99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPT. 107–369 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 2

NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 2002

APRIL 15, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science,

submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 3389]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.

3389) to reauthorize 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 ...................................................................................... 3

III. Background and Need for Legislation ....................................................... 3

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 4

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 6

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 6

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Section) ................................................... 7

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 8

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 10

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

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 12

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

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

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 13

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 13

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 13

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

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

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 17

XX. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup ...................................................... 17

XXI. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 33

2

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 Act Amendments of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FINDINGS.

Section 202(a)(6) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.

1121(a)(6)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘, including

strong collaborations between Administration scientists and scientists at academic

institutions.’’.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.

(a) PROMOTION OF COORDINATION.—Section 204(d)(3)(B) of the National Sea Grant

College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ after

the semicolon at the end of clause (ii) and by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(iv) encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between

the research, education, and outreach programs of the Administration

and those of academic institutions; and’’. (b) ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS.—Section 208(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(a)) is

amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The Secretary shall strive to ensure

equal access for minority and economically disadvantaged students to the program

carried out under this subsection.’’.

SEC. 4. COORDINATION.

Section 204 of the National Sea Grant Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1123) is further

amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(e) COORDINATION.— ‘‘(1) The activities of the national sea grant college program shall be coordinated with related activities of the National Science Foundation, the coastal

ocean research program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and any other related Federal programs in order to avoid duplication of

efforts and to ensure that research areas are covered adequately. ‘‘(2) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Director of the national sea

grant program, the Director of the coastal ocean research program, and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall jointly submit to Congress a report on how the activities of those programs will be coordinated during the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the report is submitted. The report

shall describe in detail any overlapping research interests among the programs

and specify how such research interests will be pursued by the programs in a

complementary manner.’’.

SEC. 5. TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL.

Section 209(c)(2) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C.

1128(c)(2)) is amended by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:

‘‘The term of office of a voting member of the panel 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 panel

appointed before the date of enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program

Act Amendments of 2002 by up to 1 year.’’.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsections (a) and (b) of section 212 of the National Sea Grant

College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1131) are amended to read as follows:

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to

carry out this title—

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘‘(2) ZEBRA MUSSEL, OYSTER, AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM RESEARCH.—In addition to the amount authorized under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be

appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008—

3

‘‘(A) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on the

zebra mussel biology and control;

‘‘(B) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on oyster

diseases, oyster restoration, and oyster-related human health risks; and

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

Pfiesteria piscicida.

‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.—

‘‘(1) ADMINISTRATION.—There may not be used for administration of programs

under this title in a fiscal year more than 5 percent of the lesser of—

‘‘(A) the amount authorized to be appropriated under this title for the fiscal year; or

‘‘(B) the amount appropriated under this title for the fiscal year.

‘‘(2) USE FOR OTHER OFFICES OR PROGRAMS.—Sums appropriated under the

authority of subsection (a)(2) shall not be available for administration of this

title by the National Sea Grant Office, for any other Administration or department program, or for any other administrative expenses.’’.

(b) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—Such section is further amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:

‘‘(c) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In any fiscal year in which the appropriations

made pursuant to subsection (a)(1) exceed the amounts appropriated for fiscal year

2002 for the purposes described in such subsection, the Secretary shall distribute

the excess amounts (except amounts used for the administration of programs) solely

to—

‘‘(1) State sea grant programs on a merit reviewed, competitive basis to support, enhance, and reward programs that are best managed and carry out the

highest quality research, education, extension, and training programs;

‘‘(2) national strategic initiatives; or

‘‘(3) both.’’.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 3389 is to reauthorize the National Sea

Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. The legislation

would reauthorize the program for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008.

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) was established by the National Sea Grant College Act (33 U.S.C. 1121–

1131), which Congress passed in 1966. Sea Grant was designed as

the marine counterpart of the agriculture research and extension

activities based at the country’s land grant universities. Sea

Grant’s objective is to increase the understanding, assessment, development, utilization and conservation of the Nation’s ocean,

coastal and Great Lakes resources. Sea Grant was originally

housed at the National Science Foundation, but was transferred to

the newly created National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Department of Commerce in 1970. Sea Grant

is made up of 30 sea Grant College programs located in coastal and

Great Lakes states and Puerto Rico that use the resources of more

than 300 U.S. universities and scientific institutions to conduct marine research, education and outreach activities.

Each Sea Grant state program works with the National Sea

Grant office and the user community of the state to develop a list

of priority research areas to promote the sustainable use and overall well-being of marine resources. Each program designs its own

education programs to train future marine scientists and technicians at the graduate level as well as elementary and secondary

students and teachers. Each program also develops its own Sea

Grant extension service, tailored to provide information and techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:09 Apr 16, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR369P2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR369P2
4

nical assistance to meet the needs of the user community of the

state.

For fiscal year 2001, $62 million in federal funds was appropriated for Sea Grant. According to the National Sea Grant Office,

about 80 percent went directly to the state programs, and 15 percent went to national strategic initiatives through nationwide, competitive grants. By law no more than 5 percent can go for national

administration of the program. The state programs contributed

about another $35 million in matching and in-kind contributions.

Sea Grant also managed an additional $16 million that was transferred from other NOAA programs, bringing the total amount to

about $113 million.

Of the $113 million, about $63 million or 56 percent was spent

on research activities. The remaining 44 percent was used for extension, communication, education and management functions.

Congress last passed a Sea Grant authorization in 1998, which

runs through fiscal year 2003. The legislation focused on implementing the recommendations of a 1994 National Research Council

(NRC) review of the program, including those to better define the

roles of the National Sea Grant Office, Sea Grant College programs

and the Sea Grant Review Panel. The NRC panel also recommended streamlining the process for reviewing proposals and

evaluating the program, which was accomplished through the legislation and administrative reforms.

The authorization for the Sea Grant program expires at the end

of fiscal year 2003. In addition, the Administration’s fiscal year

2003 Budget Request proposes to transfer the Sea Grant program

from NOAA to the National Science Foundation (NSF) to promote

more rigorous, merit-based competition among researchers.

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

February 28, 2002—The NOAA Sea Grant Program: Review and

Reauthorization

The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate the Administration’s

fiscal year 2003 budget proposal to transfer the Sea Grant College

Program from NOAA to NSF. The hearing also explored H.R. 3389,

a bill that would reauthorize the Sea Grant College Program within NOAA.

The following witnesses testified before the Committee: (1) Vice

Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; (2) Dr. Russell Moll, Director, California

Sea Grant College Program, University of California San Diego; (3)

Mary Hope Katsouros, Senior Fellow and Senior Vice President,

the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment; (4) Dr. Nancy Rabalais, Professor, Louisiana Universities

Marine Consortium; (5) Michael Donahue, President/Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes Commission.

Vice Admiral Lautenbacher reiterated the rationale for the request to transfer the Sea Grant program. He stated that the Administration believes that NSF would better manage Sea Grant’s

research, which would maximize the benefit received from each dollar invested.

Dr. Russell Moll argued that:

5

• Sea Grant’s local, state, and national programs use a strong

peer review process for evaluating potential research projects.

Every four years each Sea Grant program undergoes an external

review.

• Whether the Sea Grant program remains at NOAA or is transferred to NSF, the program’s strengths (partnerships, research

interwoven with outreach, and coastal focus) should be maintained.

• Since Sea Grant is already authorized for several more years

within NOAA, the Administration should wait for the President’s

Commission on Ocean Policy to finish its review of the structure of

federal marine programs before moving Sea Grant.

• There should be no change in the mission, structure, or function of Sea Grant until the Commission’s report is released.

• NSF is not particularly interested in outreach activities nor is

NSF likely to support Sea Grant’s matching provision; both are elements of the program’s current strengths.

• If the Coastal Ocean Program is merged with Sea Grant, the

integrity of both programs should be maintained.

Mary Hope Katsouros noted that Sea Grant creates partnerships

involving 300 institutions and 3,000 scientists each year. She testified that:

• Sea Grant should not be moved from NOAA to NSF because

Sea Grant currently funds applied research; responds to local,

state, regional, and national goals; is supported by matching funds;

and conducts extension activities—all elements that would be lost

under NSF administration.

• Congress should reconsider implementing a 1994 National Research Council recommendation to elevate Sea Grant within

NOAA’s administrative structure to be in the Office of the NOAA

Administrator.

• Since 1994, the Sea Grant peer-review process has improved.

• The Coastal Ocean Program supports long-term, multidisciplinary research, whereas the Sea Grant program is focused on single investigator, state and national priority research.

Dr. Nancy Rabalais is a scientist who has been doing marine

coastal research for 20 years. She has received grant money from

Sea Grant, the Coastal Ocean Program, and NSF, and has had proposals rejected by each organization as well. She testified that:

• These programs serve different constituencies, do different

kinds of research, and address different needs.

• The fear among the marine science community is that moving

Sea Grant or the Coastal Ocean Program would jeopardize the purpose and integrity of each program.

• The NSF budget needs to be increased on its own; not by moving other programs into it.

• The U.S. Ocean Commission review and Vice Admiral

Lautenbacher’s bottom-up review of NOAA’s programs should be

completed before research dollars and programs are moved.

Dr. Michael Donahue discussed Sea Grant from a Great Lakes

perspective. He testified that:

• The Great Lakes Commission and member states rely on the

research and extension services Sea Grant provides.

• The Great Lakes Commission opposes the proposed transfer of

the program from NOAA to NSF; attention should be directed toVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:09 Apr 16, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR369P2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR369P2
6

wards strengthening the program within NOAA and working towards reauthorization.

• If the Federal government provides less or no funding for Sea

Grant’s activities, the ability of the states to perform their mandated functions would be severely compromised and could cause

the outright elimination of entire research, education, and outreach

programs. The implications could include loss of local economic development opportunities, a less informed public, a compromised decision-support system for state legislators, and in some areas increased exposure to environmental contaminants.

• Several Sea Grant issues need to be addressed: the program’s

stature and base funding need to be elevated for it to realize its

potential; Sea Grant’s outreach needs have increased because of the

downsizing of government, but its budget for extension has not; Sea

Grant’s focus on regional, in addition to state-level, issues should

be expanded.

• Sea Grant needs to be reauthorized, appropriated not less than

$100 million, and its profile within NOAA should be elevated over

time.

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest introduced H.R. 3389 on November 30, 2001. On February 28, 2002, the Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee held a hearing on this bill.

On March 7, 2002, the bill was referred to the Committee on

Science after being reported by the Committee on Resources. The

Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards met on

March 14, 2002 to consider the bill. Subcommittee Chairman

Ehlers offered an en bloc amendment, which was adopted by voice

vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 3389, as

amended, by voice vote.

On March 20, 2002, the Committee on Science considered H.R.

3389. Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers offered an en bloc amendment that included two provisions: 1) an amendment by Congresswoman Jackson Lee requiring the Secretary to ‘‘strive to ensure

equal access for minority and economically disadvantaged students;’’ and 2) an amendment to clarify that education, extension,

and training programs would be part of the merit review process.

The Committee adopted the amendment by voice vote. The Committee then favorably reported the bill as amended, by voice vote,

and authorized staff to make technical and conforming changes as

necessary.

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

There are three major provisions of the bill:

• The legislation reauthorizes the Sea Grant program for five

years. The legislation authorizes a total of $550 million for Sea

Grant activities for fiscal years 2003 to 2008. • The legislation directs the Sea Grant program to coordinate

with the National Science Foundation and the Coastal Ocean Research Program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure that research

areas are covered adequately. In addition, the directors of each program and the Director of the National Science Foundation shall

7

jointly submit to Congress a report on how the activities of those

programs will be coordinated.

• The legislation requires that in any fiscal year in which the appropriations exceed the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2002,

the Secretary of Commerce shall distribute the excess amounts (except amounts used for the administration of programs) to state sea

grant programs on a merit reviewed, competitive basis; to national

strategic initiatives; or both.

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

SEC. 1—SHORT TITLE

The National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of

2002

SEC. 2—AMENDMENTS TO FINDINGS

The legislation amends section 202(a)(6) of the National Sea

Grant College Program Act and inserts language to encourage

strong collaborations between Administration scientists and academic institutions.

SEC. 3—REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL SEA GRANT

COLLEGE PROGRAM

The legislation amends section 204(d)(3)(B) and inserts language

that the director of the National Sea Grant College Program shall

encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between the

research, education, and outreach programs of the Administration

and those academic institutions.

The legislation amends section 208(a) and inserts language that

the Secretary shall strive to provide equal access for minority and

economically disadvantaged students to the program.

SEC. 4—COORDINATION

The legislation amends section 204 by adding a new subsection

(e) that the activities of the National Sea Grant College Program

shall be coordinated with related activities of the National Science

Foundation, the Coastal Ocean Program of the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration, and any other Federal programs

to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure that research areas are

covered adequately. In addition, the director of the National Sea

Grant program, the director of the Coastal Ocean Program, and the

director of the National Science Foundation shall jointly submit to

Congress a report on how the activities of those programs will be

coordinated during the fiscal year following the fiscal year the report is submitted.

SEC. 5—TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP FOR SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL

The legislation amends section 209(c)(2) and inserts language

that the term of office for a voting member of the panel shall be

three years for a member appointed before the date of enactment

of this legislation, and four years for a member appointed after the

date of enactment of this legislation.

8

SEC. 6—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

The legislation amends section 212 by authorizing $60 million for FY 2003; $75 million for FY 2004; $77.5 million for FY 2005; $80

million for FY 2006; $82.5 million for FY 2007; and $85 million for

FY 2008. In addition to the amount authorized above, there is authorized for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008, $5 million each

for research into zebra mussels, oysters, and harmful algal blooms.

No more than 5 percent of the funds may be used for administration of the program.

The legislation inserts a provision that in any fiscal year which

appropriations exceed the amounts appropriated for fiscal year

2002, the Secretary shall distribute the additional amounts (except

amounts used for administration of programs) solely to state Sea

Grant programs on a merit-reviewed, competitive basis to reward

programs that are best managed and produce the highest quality

research, education, extension, and training programs; national

strategic initiatives; or both.

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Administration’s proposal to transfer Sea Grant to NSF

The Administration’s fiscal year 2003 budget proposes to transfer

the Sea Grant program from NOAA to NSF to promote more rigorous, merit-based competition among researchers. The Committee

disagrees that it is necessary to transfer the program to achieve

these goals. H.R. 3389 reauthorizes the Sea Grant program within

NOAA for the next five years.

While it is widely acknowledged that NSF provides the nation

with exceptional peer-reviewed marine research, NSF’s mission and

focus is different from that of Sea Grant. NSF’s research and activities are oriented toward basic research questions with projects

chosen by scientist, while Sea Grant’s mission is largely an applied,

state- and locally-focused research program that is also accountable

to stakeholders and a state’s user community. Each participating

state is also required to provide at least one-third of the total funding for the Sea Grant activities within the state. Sea Grant has a

three-pronged approach of research, education and outreach, which

is not easily compatible with the orientation of NSF. The extension

service ensures that Sea Grant’s research is put to practical use by

the stakeholders. There are no similar activities at NSF, and that

agency has no implementation plan for managing or continuing

these vital activities. The Committee believes the vital and successful education and extension activities of Sea Grant must be maintained.

Section 4: Coordination

H.R. 3389 as passed by the Committee on Resources on February

27, 2002 contained a provision to transfer the Coastal Ocean Program from the National Ocean Service to Sea Grant. The Committee opposes the transfer of the Coastal Ocean Program (COP)

from the National Ocean Service to the National Sea Grant College

program. The Committee believes the merger would jeopardize the

future of COP, its funding, and the nation’s ability to achieve the

long-term, regional-scale information needed to address issues such

as harmful algal blooms, fisheries management, and water and

9

sediment pollution in the oceans and Great Lakes. The Committee

believes the Sea Grant Program and COP complement each other

by serving different client bases and by focusing research efforts on

different geographic and time scales. The Committee believes these

two programs are distinctly different in their purposes and that

there is no benefit to combining them.

In addition, the Committee notes that the Department of Commerce intends to conduct an agency-wide programmatic review,

and that the President’s Commission on Ocean Policy will also be

reporting its findings on Federal ocean and coastal activities as required by The Oceans Act of 2000. The Committee intends to review the findings of these efforts and will consider recommendations of the Administration and the Commission when they are presented. Until that time, the Committee agrees with the Administration’s position that it would be premature to merge these two

programs.

The Committee does believe, however, that greater coordination

is necessary between the related activities of NOAA’s National Sea

Grant College Program, NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program, and the

National Science Foundation to avoid duplication and to ensure

that research areas are adequately covered. To ensure coordination,

H.R. 3389 requires that the Director of the National Sea Grant

Program, the Director of the Coastal Ocean Program, and the Director of the National Science Foundation jointly submit a report

on how the activities of those programs will be coordinated during

the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the report is submitted. The Committee expects the report to be submitted with the

President’s budget, but it must be submitted no later than February 15th of each year.

The Committee expects the report to be, in effect, a joint plan for

marine research. The agencies should undertake a comprehensive

review of the opportunities and needs in the field, and explicitly allocate the research agenda among the three programs to avoid unnecessary duplication and ensure that no unavoidable gaps exist.

The agencies should be especially attentive to opportunities to work

together in a complementary fashion—for example, following up a

basic research project at NSF with a related applied project at

NOAA, or using the Sea Grant extension services to disseminate

information on relevant research funded by NSF or the COP program. The report should explicitly describe the research agenda,

opportunities for complementary tasks and any activities sponsored

or undertaken jointly by the programs.

Section 6: Distribution of funds

The National Sea Grant College Program Act does not specify

how federal funding should be allocated among the state Sea Grant

programs. There is no set formula or transparent process by which

the funding allocation decisions are made. The current system appears to be based mostly on a historical allocation of funding determined by when the National Sea Grant office officially recognized

the state program. This has led some to question the fairness of the

program. The Committee expects the Administrator of NOAA to

work with the Sea Grant Association and other interested parties

to revise and reform the formula for how the federal money is allocated to state programs. This new formula should ensure that

10

those Sea Grant institutions attempting to become designated as a

Sea Grant College program are given proper resources to fulfill the

requirements.

The Committee believes that increasing Sea Grant’s reliance on

competitive, merit review procedures will improve the quality of

the program. To ensure that more money is allocated using those

procedures, H.R. 3389 requires that any funding above the fiscal

year 2002 level be allocated through a merit-reviewed competition

among state programs and/or through merit-reviewed competitions

to carry out national strategic initiatives. The Committee expects

that more of the new, competitive money will be used for state programs than for national strategic initiatives.

The Committee recognizes that significant geographic areas are

currently served because of limitations in funding. The Committee

does not intend to discourage the expansion of the Sea Grant College program.

Pacific Islands regional consortium

H.R. 3389, as amended by the Committee on Resources, directed

the Secretary of Commerce to make available $2.7 million in grants

to an eligible Pacific Islands regional consortium for activities necessary for the consortium to qualify for designation as an independent Sea Grant College Program. No other Sea Grant program,

institution or region has ever been so provided for in statute. Consequently, the Committee has removed the provision from the bill.

The Committee notes that NOAA has the authority to award

grants to colleges within the regional consortium mentioned in the

amendment and has recently awarded grants to the University of

Guam for the purpose of assisting the U.S. Pacific Islands and freely associated states in their efforts to fulfill the requirements to receive designation as a Sea Grant College Program under Section

207 of the law. The Committee also notes that the Pacific Islands

region has few land resources relative to other regions, is heavily

dependent upon their coastal and ocean resources, and that the

western Pacific represents a significant gap in coverage under the

existing Sea Grant Program. The Committee believes the Pacific Islands have a great deal to gain and to offer through their full participation in the Sea Grant Program. The Committee expects the

Administrator and the National Sea Grant office to work closely

and cooperatively with the six regional institutions of higher education in the Pacific (the College of the Marshall Islands, the College of Micronesia-FSM, American Samoa Community College,

Northern Marianas College, Palau Community and the University

of Guam) to assist them in their efforts to receive designation as

a Sea Grant College Program through the process outlined in Section 207 of the law.

IX. COST ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill.

However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the DirecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:09 Apr 16, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR369P2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR369P2
11

tor of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, April 4, 2002.

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3389, the National Sea

Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002.

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.

Sincerely,

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

H.R. 3389—National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments

of 2002

Summary: H.R. 3389 would authorize funding for the national

sea grant college program through fiscal year 2008. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $294 million over the 2003–2007 period to carry out these activities. (An additional $188 million would be

spent after 2007.) The legislation would not affect direct spending

or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.

H.R. 3389 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. 3389 is shown in the following table. The costs

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources

and environment).

The bill would authorize the appropriation of $451 million over

the 2003–2007 period, plus $100 million for fiscal year 2008, to

carry out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

(NOAA) contract grant, fellowship, and administrative functions

under the sea grant program. For this estimate, CBO assumes that

all amounts authorized by H.R. 3389 will be appropriated by the

start of each fiscal year and that outlays would follow historical

spending patterns for the sea grants program.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2207

Spending Under Current Law:

Authorization Level 1 ........................................................................ 62 69 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 55 62 47 14 0 0

Proposed Changes:

Authorization Level .......................................................................... 0 6 90 93 95 98

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 0 2 30 74 93 95

Spending Under H.R. 3389:

Authorization Level .......................................................................... 62 75 90 93 95 98

12

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2207

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 55 64 77 88 93 95

1 The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for that year for sea grants. The 2003 level is the amount authorized for appropriation for

that program.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R.

3389 contains no 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 sea grant program

which provides grants to develop programs to improve marine resource conservation, management, and utilization. Any costs incurred by public universities to participate in this program would

be voluntary. In addition, the bill could benefit state governments

who have implemented state sea grant programs by authorizing

the Secretary of Commerce to distribute any excess amounts appropriated above the fiscal year 2002 level to state sea grant programs

(on a competitive, merit-based review). Any costs incurred by states

would be voluntary.

Estimated impact on the private-sector: H.R. 3389 would impose

no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Previous CBO estimate: On March 5, 2002, CBO transmitted a

cost estimate for H.R. 3389 as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on February 27, 2002. The cost of the Science

Committee version of the bill is lower than the Resources Committee version because it does not contain authorizations levels for

NOAA’s ocean coastal research program as the Resources Committee version did. The Science Committee version also includes

authorization levels for fiscal year 2003, while the Resources Committee version did not.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost: Deborah Reis; Impact on

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elyse Goldman; and Impact

on the Private Sector: Cecil McPherson.

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

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES)

H.R. 3389 contains no unfunded mandates.

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each committee report to include oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The

Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations

are reflected in the body of this report.

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(4) of House Rule XIII, the goal and objective of the bill is to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College

Program Act. Sea Grant’s objective is to increase the understanding, assessment, development, utilization and conservation of

the Nation’s ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources.

13

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the House of Representatives requires

each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public

character to include a statement citing the specific powers granted

to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by

the bill or joint resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution

of the United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R.

3389.

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 3389 does not establish nor authorize the establishment of

any advisory committee.

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 3389 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. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

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

XVIII. 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. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘National Sea Grant College

Program Act’’.

SEC. 202. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

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

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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 institutionsø.¿, including strong collaborations beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:09 Apr 16, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR369P2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR369P2
14

tween Administration scientists and scientists at academic institutions.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 204. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

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

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

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

(A) * * *

(B) subject to the availability of appropriations, allocate

funding among sea grant colleges and sea grant institutes

so as to—

(i) * * *

(ii) encourage successful implementation of sea

grant programs; øand¿

* * * * * * *

(iv) encourage and promote coordination and cooperation between the research, education, and outreach programs of the Administration and those of academic institutions; and

(e) COORDINATION.—

(1) The activities of the national sea grant college program

shall be coordinated with related activities of the National

Science Foundation, the coastal ocean research program of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and any

other related Federal programs in order to avoid duplication of

efforts and to ensure that research areas are covered adequately.

(2) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Director of

the national sea grant program, the Director of the coastal

ocean research program, and the Director of the National

Science Foundation shall jointly submit to Congress a report on

how the activities of those programs will be coordinated during

the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the report is

submitted. The report shall describe in detail any overlapping

research interests among the programs and specify how such research interests will be pursued by the programs in a complementary manner.

* * * * * * *

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

15

minority and economically disadvantaged students to the program

carried out under this subsection.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 209. SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MEMBERSHIP, TERMS, AND POWERS.—(1) * * *

(2) øThe term of office of a voting member of the panel shall be

3 years, except that of the original appointees, five shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, five shall be appointed for a term of

2 years, and five shall be appointed for a term of 3 years.¿ The

term of office of a voting member of the panel 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 panel 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 panel.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

ø(a) AUTHORIZATION.— ø(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to

carry out this Act—

ø(A) $56,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;

ø(B) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

ø(C) $58,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

ø(D) $59,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and

ø(E) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

ø(2) ZEBRA MUSSEL AND OYSTER RESEARCH.—In addition to

the amount authorized for each fiscal year under paragraph

(1)—

ø(A) up to $2,800,000 may be made available as provided

in section 1301(b)(4)(A) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.

4741(b)(4)(A)) for competitive grants for university research on the zebra mussel;

ø(B) up to $3,000,000 may be made available for competitive grants for university research on oyster diseases

and oyster-related human health risks; and

ø(C) up to $3,000,000 may be made available for competitive grants for university research on Pfiesteria

piscicida and other harmful algal blooms.

ø(b) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.—

ø(1) LIMITATION.—No more than 5 percent of the lesser of—

ø(A) the amount authorized to be appropriated; or

ø(B) the amount appropriated,

for each fiscal year under subsection (a) may be used to fund

the program element contained in section 204(b)(2).

16

ø(2) Sums appropriated under the authority of subsections (a)

and (c) shall not be available for administration of this Act by the

National Sea Grant Office, or for Administration program or administrative expenses.

ø(c) In addition to sums authorized under subsection (a), there is

authorized to be appropriated for priority oyster disease research

under section 205 of this Act, an amount— ø(1) for fiscal year 1992, not to exceed $1,400,000;

ø(2) for fiscal year 1993, not to exceed $3,000,000;

ø(3) for fiscal year 1994, not to exceed $3,000,000; and

ø(4) for fiscal year 1995, not to exceed $3,000,000.¿

(a) AUTHORIZATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to

the Secretary to carry out this title— (A) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

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

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

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

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

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

(2) ZEBRA MUSSEL, OYSTER, AND HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM RE- SEARCH.—In addition to the amount authorized under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2008— (A) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on the zebra mussel biology and control; (B) $5,000,000 for competitive grants for university research on oyster diseases, oyster restoration, and oyster-related human health risks; and

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

(b) LIMITATIONS.— (1) ADMINISTRATION.—There may not be used for administration of programs under this title in a fiscal year more than 5

percent of the lesser of—

(A) the amount authorized to be appropriated under this

title for the fiscal year; or

(B) the amount appropriated under this title for the fiscal

year.

(2) USE FOR OTHER OFFICES OR PROGRAMS.—Sums appropriated under the authority of subsection (a)(2) shall not be

available for administration of this title by the National Sea

Grant Office, for any other Administration or department program, or for any other administrative expenses.

(c) DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.—In any fiscal year in which the appropriations made pursuant to subsection (a)(1) exceed the amounts

appropriated for fiscal year 2002 for the purposes described in such

subsection, the Secretary shall distribute the excess amounts (except

amounts used for the administration of programs) solely to— (1) State sea grant programs on a merit reviewed, competitive

basis to support, enhance, and reward programs that are best

managed and carry out the highest quality research, education,

extension, and training programs;

(2) national strategic initiatives; or

17

(3) both.

* * * * * * *

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 20, 2002, a quorum being present, the Committee on

Science favorably reported the National Sea Grant College Program

Act Amendments of 2002 by voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 3389, NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM

ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2002

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND

STANDARDS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:05 a.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

H.R. 3389

9:05 a.m.

Chairman EHLERS. Good morning. The Subcommittee will be in

order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Environment,

Technology, and Standards is meeting today to consider the following measure: H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002. And as everyone knows, this will

be followed by a hearing on a totally different subject.

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

I will proceed with my opening remarks on the bill that is under

consideration. H.R. 3389, introduced by Mr. Gilchrest, passed the

House Resources Committee on February 27, 2002 and was referred to the Science Committee for consideration. This Subcommittee held a hearing on February 28, 2002, which examined

the Administration’s proposal to transfer Sea Grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the National

Science Foundation and H.R. 3389. Based on the hearing and other

information we have gathered, I plan to offer an en bloc amendment which makes several changes to the underlying legislation. I

will explain the specifics of the amendment during consideration.

After this short markup, we will then move on to the hearing on

the Technology Administration’s budget for the Fiscal Year 2003.

18

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Barcia, the Ranking Minority

Member of the Subcommittee, for an opening statement on the bill

under consideration, H.R. 3389.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Chairman Ehlers, for bringing the Sea

Grant Reauthorization Bill before the Subcommittee today and,

also, for working with us on the bill. I fully support the Sea Grant

College Program and I am pleased that our Subcommittee is acting

expeditiously to reauthorize this important program in NOAA so

that the fine work done by the Michigan Sea Grant Program can

continue.

I understand the Chairman’s concerns about including provisions

of H.R. 3389 on the Pacific Islands Regional Consortium, however,

I believe the Pacific Island territories have some legitimate concerns and special circumstances to consider. I hope that the Chairman is open to working with Representative Underwood as this bill

moves forward to address his concerns in a manner that we can all

support.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield my remaining time to

Mr. Baird for a brief statement about the Coastal Ocean Program.

Mr. BAIRD. I would like to thank the Ranking Member and I

would like to also thank Chairman Ehlers for including in his en

bloc amendment the provision to strike the transfer of the Coastal

Ocean Program to the Sea Grant Program. I believe we need to

maintain both programs, because they serve very different information needs. The Washington Sea Grant Program state-focus serves

the specific mix of individuals and businesses that rely on our

coastal resources for their livelihoods, for recreation, and support.

The Coastal Ocean Program provides our research managers with

regional scale information that we need to better manage fisheries

in conjunction with neighboring states. Since there have been no

problems identified with the management of the Coastal Ocean

Program, and it is producing high quality research focused on regional and national needs, I see no justification for fixing what is

not broken.

I hope we will be able to convince our colleagues on the Resources Committee to join us in maintaining the Coastal Ocean

Program in its current configuration and location. And again, I

would like to thank the Ranking Member, and the Chairman, and

also, Committee Staff Jean Frucci for her assistance in this, and

I look forward to working with the Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time to the Ranking Member, Mr.

Barcia. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance

of my time.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman yields back his time. Without

objection, all other members may place opening statements in the

record. So ordered.

We will now consider H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College

Program Act Amendments of 2002. The first reading of the bill.

The CLERK. Text of H.R. 3389. Section 1. Short Title. This Act

may be cited——

[H.R. 3389 follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Without objection, so ordered.

Let us now begin by considering the amendments. The first

amendment on the roster is the amendment offered by the Chair.

I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be considered en

bloc. Without objection, so ordered. The clerk will report the

amendment.

The CLERK. Amendments to H.R. 3389 offered by Mr. Ehlers.

Page 1, line 4, strike ‘‘AND OBJECTIVE’’. Page 1, line 5, strike—— [Amendment to H.R. 3389 offered by Mr. Ehlers follows:]

27

28

29

30

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the

reading. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize myself for

five minutes to explain the amendment.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my en bloc amendment

makes several changes to H.R. 3389 as passed by the House Resources Committee. First, I want to commend my colleague, Mr.

Gilchrest from Maryland, for introducing H.R. 3389 and for his efforts on behalf of the Sea Grant Program. All of us benefit greatly

from his leadership on these issues. And I want to add a personal

note. I regard Mr. Gilchrest as one of the great leaders in this Congress on these issues relating to water resources; particularly, wetlands, Chesapeake Bay, and other issues. Second, I want everyone

to know that I strongly support the Sea Grant Program and I want

to work with all my colleagues to increase funding and exposure for

this most important research and extension program.

As discussed in our Subcommittee hearing, I believe that the Administration’s proposal to move the program has provided us an opportunity to look more deeply into how to improve the program,

and I believe my amendment does just that.

H.R. 3389 reauthorizes Sea Grant within NOAA, and I agree

with that position. However, I believe that Sea Grant could benefit

from coordinating and working more closely with the National

Science Foundation. My amendment inserts language that directs

the National Sea Grant Program to coordinate its related activities

with the National Science Foundation and the Coastal Ocean Program to avoid duplication and, above all, to ensure that the research areas are covered adequately. In addition, the language

states that Sea Grant, NSF, and the Coastal Ocean Program shall

jointly submit to Congress a report on how their activities will be

coordinated in the coming fiscal year.

H.R. 3389 proposes to transfer the Coastal Ocean Program from

NOAA’s National Ocean Service to Sea Grant. From testimony we

heard from our hearing and the many letters I have received from

researchers about this issues, I have concluded that the differences

in the two programs are significant enough to keep them separate.

My amendment removes the provisions that relate to the transfer

of the Coastal Ocean Program. However, I agree with concerns

raised by Mr. Gilchrest that the two programs should work together more closely, and as stated earlier, my amendment directs

Sea Grant to coordinate with the Coastal Ocean Program.

H.R. 3389 contains a provision inserted by Mr. Underwood,

which would provide direct financial assistance to a Pacific Islands

Regional Consortium to help it become a nationally recognized Sea

Grant College Program. I understand that Mr. Underwood believes

that his universities have not received fair consideration from

NOAA, and I want to work with him, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Barcia

to ensure that these universities receive proper considerations.

However, it would be inappropriate to provide them $2.7 million

over five years for this task when no other program receives such

treatment in statute. I also believe it would not be fair to other programs that are struggling to receive money. Therefore, my amendment removes this provision, but I am committed to working with

all parties involved to find a proper resolution to this issue and

plan to include language on this in the committee report.

31

H.R. 3389 provides much needed increases in overall funding lev- els for Sea Grant. The authorization increases from a total $68 million for Fiscal Year 2003 to $90 million for Fiscal Year 2004 and

gradually increases each year thereafter to a total of $100 million

in Fiscal Year 2008. Included in that amount is $15 million a year

for research into zebra mussels, harmful algal blooms, and oysters.

I support the needed increases and my amendment maintains the

levels in H.R. 3389.

One issue that was raised at our hearing is the seemingly unfair

nature of federal funding allocations to state Sea Grant programs.

Currently, about 80 percent of the federal funding goes directly to

the state programs based mostly on historical averages, 15 percent

is for national competitive projects, and no more than 5 percent can

go for national administration of the program. OMB was highly

critical of this process and this seems to be one of the main reasons

for proposing to move Sea Grant to NSF. Currently, only about $3

million of that total is directly distributed to the state programs is

based on the merit review process. This is the process by which

each state program is reviewed by an outside panel and given a

rating on how well its program is conducting its research, education, and extension activities.

I understand that there needs to be a consistent level of funding

to ensure each state program can adequately maintain its extension and education activities. However, we must find a way to

make the system more transparent and based on competition.

Therefore, my amendment inserts language that any monies appropriated above the Fiscal Year 2002 level shall be distributed to the

state Sea Grant programs on a merit review competitive basis or

for individual projects that are competed nationally.

These changes will enhance the Sea Grant Program and I urge

my colleagues to support the amendment.

Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Baca.

Mr. BACA. Mr. Chair, I wish to strike the last word.

Chairman EHLERS. You are recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to voice my disapproval that Delegate Underwood’s amendment to the Resource

bill was not included in the language before us today. And I would

like to go on record in support of authorizing funding to enable the

development of the Pacific Islands Regional Sea Grant Program.

When you consider that the ocean area to be included in the Pacific

Island Regional Sea Program is equivalent to the total areas of the

entire lower 48 states, I cannot understand why this Subcommittee

would choose not to fund their corporation. In regional programs,

the Pacific Islands would clearly flourish and serve the region and

the entire national interest. Mr. Underwood’s amendment simply

provides an affirmative statement that it is within the national interest to provide the necessary financial and technical assistance to

allow the people of Pacific Island an opportunity to develop the requisite programs, an element necessary to meet qualifications for

designation as a Sea Grant College.

NOAA has already provided $200,000 in grant funds to the Pacific Island Consortium members to assist them in development activity. Mr. Underwood’s amendment is not authorizing a new grant

activity by NOAA nor will this grant negatively affect other Sea

Grant Programs, because the amendment did not obligate funds for

32

any other existing Sea Grant Program. I hope that we will reconsider Mr. Underwood’s amendment when H.R. 3389 comes before

the full Committee.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Chairman

Boehlert.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Move to strike the last word.

Chairman EHLERS. You have five minutes.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield those

five minutes to you for you to continue your education of the Subcommittee and the audience.

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the Chairman for yielding. I would

simply reiterate what I said before. I think the members of this

Committee also have considerable sympathy for Mr. Underwood’s

particular situation and for the Pacific Islands. Obviously, they

should be involved in this research effort. The difficulty, as I pointed out in my earlier comments, is that the amendment earmarks

funds for that; something that has never been done in the House

in the history of this program that I am aware of, and something

we assiduously try to avoid.

So my suggestion is that we include this in report language and

encourage NOAA to give them the special consideration they need,

not just in Guam, but in the Pacific Islands and their research efforts.

Does anyone else seek time? Yes. The Chair recognizes Mr. Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. I would also move to strike the last word.

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BARCIA. I would just briefly say that throughout our long association and friendship in the Michigan legislature in these past

nine years in Congress, I think your fairness, subjectivity, and spirit of bipartisanship has never been in doubt, and I thank you for

your willingness to work toward an acceptable compromise as the

legislative process on this issue proceeds. I, too, am sensitive to the

concerns of Representative Baca and, also, our friend, Representative Underwood, and would just ask that as we have in the past,

we try to continue to work toward a solution to those concerns. And

I trust that if you give us your word on that, you certainly always

have honored that in the past, and I look forward to working with

you on it.

Chairman EHLERS. The Chair will continue to seek an amicable

solution to this particular issue. Is there any further discussion?

Hearing none, the vote is on this amendment, the en bloc amendment. All those in favor will say aye. All those opposed, no. The

ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, we will proceed to the question

on the Bill H.R. 3389, as amended. All those in favor will say aye.

All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes

have it. I now recognize Mr. Barcia for a motion.

Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I compliment you on your efficiency

in managing today’s markup and move that the Subcommittee favorably report the Bill H.R. 3389 as amended to the full Committee

with the recommendation that it be in order for the bill as amended by the Subcommittee to be considered as an original bill for the

purpose of amendment under the five minute rule at full Committee. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the staff be inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 23:09 Apr 16, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR369P2.XXX pfrm02 PsN: HR369P2
33

structed to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to

the bill as amended in accordance with the recommendations of the

Subcommittee.

Chairman EHLERS. The Committee has heard the motion. Those

in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the

motion is agreed to. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is

laid upon the table. That concludes our Subcommittee markup and

we will now proceed to the subject of the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 9:25 a.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other

business.]

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

MARKUP ON H.R. 3389, NATIONAL SEA

GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2002

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in Room

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

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Committee on Science will be in order.

First of all, I would like to advise all members that there is a signup sheet before each individual place, reflecting the views and estimates, and we would like you to read the Committee’s views and

estimates, and hopefully, you will be inspired to sign the sheet indicating your approval. With that, let us get moving.

The Committee on Science will be in order. Pursuant to notice,

the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures. H.R. 2051, A Bill to Provide for the Establishment of Regional Plant Genome and Gene Expression Research and

Development Centers. Thank you, Mr. Smith. H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant Program Act Amendments of 2002, and H.R.

3929, the Energy Pipeline Research Development and Demonstration Act.

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

will be making his way here to present his opening remarks. Let

me do mine.

The three bills we have before us this morning deal with very

different topics and come from three different subcommittees, but

they do have a few key aspects in common. First, all three are bipartisan consensus bills. Once again, the Committee’s majority and

minority staffs have worked in tandem to draft the bills that advance proposals from members on both sides of the aisle. This

Committee continues to set an example of working together that

others would do well to follow. Also, all three bills are designed to

34

promote research and development, especially, long-term research

and development that will help address critical societal problems.

H.R. 2051 was designed to help strengthen American agriculture

and alleviate malnutrition in the developing world. H.R. 3389 will

help protect the nation’s coastal areas and fisheries and combat

invasive species. And H.R. 3929 will help prevent pollution and

pipeline explosions. These bills are not funding research for the

sake of research whether they deal with abstruse matters of no

concern to the rest of Congress or to the rest of the country. The

research advances that will result from these measures will help

improve the daily lives of people here and around the world. Let

me say just a little bit more about each of these bills and then they

will be described more fully by their sponsors as we mark up each

one.

H.R. 2051, offered by Chairman Nick Smith and Ranking Minority Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, will create two new programs

on plant biotechnology at the National Science Foundation. The bill

offers a balanced approach to biotech authorizing research not only

to develop new genetic engineering techniques and products, but

also, to examine the ecological and social consequences of bio-engineered plants.

H.R. 3389, offered by Chairman Vernon Ehlers and Ranking Minority Member Jim Barcia, will reauthorize and reform the Sea

Grant Program, while keeping it within the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. We will have to negotiate

a final version of the bill with the Resources Committee before it

can come to the Floor, and we plan to push in a strong and unified

fashion for our version of this bill. However, we will, as Dr. Ehlers

has committed, find a way to address the concerns Mr. Underwood

has raised about the way the Sea Grant Program deals with the

Pacific Islands.

Finally, we will take up H.R. 3929, offered by Ranking Minority

Member Ralph Hall and Lamar Smith, which will ensure that all

the federal agencies with expertise in pipeline safety are engaged

in research in that important area. We will work with the Energy

and Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees

to move our bill as part of a comprehensive pipeline safety measure.

So we have much to accomplish today and we will do it in the

bipartisan fashion that has become the Committee’s hallmark.

With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have covered the waterfront pretty well. I just want to say that I support these three bills.

We will have an amendment for the third bill, but on H.R. 2051,

I want to congratulate Nick Smith and Ranking Democratic Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their efforts on it. And of course, on

the Sea Grant Program, your bill, I certainly support that and look

forward to working with you, and you have recognized Chairman

Ehlers and Representative Barcia. And on my bill, I will have an

amendment of 3929 that we will discuss when we have a little

more time. With that, thank you for doing a good job, and I yield

back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And let me tell you,

it is the Chair’s intent to move with dispatch. These bills have been

looked at with the respective committee staffs. They are very able

35

and very professional staffs, so we don’t envision a long markup

here. We have a hearing immediately after with some very distinguished guests, and I know a number of our colleagues have conflicting commitments. So without objection, all members’ opening

statements will be placed in the record at this point.

H.R. 3389

10:53 a.m.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002. I now

recognize for five minutes the Chair of the Committee on Environment, Technology, and Standards, the distinguished gentleman

from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers, to briefly explain the bill.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for

bringing this important legislation before the House Science Committee. I also want to commend my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, from

Maryland, for introducing H.R. 3389 and for his efforts on behalf

of the Sea Grant Program. All of us benefit greatly from his leadership and knowledge on these issues.

The legislation before us today makes four main changes to the

legislation passed by the House Resources Committee. First, it directs the National Sea Grant Program to coordinate its related activities with the National Science Foundation and the Coastal

Ocean Program to avoid duplication and to ensure that the research areas are covered adequately. While we did not adopt the

Administration’s position on transferring this program, I believe

Sea Grant can benefit by working more closely with both the National Science Foundation and the Coastal Ocean Program.

Second, I have concluded that the Coastal Ocean Program and

Sea Grant have significantly different goals and missions, therefore, the legislation as passed by the Subcommittee removes provisions in the underlying bill that would have consolidated these two

programs. However, I agree with concerns raised by Mr. Gilchrest

and the Resources Committee that the two programs should work

together more closely, and as stated earlier, my amendment directs

Sea Grant to coordinate with the Coastal Ocean Program.

Third, we have removed a provision that would provide direct financial assistance to a Pacific Islands regional construction to help

it become a nationally recognized Sea Grant College Program. I believe it would be inappropriate to provide this consortium special

consideration when no other program receives such treatment in

statute. I also believe it would not be fair to other programs that

are struggling to receive money and would establish a bad precedent to have congressional involvement in those choices. However,

I am committed to working with Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Underwood,

and Mr. Barcia to find a proper resolution to this issue and plan

to include language on this in the Committee report.

Finally, the legislation passed by the Subcommittee would direct

any monies appropriated above the Fiscal Year 2002 level to be distributed to the State Sea Grant Programs on a merit review competitive basis or for individual projects that are competed nationally. One issue that was raised at our hearing is a seemingly unfair

nature of federal funding allocations to State Sea Grant Programs.

I understand the need for a consistent level of funding to ensure

that each state program can maintain its extension and education

36

activities. However, we must find a way to make the system more

transparent and based on competition.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for bringing this bill before the

Committee. I am a strong supporter of the Sea Grant Program and

I believe that this legislation will help strengthen that program. I

look forward to working with you, the Resources Committee, and

Members of the Committee to bring this legislation before the

House.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON EHLERS

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing this important legislation before

the House Science Committee.

I want to commend my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland, for introducing

H.R. 3389, and for his efforts on behalf of the Sea Grant program. All of us benefit

greatly from his leadership on these issues.

The legislation before us today makes four main changes to the legislation passed

by the House Resources Committee:

• First, it directs the National Sea Grant Program to coordinate its related activities with the National Science Foundation and the Coastal Ocean Program

to avoid duplication and to ensure that the research areas are covered adequately. While we did not adopt the Administration’s position on transferring

this program, I believe Sea Grant can benefit by working more closely with

both the National Science Foundation and the Coastal Ocean Program.

• Second, I have concluded that the Coastal Ocean Program and Sea Grant

have significantly different goals and missions. Therefore, the legislation as

passed by the Subcommittee removes provisions in the underlying bill that

would have consolidated these two programs. However, I agree with concerns

raised by Mr. Gilchrest that the two programs should work together more

closely, and as stated earlier, my amendment directs Sea Grant to coordinate

with the Coastal Ocean Program.

• Third, we have removed a provision that would provide direct financial assistance to a Pacific Islands Regional Consortium to help it become a nationally

recognized Sea Grant College Program. I believe it would be inappropriate to

provide this consortium special consideration when no other program receives

such treatment in statute. I also believe it would not be fair to other programs that are struggling to receive money. But, I am committed to working

with Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Underwood and Mr. Barcia to find a proper resolution

to this issue, and plan to include language on this in the committee report.

• Finally, the legislation passed by the Subcommittee would direct any monies

appropriated above the Fiscal Year 2002 level to be distributed to the state

Sea Grant programs on a merit-review, competitive basis or for individual

projects that are competed nationally. One issue that was raised at our hearing is the seemingly unfair nature of federal funding allocations to state Sea

Grant programs. I understand the need for a consistent level of funding to

ensure each state program can maintain its extension and education activities. However, we must find a way to make the system more transparent and

based on competition.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for bringing this bill before the Committee. I am

a strong supporter of Sea Grant, and I believe that this legislation will help

strengthen the program. I look forward to working with you, the Resources Committee, and Members of the Committee to bring this legislation before the House.

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

thank you for your good work, and we are very supportive of the

Sea Grant Program, and we are fortunate to have Mr. Gilchrest,

the original sponsor, a member of this Committee as well as Resources Committee. So I look forward to working with you, and

him, and Mr. Hall, and all concerned to fashion a responsible bill

that we move to the Floor with dispatch.

Speaking about dispatch, Mr. Hall, you are now recognized.

37

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will act with dispatch. I will ask unanimous consideration to put my full statement

in. Just briefly, I want to say, though, that I thank Chairman

Ehlers and Representative Barcia. I know the Sea Grant Program

is as valued in other states as it is Texas, and I wish you well and

pledge you my full cooperation when we try to work together to reconcile the differences in the emergence of H.R. 3389 with our colleagues on the Committee on Resources so the Sea Grant reauthorization bill can be considered in the near future. I yield back my

time.

[The prepared statement by Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, for bringing the Sea Grant Reauthorization before

the Committee this morning and working with us on this bill. I would also like to

thank Chairman Ehlers and Rep. Barcia for their work in the Subcommittee on

H.R. 3389. The Sea Grant Program is an example of the fine work that can be accomplished through federal and state partnerships in research, education, and extension. I know the Sea Grant Program is as valued in other states as it is in Texas.

The information developed and distributed to our constituents is essential for those

who rely on our coastal areas for their livelihoods and for recreation. I am very

pleased that our Committee has moved quickly to reauthorize the Sea Grant Program in NOAA.

I hope that we can work together quickly to reconcile the different versions of

H.R. 3389 with our colleagues on the Committee on Resources so that the Sea Grant

Reauthorization bill can be considered in the House in the near future. Again, I

thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of the Committee for their cooperation

in moving this legislation forward.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous

consent that the bill as amended by the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards on March 14, 2002 be considered

as original text for the purpose of amendment and that the bill be

considered as read and open to amendment at any point. I ask the

members to proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered.

[H.R. 3389 follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Chairman BOEHLERT. The bill is now open for amendments. Are

there any amendments? Mr. Ehlers—Dr. Ehlers.

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

and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered

en bloc.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment.

The CLERK. En bloc amendment to H.R. 3389, offered by Mr.

Ehlers.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief in explanation

of this amendment since it is a simple one and I have already discussed the main text of the bill. First, this amendment will ensure

that both quality of research and quality of extension and education programs are taken into account when determining which

schools will receive the new merit based funding established by

this legislation.

Second, this amendment improves language that I have worked

out with Congresswoman Jackson Lee, which makes certain that

the Sea Grant Program will work with minority and disadvantaged

students to ensure they have equal access to this program. Both of

these changes have been worked out on a bipartisan basis and I

urge the Committee to adopt this amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any further discussion? Yes, Mr.

Barcia.

Mr. BARCIA. Yes. I move to strike the last word for the purpose

of engaging in a colloquy with the Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. BARCIA. I would like to restate our desire on the minority

side to develop language to address the concerns of our colleague,

Representative Underwood. I hope the Chairman will agree to work

with us to include language in our legislative report on H.R. 3389.

We would also like to continue to work with you as we reconcile

our version of the bill with the version reported by our colleagues

on the Resources Committee to ensure that the concerns of the U.S.

Pacific Island territories and freely associated states are addressed.

The Islands should be encouraged to develop their own capacity to

address the ocean and coastal resource management issues in their

region.

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman, and Mr. Underwood, and

all concerned have the assurance of the Chair that we will work

cooperatively with professional staff and member to member to resolve this in an amicable way that will move the program forward.

Mr. BARCIA. I thank the Chairman and Subcommittee Chairman

Ehlers for their consideration and cooperation.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there discussion? If no, the vote occurs

on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The

ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

[Amendment to H.R. 3389 follows:]

47

48

49

Chairman BOEHLERT. Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill H.R. 3389, the National Sea

Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002. All those in favor

say aye. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes

have it.

I will now recognize Mr. Barcia for a motion.

Mr. BARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 3389 as amended to the House with

the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and

that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before

the House for consideration.

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

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

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it and the bill is favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid

upon the table. I move that members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional

views on the measure. Without objection, so ordered. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the House of Representatives that the

Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may

be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate on

the bill H.R. 3389 or a similar bill. Without objection, so ordered.

Æ