language, minimize the conflicts and delays in the expedited, and replace it with the following words. Explore the environmental and scientific considerations relative to the——

Chairman GORDON. I think we should now yield to Mr. Akin to 

see if he would——

Mr. AKIN. I would accept that amendment if everybody will do 

that unanimously. That is fine with me. Yeah. I think that softens 

the language some. I think it still gets the basic idea. What I am 

looking for is a holistic solution. I am not talking, I am talking 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
58 

about fish, I am talking about fishermen, I am talking about the 

whole deal so that you look at the thing in a package. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I would——

Mr. AKIN. Surfing, too. 

Mr. BAIRD.—except for the last remark I would commend Mr. 

Akin for his flexibility and commend Mr. Bartlett for his innovation, and it sounds like something I could certainly personally support. I appreciate the process that led us here, and I am grateful. 

Chairman GORDON. And Mr. Bartlett, if you would submit your 

language to the desk, please, so that we could have that. 

We are doing Subcommittee work at the Full Committee, and 

with everybody’s indulgence we are trying to do it in the proper 

way, and so if anyone has any objection as we move forward, please 

let us know, because are trying—and now I think—all right. 

We need to let the language get to the desk and then my understanding is, Mr. Wu, you have some language also. 

Mr. WU. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. So do you have two copies by any 

chance? 

Mr. WU. I can make another one right now. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, why don’t you—okay. So okay. I think, 

has Mr. Bartlett submitted his language? Oh, he is putting it together. Is it at—oh, okay. Well, why don’t we, while that is going 

on just to expedite things, Mr. Wu, if you could start having copies 

of yours made so we—thank you for your indulgence. 

We could recess for a couple of minutes while this is being done, 

but I am afraid it would be adios to a lot of folks, so we will just, 

while we are waiting do you want to, Mr. Bartlett, would you like 

to talk a little bit about peak oil while we are——

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I savor every opportunity to educate the American public, but might I ask if it would be appropriate——

Chairman GORDON. Is this under the unanimous consent? That 

would be too hard. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent that we could move on and dispense with Mr. Gingrey’s next 

amendment and then come back to the Akin amendment? 

Chairman GORDON. No. I think we need to finish this, because 

these things may be overlapping, and if you don’t mind. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Okay. 

Chairman GORDON. Let us see. So okay. Mr. Wu, why don’t in 

the interim as we are waiting for these copies to get together, 

would you want to go ahead and describe your amendment, please? 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The precise language of my amendment, the only copy of which 

has now gone up to the desk, the thrust of it is to not obligate——

Chairman GORDON. Well, you know, Mr. Wu, let us just wait. I 

am sorry. I am trying to be courteous to everybody’s time, but we 

are going to be better off in the long run if we will just follow regular order here, and we need to do them—okay. So if the Clerk, do 

you have the amendment? 

The CLERK. I do not, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
59 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. So we will, let us proceed on Mr. Bartlett’s amendment, and we will close that, and then we will go to 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, if we had unanimous consent, we could 

just adopt his amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. You know, I think we are going to be better 

off if Minority and Majority Counsel agree that we are at the right 

place. In the long run we are just going to be better off. Again, 

there is no bad faith here, but I would hate for a comma or a word 

to be left out and somebody think that there was mischief. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would think that Mr. 

Bilbray could describe the biggest wave that he ever caught off 

Southern California. That would be very entertaining for us while 

we waited. 

Chairman GORDON. Well, let me just ask counsel. Jim, where are 

we now? Do you have, does the desk have all the materials they 

need? Also, Mr. Bartlett. Okay. Well, what about Mr. Bartlett? You 

have Mr. Wu’s amendment, but what about Mr. Bartlett’s amendment? Okay. 

COUNSEL. We have the wording, but we don’t have copies of Mr. 

Bartlett’s. 

Chairman GORDON. Okay. The Clerk will report Mr. Bartlett’s 

second degree amendment. And what we are going to do is read it 

rather than waive it so that everybody could have that before 

them. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett’s second degree amendment to Mr. 

Akin’s amendment to H.R. 5618. Okay. We are going to strike this. 

We are striking, minimize the conflicts and delays in the expedited. 

Insert, explore the environmental and scientific considerations related to, relative to. 

Chairman GORDON. All right. Mr. Bartlett is recognized to speak 

on his amendment. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I think the amendment is self-explanatory. I 

think that Mr. Baird is correct that the, this college should not be 

lobbying, and the intent of what Mr. Akin wants to do I think is 

perfectly preserved with this word change. And I think that it removes the confusing language which is offensive to some. 

I don’t think anybody can argue that we ought to be looking at 

the scientific and environmental implications of potential wind and 

drilling and so forth. 

Chairman GORDON. If there is no other, no objection or no other 

discussion, then all in favor of Mr. Bartlett’s amendment to——

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Parliamentary inquiry. If Mr. Bartlett’s amendment 

passes, would I have an opportunity to offer my proposed language? 

Chairman GORDON. Yes, but it will be to Mr. Akin’s amendment 

as amended by Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. WU. As amended by Mr. Bartlett. May I inquire—— Chairman GORDON. Let us just, you know, the, I am getting 

some shaking of heads from the Minority Counsel, and let us work 

it out now. I don’t want to work it out later. Tell me what the problem is. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
60 

Then I guess the answer is, Mr. Wu, it depends on your amendment, whether we could be blocked or it, depending on the substance of your amendment. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as of Mr. Bartlett, the 

author of the secondary amendment, if I may make an inquiry of 

Mr. Bartlett at this point in time. 

Chairman GORDON. Of course. 

Mr. WU. Mr. Bartlett, there is not that much difference between 

the language that you have proposed and that I have proposed at 

the desk. I think that the one concept that I think is important in 

this amendment process is the term that I have inserted in there 

to provide scientifically-sound data. 

Would you be amendable to working that scientifically-sound 

data concept into your secondary amendment? 

Mr. BARTLETT. I have no, I think that, almost all scientists think 

that their evidence conforms to that characterization. No. I certainly have no objection to that. 

I think it is implied. Why would you want to do science that is 

not, yeah, that is really not science unless it is that, so I certainly 

have no objection to that. 

Mr. WU. If the gentleman is willing to incorporate the term, scientifically-sound data, or words to that effect, I would withdraw 

any further efforts on my part. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I have no objection to that. 

Chairman GORDON. My suggestion, and I hate to impose on the 

Committee, I think what we should do is take a three- or fourminute recess, have the parties work together. Let us get the language so that everybody can see this, and do this in a way that we 

are all comfortable. I think that would be best, so with that the 

Committee is in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will return to—the Committee is returning, and let me remind everybody that we are here, 

we have got a vote, so we are going to try to move forward. 

Mr. Bartlett is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment and submit another, a second-degree amendment, which is an amalgamation of Mr. Wu’s amendment and my 

amendment, to which I think everybody agrees. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, the amendment, the Clerk 

will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, I have a second-degree amendment 

offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland of H.R. 5618, offered by Mr. 

Akin of Missouri. 

Chairman GORDON. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Okay. They have not been, I thought copies were made. Okay. If 

the copies were not made then, please read the amendment. 

The CLERK. Strike line five, to minimize the conflicts and delays 

in the expedited, and insert on line five, explore the environmental 

and scientific considerations including providing scientificallysound data related to, relative to the. And strike on page two, line 

one and two, refineries, and insert, energy-related facilities. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
61 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I think the second-degree amendment is self-explanatory. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. If no one else wishes to be recognized, all in 

favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. 

The second-degree amendment passes. 

Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have made this into a 

little bit of a career thing. If we could move for the adoption of the 

amendment as amended. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, all in favor say aye to the 

amendment from Mr. Akin. Opposed, nay. The amendment passes. 

Mr. Gingrey is recognized. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the 

desk. I intend to drop or withdraw one of those amendments, 

amendment number two I will withdraw. I ask unanimous consent 

to withdraw, and I have another amendment at the desk, amendment number one. 

Chairman GORDON. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment number is 001, amendment to H.R. 

5618, offered by Mr. Gingrey of Georgia. 

Chairman GORDON. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I first want to commend the Energy and Environmental Subcommittee for its quick action on H.R. 5618, the National Sea 

Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008. This bipartisan 

legislation expands the scope and purpose of the National Sea 

Grant College Program, and the amendment that I will be offering 

this morning will assist the Sea Grant Program and its expansion 

through H.R. 5618. 

In the declaration of policy in the original Sea Grant Program, 

the law originally adopted back in 1966, as Mr. Akin noted, notes 

that the vitality of our country is dependent on the understanding, 

development, and utilization of ocean and coastal resources, because these resources supply energy and contribute to a number of 

important goals for our country, including national security and 

commerce. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the 89th Congress in 1966, 

seemed to be light years ahead of the 110th in 2008, because it was 

open to the potential of exploring and understanding what offshore 

domestic energy resources had to offer. With the improved technologies available for energy exploration on the outer Continental 

Shelf, it is time that this program once again lives up to its initial 

promise from over 40 years ago. 

And so that is why I am offering this common sense amendment. 

This amendment would add an additional duty for the director of 

the Sea Grant Program to move the curriculum of the program towards more energy resource exploration, including production of 

energy from petroleum, natural gas, geothermal, wind, and ocean 

thermal resources. At a time when families are paying $4.07 for a 

gallon of regular gasoline it is certainly overdue that we put in 

place the processes to explore American offshore resources. 

So, Mr. Chairman, the American people agree, and a recent poll, 

Rasmussen poll showed that 67 percent of Americans support exVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:44 Jul 14, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR701P2.XXX HR701P2

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
62 

ploration for oil off of our nation’s coast. Yet 85 percent of the lower 

48 states out of Continental Shelf, OCS, energy resources remained 

under the lock and key of the Federal Government that is off limits 

to drilling. 

This amendment would bring together some of the Nation’s top 

academic institutions through the Sea Grant Program to find ways 

to better utilize our offshore resources and energy production in an 

environmentally-sensitive manner. Their contribution will ultimately provide relief for working American families from the rising 

gas prices that they face each day by introducing more American 

supply into the marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, a real solution is long overdue. Now is the time 

that our laws need to reflect real-world challenges, where we need 

reasonably-priced fuel to not only maintain our quality of life, but 

also preserve American economic growth and prosperity. And I believe that this amendment helps put us on that path. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to just urge all of my colleagues 

to support this common sense amendment, and again, in essence, 

it just allows the director of the Sea Grant Program to include in 

the curriculum, not put it over and above any other part of the curriculum, but the——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I first want to commend the Energy and Environment 

Subcommittee for its quick action on H.R. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation expands the scope and 

purposes of the National Sea Grant College Program, and the amendments that I 

will be offering this morning will assist the Sea Grant Program in its expansion 

through H.R. 5618. 

In the Declaration of Policy in the original Sea Grant Program, the law—originally adopted in 1966—notes that the vitality of our country is dependent on the 

understanding, development, and utilization of ocean and coastal resources because 

these resources supply energy and contribute to a number of important goals for our 

country—including national security and commerce. 

Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the 89th Congress in 1966 seemed to be light years 

ahead of the 110th Congress in 2008, because it was open to the potential of exploring and understanding what offshore domestic energy resources had to offer. With 

the improved technologies available for energy exploration on the Outer Continental 

Shelf, it is time that this program once again lives up to its initial promise from 

over 40 years ago. 

That is why I am offering these common sense amendments. My first amendment 

this morning would add an additional duty for the Director of the Sea Grant Program to move the curriculum of the program towards more energy resource exploration, including production of energy from petroleum, natural gas, geothermal, 

wind and ocean thermal resources. 

At a time when families are paying $4.07 for a gallon of regular gas, it is long 

overdue that we put in place the processes to explore American offshore resources. 

Mr. Chairman, the American people agree. A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that 67 

percent of Americans support exploration for oil off of our nation’s coasts. And yet, 

85 percent of the lower 48 states’ Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy resources 

remain under the lock and key of the Federal Government—off limits to drilling. 

This amendment would bring together some of the Nation’s top academic institutions through the Sea Grant Program to find ways to better utilize our offshore resources for energy production in an environmentally sensitive manner. Their contribution will ultimately provide relief for working American families from the rising 

gas prices they face each day, by introducing more American supply into the marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, a real solution is long overdue, and now is the time for our laws 

to reflect real world challenges, where we need reasonably-priced fuel to not only 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
63 

maintain our quality of life, but also preserve American economic growth and prosperity. I believe that this amendment helps put us on that path. 

I urge all of my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GINGREY. I would be glad to yield to the Chairman. 

Chairman GORDON. We need to move, we need to, I think, move 

forward if we are going to take care of this. 

Mr. GINGREY. And I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. Thank you, Dr. Gingrey. 

Let me just, I want to try to quickly say when I began Chairman 

of the Committee, I sincerely said that I want to be able to operate 

in a way that the minority is treated better than we were treated 

in minority and to operate in a way that when inevitably we, you 

know, Democrats becoming the minority again, that we would 

think that is fair. 

But that is a two-way street. Now, you know, this amendment 

was brought in two or three minutes before this markup started. 

We haven’t had a chance to look at it. It by and large is about the 

same thing that Mr. Akin put forth and was worked out with Mr. 

Bartlett. So, I mean, you just can’t run a committee this way, and 

you know, we want to try to be fair, we have tried to do this before, 

but it is just not right bringing in amendments, you know, again, 

literally two minutes before this thing started. 

So I am just going to have to, as has been the custom of this 

committee for many Chairmen back, when amendments aren’t submitted 24 hours in advance, they are rejected. 

Now, I don’t think we have done that yet, because we, you know, 

again, we want to try to work through things, but this is just not 

the way you need to proceed. So I am going to oppose this amendment. 

And is there anyone else that would like to speak? 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic with the goals 

of the amendment, but I think it suffers from some of the same 

problems that the other amendment suffered from, and we have 

two choices here. One is to do as you implied, and that is to have 

a vote on it, and you will certainly win. The other is simply to 

break for the vote and to try to work out language that will not 

be offensive to either side and come back after the vote and consider the amendment. 

Chairman GORDON. You know, that is, as usual, Dr. Bartlett, you 

are reasonable and fair, but I think this is so, almost duplicate of 

the amendment we just went forth, I think that it is not going to 

be much that can be added in that regard. 

So I think that if no objection, I would like to just call a vote, 

and we will try to get back to regular order. 

All in favor of Mr. Gingrey’s amendment, say aye. Opposed, nay. 

The nays seem to have it. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, on that I would like a recorded 

vote. Thank you. 

Chairman GORDON. The, let me see what our time on the Floor 

is. 

Okay. The Clerk will promptly call the roll. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
64 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon. 

Chairman GORDON. No. 

The CLERK. Chairman Gordon votes no. Mr. Costello. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. Mr. Udall. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes no. Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird votes no. Mr. Miller. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes no. Mr. Lampson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords. 

Ms. GIFFORDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Giffords votes aye. Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Richardson votes no. Mr. Kanjorski. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rothman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ross. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chandler votes no. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carnahan votes no. Mr. Melancon. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill. 

Mr. HILL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hill votes no. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Mitchell votes aye. Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wilson votes no. Mr. Carson. 

Mr. CARSON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carson votes no. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith of Texas. 

[No response.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
65 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes aye. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes aye. Mr. Lucas. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Biggert votes aye. Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. Mr. Feeney. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. McCaul votes aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey. 

Mr. GINGREY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gingrey votes aye. Mr. Bilbray. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith of Nebraska. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEBRASKA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith votes aye. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone whose vote wasn’t, oh, excuse me. I am sorry. 

The CLERK. Mr. Brown. 

[No response.] 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone whose vote was not counted. 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Chairman GORDON. Is there anyone else? 

If the Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, 15 Members vote aye. No. Ten Members vote aye, and 15 Members vote no. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
66 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618v.eps
67 

Chairman GORDON. The amendment is not passed. 

Are there any other amendments? 

If no, then the vote is on the bill H.R. 5618 as amended. All 

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

the ayes have it. 

And I, you know, we are just going to have to come back. So I 

am sorry for the inconvenience, but we will take a recess, come 

back after this and finish this, and we have one more bill in addition to this. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman GORDON. The Committee will reconvene, and I will 

recognize Dr. Gingrey for a motion. 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 5618 as amended, the National Sea Grant College 

Program Act of 2008, to the House with the recommendation that 

the bill 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 GORDON. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. 

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, should we ask for a recorded vote on 

that or——

Chairman GORDON. I don’t——

Mr. AKIN. Oh, maybe not. Okay. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618w.eps
68 

Chairman GORDON. Yes. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

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

Members will have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental, Minority, or additional views on the measure, 

ending Monday, May, June 30, excuse me, at 9:00 a.m. 

I move pursuant to Clause one 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. 5618, the National Sea Grant College Program 

Amendments Act of 2008, as amended. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank Members for their attendance, and we will see 

you next Wednesday probably. 

[Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(69) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 5618, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
70 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618a.eps
71 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618b.eps
72 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618c.eps
73 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618d.eps
74 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618e.eps
75 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618f.eps
76 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618g.eps
77 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618h.eps
78 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618i.eps
79 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618j.eps
80 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618k.eps
81 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF

H.R. 5618, THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE

PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE 

Section 1 entitles the legislation as the ‘‘National Sea Grant College Program 

Amendments Act of 2008.’’

SECTION 2. REFERENCES 

Section 2 clarifies that all amendment references in the legislation are made to 

the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.). 

SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES 

Section 3 amplifies the extension aspects of the Sea Grant program and cites the 

relevance of the National Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy to the Sea Grant Program. 

SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS 

Section 4 defines key terms included within the text of the proposed legislation, 

including ‘regional research and information plan’ and ‘National Ocean Research 

Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy’ where they appear in the bill. 

SECTION 5. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM, GENERALLY 

Section 5 amends the Program Elements to expand Sea Grant programs to include regional and national projects among Sea Grant institutions and to add regional strategic investments in projects undertaken through sea grant projects. Section 5 also augments the functions of the Director of the National Sea Grant College 

Program to include encouraging collaborations among Sea Grant colleges and institutions. This section also strikes the sea grant program performance ranking system 

for allocating additional resources on the basis of performance. 

SECTION 6. PROGRAM OR PROJECT GRANTS AND CONTRACTS 

Section 6 exempts the Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship Program 

from having to match grant awards in order to achieve parity between fellows 

placed in Congressional offices with those fellows placed in federal agencies. 

This section also increases the percentage of funds exempt from the non-federal 

match requirement from the current one percent to five percent. 

SECTION 7. EXTENSION SERVICES BY SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA 

GRANT INSTITUTES 

Section 7 clarifies that one of the requirements for designation includes an extension program (as opposed to an ‘‘advisory service’’). 

SECTION 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTION RELATING TO FELLOWSHIPS 

Section 8 updates the statutory language requiring a report every two years on 

efforts to include minority and economically disadvantaged students. 

SECTION 9. NATIONAL SEA GRANT ADVISORY BOARD 

Section 9 expands the responsibilities of the National Sea Grant Review Panel, 

renaming the panel as the ‘‘National Sea Grant Advisory Board’’ to more appropriately and accurately describe its purpose and function. 

SECTION 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Section 10 increases authorized funding levels from $66 million to $100 million 

for the period between Fiscal Year 2009 through Fiscal Year 2014. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
82 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618l.eps
83 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618m.eps
84 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618n.eps
85 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618o.eps
86 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618p.eps
87 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618q.eps
88 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618r.eps
89 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618s.eps
90 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618t.eps
91 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTShr5618u.eps