49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–545 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION ACT 

JUNE 29, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5450] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

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

5450) to provide for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

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

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 12 

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 12 

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 16 

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 19 

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill, as Reported ............................ 21 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and Section), as Reported ............ 22 

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 23 

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 27 

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 28 

XI. Compliance With Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 28 

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 28 

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 28 

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 29 

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 29 

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 29 

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 29 

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................ 29 

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 29 

2 

XX. Committee Correspondence ........................................................................ 30 

XXI. Correspondence ........................................................................................... 33 

XXII. Minority Views ............................................................................................ 49 

XXIII. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup of H.R. 50 .................................... 54 

XXIV. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup of H.R. 50 ................................. 94 

XXV. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup of H.R. 5450 ............................. 197 

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 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘Administration’’ means the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

(2) The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

(3) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Commerce. 

SEC. 3. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Department of Commerce an agency 

known as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

(b) MISSION.—The mission of the Administration is to understand the systems of 

the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and 

atmosphere and the effects of such changes on the land environment, to conserve 

and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems to meet national economic, 

social, and environmental needs, and to educate the public about these topics. 

(c) FUNCTIONS.—The functions of the Administration shall include— 

(1) collecting, through observation and other means, communicating, analyzing, processing, and disseminating comprehensive scientific data and information about weather and climate, solar and geophysical events on the Sun and 

in the space environment, and about the coasts, oceans, Great Lakes, upper 

reaches of estuaries, and hydrologic systems; 

(2) operating and maintaining a system for the storage, retrieval, and dissemination of data relating to weather and climate, solar and geophysical 

events on the Sun and in the space environment, and about the coasts, oceans, 

Great Lakes, upper reaches of estuaries, and hydrologic systems; 

(3) using observational data and technologies developed by other Federal 

agencies to improve the Administration’s operations; 

(4) conducting and supporting basic and applied research, development, and 

technology transfer as may be necessary to carry out the mission described in 

subsection (b); 

(5) issuing weather, water, climate, space weather, tsunami, and other forecasts and warnings related to Earth’s oceans and atmosphere; 

(6) coordinating efforts of Federal agencies with respect to meteorological 

services; 

(7) understanding the science of Earth’s climate and related systems, and undertaking research and development to enhance society’s ability to plan for and 

respond to climate variability and change; 

(8) protecting, restoring, and managing the use of, the coasts, oceans, and 

Great Lakes through ecosystem-based research, development, demonstration, 

and management; 

(9) administering public outreach and education programs and services to increase scientific and environmental literacy about weather and climate, solar 

and geophysical events on the Sun and in the space environment, and the 

coasts, oceans, Great Lakes, upper reaches of estuaries, and hydrologic systems; 

(10) providing, as appropriate and in cooperation with the Secretary of State, 

representation at all international meetings and conferences relating to the mission of the Administration, including meteorological, climate, and Earth and 

ocean observing issues; 

(11) any other function assigned to the Administration by law; and 

(12) such other functions as are necessary to accomplish the mission described 

in subsection (b). 

3 

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION LEADERSHIP. 

(a) ADMINISTRATOR.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be, as the Administrator of the Administration, 

an Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 

of the Senate. The Administrator shall be paid at the rate of basic pay for level 

III of the Executive Schedule. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Administrator shall be responsible for— 

(A) general management; 

(B) policy development and guidance; 

(C) budget formulation, guidance, and execution; 

(D) serving as the Department of Commerce official for all ocean and atmosphere issues with other elements of the Department of Commerce and 

with other Federal agencies, State, tribal, and local governments, and the 

public; and 

(E) such other duties with respect to the Administration as the Secretary 

may prescribe. 

(3) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.—The Administrator may, except as otherwise 

prohibited by law— 

(A) delegate any functions, powers, or duties of the Administrator to such 

officers and employees of the Administration as the Administrator may designate; and 

(B) authorize such successive redelegations of such functions, powers, or 

duties within the Administration as the Administrator considers necessary 

or appropriate. 

(4) AUTHORITIES.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—As may be necessary or proper to carry out the Administration’s functions under this Act or as otherwise provided by law, the Administrator may— 

(i) promulgate rules and regulations; 

(ii) enter into and perform contracts, leases, grants, and cooperative 

agreements with Federal agencies, State and local governments, Indian 

tribes, international organizations, foreign governments, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; 

(iii) use, with their consent, and with or without reimbursement, the 

services, equipment, personnel, and facilities of other departments, 

agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government; and 

(iv) conduct education and outreach in direct support of the mission 

described in section 3(b). 

(B) EXCEPTION.—The authorities conferred on the Administrator by this 

paragraph do not include the authority to contract for services that are an 

inherently governmental function as defined in section 5 of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 501 note). 

(b) ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be, as Deputy Administrator of the Administration, an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. The Assistant Secretary shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 

and consent of the Senate. The Assistant Secretary shall be the Administrator’s 

first assistant for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 33 of title 5, United 

States Code. The Assistant Secretary shall be paid at the rate of basic pay for 

level IV of the Executive Schedule. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Assistant Secretary shall perform such functions and exercise such powers as the Administrator may prescribe and shall act as Administrator during the absence or disability of the Administrator or in the event 

of a vacancy in the office of Administrator. 

(c) DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall, be as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, a Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. 

The Deputy Under Secretary shall be appointed by the Secretary. The position 

of Deputy Under Secretary shall be a Senior Executive Service position authorized under section 3133 of title 5, United States Code. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Deputy Under Secretary— 

(A) shall ensure the timely and effective implementation of Administration policies and objectives; 

(B) shall be responsible for all aspects of the Administration’s operations 

and management, including budget, financial operations, information services, facilities, human resources, procurements, and associated services; 

(C) in the absence or disability of the Assistant Secretary, or in the event 

of a vacancy in such position, shall act in that position; and 

4 

(D) shall perform such other duties as the Administrator shall prescribe. 

(d) DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Administration a Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Science and Education who shall coordinate and oversee the 

science and education activities of the Administration and their application to 

Administration decisions and operations. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Science and Education shall be appointed by the Secretary. The position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education shall be a Senior Executive 

Service career reserved position as defined in section 3132(a)(8) of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education 

shall— 

(A) coordinate research and development activities across the Administration; 

(B) review the Administration’s annual budget to ensure that funding for 

research and development is adequate, properly focused, and carried out by 

the appropriate entities across the Administration; 

(C) advise the Administrator on how research results can be applied to 

operational use; 

(D) advise the Administrator regarding science issues and their relationship to Administration policies, procedures, and decisions; 

(E) participate in developing the Administration’s strategic plans and 

policies and review the science and education aspects of those plans and 

policies; 

(F) serve as liaison to the nongovernmental science community; 

(G) develop and oversee guidelines for peer review of research sponsored 

or conducted by the Administration; 

(H) oversee implementation of the strategic plan for research and development required under section 9(b); 

(I) oversee management of laboratories in the Administration; 

(J) oversee the research and education programs of the Administration; 

and 

(K) perform such other duties as the Administrator shall prescribe. 

(3) QUALIFICATIONS.—An individual appointed under paragraph (1) shall be 

a person who has an outstanding science and education background, including 

research accomplishments, scientific reputation, and public policy experience. 

(4) CONSULTATION.—Before appointing an individual under paragraph (1), the 

Secretary shall consult with the National Academy of Sciences, the Science Advisory Board of the Administration, and other appropriate scientific organizations. 

(e) DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARIES.—There may be in the Administration no 

more than two additional Deputy Assistant Secretaries whose duties may be designated by the Administrator. The Deputy Assistant Secretaries shall be appointed 

by the Secretary. The positions of Deputy Assistant Secretaries shall be Senior Executive Service positions authorized under section 3133 of title 5, United States 

Code. 

(f) GENERAL COUNSEL.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Administration a General Counsel. 

The General Counsel shall be appointed by the Secretary. The General Counsel 

shall be paid at the rate of basic pay for level V of the Executive Schedule. 

(2) FUNCTIONS.—The General Counsel— 

(A) shall serve as the chief legal officer of the Administration for all legal 

matters that arise in connection with the conduct of the functions of the Administration; and 

(B) shall perform such other functions and exercise such powers as the 

Administrator may prescribe. 

(g) CONTINUATION OF SERVICE.—Any individual serving on the effective date of 

this Act in a position provided for in this Act may continue to serve in that position 

until a successor is appointed under this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

to require the appointment of a successor under this Act sooner than would have 

been required under law as in effect before the effective date of this Act. 

SEC. 5. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall maintain within the Administration the National Weather Service. 

(b) MISSION.—The mission of the National Weather Service is to provide weather, 

water, climate, tsunami, and space weather forecasts and warnings for the United 

States, its territories, adjacent waters, and ocean areas for the protection of life and 

property and the enhancement of the national economy. In carrying out the mission 

5 

of the National Weather Service, the Administrator shall ensure that the National 

Weather Service— 

(1) provides timely and accurate weather, water, climate, tsunami, and space 

weather forecasts; and 

(2) provides timely and accurate warnings of natural hazards related to 

weather, water, climate, and tsunamis, and of space weather hazards. 

(c) FUNCTIONS.—The functions of the National Weather Service shall include— 

(1) maintaining a network of local weather forecast offices; 

(2) maintaining a network of observation systems to collect weather and climate data; 

(3) operating national centers to deliver guidance, forecasts, warnings, and 

analysis about weather, water, climate, tsunami, and space weather phenomena 

for the Administration and the public; 

(4) providing information to Federal agencies and other organizations responsible for emergency preparedness and response as required by law; 

(5) conducting and supporting applied research to facilitate the rapid incorporation of weather and climate science advances into operational tools; and 

(6) other functions to serve the mission of the National Weather Service described in subsection (b). 

SEC. 6. OPERATIONS AND SERVICES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall maintain within the Administration programs to support efforts, on a continuing basis, to collect data and provide information and products regarding satellites, observations, and coastal, ocean and Great 

Lakes information. 

(b) FUNCTIONS.—To accomplish the mission described in section 3(b), and in addition to the functions described in section 3(c), the operations and service aspects of 

the Administration shall include— 

(1) acquiring, managing, and operating coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes observing systems; 

(2) contributing to the operation of a global Earth-observing system; 

(3) integrating Administration remote sensing and in situ assets that provide 

critical data needed to support the mission of the Administration, and providing 

that data to decisionmakers and the public; 

(4) developing, acquiring, and managing operational environmental satellite 

programs and associated ground control and data acquisition and delivery facilities to support the mission of the Administration; 

(5) managing and distributing atmospheric, geophysical, and marine data and 

data products for the Administration through national environmental data centers; 

(6) providing for long-term stewardship of environmental data, products, and 

information via data processing, storage, reanalysis, reprocessing, and archive 

facilities; 

(7) issuing licenses for private remote sensing space systems under the Land 

Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992; 

(8) administering a national water level observation network, which shall include monitoring of the Great Lakes; 

(9) providing charts and other information for safe navigation of the oceans 

and inland waters, as provided by law; 

(10) maintaining a fleet of ships and aircraft to support the mission of the 

Administration; and 

(11) such other operations and services functions to serve the mission of the 

Administration as the Administrator may prescribe. 

SEC. 7. RESEARCH AND EDUCATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall maintain within the Administration programs to conduct and support research and education and the development of technologies relating to weather, climate, and the coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. 

(b) FUNCTIONS.—To accomplish the mission described in section 3(b), and in addition to the functions described in section 3(c), the research and education aspects 

of the Administration shall include— 

(1) conducting and supporting research and development to improve the Administration’s capabilities to collect, through observation and otherwise, communicate, analyze, process, and disseminate comprehensive scientific data and information about weather, climate, and the coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes; 

(2) improving ecological prediction and management capabilities through ecosystem-based research and development; 

(3) contributing information on the Earth’s climate and related systems, obtained through research and observation, that addresses questions confronting 

policymakers, resources managers, and other users; 

6 

(4) reducing uncertainty in projections of how the Earth’s climate and related 

systems may change in the future; 

(5) fostering the public’s ability to understand and integrate scientific information into considerations of national environmental issues through education 

and public outreach activities; 

(6) administering the National Sea Grant College Program Act; 

(7) conducting and supporting research and development of technology for exploration of the oceans; 

(8) maintaining a system of laboratories to perform the functions described 

in this subsection; 

(9) supporting extramural peer-reviewed competitive grant programs to assist 

the Administration in performing the functions described in this subsection; and 

(10) such other research, development, education, and outreach functions to 

serve the mission of the Administration as the Administrator may prescribe. 

SEC. 8. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be within the Administration a Science Advisory 

Board, which shall provide such scientific advice as may be requested by the Administrator, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, 

or the Committee on Science or on Resources of the House of Representatives. 

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Science Advisory Board is to advise the Administrator and Congress on long-range and short-range strategies for research, education, and the application of science to resource management and environmental 

assessment and prediction. 

(c) MEMBERS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Science Advisory Board shall be composed of at least 

15 members appointed by the Administrator. Each member of the Board shall 

be qualified by education, training, and experience to evaluate scientific and 

technical information on matters referred to the Board under this section. 

(2) TERMS OF SERVICE.—Members shall be appointed for 3-year terms, renewable once, and shall serve at the discretion of the Administrator. An individual 

serving a term as a member of the Science Advisory Board on the date of enactment of this Act may complete that term, and may be reappointed once for another term of 3 years unless the term being served on such date of enactment 

is the second term served by that individual. Vacancy appointments shall be for 

the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacancy, and an individual so appointed may subsequently be appointed for 2 full 3-year terms if the remainder 

of the unexpired term is less than one year. 

(3) CHAIRPERSON.—The Administrator shall designate a chairperson from 

among the members of the Board. 

(4) APPOINTMENT.—Members of the Science Advisory Board shall be appointed as special Government employees, within the meaning given such term 

in section 202(a) of title 18, United States Code. 

(d) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.— 

(1) REPORTING.—The Science Advisory Board shall report to the Administrator and the appropriate requesting party. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT.—The Administrator shall provide administrative support to the Science Advisory Board. 

(3) MEETINGS.—The Science Advisory Board shall meet at least twice each 

year, and at other times at the call of the Administrator or the Chairperson. 

(4) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.—A member of the Science Advisory Board 

shall not be compensated for service on such board, but may be allowed travel 

expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code. 

(5) SUBCOMMITTEES.—The Science Advisory Board may establish such subcommittees of its members as may be necessary. The Science Advisory Board 

may establish task forces and working groups consisting of Board members and 

outside experts as may be necessary. 

(e) EXPIRATION.—Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 

App.) shall not apply to the Science Advisory Board. 

SEC. 9. REPORTS. 

(a) REPORT ON DATA MANAGEMENT, ARCHIVAL, AND DISTRIBUTION.— 

(1) CONTENTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

and once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall do the following: 

(A) Enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to 

review the environmental data and information systems of the Administration and to provide recommendations to address any inadequacies identified 

by the review. The review shall assess the adequacy of the environmental 

data and information systems of the Administration to— 

7 

(i) provide adequate capacity to manage, archive and disseminate environmental information collected and processed, or expected to be collected and processed, by the Administration, including data gathered by 

other agencies that is processed or stored by the Administration; 

(ii) establish, develop, and maintain information bases, including necessary management systems, which will provide for consistent, efficient, and compatible transfer and use of data; 

(iii) develop effective interfaces among the environmental data and 

information systems of the Administration and other appropriate departments and agencies; 

(iv) develop and use nationally accepted formats and standards for 

data collected by various national and international sources; 

(v) integrate and interpret data from different sources to produce information that can be used by decisionmakers in developing policies 

that effectively respond to national and global environmental concerns; 

and 

(vi) reanalyze and reprocess the archived data as better science is developed to integrate diverse data sources. 

(B) Develop a strategic plan, with respect to the environmental data and 

information systems of the Administration, to— 

(i) respond to each of the recommendations in the review conducted 

under subparagraph (A); 

(ii) set forth modernization and improvement objectives for an integrated national environmental data access and archive system for the 

10-year period beginning with the year in which the plan is transmitted, including facility requirements and critical new technology components that would be necessary to meet the objectives set forth; 

(iii) propose specific Administration programs and activities for implementing the plan; 

(iv) identify the data and information management, reanalysis, reprocessing, archival, and distribution responsibilities of the Administration with respect to other Federal departments and agencies and international organizations; and 

(v) provide an implementation schedule and estimate funding levels 

necessary to achieve modernization and improvement objectives. 

(2) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 

Science of the House of Representatives the initial review and strategic plan developed under paragraph (1). Subsequent reviews and strategic plans developed 

under paragraph (1) shall also be transmitted to those committees upon completion. 

(b) STRATEGIC PLAN FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) CONTENTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 

and once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall develop a strategic 

plan for research and development at the Administration. The plan shall include— 

(A) an assessment of the science and technology needs of the Administration based on the Administration’s operational requirements and on input 

provided by external stakeholders at the national, regional, State, and local 

levels; and 

(B) a strategic plan that assigns specific programs within the administration the responsibility to meet each need identified under subparagraph (A) 

and that describes the extent to which each need identified in subparagraph (A) will be addressed through— 

(i) intramural research; 

(ii) extramural, peer-reviewed, competitive grant programs; and 

(iii) work done in cooperation with other Federal agencies. 

(2) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REVIEW.—The Administrator shall enter 

into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a review of the 

plan developed under paragraph (1). 

(3) TRANSMITTAL TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 months after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on 

Science of the House of Representatives the initial strategic plan developed 

under paragraph (1) and the review prepared pursuant to paragraph (2). Subsequent strategic plans developed under paragraph (1) shall also be transmitted 

to those committees upon completion. 

8 

SEC. 10. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. 

Not less than once every 5 years, the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress a policy that defines processes for making decisions about the roles of the Administration, the private sector, and the academic community in providing environmental information, products, technologies, and services. The first such submission 

shall be completed not less than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

At least 90 days before each submission of the policy to Congress, the Secretary 

shall publish the policy in the Federal Register for a public comment period of not 

less than 60 days. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require changes in 

the policy in effect on the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 11. EFFECT OF REORGANIZATION PLAN. 

Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 shall have no further force and effect. 

SEC. 12. SAVINGS PROVISION. 

All rules and regulations, determinations, standards, contracts, including collective bargaining agreements, certifications, authorizations, appointments, delegations, results and findings of investigations, and other actions duly issued, made, 

or taken by or pursuant to or under the authority of any statute or executive order 

which resulted in the assignment of functions or activities to the Secretary, the Department of Commerce, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, the Administrator, or any other officer of the Administration, that is in effect 

immediately before the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue in full force and 

effect after the effective date of this Act until modified or rescinded. All suits, appeals, judgments, and proceedings pending on such effective date relating to responsibilities or functions transferred pursuant to this Act shall continue without regard 

to such transfers, except for the transfer of responsibilities or functions. Any reference in law to a responsibility, function, or office transferred pursuant to this Act 

shall be deemed to refer to the responsibility, function, or office as so transferred. 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability of an Administration employee to discuss scientific research performed by that employee. Nothing in this Act 

shall be construed to alter the responsibilities or authorities of any other Federal 

agency. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or prohibit the transfer 

of any program, function, or project from other Federal agencies to the Administration. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to expand, modify, or supersede the authority that the Administration has immediately before the date of enactment of 

this Act, nor to provide the Administration with any new regulatory authority. 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to grant the Administrator any authority to 

construct, alter, repair, or acquire by any means a public building, as defined at section 3301 of title 40, United States Code, or to grant any authority to lease general 

purpose office or storage space in any building; and nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish any authority the Administrator has immediately before the date 

of enactment of this Act to construct, alter, repair, or acquire by any means a public 

building, as defined at section 3301 of title 40, United States Code, or to diminish 

any authority the Administrator has immediately before the date of enactment of 

this Act to lease general purpose office or storage space in any building (regardless 

of whether those authorities are derived from laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, or delegations of authority from the Secretary of Commerce). 

SEC. 13. REORGANIZATION PLAN. 

(a) SCHEDULE.—(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Administrator shall develop a reorganization plan for the Administration 

in accordance with this section and shall publish the plan in the Federal Register. 

The Federal Register notice shall solicit comments for a period of 60 days. 

(2) Not later than 90 days after the expiration date of the comment period described in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a revised 

version of the plan that takes into account the comments received. The Administrator shall also publish the revised plan in the Federal Register. The Administrator 

shall transmit and publish, along with the plan, an explanation of how the Administrator dealt with each issue raised by the comments received. 

(3) The Administrator shall implement the plan 60 days after the plan has been 

transmitted to the Congress. 

(b) CONTENT.—The plan, to the greatest extent practicable, shall— 

(1) consistent with section 5 and the other provisions of this Act, maximize 

the efficiency with which the Administration carries out the functions of— 

(A) operations and services; 

(B) research and education; and 

(C) resource management; 

(2) improve the sharing of research and other information that is of use across 

programmatic themes; and 

9 

(3) eliminate duplication of effort or overlapping efforts among offices. 

(c) CONSULTATION.—In developing the plan, the Administrator shall consult with 

interested parties, including the States, academia, industry, conservation organizations, and Administration employees. 

SEC. 14. FACILITY EVALUATION PROCESS. 

(a) PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall not close, consolidate, relocate, subdivide, or establish a facility of the Administration, unless and until the Administrator has followed the procedures required by this section. 

(2) REVIEW PROCESS.—The Administrator shall not close, consolidate, relocate, 

subdivide, or establish a facility of the Administration with an annual operating 

budget of $5,000,000 or greater, or a National Weather Service field office, unless and until— 

(A) the Administrator has published in the Federal Register the proposed 

action and a description of the offices, personnel, and activities of the Administration that would be affected by the proposed change, and has provided for a minimum of 60 days for public comment; 

(B) if the proposed change involves a science facility of the Administration, the Science Advisory Board has reviewed the proposed change and 

provided to the Administrator written findings regarding the proposed 

change; 

(C) if the proposed change involves a National Weather Service field office, the Administrator has prepared a report including— 

(i) a description of local weather characteristics and weather-related 

concerns which affect the weather services provided within the service 

area; 

(ii) a detailed comparison of the services provided within the service 

area and the services to be provided after the proposed change; 

(iii) a description of any recent or expected modernization of National 

Weather Service operations which will enhance services in the service 

area; 

(iv) an identification of any area within any State which would not 

receive coverage (at an elevation of 10,000 feet) due to the proposed 

change; and 

(v) evidence, based on operational demonstration of National Weather 

Service operations, which was considered in reaching the conclusion 

that no degradation in service will result from the proposed change; 

(D) the Administrator has prepared an analysis of the anticipated costs 

and savings associated with the proposed facility change, including both 

costs and savings in the first fiscal year following the change, and changes 

in operations and maintenance costs and savings over a ten-year period; 

and 

(E) the Administrator has prepared an analysis of the effects of the facility change on operations and research of the Administration, and the potential impacts on cooperative institutes, other external Administration partnerships, partnerships with other Federal agencies, and any State and local 

partnerships. 

(3) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.—(A) The Administrator shall provide to Congress, 

at least 90 days before any closure, consolidation, relocation, subdivision, or establishment of a facility of the Administration with an annual budget of 

$5,000,000 or greater, or any National Weather Service field office, a summary 

of the public comments received pursuant to paragraph (2)(A), any written findings prepared under paragraph (2)(B), any report prepared under paragraph 

(2)(C), and the analyses prepared under paragraph (2)(D) and (E). 

(B) The Administrator shall provide to Congress, at least 90 days before any 

closure, consolidation, relocation, subdivision, or establishment of a facility of 

the Administration not described in subparagraph (A), written notification of 

the planned closure, consolidation, relocation, subdivision, or establishment. 

(b) WEATHER SERVICE MODERNIZATION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

alter the Weather Service Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note). 

(c) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘facility’’ means a laboratory, operations office, administrative 

service center, or other establishment of the Administration; and 

(2) the term ‘‘field office’’ has the same meaning given that term in section 

702 of the Weather Service Modernization Act. 

SEC. 15. BUDGET REPROGRAMMING. 

Whenever the Administrator transmits a budget reprogramming request to the 

Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the AdVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
10 

ministrator shall simultaneously submit a copy of the request to the Committee on 

Science and the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 

SEC. 16. BASELINES AND COST CONTROLS. 

(a) CONDITIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall not enter into a contract for the 

development of a major program unless the Administrator determines that— 

(A) the technical, cost, and schedule risks of the program are clearly identified and the program has developed a plan to manage those risks; 

(B) the technologies required for the program have been demonstrated in 

a relevant laboratory or test environment; and 

(C) the program complies with all relevant policies, regulations, and directives of the Administration. 

(2) REPORT.—The Administrator shall transmit a report describing the basis 

for the determination required under paragraph (1) to the Committee on 

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

Science, and Transportation of the Senate at least 30 days before entering into 

a contract for development under a major program. 

(3) NONDELEGATION.—The Administrator may not delegate the determination 

requirement under this subsection, except in cases in which the Administrator 

has a conflict of interest. 

(b) MAJOR PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORTS.— 

(1) REQUIREMENT.—Annually, at the same time as the President’s annual 

budget submission to the Congress, the Administrator shall transmit to the 

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

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report that includes the 

information required by this section for each major program for which the Administration proposes to expend funds in the subsequent fiscal year. Reports 

under this paragraph shall be known as Major Program Annual Reports. 

(2) BASELINE REPORT.—The first Major Program Annual Report for each 

major program shall include a Baseline Report that shall, at a minimum, include— 

(A) the purposes of the program and key technical characteristics necessary to fulfill those purposes; 

(B) an estimate of the life-cycle cost for the program, with a detailed 

breakout of the development cost, program reserves, and an estimate of the 

annual costs until development is completed; 

(C) the schedule for development, including key program milestones; 

(D) the plan for mitigating technical, cost, and schedule risks identified 

in accordance with subsection (a)(1)(A); and 

(E) the name of the person responsible for making notifications under 

subsection (c), who shall be an individual whose primary responsibility is 

overseeing the program. 

(3) INFORMATION UPDATES.—For major programs for which a Baseline Report 

has been submitted, each subsequent Major Program Annual Report shall describe any changes to the information that had been provided in the Baseline 

Report, and the reasons for those changes. 

(c) NOTIFICATION.— 

(1) REQUIREMENT.—The individual identified under subsection (b)(2)(E) shall 

immediately notify the Administrator any time that individual has reasonable 

cause to believe that, for the major program for which he or she is responsible— 

(A) the development cost of the program is likely to exceed the estimate 

provided in the Baseline Report of the program by 15 percent or more; or 

(B) a milestone of the program is likely to be delayed by 6 months or 

more from the date provided for it in the Baseline Report of the program. 

(2) REASONS.—Not later than 30 days after the notification required under 

paragraph (1), the individual identified under subsection (b)(2)(E) shall transmit 

to the Administrator a written notification explaining the reasons for the 

change in the cost or milestone of the program for which notification was provided under paragraph (1). 

(3) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS.—Not later than 15 days after the Administrator receives a written notification under paragraph (2), the Administrator 

shall transmit the notification to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of 

the Senate. 

(d) FIFTEEN PERCENT THRESHOLD.—Not later than 30 days after receiving a written notification under subsection (c)(2), the Administrator shall determine whether 

the development cost of the program is likely to exceed the estimate provided in the 

11 

Baseline Report of the program by 15 percent or more, or whether a milestone is 

likely to be delayed by 6 months or more. If the determination is affirmative, the 

Administrator shall— 

(1) transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, not 

later than 15 days after making the determination, a report that includes— 

(A) a description of the increase in cost or delay in schedule and a detailed explanation for the increase or delay; 

(B) a description of actions taken or proposed to be taken in response to 

the cost increase or delay; and 

(C) a description of any impacts the cost increase or schedule delay, or 

the actions described under subparagraph (B), will have on any other program within the Administration; and 

(2) if the Administrator intends to continue with the program, promptly initiate an analysis of the program, which shall include, at a minimum— 

(A) the projected cost and schedule for completing the program if current 

requirements of the program are not modified; 

(B) the projected cost and the schedule for completing the program after 

instituting the actions described under paragraph (1)(B); and 

(C) a description of, and the projected cost and schedule for, a broad 

range of alternatives to the program. 

The Administration shall complete an analysis initiated under paragraph (2) not 

later than 6 months after the Administrator makes a determination under this subsection. The Administrator shall transmit the analysis to the Committee on Science 

of the House of Representatives and Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than 30 days after its completion. 

(e) THIRTY PERCENT THRESHOLD.—If the Administrator determines under subsection (d) that the development cost of a program will exceed the estimate provided 

in the Baseline Report of the program by more than 30 percent, then, beginning 18 

months after the date the Administrator transmits a report under subsection (d)(1), 

the Administrator shall not expend any additional funds on the program, other than 

termination costs, unless the Congress has subsequently authorized continuation of 

the program by law. An appropriation for the specific program enacted subsequent 

to a report being transmitted shall be considered an authorization for purposes of 

this subsection. If the program is continued, the Administrator shall submit a new 

Baseline Report for the program no later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

of the Act under which Congress has authorized continuation of the program. 

(f) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘development’’ means the phase of a program following the formulation phase and beginning with the approval to proceed to implementation. 

(2) the term ‘‘development cost’’ means the total of all costs, including construction of facilities and civil servant costs, from the period beginning with the 

approval to proceed to implementation through the achievement of operational 

readiness, without regard to funding source or management control, for the life 

of the program; 

(3) the term ‘‘life-cycle cost’’ means the total of the direct, indirect, recurring, 

and nonrecurring costs, including the construction of facilities and civil servant 

costs, and other related expenses incurred or estimated to be incurred in the 

design, development, verification, production, operation, maintenance, support, 

and retirement of a program over its planned lifespan, without regard to funding source or management control; and 

(4) the term ‘‘major program’’ means an activity approved to proceed to imple- mentation that has an estimated life-cycle cost of more than $250,000,000. 

SEC. 17. LIMITATIONS ON OFF-SHORE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES. 

(a) CONVERSIONS TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE OF ADMINISTRATION ACTIVI- TIES.—Except as provided in subsection (c), an activity or function of the Administration that is converted to contractor performance under Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A–76 may not be performed by the contractor or any subcontractor 

at a location outside the United States. 

(b) CONTRACTS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES.—(1) Except as provided in 

subsection (c), a contract for the procurement of goods or services that is entered 

into by the Administrator may not be performed outside the United States unless 

it is to meet a requirement of the Administration for goods or services specifically 

at a location outside the United States. 

(2) The President may waive the prohibition in paragraph (1) in the case of any 

contract for which the President determines in writing that it is necessary in the 

national security interests of the United States for goods or services under the contract to be performed outside the United States. 

12 

(3) The Administrator may waive the prohibition in paragraph (1) in the case of 

any contract for which the Administrator determines in writing that essential goods 

or services under the contract are only available from a source outside the United 

States. 

(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsections (a) and (b)(1) shall not apply to the extent that the 

activity or function under the contract was previously performed by Federal Government employees outside the United States. 

(d) CONSISTENCY WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.—The provisions of this section shall not apply to the extent that they are inconsistent with obligations of the 

United States under international agreements. 

SEC. 18. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

The Administrator shall transmit to Congress, not later than 120 days after the 

end of each fiscal year beginning with the first fiscal year after the date of enactment of this Act, a report on the contracts and subcontracts performed overseas and 

the amount of purchases directly or indirectly by the Administration from foreign 

entities in that fiscal year. The report shall separately indicate— 

(1) the contracts and subcontracts and their dollar values for which the Administrator determines that essential goods or services under the contract are 

available only from a source outside the United States; and 

(2) the items and their dollar values for which the Buy American Act was 

waived pursuant to obligations of the United States under international agreements. 

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 5450 is to establish in law the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and to describe the mission and functions of 

NOAA. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

The creation of NOAA 

In 1966, the Marine Resources and Engineering Act established 

an independent commission to produce a comprehensive study and 

recommendations for the nation’s ocean policy. That commission, 

chaired by Julius Stratton and known as the Stratton Commission, 

released its report in 1969. One of its recommendations was that 

the President should establish an agency to coordinate all Federal, 

nonmilitary ocean management programs. In response, in 1970 

President Nixon established the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) by Executive Order within the Department 

of Commerce. 

The Executive Order establishing NOAA, Reorganization Plan 

No. 4 of 1970, transferred the functions of various agencies, such 

as the Sea Grant College Program, into the new agency and established its leadership structure. The plan, however, did not provide 

an overall mission for the agency, and neither has Congress in the 

years since. Instead, Congress has enacted laws on specific issues. 

Since that time NOAA has evolved into the central civilian Federal 

agency for oceans and atmospheric issues. 

NOAA has approximately 12,000 employees and an annual budget of about $3.9 billion, which represents almost 60 percent of the 

budget for the Department of Commerce. NOAA is structured 

around the following major offices (also see the organizational chart 

at the end of this section): 

• The National Ocean Service (NOS) is responsible for the observation, measurement, assessment and management of the nation’s 

coastal and ocean areas. This includes providing navigational 

13 

charts and performing applied research on coastal and ocean 

issues, such as harmful algal blooms. • The National Weather Service (NWS) is the nation’s primary 

civilian source of weather data, forecasts and warnings. • The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) is responsible for providing much of the research into improving understanding of environmental phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, climate variability, ocean currents, and coastal ecosystem 

health. • The National Environmental Satellite Data and Information 

Service (NESDIS) operates the nation’s weather and climate satellites and manages the processing and distribution of the data and 

images from those satellites. NWS relies on these satellites for its 

data for weather forecasts and warnings. • The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) protects and 

preserves living marine resources through fisheries management, 

enforcement, and habitat conservation. • The Office of Marine Aviation and Operations manages the 

NOAA uniformed officer corps. The NOAA corps is one of the nation’s uniformed military services and supports the functions of all 

the line offices in the agency, including operating the planes NOAA 

uses in hurricane reconnaissance and ships used in fisheries surveys and research expeditions. • The Office of Program Planning and Integration promotes the 

development of effective programs by integrating resources across 

NOAA. 

The impetus for a NOAA organic act 

Over the past 35 years, Congress has debated many different 

proposals for a NOAA Organic Act. In 2000, Congress passed the 

Oceans Act of 2000, which established the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy to perform a comprehensive review of ocean-related 

laws and issues facing the Federal government. The Commission 

released its final report on September 20, 2004. 

The Commission confirmed the concerns voiced by many other 

experts: throughout much of its history, NOAA has lacked a clear 

and consistent mission; the overlap of the more than 200 issue-specific laws under which NOAA operates causes significant programmatic and functional confusion; and the work of the agency’s 

line offices is not sufficiently coordinated. The Commission concluded that these problems have hampered NOAA’s ability to effectively carry out its mandates because the agency becomes mired in 

questions over whether it has the legal authority to act on any particular matter. NOAA’s unclear legal standing in some ocean and 

atmospheric issues also has hampered its ability to form effective 

partnerships with other agencies, states, the private sector and 

academia, according to the Commission. Additionally, in the Commission’s view, the lack of a clear mandate from Congress makes 

NOAA susceptible to uncertainty in its budget process because 

without clear authorizing language it is difficult for NOAA to justify its budget requests, especially for its education and outreach 

activities, to both Congress and the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

The Commission, recognizing that NOAA has become the de facto 

lead Federal agency for oceans issues, strongly recommended that 

14 

Congress strengthen NOAA by enacting an Organic Act for the 

agency, giving the agency a clear legal mandate and broad authorities to execute it. The Commission and other experts believe a 

NOAA Organic Act that describes a science-based, service-oriented 

agency will help NOAA function more effectively, make it capable 

of taking on new responsibilities envisioned by the Commission, 

and provide NOAA a strong foundation for the 21st century. Such 

an Organic Act, the Commission stated, would help the agency set 

priorities, operate effectively, form effective partnerships, and strategically plan for its future budget and operations. 

To address the communication problems and functional overlaps 

it found within NOAA, the Commission recommended structuring 

NOAA around three mission areas in an Organic Act: an operations 

and services mission to include the current line offices and programs of NESDIS, NWS, and the mapping and charting functions 

of NOS; a research and education mission to include the current 

line offices and programs of OAR, the Office of Education, and research programs from the other line offices; and a resource management mission to include the current NMFS and the ecosystem 

management programs of NOS. 

President Bush provided a formal response to the Commission’s 

report in his U.S. Ocean Action Plan, released December 19, 2004. 

In the Action Plan the President stated that his Administration 

would seek passage of a NOAA Organic Act. In the 108th Congress 

the President transmitted to Congress an Administration Organic 

Act for NOAA that was introduced, by request, as H.R. 4607. In the 

109th Congress the President transmitted the same Administration 

bill, which has not been introduced. 

15 


Insert graphic folio 18 here HR545.001
16 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

In the 109th Congress, there were no hearings in the Committee 

on Science on H.R. 5450. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee held a hearing about the 

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and a hearing about NOAA Organic Acts. 

May 5, 2004—The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Preliminary 

Report 

On May 5, 2004, the House Committee on Science held a hearing 

on the key findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. In response to pressures on ocean and coastal ecosystems from increased coastal development, over-fishing, pollution and a confusing patchwork of 

Federal and state legal authorities for ocean and coastal activities, 

Congress passed the Oceans Act of 2000. The Oceans Act required 

the President to establish a nonpartisan, diverse commission of experts in ocean policy and charged that commission to establish 

findings and develop recommendations for a new comprehensive 

ocean policy, including in research and development. The Report 

was the first comprehensive review of national ocean policy in more 

than 30 years. 

The committee heard testimony from: (1) Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), Chairman, U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy; (2) 

Dr. Andrew Solow, Director, Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole 

Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Solow was a member of the U.S. 

Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Governance 

Working Group; (3) Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi, Acting Managing Director, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Pomponi was 

a member of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Science Advisory Panel Research, Education and Marine Operations Working 

Group; (4) Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa, Director of External Affairs, 

College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, North Carolina 

State University. Dr. Pietrafesa is chair of the NOAA Science Advisory Board; and (5) Dr. Michael H. Freilich, Associate Dean, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. 

Dr. Freilich is a member of the National Research Council’s Space 

Studies Board and chair of that Board’s Committee on Earth Studies. 

Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), began the hearing by 

providing an overview of the key findings and recommendations in 

the Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 

• A National Ocean Council, including the leaders of all oceanrelated agencies and chaired by an assistant to the President, 

should be established in the Executive Office of the President to coordinate Federal ocean activities and set national ocean policy. 

• A Presidential Council of Advisers on Ocean Policy should be 

created to provide input and advice from non-Federal experts. The 

Federal agency structure should be strengthened to increase effectiveness and minimize redundancies. 

• The National Integrated Ocean Observing System, (IOOS) led 

by NOAA and combining a network of regional coastal observations 

with an array of open ocean observations, should be implemented 

17 

to achieve adequate observational and forecasting capabilities for 

the oceans and coasts. 

• To cover costs and supplement existing appropriations and 

support new and recommended responsibilities, an Ocean Policy 

Trust Fund should be established. 

Dr. Andrew Solow discussed the Report’s recommendations to establish a National Ocean Council to coordinate Federal efforts with 

respect to oceans. 

• The main deficiency in Federal ocean and coastal policy is fragmentation, which tends to impede policy coordination. However 

fragmentation is not, by itself, responsible for the problems on the 

ground and in the water. 

• Although the problems in the Nation’s oceans and coasts cannot be solved by better coordination alone, a National Ocean Council could contribute to the formulation and execution of better policies and would elevate the visibility of ocean issues in the Federal 

government. 

• All Federal activities relating to the ocean should undergo common policy and budgetary review within the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Dr. Shirley A. Pomponi provided testimony about the implications of the Report’s recommendation for increased funding for 

ocean research. 

• A NOAA Organic Act should be enacted to clearly lay out an 

integrated agency structure and mission. 

• The overall levels of U.S. investment in ocean research should 

be doubled to fund such areas as bio-diversity and ecosystem research, development of ocean information systems, climate and 

ocean modeling, and discovery and development of new marine 

products. Increases for individual agencies and programs should be 

based on a careful and comprehensive assessment of national ocean 

policy and the role of each Federal ocean agency in carrying out 

those priorities. 

Dr. Leonard J. Pietrafesa provided testimony on the Report’s recommendations to strengthen NOAA. 

• At a minimum, there should be an immediate doubling of the 

Federal ocean research budget. 

• A NOAA Organic Act should be enacted so that NOAA can 

have clear and specific responsibilities assigned to it with an unambiguous partitioning of these responsibilities. 

• An end-to-end, integrated Earth-observing measurement system suite for receipt of data in real time should be implemented. 

Dr. Michael H. Freilich provided the committee with comments 

on the Report’s recommendation to transfer some programs from 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to 

NOAA. 

• NOAA should be the Nation’s lead agency for ocean-related research, education, management, measurements, and predictions 

that recognizes the equal importance of its research and education, 

management, and prediction and assessment tasks. 

• An interagency coordination group, to address ocean and coastal data and information issues, as well as a Presidential interagency task force to oversee the modernization of the Nation’s environmental data and information system, should be established. 

18 

• There should be stronger interagency coordination, including 

moving the Executive’s review of NOAA’s budget to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Natural Resources Program, to ease the 

NASA–NOAA transition from research to operations. 

July 15, 2004—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Organic Acts 

On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards held a hearing on H.R. 4546, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, and H.R. 4607, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Organic Act of 

2004. 

The subcommittee heard testimony from: (1) The Honorable 

Theodore Kassinger, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce; (2) Dr. James Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, the Academy of Natural Sciences. Dr. Baker was Administrator of NOAA from 1993–2001; (3) Rear Admiral Richard West 

(Ret.), President, Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education. Admiral West was a member of the subcommittee of 

NOAA’s Science Advisory Board that released a review of NOAA’s 

research enterprise on August 6, 2004; (4) Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday Jr., WeatherNews Chair of Applied Meteorology and Director, 

the Sasaki Applied Meteorology Research Institute, University of 

Oklahoma. Dr. Friday was the Assistant Administrator of the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research at NOAA. Additionally, he is a past-president of the 

American Meteorological Society; and (5) Mr. Richard Hirn, General Counsel, National Weather Service Employees Organization. 

Mr. Theodore Kassinger began the hearing by acknowledging the 

importance of the Organic Act for the restructuring of NOAA, and 

highlighting areas where the Administration’s bill, H.R. 4607, and 

the Committee’s bill, H.R. 4546 differ. 

• H.R. 4607 would codify the Agency’s administrative authorities. 

• In comparison with H.R. 4546, H.R. 4607 would provide the 

Agency with greater flexibility for reorganizing its structure and 

programs. 

Dr. James Baker provided testimony on the current strengths 

and limitations of NOAA and how an Organic Act can help to ensure NOAA’s future success. 

• NOAA needs more recognition, support, money and independence. The Organic Act will enable NOAA to better meet the nation’s changing needs through updating and clarifying its mission 

and structure. 

• The Organic Act should seek to ensure the scientific independence of NOAA, particularly on politically-sensitive issues such as 

global climate change and fisheries management. Additionally, 

NOAA should become an independent agency, like the EPA, as it 

has the maturity to become one. 

• More support is needed for NOAA’s educational outreach programs. The more the public is educated regarding NOAA issues, 

the better support NOAA will have when dealing with difficult 

issues. 

19 

• A provision should be added to Title I of H.R. 4546 to formalize 

the mechanism for research to be conducted and competitively 

funded at universities and research institutions outside NOAA. 

Rear Admiral Richard West (Ret.) discussed the response of the 

science community to the NOAA Organic Act. He also briefly reviewed applicable recommendations from the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s review of NOAA’s research programs. • One major problem with NOAA is that its research, operation, 

and regulatory bodies do not operate well under its current integrated corporate culture. Another limiting factor is NOAA’s placement within the Department of Commerce. • The research plan set out in H.R. 4546 is important, especially 

because it recognizes the role of research in NOAA, establishes the 

goals and process for agency-wide research and investments, and 

delineates the role of NOAA’s external partners. The importance of 

peer review and competitive awards, improved processes for managing grants and contracts, and integrated research, education and 

outreach should also be emphasized in this plan. • The creation of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and 

Technology, who would be responsible for coordinating and managing the NOAA research enterprise, would provide clear recognition of NOAA as a science-based mission agency. 

Dr. Elbert (Joe) W. Friday Jr. testified that an Organic Act 

should clearly identify research in support of NOAA’s mission as a 

prime NOAA responsibility. 

• The creation of the position of the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Science and Technology will benefit NOAA through helping to 

strengthen the role of science within NOAA and providing NOAA 

with a credible science voice. 

• NOAA’s laboratory structure is absolutely critical to the successful modernization of the National Weather Service. 

Mr. Richard Hirn discussed the National Weather Service Employees Organization’s (NWSEO) response to the NOAA Organic 

Act. • The most pressing problem facing NOAA is not its organizational structure but the failure of successive Administrations and 

Congresses to adequately fund NOAA. • The NWSEO supports granting distinct legislative authority 

for the National Weather Service, provided within Section 105 of 

the Chairman’s bill and not in the Administration’s bill. • The consolidation of research and education into one branch of 

the NOAA mission areas as highlighted in the Chairman’s bill may 

actually result in an overall reduction in education and research. 

The NOAA’s research and education functions should be closely integrated with, instead of separated from its operational role. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

H.R. 5450 is the same as H.R. 50 with minor changes to section 

12, savings provision, to reflect an agreement with the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. A description of the 

Committee actions on both H.R. 50 and H.R. 5450 follows. 

Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers introduced H.R. 50, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, on January 4, 2005, 

at which time the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, 

and in addition to the Committee on Resources. The Subcommittee 

20 

on Environment, Technology, and Standards met on March 15, 

2005 to consider the bill. Subcommittee Ranking Member Wu offered an amendment, which clarified that the Administrator may 

not contract with a private sector organization for an inherently 

governmental function; that current collective bargaining agreements are not affected by the bill; and that the Administrator must 

consult with NOAA stakeholders in developing the reorganization 

plan required by the bill. The amendment was adopted by a voice 

vote. The Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, H.R. 50, as 

amended, by a voice vote. 

On May 17, 2005, the Committee on Science considered H.R. 50. 

Congressman Ehlers offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was treated as original text for purposes of amendment. Mr. Ehlers’ amendment: • made technical corrections; • provided additional authorities to the Administrator of NOAA, 

such as conducting education and outreach activities; • emphasized NOAA’s role in the forecasting of, and issuing 

warnings for tsunamis; • required NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with or makes major 

changes to existing satellite programs; • clarified the language requiring NOAA to reorganize; and • clarified that nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities 

or authorities of other Federal agencies. 

Congressman Costello offered an amendment to prohibit NOAA 

from contracting for goods and services with organizations that perform their work outside of the United States. Committee Chairman 

Boehlert offered a second degree amendment to Mr. Costello’s 

amendment, which ensured that compliance with the Costello 

amendment would be consistent with international trade agreements. The Committee adopted Mr. Boehlert’s amendment by a roll 

call vote (Y–18; N–17). The Committee adopted Mr. Costello’s 

amendment, as amended, by a voice vote. Then the Committee 

adopted Mr. Ehlers’ amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 

amended, by a voice vote. Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee 

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

the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass; 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. 

With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

Congressman Ehlers introduced H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Act, on May 22, 2006, at which 

time the bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Resources. H.R. 5450 is nearly identical 

to H.R. 50 as reported by the Committee on May 17, 2005, with 

language added in Section 12, savings provision, to clarify the intent of the Organic Act regarding the authority of NOAA with respect to public buildings and regulatory issues. 

On June 14, 2006, the Committee on Science considered H.R. 

5450. Congressman Udall offered an amendment to establish conditions for the development of major program cost baselines and to 

require notification to Congress when certain cost increases or 

schedule delays occur in major programs. The Committee adopted 

21 

Mr. Udall’s amendment by a voice vote. Congressman Costello offered an amendment to require an annual report on contracts and 

subcontracts performed overseas. The Committee adopted Mr. 

Costello’s amendment by a voice vote. Mr. Miller offered an amendment to establish penalties for employees who interfere with 

science, set requirements for science advisory committees, and exempt NOAA from the Information Quality Act. Mr. Miller’s amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–13; N–17). Congressman 

Gordon, on behalf of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, offered an 

amendment to require NOAA to communicate weather emergency 

information to other Federal agencies. The Committee adopted that 

amendment by a voice vote. Congressman Costello offered an 

amendment to require NOAA to transmit Congressional reports to 

Congress directly, without prior review by the President or any 

other Administration official. Mr. Costello’s amendment was defeated by a roll call vote (Y–15; N–19). Mr. Gordon moved that the 

Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 5450, as amended, to the 

House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass; 

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. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to by 

a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

The legislation establishes the NOAA within the Department of 

Commerce. 

The legislation maintains the current leadership structure at 

NOAA except that it creates a new position of Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Science and Education. It requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service within 

NOAA. The legislation describes programs to support the operations and services, and the research and education functions of 

NOAA. The legislation authorizes the NOAA Science Advisory 

Board. 

The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA. It requires NOAA 

to provide two strategic plans: one to address any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information system assessment and the 

second for intramural and extramural research to support the mission of NOAA. The legislation requires NOAA to review its policy 

on public-private relationships once every five years. It also requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress 18 

months after enactment of the legislation. 

The legislation repeals the Executive Order that established 

NOAA in 1970 and includes a savings provision to preserve the status of all current NOAA rules, regulations and other legal matters. 

The legislation prohibits NOAA from contracting for activities or 

procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the 

United States, except in some limited circumstances and when the 

prohibition would be inconsistent with trade agreements. 

The legislation requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public 

if it plans to close or transfer a NOAA facility. The legislation establishes conditions for development of major program cost baseVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
22 

lines and requires notification to Congress when certain cost increases or schedule delays occur in major programs. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’ 

Section 2. Definitions 

Defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Establishes the NOAA within the Department of Commerce and 

describes the mission and functions of NOAA. 

Section 4. Administration leadership 

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, 

who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Undersecretary for 

Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations and management. 

Section 5. National Weather Service 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the NWS within 

NOAA. 

Section 6. Operations and services 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational and service functions. This section does not name 

any organizational units of NOAA, but the functions listed include 

all the activities of the NESDIS and the mapping and charting activities of the NOS. 

Section 7. Research and education 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support research and education functions. 

Section 8. Science Advisory Board 

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA to provide scientific advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA. 

Section 9. Reports 

Requires two reports from the Administrator. Each report is to 

be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment 

of the Act. One report requires the National Academy of Sciences 

to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information 

systems of NOAA and then requires NOAA to provide a strategic 

plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report 

is a strategic plan for research at NOAA. 

23 

Section 10. Public-private partnerships 

Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five years. Clarifies that no changes in NOAA’s 

current policy are required. 

Section 11. Effect of reorganization plan 

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. 

Section 12. Savings provision 

Clarifies that the Act does not change the legal status of any 

NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter. 

Section 13. Reorganization plan 

Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not 

less than 18 months after enactment of this Act. 

Section 14. Facility evaluation process 

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities without a public comment period, review by the 

Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), analysis of the anticipated 

costs and savings and the impact on NOAA services, and notification to Congress. 

Section 15. Budget reprogramming 

Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of 

any reprogramming requests submitted to Appropriations Committees. 

Section 16. Baselines and cost controls 

Establishes conditions for development of major program cost 

baselines and requires notification to Congress when certain cost 

increases or schedule delays occur in major programs. 

Section 17. Limitations on off-shore performance of contracts for the 

procurement of goods and services 

Prohibits the Administrator from contracting for Administration 

activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed 

outside the United States except when the goods or services are 

necessary for national security or are only available outside the 

United States, when the activities or function under the contract 

was previously performed by federal government employees located 

outside the United States, or when the prohibition is inconsistent 

with international agreements. 

Section 18. Recordkeeping and reporting requirement 

Requires an annual report on contracts and subcontracts performed overseas. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Overall views 

The Committee developed an Organic Act because it believes that 

providing NOAA with a clear mission and broad authority to execute it will strengthen the agency and improve its ability to carry 

24 

out its responsibility as the lead civilian agency for oceans and atmosphere. 

The Committee recognizes that an Organic Act, by its very nature, cannot address all the issues currently confronting NOAA. 

The Committee intends to continue to work, for example, on the 

many oceans issues raised by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Committee also expects that the final version of the Organic Act will deal with the portions of NOAA that are not under 

the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. 

Section 3: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The Committee does not view this Act as changing the current 

mission of NOAA. But the Committee emphasizes that education 

and outreach are vital components of NOAA’s mission. 

Section 3 of the Act lists overarching functions of NOAA. This 

list of functions (and other lists of functions in the Act) are meant 

to be exemplary. NOAA may undertake additional functions related 

to carrying out the agency’s mission. 

The Committee expects NOAA to work with experts in ecology, 

social science, and economics, both within and outside the agency, 

to develop an ecosystem approach to managing, protecting, and researching coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems. Such an approach should emphasize the protection of ecosystem structure, 

function and key processes, and should aim to integrate ecological, 

social, and economic perspectives. Also, the Committee expects 

NOAA to integrate its ecosystem approach across all offices within 

the agency. 

Section 4: Administration leadership 

The Act grants NOAA itself the authority to promulgate rules 

and regulations; enter into and perform contracts, leases, grants 

and cooperative agreements; use the services and facilities of other 

Federal Government organizations; and conduct education and outreach activities. NOAA no longer will derive these authorities 

through the Secretary of Commerce, and the Committee expects 

NOAA to use these authorities on its own without seeking permission from the Secretary of Commerce. This should enable the agency to operate more efficiently. 

The provision of the Act assigning day-to-day operating responsibility to the Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, 

the highest ranking career employee at the agency, is also designed 

to improve efficiency. 

The Act also creates a Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for 

Science and Education, following through on a recommendation the 

NOAA Science Advisory Board made in 2004, after an extensive review of NOAA’s research enterprise. This DAS is a career reserve 

position and the person holding it will be responsible for overseeing 

science and education activities, and advising the Administrator on 

integrating research findings into NOAA’s operational services and 

regulatory decisions. 

The Act provides NOAA the flexibility to appoint up to two additional Deputy Assistant Secretaries as it sees fit to carry out its 

mission. 

25 

Section 5: National Weather Service 

The Act requires NOAA to maintain the NWS as a distinct entity 

within the agency. The NWS is a vital public service, providing 

forecasts and warnings of severe weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. In addition to the public safety aspect of 

weather prediction, the NWS provides tremendous economic value 

to the nation. Weather and climate sensitive industries, both directly and indirectly, account for about one-third of the United 

States’ Gross Domestic Product, or $3 trillion. These industries 

range from finance, insurance, and real estate to services, retail 

and wholesale trade, and manufacturing. The public recognizes, 

trusts, and relies on the NWS name. Therefore, the Committee believes that NOAA should not dissolve, rename, or alter the major 

functions of the NWS. The Committee fully supports NOAA’s continued role in providing space weather for public use through the 

Space Environment Center. Space weather affects several industries such as those that provide or utilize wireless services, utilize 

the Global Positioning System, or rely on the safety of transpolar 

routes between North America and Asia. As the only provider of 

space weather forecasts for the government and for public use in 

the United States, the Space Environment Center is vital for the 

protection of both our commercial and government space-based assets. 

Section 6: Operations and services 

The Act directs NOAA to maintain programs to support efforts, 

on a continuing basis, to collect data and provide information and 

products regarding satellites, observations, and coastal, ocean and 

Great Lakes resources. These services include the programs currently performed by NESDIS and the mapping and charting activities of the NOS. 

Section 7: Research and education 

The Act directs NOAA to maintain basic and applied research 

programs to support the mission of the agency. The Act also directs 

NOAA to maintain education and outreach programs to serve 

NOAA’s mission, including promoting greater public understanding 

of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes ecosystems as well as weather, 

climate, and earth sciences. The Committee expects NOAA to continue to carry out its full range of education and outreach activities. 

Section 9: Reports 

The Act requires NOAA to contract with the NAS to assess the 

adequacy of its environmental data and information systems. 

NOAA then is required to provide a strategic plan to address any 

deficiencies in those systems. The Committee expects these documents to be completed on time. The Act requires NOAA to perform 

this review on a regular basis because the Committee wants NOAA 

to regularly integrate planning for satellite data use with planning 

for construction of major satellite systems. 

The Committee has good reason to believe that there are serious 

gaps in the data and information systems that could impair 

NOAA’s ability to carry out its mission. The NOAA Fiscal Year 

(FY) 1992 Authorization Act (P.L. 102–567) required NOAA to conVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
26 

duct a needs assessment for data management, archival, and distribution. The assessment (which NOAA did not deliver until 2001) 

found that by 2015 the anticipated volume of satellite and other environmental data would far exceed NOAA’s archive and assessment 

capabilities. This is already the case. NOAA’s own FY 2003 budget 

documents state that the agency cannot meet 65 percent of the new 

requests for satellite data products from the NWS and the Department of Defense in a timely manner. And because of NOAA’s lack 

of planning for data management, archival and distribution, it can 

now take up to two years from the launch of a new satellite until 

any data is successfully incorporated into weather forecasting models. Given that the average lifetime of a satellite is five years, such 

a gap can mean that much of the data collected by a satellite is 

never used, wasting a multi-million dollar investment. 

The Committee believes NOAA must quickly address these deficiencies. The next generation of polar-observing weather satellites 

at NOAA is currently estimated to cost more than $11 billion to 

build. The Committee is very concerned that NOAA is spending a 

large amount of money to build the new satellite system, but has 

yet to provide a comprehensive plan, including projected funding 

requirements, to ensure the maximum use of data from this new 

series of weather satellites. The Committee expects NOAA to submit such a plan to the Committee no later than February 1, 2007. 

The second report required by this section is a strategic plan for 

research and development activities at NOAA, a requirement recommended by the 2004 NOAA Science Advisory Board report on 

NOAA research. The Act requires that this plan be updated every 

five years. The Committee emphasizes that it expects NOAA to 

specifically describe how the agency will fill its research needs by 

utilizing each of the following resources: intramural research, extramural peer-reviewed competitive grant programs, and the expertise of other Federal agencies. 

Section 10. Public-private partnerships 

The Committee supports NOAA’s 2006 Policy on Partnerships in 

the Provision of Environmental Information that defines how the 

agency will make decisions regarding its relationship to the private 

sector in providing products, technologies, and services. The Committee expects NOAA to closely consult with the private sector (including the academic community) when updating the policy, but 

the Committee does not assume that any immediate changes are 

needed. The Committee believes the current policy conforms with 

the policy recommendations of the 2003 National Academy of 

Sciences report ‘‘Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather 

and Climate Services.’’ 

Section 13: Reorganization plan 

The Committee is concerned, based on expert testimony and its 

own experience, that the current line office structure at NOAA 

leads to duplication of efforts and a lack of communication across 

programs. The Committee believes NOAA needs to be reorganized 

to remedy these problems. While the Committee is not dictating a 

particular organizational structure, it does believe that the new organization should be based on the three functional themes developed by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and listed in the Act. 

27 

The Committee expects NOAA to evaluate its structure rigorously 

and to develop a genuinely redesigned organization that will facilitate work across each of the functional themes. A minor reshuffling 

or renaming of the existing structure will not suffice. The Committee emphasizes that the Act requires NOAA to maintain the 

NWS as an entity in the new organizational structure. The Act requires NOAA to closely consult with its stakeholder community 

throughout the development of the reorganization plan. To meet 

this consultation requirement, the Committee expects NOAA to 

meet with stakeholders prior to publication of the plan in the Federal Register. 

Section 14: Facility evaluation process 

The Act requires NOAA to notify the Committee when NOAA intends to close, consolidate, relocate, subdivide or establish a facility. In the case of facilities with operating budgets greater than $5 

million or if the facility is a local weather forecast office, the Act 

requires NOAA to undertake a review of the proposed change. The 

Committee must be kept apprised of proposed changes that could 

affect NOAA’s strong presence and valuable ties to many communities around the country. 

Section 16. Baselines and cost controls 

The Committee is very concerned about NOAA’s management of 

major satellite programs. These programs represent nearly a quarter of NOAA’s annual budget (in the FY2007 President’s request 

for NOAA, satellite procurement costs are $1 billion, 27 percent of 

NOAA’s total budget request of $3.7 billion). When problems occur 

with satellites they are almost always expensive to fix. For example, due to a combination of budget issues and technical challenges, 

costs for the next generation of polar-orbiting satellites have risen 

by almost 50 percent (or $3.7 billion) from the most recent previous 

estimate of $7.4 billion. 

Effective oversight of NOAA’s satellite programs requires that 

Congress have up-to-date and accurate information on the status of 

satellites while they are in development. This has not always been 

the case. The Act requires the submission of baseline cost estimates, annual updates, and notification of cost overruns. It is 

based on the Nunn-McCurdy provisions of Department of Defense 

acquisition law (10 U.S.C. 2433) and on section 103 of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 

(P.L. 109–155). The baseline cost estimates provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration pursuant to P.L. 109– 

155 are a model NOAA should follow in carrying out this provision 

of the Act. 

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 prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

X of this report pursuant to House rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 5450 does not contain new budget authority, credit authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures 

28 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JUNE 19, 2006. 

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. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5450—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act 

H.R. 5450 would provide statutory authority for the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was created administratively in 1970. In addition to codifying the agency’s 

functions, authorities, and responsibilities, the bill would require 

NOAA to prepare new reports and policy statements. 

Based on information from NOAA, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5450 would have no significant impact on the federal 

budget and no effect on direct spending or revenues. We estimate 

that complying with the additional reporting requirements and 

making the minor changes to personnel authorized by the bill 

would cost less than $500,000 annually, subject to the availability 

of appropriated funds. 

H.R. 5450 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill 

would codify the authority of NOAA to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with state, local, and tribal governments. Any 

costs incurred by those entities as a result of participating in the 

grants and cooperative agreements would be voluntary. 

On May 26, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 50, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Science on May 19, 

2005. H.R. 50 is very similar to H.R. 5450, and the cost estimates 

for the two bills are identical. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

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

H.R. 5450 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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 goals and objectives of H.R. 5450 are to establish the National Oceanic and AtVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
29 

mospheric Administration and describe the mission and functions 

of the agency. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

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

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 5450. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

The advisory committee authorized by H.R. 5450, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Science Advisory Board, 

currently exists. The legislation simply codifies its functions. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 5450 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

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 14, 2006, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Act, as amended, by a voice vote, and recommended 

its enactment. 

30 


Insert graphic folio 37 here HR545.002
31 


Insert graphic folio 38 here HR545.003
32 


Insert graphic folio 39 here HR545.004
33 


Insert graphic folio 41 here HR545.005
34 


Insert graphic folio 42 here HR545.006
35 


Insert graphic folio 43 here HR545.007
36 


Insert graphic folio 44 here HR545.008
37 


Insert graphic folio 45 here HR545.009
38 


Insert graphic folio 46 here HR545.010
39 


Insert graphic folio 47 here HR545.011
40 


Insert graphic folio 48 here HR545.012
41 


Insert graphic folio 49 here HR545.013
42 


Insert graphic folio 50 here HR545.014
43 


Insert graphic folio 51 here HR545.015
44 


Insert graphic folio 52 here HR545.016
45 


Insert graphic folio 53 here HR545.017
46 


Insert graphic folio 54 here HR545.018
47 


Insert graphic folio 55 here HR545.019
48 


Insert graphic folio 56 here HR545.020
(49) 

XXII. MINORITY VIEWS 

Minority views on H.R. 5450 are almost precisely those filed for 

H.R. 50 because the bill is almost entirely the same text. The 

Chairman made some small changes in language to accommodate 

concerns expressed by another Committee and accepted amendments offered by Mr. Costello (on offshoring), Mr. Udall (on cost 

overruns) and Ms. Jackson-Lee (on NWS support for emergency 

personnel). 

However, two significant amendments offered by Democrats were 

defeated on party line votes. Mr. Miller (NC) offered an amendment that would have put whistleblower protections in NOAA’s organic act for agency scientists. Mr. Costello offered an amendment 

that would have directed NOAA to provide Congressionally-directed reports to Congress without any outside review or approval 

by other offices in the Executive branch. 

Mr. Miller’s amendment comes on the heels of reports that 

NOAA scientists were told not to discuss global climate change or 

the possibility that global warming may be a factor in the more 

deadly hurricane seasons seen in recent years. The Chairman had 

sent a letter on this very issue earlier this year asking Admiral 

Lautenbacher, the head of NOAA, to put in place policies that 

would reaffirm scientists’ rights to discuss their science. 

The Miller amendment adapted provisions included in H.R. 839, 

a bill introduced by Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon, that are designed to provide some protections to federal scientists from being 

suppressed or punished for public revelations regarding their work. 

H.R. 839 was itself the result of widespread reports over the past 

five years of science being suppressed or actively distorted by political appointees. 

While the Bush administration is widely viewed as unusual for 

the degree of politicization of science in their policy-making, it is 

likely that the trend will not end with a new administration. 

Science has become an important area of contention in many, many 

public policy venues. As the stakes for winning those discussions 

rise, and as our reliance on scientific findings to help shape outcomes increases, the temptation to skew the science to justify a policy preference will increase as well. 

Mr. Miller’s amendment recognized these emerging trends and 

would have provided guarantees for NOAA scientists as part of the 

organic act of the agency. While opponents of the amendment argued that an organic act was an improper place to insert such 

guarantees, it is hard to understand what could be more appropriate for a science agency’s organic act than to affirm scientific 

freedoms. 

Mr. Costello’s amendment was provoked by a recent incident involving another Department of Commerce office, the Technology 

Administration. The Technology Administration produced a report 

50 

at the direction of Congress on workforce globalization in knowledge intensive industries. The report was finished by July 2004 

and then went into a black-hole of reviews that included the Secretary of Commerce’s office and offices in the White House. A summary was finally released in September 2005. 

The Chairman stated that the White House had nothing to do 

with these reviews, but Minority staff have been told that there 

was an interagency review process that involved White House actors. We do know that the summary report produced by TA was 

significantly reduced in length—from 45 pages to just over 12—and 

the tone of the findings altered in a way that minimized the implications of offshoring American jobs. 

The Committee does not know where the new version of the summary was produced, though we do know it was not done by the TA. 

This specific example illustrates the Minority’s concern that the efforts by OMB and others to filter the quality and content of information that comes to Committees of jurisdiction from the agencies 

under their purview is reducing the quality of Congressional oversight. 

The Majority largely evaded discussion of the substance of the 

amendment, opposing it because Mr. Costello had not shared the 

amendment 24 hours ahead of the markup. We are hopeful that 

the next time the Committee holds a markup the Majority will support this small step towards strengthening Congress’s oversight 

powers. 

Even without the Miller and Costello amendments, the Minority 

support H.R. 5450 as a solid basis for an organic act. 

With those brief observations, we re-submit our views on H.R. 

50, reproduced in their entirety below. Note that the discussion of 

offshoring below is no longer operative for H.R. 5450 since a new 

Costello amendment on offshoring was adopted by the Committee. 

But there are other lessons to be learned from studying the treatment of the original Costello amendment and for that reason we 

leave it in the text. 

INTRODUCTION

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

has operated for over thirty years without the benefit of an organic 

act. H.R. 50 contains a broad mission statement that encompasses 

the full range of NOAA’s responsibilities. The provisions regarding 

climate, weather, atmospheric research and education in this Committee’s jurisdiction form a solid basis for the continued delivery of 

high quality forecasting services and research on weather, climate 

and atmospheric phenomena. 

However, until the Committee on Resources completes its consideration of the bill, H.R. 50 remains a job half done. NOAA faces 

a tremendous challenge in conserving and restoring our coastal 

areas and our fisheries. We support H.R. 50 as reported by our 

Committee. We hope the Committee on Resources will produce provisions addressing the ocean and coastal programs that will enable 

us to maintain our support for this legislation when it comes before 

the House of Representatives. 

51 

NOAA REORGANIZATION

Section 13 of H.R. 50 requires NOAA to publish a Reorganization 

Plan in the Federal Register within 18 months of the bill’s enactment. We commend the Majority for including a mandatory public 

review process in this section. We believe the Congress as well as 

the many organizations that maintain an ongoing relationship with 

NOAA should have an opportunity to shape any reorganization of 

the Agency that is implemented. 

We fully support Section 5 of the bill and concur with the Majority in the view that the National Weather Service should be maintained as a discrete entity in NOAA. We also support H.R. 50’s emphasis on NOAA’s research programs. In the past, there have been 

proposals to reorganize NOAA’s research laboratories by consolidating them with operational office functions. We believe NOAA’s 

research enterprise should serve the needs of the operational offices, but must also maintain sufficient independence to ensure the 

continued pursuit of research with mid-to long-term applicability. 

FACILITIES CLOSURE AND CONSOLIDATION TRIGGER

H.R. 50 as passed contains language in Section 14 that addresses 

the issue of possible facility closures. This language, worked out in 

negotiations prior to the Committee mark-up, sets clear limits on 

the Administrator’s ability to close, consolidate, relocate, subdivide 

or establish a facility. In a compromise, the language requires a detailed review process associated with any proposed change in a facility that has an annual operating budget of $5 million or greater, 

or is a National Weather Service field office. While we were pleased 

that we were able to draw a clear line around the field offices of 

NWS, we remain concerned that $5 million may not mark the right 

line for requiring a rational, and public, review process prior to a 

significant change in the status of a facility. 

The Committee did no substantive work on the nature of the 

NOAA complex to fully understand what the impact of the $5 million trigger would mean. The $5 million figure was provided by 

NOAA as a replacement for the original figure of $1 million adopted during Subcommittee consideration of this legislation in the 

108th Congress (in an amendment offered by Mr. Udall). We will 

continue to work with our colleagues on the Resources Committee 

to better understand the impact of these provisions and we are prepared to offer an amendment on the floor if we are convinced that 

the $5 million figure is inappropriate. 

TRANSFER OF EARTH SCIENCES PROGRAMS FROM NASA TO NOAA

H.R. 50 includes a broad mission statement for NOAA. We support a broad mission for NOAA to encompass its present and future 

research and operational programs. However, the broad mission 

statement should not be viewed as an open invitation to transfer 

programs and responsibilities from other federal agencies to NOAA. 

Section 12 of H.R. 50 includes a savings clause indicating that 

nothing in H.R. 50 authorizes or prohibits the transfer of any program, function or responsibility to NOAA. We believe that any 

transfer of responsibilities or programs to NOAA from other federal 

agencies must only occur in accordance with a transition plan and 

52 

when additional resources have been identified and allocated to 

NOAA’s budget to support the transfer and when a programmatic 

transfer is appropriately justified. 

Section 16 of H.R. 50 addresses ongoing problems with satellite 

development and procurement at NOAA. In addition to the problems NOAA is experiencing, NASA’s plans to postpone, terminate 

and restructure a number of earth sciences missions also have an 

impact on NOAA. For example, NASA’s decision to cancel a dedicated Landsat gap-filler mission has accelerated the schedule for 

incorporating the Landsat imager on NOAA’s new polar satellite, 

NPOESS. The partnership in earth sciences between NOAA and 

NASA should continue with sufficient resources provided by each 

agency to ensure continuity of progress in our global monitoring capability and our earth sciences program. 

OUTSOURCING

The Administration has made outsourcing of federal jobs a priority through its aggressive implementation of OMB Circular A–76. 

The continued trends of increased outsourcing of jobs overseas and 

the decline in manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. have eroded the 

standard of living for many U.S. citizens. In order to emphasize the 

importance of using taxpayer funds to maintain taxpayer jobs and 

standards of living, Rep. Costello offered an amendment to ensure 

that any federal job that is converted to a private sector job does 

not result in the transfer of a U.S. job to a non-U.S. job. Rep. 

Costello’s amendment also directed NOAA to ‘‘buy American’’ when 

it is possible to do so. 

A second-order amendment offered by Chairman Boehlert transformed Rep. Costello’s provision from one which emphasized the 

protection of American jobs to one that emphasized the protection 

of trade agreements. The Chairman’s amendment reads, ‘‘The provisions of this section shall not apply to the extent that they are 

inconsistent with obligations of the United States under international agreements.’’ The amendment was adopted on a near 

party line vote of 18 to 17, with Mr. Rohrabacher joining 16 Democrats. The Chairman’s language pushes the Administration to err 

on the side of protecting trade agreements at the expense of American jobs. In the balancing of interests, we believe that emphasis 

is exactly backwards. It is unfortunate the Majority believes that 

trade agreements deserve a higher level of protection than American jobs. We continue to believe the Costello amendment should 

have been accepted without the Chairman’s amendment. 

CONCLUSION

The Committee has provided a solid starting point for the development of a NOAA Organic Act. We also look forward to working 

with our colleagues on the Committee on Resources to further develop H.R. 50 into a comprehensive organic act that will appropriately define the missions and functions of this important agency. 

BART GORDON. 

JERRY F. COSTELLO. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. 

LYNN WOOLSEY. 

53 

DARLENE HOOLEY. MARK UDALL. DAVID WU. MICHAEL M. HONDA. BRAD MILLER. LINCOLN DAVIS. DANIEL LIPINSKI. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. BRAD SHERMAN. BRIAN BAIRD. JIM COSTA. AL GREEN. CHARLIE MELANCON. DENNIS MOORE. DORIS O. MATSUI. 

54 

XXIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, 

TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS ON H.R. 50, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC 

ADMINISTRATION ACT 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC. 

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

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

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

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

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

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

more detail as it is brought up. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was formed by executive order in 1970—established by executive 

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

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

remedy that. 

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

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

are proposing it once again. 

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

of Commerce Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. 

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

Gordon, Representative Calvert, and Chairman Boehlert, would 

create a research program at the Environmental Protection Agency 

to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and to provide 

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

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

55 

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

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

areas—and I know Oregon is having considerable problems with 

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

manufacture methamphetamine. 

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

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

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

dangerous pursuit. Even more frequently, they use a particular 

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

production of methamphetamine. They actually become not quite 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a strong interest and considerable experience in the issues before 

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

position. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The prepared statement of Chairman Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VERNON J. EHLERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection Agency (EPA) to study the harmful effects of methamphetamine and proVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:43 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
56 

vide important voluntary guidelines for states to use as they try to clean up former 

‘‘meth’’ laboratories. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

subcommittee. 

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

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

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

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

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

markup of the NOAA Organic Act, the Manufacturing Technology 

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

of my time. 

Chairman EHLERS. I thank the gentleman and would just correct 

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

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

which is worthy of your attention. 

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

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

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

so ordered; I hear no objection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as issuing weather forecasts and warnings. 

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

fisheries or research management at NOAA because those topics 

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

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

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

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

to pass truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA. 

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

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

in moving forward to develop legislation that will provide NOAA 

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

congratulate you for introducing H.R. 50. 

57 

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

managing our coastal and oceanic resources. NOAA also plays a 

vital role in public safety through the programs of the National 

Weather Service to issue weather forecasts and warnings. We must 

ensure that NOAA has the resources and authorities it needs to 

meet its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource 

management and public safety missions. 

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

working with you further before this legislation is considered by 

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

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

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

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

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

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

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

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

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

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

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

its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public 

safety missions. 

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

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

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

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

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

my appreciation for your good service as Ranking Member of this 

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

going to continue to be on the Subcommittee. 

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

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

would just say I think probably those compliments are undeserved, 

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

Committee, and with Ranking Member Wu. Thank you. 

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

I disagree with him; they are deserved. 

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

open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed 

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

so ordered. 

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

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

Chairman EHLERS. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

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

Chairman EHLERS. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

58 

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

first part of my amendment clarifies current policy of having the 

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

forecasts and warnings. The public safety function performed by 

the National Weather Service should not be contracted to outside 

providers. There are numerous commercial weather providers that 

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

and the National Weather Service have developed a productive 

partnership that serves our nation well. This language ensures 

that it will continue to do so. 

The second part of my amendment ensures the continuance of 

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

NOAA partners include State and local governments, commercial 

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

organizations. NOAA reorganizations should not occur without the 

involvement of the many organizations that work with NOAA. 

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

amendment. I yield back. 

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

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

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

Is there any further discussion on this amendment? None? 

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

Chairman EHLERS. The gentleman may proceed for five minutes. 

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman EHLERS.—with your comment. 

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

Chairman EHLERS. I thank gentleman for yielding. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the armed forces and perhaps other government agencies, perhaps 

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

59 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could ask just one follow-on question? 

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

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

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

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

would be happy to yield to the gentleman again. 

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

Subcommittee rather than this subcommittee, so I would suggest 

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

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

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

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

that H.R. 50—— 

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

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

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

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

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

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

if he would wish to do it. 

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

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

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

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

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

it comes to proving Mr. Perot wrong. 

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

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

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

Any further comments on the amendment? Hearing none, the 

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

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

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

on the bill. H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended—all those in favor will say aye. All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

I will now recognize Mr. Wu for a motion. 

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

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

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

staff be instructed to make all necessary technical and conforming 

60 

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

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

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

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

the table. 

I thank the Committee very much. 

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

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

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

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

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

(61) 

Appendix: 

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

62 


50b.eps
63 


50c.eps
64 


50d.eps
65 


50e.eps
66 


50f.eps
67 


50g.eps
68 


50h.eps
69 


50i.eps
70 


50j.eps
71 


50k.eps
72 


50l.eps
73 


50m.eps
74 


50n.eps
75 


50o.eps
76 


50p.eps
77 


50q.eps
78 


50r.eps
79 


50s.eps
80 


50t.eps
81 


50u.eps
82 


50v.eps
83 


50w.eps
84 


50x.eps
85 


50y.eps
86 


50z.eps
87 


50aa.eps
88 


50bb.eps
89 


50cc.eps
90 


50dd.eps
91 

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

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

Section 1. Short Title. 

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

Section 2. Definitions. 

Defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within 

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

Section 4. Administration Leadership. 

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

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

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

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

management. 

Section 5. National Weather Service. 

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

NOAA. 

Section 6. Operations and Services. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational 

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

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

mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service. 

Section 7. Research and Education. 

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

research and education functions. 

Section 8. Science Advisory Board. 

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

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

Section 9. Reports. 

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

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

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

Section 10. Effect of Reorganization Plan. 

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. 

Section 11. Savings Provision. 

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

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

Section 12. Transition. 

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

seven. 

Section 13. Facility Evaluation Process. 

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

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

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

and its part 

92 


50b5.eps
93 


50a.eps
94 

XXIV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 50, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT 

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005 

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

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

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

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone here today for 

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

the agencies that explore them, NOAA and NASA. 

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

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

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

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

Program to award scholarships to recruit and prepare students for 

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

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

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

without objection, it is so ordered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ensuring that Congress and the public get the information needed 

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

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

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

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

that. We have done the same thing with NASA and the DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
95 

ment of Energy. Service scholarships are a great way to entice students into science, math, and engineering while also helping the 

Federal Government develop the workforce it will need. These 

scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman 

Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that. 

We are running the scholarship program through as a separate 

bill, because specific program authorizations generally are not part 

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

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

which is something we have generally avoided on this committee. 

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

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

the Floor. 

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

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

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

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

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

on those as the bill moves forward. 

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

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

lately. Congressman Rohrabacher has helped us all understand 

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

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

lives through increasing our understanding of the Earth, how it 

works, and what may threaten it. 

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

pride in that. I look forward to their passage. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

math and engineering while also helping the Federal Government develop the workforce it will need. These scholarships have been championed tirelessly by Congressman Rohrabacher, and I congratulate him for that. 

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

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

96 

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

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

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

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

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

as the bill moves forward. 

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

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

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

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

a bipartisan effort. I look forward to their passage. 

Mr. Gordon. 

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

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

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

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

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

and I look forward to the markup. 

And I yield my time back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

I want to thank the Chairman for scheduling this markup. 

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

which can probably move on suspension on the Floor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

their efforts. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

Without objection, Members may place statements in the record 

at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DAVID WU

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

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

foundation to guide its missions and functions. 

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

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

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

its statutory responsibilities and to accomplish its resource management and public 

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

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

changes. 

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

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman, 

97 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act is an important piece 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere are 

also specifically authorized and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

continued in one fashion or another. 

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

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

achievable under the right parameters. 

Thank you. 

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

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I recognize Dr. 

Ehlers to present some introductory remarks. 

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

explain my bill. 

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

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

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

and Atmospheric Administration Act. 

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an 

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

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

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

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

topics. 

NOAA was created in 1970 by an Executive Order that placed 

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

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

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

98 

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

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

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

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

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

explain the amendment further when it is offered. 

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

Mr. Gilchrest. 

I look forward to working with the Members of that committee 

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

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

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

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

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

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

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

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

(3) educate the public about these topics. 

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

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

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

overarching mission. 

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

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

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

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

witnesses at Science Committee hearings strongly endorsed my bill. 

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

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

it is offered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

point where we find ourselves today. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

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

with his staff in putting it together. 

99 

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

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

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

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

past. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

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

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

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

in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. 

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

and function of the National Weather Service remains unchanged. 

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

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

in the private sector. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

observing satellites. We should ensure continued progress in weather forecasting 

and understanding the Earth’s atmospheric and oceanic systems. 

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

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

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

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

agencies to NOAA without sufficient planning and adequate funding. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

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

open to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with 

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

ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered in 

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

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

100 

Dr. Ehlers, are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Excuse me, Dr. Ehlers. 

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

eloquent words of Dr. Ehlers. 

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

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

50 offered by Mr. Ehlers of Michigan. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

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

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

It also provides for input from the National Academy of Sciences 

earlier in the process of NOAA developing its strategic plan for 

management of its environmental data and information systems. It 

requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite 

programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major 

changes to existing satellite programs, and finally clarifies that 

nothing in the bill shall alter the responsibilities or authorities of 

other federal agencies. 

These changes were developed after careful consultation with the 

Administration, outside experts, NOAA stakeholders, and other 

Members of this committee. 

I urge my colleagues to support this substitute amendment for 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

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

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

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

• Provides technical clarifications; 

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

conducting education and outreach activities; 

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

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

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

satellite programs; and 

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

of other federal agencies. 

These changes were developed after careful consultation with the Administration, 

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

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

balance of my time. 

101 

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

the bill, and the Chair supports his amendment. 

Is there further discussion on the amendment? 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who seeks recognition? 

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

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will be brief, I hope. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluation process used in the National Weather Modernization 

Act. 

These are both good government provisions, and I am pleased 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

degraded. 

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

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

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

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

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

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

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

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

have been closed without Congressional notification under the original definition of 

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

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

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

Weather Modernization Act. 

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

102 

However, I would like to express my concern that there are at least 28 NOAA 

facilities with budgets between $1 and $5 million. NOAA will merely have to notify 

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

through an evaluation process. 

I do not believe that we know enough about how this will affect these 28 facilities 

at this time to set the number at $5 million. 

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

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

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

services are not degraded. 

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

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

With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

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

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

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

work cooperatively to get the best possible result. 

The vote, then, is on—all right. 

The second amendment on the roster is offered by the gentleman 

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

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

desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will read the amendment. 

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

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

reading of the amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 

amendment. 

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses two contracting issues 

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

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

services to be performed in the United States. 

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

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

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

may not be substituted for U.S. labor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

103 

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

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

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

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

Mr. GORDON. Would the gentleman yield? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

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

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

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

word. 

But here is the problem with the amendment. 

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

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

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

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

enabling U.S. companies to compete for government contracts 

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

that this amendment would actually cost jobs in the United States 

by preventing U.S. companies from winning procurement contracts 

overseas. 

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

can point to a particular problem that this amendment is designed 

to resolve. 

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

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

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

combat a specific known problem. 

But it would create specific known problems by conflicting with 

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

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

Costello language can not override an international obligation of 

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

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

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

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

104 

create an international trade incident, which may hurt the United 

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

is no reason not to pass it. 

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

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

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

the United States abides by its international commitments. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cannot override an international obligation of the United States. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

friend and colleague. 

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

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

does. 

Let me make a couple of points. 

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

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

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

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

challenged at all by the International Trade Commission. There 

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

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

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

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

been very protective in the past of having amendments adopted 

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

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

105 

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

bill being referred to the Ways and Means Committee. 

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

Members of the Committee have a choice today regarding NOAA. 

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

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

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

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

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

of this committee protecting or trying to protect international trade 

agreements that have never been challenged in the past on this 

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

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

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

to begin with. 

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

amendment and to respectfully reject the Chairman’s amendment. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. I am glad you noted respectfully. 

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

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

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

can continue the debate. Okay. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Clerk will report—— 

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT.—the amendment to the amendment. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman. 

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

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

discussion. 

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

to the amendment offered by Mr. Costello of Illinois. 

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

minutes. We will continue this. 

Ms. Biggert, you are next. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I move to strike the last word. 

I have just a couple of points. 

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

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

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

106 

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

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

Second of all, the grandfathering in those contracts with others 

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

can not make new agreements with other countries who might 

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

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

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

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

concerns just with the way that that is written. 

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

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

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

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

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

you know, whether that would violate the trade agreement whether 

to be able to go ahead or not. 

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

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

amendment. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. 

Is there anyone—Ms. Jackson Lee has departed. 

Mr. Gutknecht. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to make. 

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

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

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

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

research but they are constantly critical of the United States for 

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

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

it is an attempt. 

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

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

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

107 

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

It particularly talks about procurement. It talks about contractors 

and subcontractors located outside of the United States. Time after 

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

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

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

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

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

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

deals with our weather predictions and other scientific efforts. 

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

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

he provides an exemption. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

amendment. 

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

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

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

back. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

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

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

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

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 

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

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

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

more fully, your amendment to his amendment? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I already did. 

Mr. HALL. And—well—— 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Do you want me to repeat? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like I am getting off pretty light.’’ 

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

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

taking a page out of your book. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

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

delight to have you serving on this committee. 

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

amendments, which did not supersede trade agreements. What we 

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

override an international obligation of the United States. You 

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

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

we have some international agreements that have been entered 

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

international agreements based on this amendment. 

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

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Will I yield or will—— 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

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

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

would apply to this amendment to make it either permissible or 

not permissible under the WTO or any other trade agreement? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah. 

Mr. MILLER. You do agree with that? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The answer is essentially yes. 

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

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

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

they decide? 

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

is conferring, would you yield? 

109 

Mr. MILLER. I do yield. 

Mr. COSTELLO. That is my whole point. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

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

are talking about international trade agreements, and my friend 

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

it is not clear what our international trade obligations are under 

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

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

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

be cautious about trying to protect trade agreements where we do 

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

agreements, we ought to be aggressive about protecting American 

jobs. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

us guidance and make the initial interpretation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

who decides and on what basis? 

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

with USTR, and incidentally, WTO procurement agreement would 

be violated. The CRS review determined that. 

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

questions, if I am not—— 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Have at it. 

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

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Restate your question, please. 

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

that? Do you agree with Ms. Biggert? 

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

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

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

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

110 

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

think I can maybe sum this up. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on leaning more toward the international treaties than it would on 

leaning toward trying to be aggressive and protecting American 

jobs. 

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

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

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

violate an international treaty. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah, and it—— 

Mr. GORDON. And I yield back. 

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

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

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

into that business. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Who else seeks recognition? 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Your time is expired now. 

Ms. Johnson. 

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

Mr. Costello before me. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

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

Chairman BOEHLERT. Why am I not surprised? 

The gentleman will ask the question. 

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

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

111 

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

to be building scientific expertise somewhere other than here? Of 

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

somewhere else. 

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

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

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

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is not the responsibility of the 

Science Committee to determine. That is the responsibility of the 

Administrator of NOAA in consultation with the World—with the 

U.S. Trade Representative of any Administration. 

Who else seeks recognition? 

Ms. Biggert. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yield? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gray area in an international trade agreement and start protecting 

jobs here at home. 

Ms. BIGGERT. If I might reclaim my time. 

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

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

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

buying American, but this one makes it even better. 

112 

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

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

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

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

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

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

around here. 

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

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

economy, and we are participating. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. 

And thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Ms. Johnson. 

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

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

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

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

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

our guidelines. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I was just advised by the distinguished 

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

WTO and therefore—the procurement agreement, and therefore it 

wouldn’t apply. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

anything that would be in violation of existing commitments of the 

United States of America. And the Costello Amendment violates 

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

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

goes further in contradicting trade agreements than past ‘‘buy 

American’’ language does. 

[The information follows:] 

113 


50v4.eps
114 


50w4.eps
115 


50x4.eps
116 


50y4.eps
117 


50z4.eps
118 


50a5.eps
119 

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

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. 

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

will try to be quick. 

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

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

home comfortable about that tonight. 

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

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

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

there. And they have done some work on treating dyslexia and 

treating—and also with distant learning in trying to help teachers 

around the state learn how to treat people with dyslexia. So I was 

persuasive and had $1 million put in the Defense budget for—so 

we could do the same sort of thing with our military schools around 

the Nation—around the world to try to help—you know, teach 

those teachers how to deal with dyslexic students. And what wound 

up happening—and parochially, I will admit, my university was a 

good one, and so I was thinking they were going to get this bid. 

But instead, what happened, it—there was a little company in New 

Jersey that had a front there who got the bid and then shipped everything to India to be done. 

And I think this amendment would have given the Defense Department or NOAA or someone else the ability, you know, to take 

that back. And so I mean, I think this is the kind of—the real war, 

it is really where are you going to put the burden of proof. And I 

think that is what Mr. Costello does is puts the burden of proof on 

keeping the jobs here. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for reminding me of 

the outstanding work being done at Middle Tennessee State University. 

And let me, on behalf of all of us, congratulate you on your abil- ity to get $1 million earmark in the DOD bill. We are all wondering 

how you achieved that. 

But I would point out that the procurement agreement allows for 

exceptions for Defense. 

And so with that, I think we have pretty much exhausted it. 

The vote is on the amendment to the amendment. If—all in 

favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello asks for a recorded vote. The 

Clerk will call the roll. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Boehlert votes yes. 

Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Hall votes yes. 

Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

120 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Calvert votes yes. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. 

Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. 

Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes. 

Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lucas votes yes. 

Mrs. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mrs. Biggert votes yes. 

Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gilchrest votes yes. 

Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Akin votes yes. 

Mr. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Forbes. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Bonner votes yes. 

Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Feeney votes yes. 

Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Inglis votes yes. 

Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. Yes. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Reichert votes yes. 

Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sodrel votes yes. 

Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Schwarz votes yes. 

Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Aye. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. McCaul votes yes. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Gordon votes no. 

121 

Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costello votes no. 

Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Hooley votes no. 

Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Udall votes no. 

Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Wu votes no. 

Mr. Honda. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Mr. Davis. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Carnahan votes no. 

Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Lipinski votes no. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Ms. Jackson Lee votes no. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Sherman votes no. 

Mr. Baird. 

[No response.] 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Matheson votes no. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Costa votes no. 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Green votes no. 

Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. No. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Melancon votes no. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any other Member who seeks recognition? 

122 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. I didn’t really understand fully what Mr. Wu said. 

Like when you were speaking earlier, I couldn’t hear you. You 

weren’t talking loud enough for some of us older people, and I 

didn’t understand Mr. Wu, and I would like to know what Mr. Wu 

said, and then I would also like to really know what he meant. And 

I would like to see it in writing. I would like to have time to have 

him—— 

Chairman BOEHLERT. This is called a filibuster. 

Mr. HALL. That is what I was waiting to hear, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will record. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Mr. Chairman, yes, 18; no, 17. 

123 


50ee.eps
124 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is passed, and the vote is 

on the amendment, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it. The amendment, as amended, is passed. 

Are there any other amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute? If not, the vote occurs on the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute, as amended. All in favor, say aye. Those 

opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed 

to. 

Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on 

the bill H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Act, as amended. All of those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

I recognize Dr. Ehlers to offer a motion. 

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 50, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, I 

move that staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and 

make necessary technical and conforming changes and that the 

Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the 

House for consideration. 

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

bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is 

favorably reported. 

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

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in 

which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the 

measure. I would move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the 

House to adopt and pass H.R. 50, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank everybody for participating and for your attendance and indulgence. 

This concludes our Committee markup. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(125) 

Appendix: 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, TECHNOLOGY, AND STANDARDS

MARKUP OF H.R. 50 MEMORANDUM; H.R. 50, AS AMENDED; SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 50, AS AMENDED; AMENDMENT

ROSTER; SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT

126 


50s3.eps
127 


50t3.eps
128 


50u3.eps
129 


50v3.eps
130 


50w3.eps
131 


50x3.eps
132 


50y3.eps
133 


50z3.eps
134 


50a4.eps
135 


50b4.eps
136 


50c4.eps
137 


50d4.eps
138 


50e4.eps
139 


50f4.eps
140 


50g4.eps
141 


50h4.eps
142 


50i4.eps
143 


50j4.eps
144 


50k4.eps
145 


50l4.eps
146 


50m4.eps
147 


50n4.eps
148 


50o4.eps
149 


50p4.eps
150 


50q4.eps
151 


50r4.eps
152 


50s4.eps
153 


50t4.eps
154 


50u4.eps
155 

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

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT, AS AMENDED

Section 1. Short Title. 

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act.’’ 

Section 2. Definitions. 

Defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within 

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

Section 4. Administration Leadership. 

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

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

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

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

management. 

Section 5. National Weather Service. 

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

NOAA. 

Section 6. Operations and Services. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational 

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

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

mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service. 

Section 7. Research and Education. 

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

research and education functions. 

Section 8. Science Advisory Board. 

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific 

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA. 

Section 9. Reports. 

Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report should assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems of NOAA and 

provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report must provide a strategic plan for research at NOAA. The National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) shall review each report prior to delivery to Congress. 

Section 10. Effect of Reorganization Plan. 

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. 

Section 11. Savings Provision. 

Provides that all rules and regulations, and other technical legal topics that were 

previously assigned to the Administration, remain in effect under this Act. 

Section 12. Transition. 

Makes the effective date of the Act two years after the date of enactment and requires NOAA to reorganize around the themes outlined in sections five through 

seven. 

Section 13. Facility Evaluation Process. 

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer a facility without 

a 60-day public comment period, 90 days notification to Congress, review by the 

Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), preparation of anticipated costs and savings, and preparation of a statement of the impacts of the facility change on NOAA 

and its part. 

156 


50ff.eps
157 


50gg.eps
158 


50hh.eps
159 


50ii.eps
160 


50jj.eps
161 


50kk.eps
162 


50ll.eps
163 


50mm.eps
164 


50nn.eps
165 


50oo.eps
166 


50pp.eps
167 


50qq.eps
168 


50rr.eps
169 


50ss.eps
170 


50tt.eps
171 


50uu.eps
172 


50vv.eps
173 


50ww.eps
174 


50xx.eps
175 


50yy.eps
176 


50zz.eps
177 


50a3.eps
178 


50b3.eps
179 


50c3.eps
180 


50d3.eps
181 


50e3.eps
182 


50f3.eps
183 


50g3.eps
184 


50h3.eps
185 


50i3.eps
186 


50j3.eps
187 


50k3.eps
188 


50l3.eps
189 


50m3.eps
190 


50n3.eps
191 


50o3.eps
192 


50p3.eps
193 


50q3.eps
194 


50r3.eps
195 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF MANAGER’S AMENDMENT TO

H.R. 50, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT

Section 1. Short Title. 

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act′′ 

Section 2. Definitions. 

Defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within 

the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA. 

Section 4. Administration Leadership. 

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, Education and Outreach, who shall be 

responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, 

and which must be a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under 

Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations 

and management. 

Section 5. National Weather Service. 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service 

within NOAA. 

Section 6. Operations and Services. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational 

and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA, 

but the functions listed include all the activities of NOAA’s National Environmental 

Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) and the mapping and charting activities of the National Ocean Service. 

Section 7. Research and Education. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support 

research and education functions. 

Section 8. Science Advisory Board. 

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific 

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA. 

Section 9. Reports. 

Requires two reports from the Secretary. Each report is to be delivered to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report, by the National Academy of Sciences should assess the adequacy of the environmental data 

and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any deficiencies in those systems. The other report is strategic plan for research at NOAA. 

Section 10. Public-Private Partnerships. 

Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five 

years. Clarifies the no changes in NOAA’s current policy are required. 

Section 11. Effect of Reorganization Plan. 

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. 

Section 12. Savings Provision. 

Provides that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter. 

Section 13. Reorganization Plan. 

Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18 

months after enactment of this Act. 

Section 14. Facility Evaluation Process. 

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities 

without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if approVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
196 

priate), analysis of anticipated costs and savings and impact on NOAA services, and 

notification to Congress. 

Section 15. Budget Reprogramming. 

Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming 

requests submitted to Appropriations Committees. 

Section 16. Satellite Notification. 

Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs, encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs. 

197 

XXV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP OF H.R. 5450, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I want to welcome everyone today to this 

markup and I am going to keep my remarks brief because the bill 

we are marking up today is very important, but not particularly 

controversial and we have reported it out before. Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider the following 

measure, H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. 

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration on these matters and 

without objection, that is so ordered. 

Virtually every group that has looked at ocean issues has concluded that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

would be able to function better if it had a clear basis in law. And 

that is what this bill, a NOAA Organic Act, would provide. It would 

give this key science agency, which was created by executive order, 

a firm legal basis for its full range of activities and responsibilities. 

That is hard to argue with. The bill which was introduced by Dr. 

Ehlers, who has been its tireless champion, would also strengthen 

science at NOAA, which makes sense since NOAA is a major 

science agency. 

We reported this bill out earlier as H.R. 50 and the only difference between the reported version of that bill and today’s is language we negotiated with the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee. That language makes clear that we are not intending 

to give NOAA any new authority in areas of concern to that committee, such as new authority to build buildings or to issue new 

kinds of regulations. So that jurisdictional hurdle behind us, this 

bill should move forward. We will continue to work with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over NOAA, to bring 

the bill to the Floor. The Resources Committee has it also on hold 

pending the resolution of the Transportation Committee issue. 

I assume that most of our debate today will not be on the bill, 

but on the Miller amendment and I will hold my comments on that 

until we get it, get to it. I want to thank the Members on both 

sides of the aisle who have contributed to this bill and I look forward to its passage. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon of Tennessee. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:] 

198 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone today to this markup, and I’m going to keep my remarks brief because the bill we’re marking up today is very important but not particularly controversial, and we’ve reported it out before. 

Virtually every group that has looked at ocean issues has concluded that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would be able to function 

better if it had a clear basis in law. And that’s what this bill, a NOAA Organic Act, 

would provide. It would give this key science agency, which was created by Executive Order, a firm legal basis for its full range of activities and responsibilities. 

That’s hard to argue with. 

The bill, which was introduced by Dr. Ehlers, who has been its tireless champion, 

would also strengthen science at NOAA, which makes sense since NOAA is a major 

science agency. 

We reported this bill out earlier as H.R. 50 and the only difference between the 

reported version of that bill and today’s is language we negotiated with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The language makes clear that we are not 

intending to give NOAA any new authority in areas of concern to that committee— 

such as new authority to build buildings or to issue new kinds of regulations. 

So with that jurisdictional hurdle behind us, this bill should move forward. We 

will continue to work with the Resources Committee, which shares jurisdiction over 

NOAA, to bring the bill to the Floor. The Resources Committee has also been on 

hold pending the resolution of the Transportation Committee issue. 

I assume that most of our debate today will not be on the bill, but on the Miller 

amendment, and I’ll hold my comments on that until we get to it. 

I want to thank the Members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to 

this bill, and I look forward to its passage. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was about a year ago 

that we marked up or reported this bill on the number H.R. 50. 

Since that time a variety of situations relating to NOAA have come 

to our attention. Thus, some of our Members have amendments to 

further improve this bill. I believe it is important to get this legislation right. The Organic Act for the agency must include the tools 

the agency needs today and to the future to allow this agency to 

grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation grows and changes. 

NOAA has currently experienced serious problems with the procurement of its new polar satellite series. The long-term implications of the cost overrun and schedule delay in this program are 

likely to impact all other NOAA programs for years to come. Representative Udall had an amendment to offer that will address this 

problem for future procurements, as well as continue to work together to find a solution for the current NPOESS problem. 

As in the case of H.R. 50, this bill does not include important authorities and functions in fisheries, coastal zone management, 

ocean mapping and charting, and a number of other important operations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. 

Until our colleagues complete their work, we will not have a true 

Organic Act for NOAA. 

I understand you will not be supporting all of our amendments 

today. I regret that, especially in the case of the amendment to be 

offered by Mr. Miller, which would ensure that open scientific dialogue and debate is standard operating procedure at NOAA. I look 

forward to a constructive debate on this amendment as we proceed 

this morning. 

We thank you for this second opportunity to further improve this 

legislation. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues on the Committee, on our colleagues on the Committee of 

199 

Resources, as this bill continues through the legislative process. I 

yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was about one year ago that we marked up and reported this bill under the number, H.R. 50. 

Since that time, several situations relating to NOAA have come to our attention. 

Thus, several of my Members have amendments to further improve this bill. 

I believe it is important to get this legislation right. The Organic Act for the Agency must include the tools the Agency needs today and into the future to allow this 

agency to grow and change as needed to serve our resource needs as our nation 

grows and changes. 

NOAA is currently experiencing serious problems with the procurement of its new 

polar satellite series. The long-term implications of the cost overrun and schedule 

delay in this program are likely to impact all other NOAA programs for years to 

come. Rep. Udall has an amendment to offer that will address this problem for future 

procurements as we continue to work together to find a solution for the current 

NPOESS program. 

As in the case of H.R. 50, this bill does not include important authorities and 

functions in fisheries, coastal zone management, ocean mapping and charting, and 

a number of other important operations that are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. Until our colleagues complete their work, we will not have a 

true Organic Act for NOAA. 

I understand you will not be supporting all of our amendments today. I regret 

that—especially in the case of the amendment to be offered by Rep. Miller which 

would ensure that open scientific dialogue and debate is standard operating procedure at NOAA. I look forward to a constructive debate on this amendment as we 

proceed this morning. 

We thank you for this second opportunity to further improve this legislation. We 

look forward to working with you and our colleagues on the Committee on Resources 

as this bill continues through the legislative process. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. All right. Without objections, Members 

may place statements in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association has an important place 

in America’s scientific and weather enterprises. 

NOAA funds and implements research critical for predicting floods, tornadoes and 

hurricanes. It disseminates information on how to avoid rip-tides for summer beachgoers. 

Texas is unfortunately well-acquainted with natural disasters. A clear vision and 

mission for NOAA is a necessary step for the agency to run smoothly and with clear 

guidance from Congress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. I recognize Dr. 

Ehlers to describe the bill. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

explain my bill. H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. It is long overdue. 

NOAA has operated for years without it and it is clearly needed. 

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an 

agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA 

is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere, are committed to conserve and manage coastal, ocean 

and Great Lakes ecosystems, and third, educate the public about 

these topics. 

200 

Since 1970, when NOAA was created by executive order, the 

agency has operated under a confusing collection of issue-specific 

laws that are not coordinated by an overarching mission. In September 2004, the final report of the U.S. Commission on Oceans 

called for Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in 

one place the mission and program goals of the agency. The Administration supports Congressional passage of a NOAA Organic Act 

and made it a priority in the Administration formal response to the 

Ocean Commission report. 

In the 108th Congress, witnesses at Science Committee hearings 

strongly endorsed my NOAA Organic Act. In a new report released 

just yesterday, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative reiterated 

the need for NOAA to codify in law and this bill embodies specific 

priorities outlined in their report. And yet, the Organic Act has 

languished for the past year over a jurisdictional claim by another 

committee. This new version of my bill makes a simple addition to 

the language in Section 12 to address these jurisdictional claims so 

that we can pass this bill and let the Resources Committee do their 

part. 

The Resources Committee will add language about fisheries management and other NOAA issues that are under their jurisdiction. 

I look forward to working with the Members of the Committee to 

join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA into 

law. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450 and I also would 

like to just offer a brief comment regarding the amendments, particularly the amendment by Mr. Miller, which the previous speaker 

mentioned. 

I am in sympathy with that amendment. I do not believe, in fact, 

I strongly believe that this is not the appropriate place to offer an 

amendment. An organic act is good for the agents. We don’t need 

to address a short-term immediate question which has already 

been largely taken care of and accomplished by adding an amendment to an organic act. If we did do so, for years from now on people would say why did they add that stupid little amendment to 

this wonderful organic act? And so what we are proposing here is 

to pass it without the Miller amendment and we will address the 

concerns of the Miller amendment in a separate way. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to explain my bill. H.R. 5450, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, is an organic act for NOAA. 

An organic act defines the overall mission and functions of an agency. As an example, my bill states that the mission of NOAA is to: 

(1) understand and predict changes in the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere; 

(2) conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems; and 

(3) educate the public about these topics. 

Since 1970 when NOAA was created by executive order, the agency has operated 

under a confusing collection of issue-specific laws that are not coordinated by an 

overarching mission. 

In September 2004, the final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean called for 

Congress to pass an organic act for NOAA and clarify in one place the mission and 

program goals of the agency. The Administration supports Congressional passage of 

a NOAA organic act, and made it a priority in the Administration formal response 

to the Ocean Commission report. In the 108th, witnesses at Science Committee 

201 

hearings strongly endorsed my NOAA organic act. In a new report released just yesterday, the Joint Oceans Commission Initiative reiterated the need for NOAA to be 

codified in law, and this bill embodies specific priorities outlined in their report. 

And yet, the Organic Act has languished for the past year over a jurisdictional 

claim by another committee. This new version of my bill makes a simple addition 

to the language in Section 12 to address these jurisdictional claims so that we can 

pass this bill and let the Resources Committee do their part. The Resources Committee will add language about fisheries management and other NOAA issues that 

are under their jurisdiction. I look forward to working with the Members of that 

committee to join us in passing truly comprehensive legislation for NOAA into law. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers, I want to thank you for your 

leadership on this and I want to thank Mr. Wu, who is not yet 

here, for working so effectively and cooperatively with you. You are 

a good team and you produced a good product. Since Mr. Wu is not 

here, I would like to recognize Mr. Gordon for any comments he 

might make. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also congratulate Mr. Ehlers for his work in bringing forth this important legislation, but I would say to him, since he raises the question of the 

Miller amendment, if scientific integrity is not a part of the Organic Act, the basis for this agency, where in the world is it legitimate? I mean, this is the place to develop the scientific integrity 

of the agency. I yield back my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. I think we are forewarned that 

the Miller amendment is going to be the subject of some serious 

discussion and my thought is we had originally scheduled, Mr. Miller, your amendment to be first. I would rather defer on that and 

go with some of the other less contentious, if you will, amendments 

because that will give the opportunity for our colleagues to get here 

to join us to hear the eloquent words that are going to come from 

both sides of the podium. 

With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open to amendment at any point and that the 

Members proceed with the amendment in the revised order of the 

roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello. Mr. Costello, are you 

ready? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I am and Mr. Chairman, I have 

an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Costello of 

Illinois. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois for five minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, when 

we last considered this bill, I offered an amendment to ensure that 

taxpayers’ funds are used to sustain and promote jobs here in the 

United States whenever possible. Unfortunately, my amendment 

was weakened by the adoption of a secondary amendment offered 

by the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you expressed your concern at 

the time that my amendment would have an impact on WTO 

agreements that we have with the World Trade Organization. I 

made the point at the time that we should be more concerned 

202 

about protecting jobs here in the United States and let the courts 

decide on what may or may not violate our trade agreements. 

Unfortunately, at the time we did not, this committee did not 

have the benefit of knowing the number or the magnitude of 

NOAA’s contracts that are being performed overseas. The amendment I am offering today is designed to obtain this information on 

an ongoing basis. My amendment establishes an annual reporting 

requirement. The identical language was included in the NASA authorization bill that was signed into law at the end of last year. 

NOAA would be required to provide a report listing the contracts 

and subcontracts performed overseas. The report must also include 

an accounting of the purchases made by NOAA from foreign entities. 

The report will indicate which goods and services were only 

available for purchase through foreign sources and it will include 

information about waivers issued by the Administration of the Buy 

American Act. We have heard repeatedly that we do not have accurate information about off-shoring of jobs. This report will provide 

us some information about the extent to which NOAA contracts 

and subcontracts are subject to the trend of moving more jobs overseas. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this 

straightforward amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for that description. 

This is a classic example of how we should work together, with consultation, with give and take back and forth. We have dealt with 

a subject that is uppermost on all of our minds. It deals with my 

favorite four letter word, and don’t get nervous, you can use it in 

public, jobs. And my interest is in American jobs. And so we have 

no objection to the amendment; we appreciate the spirit of cooperation that has been so evident and the Chair is prepared to accept 

the amendment. Is there any further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. No? The ayes 

have it. The amendment is adopted. 

We will do Mr. Udall. Are you prepared? Next amendment on the 

roster is the amendment by Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Udall of 

Colorado. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading and without objection, that is so ordered. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the last 

few weeks the Committee has held two hearings on the NPOESS 

program and concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle that 

NPOESS was not properly managed and that warning signs were 

apparent, though not taken seriously by those responsible for the 

oversight of the program. As a result, we have a $6.8 billion program that unaltered was estimated to be $7 billion over budget and 

with current program changes, it is expected to total $11.5 billion, 

$4.7 billion over the original projections. 

It is with this in mind that I offer my amendment to include 

greater oversight of large programs at NOAA. There have been 

203 

many developments in the status of NPOESS since we last marked 

up the NOAA Organic Act and as NOAA begins to make plans for 

the next series of the GOES satellite, I believe it is important that 

proper oversight is in place. My amendment would implement a 

Nunn-McCurdy-like oversight process for programs that have budgets of $250 million or more. In fact, the language in this amendment is almost identical to that included in the NASA Authorization Act which was signed into law late last year. 

Specifically, it would require detailed information provided to 

Congress up front about the cost and schedule of any major program at NOAA and establishes a process to follow for yearly oversight over these programs. It requires NOAA to notify Congress if 

a major program is 15 percent over budget or delayed six months, 

at which point, the agency must develop cost projections for several 

different scenarios. If the program’s cost exceeds 30 percent of its 

budget, all spending on the program must end within 18 months. 

At this point, the only way the program can proceed is if Congress 

were to authorize it again. 

I hate to continue to harp on NPOESS, but I think it is an important example of how budget can hamstring when it has problems, an agency’s goals. NOAA’s annual budget is usually in the 

realm of $4 billion. While NOAA will not be the only agency having 

to cover these cost overruns, it will need to provide significantly 

more funding than expected as the program moves forward. And 

this begs the question now that NOAA will continue to do all of its 

other vital work in atmospheric and oceanic research while trying 

to cover the cost of NPOESS. 

Looking at this situation more broadly, I think it is important to 

discuss how over-budget programs can affect NOAA’s mission. With 

the fiscal climate over the past few years, NOAA’s world renowned 

laboratories have had to endure instability in their budgets. I don’t 

need to tell the Members of the Committee the importance of the 

models and research produced by those labs. They are integral to 

understanding our climate as well as predicting our daily weather. 

In the last appropriations cycle, we saw NOAA programs such as 

the Space Environment Center have their budgets cut by nearly 

half for reasons unknown to most in Congress and the American 

public. 

With an estimated one-third of our economy dependent on weather, we cannot ignore the impact this research has on our economy. 

Yet one program’s cost overruns can indirectly affect the research 

in programs at NOAA for forcing the agency to shift money in 

order to continue the over-budget program. Further reducing those 

budgets will jeopardize the quality of NOAA’s research. By not 

properly monitoring major programs, there are many unattended 

consequences that will have lasting effects on NOAA’s ability to 

perform its mission. 

Mr. Chairman, I see this as a good government amendment that 

ensures major programs at NOAA do not potentially derail other 

efforts at the agency and that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. I 

would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. 

I thank you and I yield back any time I have remaining. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for this good beneficial amendment which the Chair is prepared to accept and I 

204 

would say to Mr. Udall don’t apologize for what you referred to as 

harping on NPOESS. I prefer to call it constructive and vigorous 

engagement and we are going to continue to either harp or constructively and vigorously be engaged, but it is something that is 

critically important. Oversight of procurement is something that we 

don’t take lightly and we will continue to be constructively engaged. 

This is a good amendment. We will have to tweak it maybe a little bit in the language, but we will work with you on that to make 

sure it complies with the NASA language and our original intent. 

But the chair thanks the gentleman for his addition, valued addition to this bill and the Chair is prepared to accept it. Is there anyone else who cares to be heard on the amendment? If not, the vote 

is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Aye. No? The ayes appear to have it and the amendment is adopted. 

Now we go to the main act. The Chair is prepared to recognize 

Mr. Miller. Are you prepared? 

Mr. MILLER. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Miller of 

North Carolina. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered and the gentleman 

from North Carolina is recognized to explain his amendment. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of this stupid little amendment is to safeguard the integrity of science at 

NOAA, something that should be true across all agencies of government, but this would apply the provisions of free-standing legislation that Mr. Waxman and Mr. Gordon have introduced that many 

of us have co-sponsored that would provide protections and legal 

requirements that scientific research not be tampered with, it not 

be censored and that nobody in NOAA, at least, would disseminate 

any scientific findings that they knew to be false or misleading. 

Most important, Mr. Chairman, it is more than an exhortation 

to the executive branch of government not to do it. It provides real 

protection for the employees who are in the position to blow the 

whistle when it does happen. It provides real protections to them, 

it prohibits any personnel action directed at an employee who 

blows the whistle so that they may not lose their job or be demoted 

or have any other adverse personnel action taken with respect to 

them. 

Mr. Chairman, you have spoken eloquently on many occasions on 

the importance of scientific integrity, that this Congress and all 

policy-makers in government should be able to rely upon the findings of neutral, honest scientific inquiry, that we should not decide 

what our policy is first or what politics dictates first and then 

make it clear to those who do scientific research on federal funding, 

with federal funding, what conclusions they are to come to, to support those findings. 

Whatever conclusion we may reach on what the policy should be, 

we should have good, honest scientific research to rely upon. Mr. 

Chairman, I applaud your letter to Admiral Lautenbacher earlier 

this year. In that letter you referred to articles in the Washington 

Post in which NOAA scientists complained of being told to shut up 

205 

about global warming, not to talk about global climate change, it 

was very similar to earlier reports coming out of NASA. 

And Mr. Chairman, you said, in your letter to Admiral 

Lautenbacher, that this was not an isolated incident and in fact, 

the Members of this committee and the staff of this committee have 

heard many reports from NOAA that the reports in the Post were 

representative of what was going on generally. 

This is not simply a short-term problem. I hope it is a short-term 

problem, Mr. Chairman. I hope that this does not continue to occur, 

but this amendment would make sure that there are lasting protections; if any administration, this one or the next one, decides that 

they are going to have scientific research results flow from politics, 

that those scientists who blow the whistle on that will be protected. 

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. I am 

going to take some time to lay out my position on this amendment 

because it raises an important issue that is too often subject to 

demagoguery. I think it is fair to say that no one in this Congress 

has been more vocal than I have about the need for federal agencies and the Congress, for that matter, to encourage open scientific 

communication. I have strenuously objected when agencies or Congressional committees have appeared to unfairly constrain or intimidate science, scientists. 

You know, policy should be informed by science rather than have 

science being influenced by policy, so I am not denying that such 

situations occur. In the case of NOAA, the agency has frankly developed an unfortunate reputation as a place where scientists are 

not always able to communicate freely and fully with the general 

public on sensitive topics. That said, it has been a little difficult to 

pin down specific, clear-cut cases in which scientists have been 

muzzled. One gets more of a sense that scientists are sort of walking on eggshells when discussing issues like climate change. There 

seems to be a problem with the atmosphere at NOAA. 

At the same time, NOAA scientists have continued, without constraint, to conduct their research and participate in scientific conferences and NOAA has had what is generally viewed as a model 

policy governing communications. Finally, Admiral Lautenbacher 

has issued very clear statements urging open communications and 

no one has accused him of personally trying to shut down communications. So what we have is an agency that clearly has some 

problems where scientists clearly sometimes feel constrained, for 

whatever reasons, but where the problem seems to originate with 

discreet steps taken by mid-level and some more senior officials, in 

particular instances, and worries that other steps might be taken 

in the future. 

This is a situation that cries out for a remedy, but it hardly cries 

out for legislation. In fact, the last thing needed to create a more 

settled atmosphere at NOAA is a legalistic regime that would send 

everyone to their lawyers each time there is a question or a misunderstanding about how exactly to communicate with the public 

or what to do when a scientist is talking about policy as opposed 

to pure science. What is needed, instead, in my view, is more active 

engagement on the communication issue at the top level of NOAA 

and Dr. Ehlers and I have sent, and you have referred to it, a very 

206 

clear and strong letter to Admiral Lautenbacher outlining the steps 

we think need to be taken and we will make that letter public 

today. 

[The information follows:] 


h5450a.eps
207 

Chairman BOEHLERT. This follows up on a letter that I sent to 

the Admiral as far back in April. These communication issues are 

subtle and each one is a little different and they need to be handled 

through oversight, not through legislation. I would add that this 

strategy seems to be working at NASA. When NASA had a problem, Mr. Gordon and I worked very effectively and very closely and 

very cooperatively with NASA, mostly behind the scenes, to get the 

situation straightened out. That doesn’t mean there will never 

again be an issue there. Oversight has to be done on a continuing 

basis and we are committed to that proposition, but no one has argued that the situation at NASA hasn’t vastly improved to the 

credit of Administrator Griffin and Deputy Administrator Dale, 

who, I might add, got her training on this committee, as well as 

to all of us. 

So I don’t think legislating in this area is a good idea, in general. 

But let me outline my specific concerns about this particular 

amendment. First, this amendment would sidetrack this bill by 

sending it to the Government Reform Committee. Needless to say, 

this language is rather controversial in that committee or they already would have acted on the bill on which this amendment is 

based, a bill that has been sitting in that committee for most of 

this Congress. I point out that this bill also still needs to go 

through the Resources Committee, and that is perhaps not the 

ideal venue to debate this subject. 

Second, for the reasons I have already described, I don’t think 

this is a problem that is best solved by legislation. And third, the 

language of the amendment doesn’t even address the issues that 

have been raised at NOAA. The amendment language is based on 

a bill that was drafted largely in response to allegations about 

science issues related to human health. No one, no one at NOAA 

has been accused of tampering with scientific research or censoring 

findings, a vague term, in any event, or disseminating information 

known to be false. Yet those are the formal offenses created by this 

amendment. 

So this amendment would have the perverse effect of forcing anyone with a complaint about communications at NOAA to try to deVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1

h5450b.eps
208 

scribe their problem in the terms used in this amendment. That 

would hardly help resolve these issues. The amendment also deals 

with advisory bodies, again using language designed to apply to different panels than the ones NOAA has. The NOAA advisory bodies 

tend to be, in part, policy bodies, not purely scientific ones. We are 

not talking primarily about an advisory panel to determine, say, a 

safe level for lead in blood. And I won’t even get into the peer review guidelines issues raised by the amendment, which is an entirely separate, complex issue that shouldn’t be fought out on this 

bill for one agency. 

So I strongly oppose this amendment. It would kill this organic 

act while only making worse the problems at NOAA that its sponsor claims to want to resolve. It is based on a bill drafted by and 

for another committee that didn’t have the NOAA situation in 

mind when it was drafting. I think we should swiftly and soundly 

defeat this amendment, pass the bill and continue, continue to 

monitor NOAA’s communications policy as part of our oversight responsibilities. 

And let me add, we take those responsibilities seriously, both Mr. 

Gordon and I in a bipartisan basis. I wish some other committees 

would follow the lead of this committee and do the same thing. 

With that, I urge strongly that this amendment be defeated. Now, 

is there anyone else who seeks to be recognized? Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I’m going to take some time to lay out my position on this amendment because 

it raises an important issue that is too often subject to demagoguery. 

I think it’s fair to say that no one in this Congress has been more vocal than I 

have been about the need for federal agencies—and the Congress, for that matter— 

to encourage open scientific communication. I have strenuously objected when agencies or Congressional committees have appeared to unfairly constrain or intimidate 

scientists. 

So I’m not denying that such situations occur. In the case of NOAA, the agency 

has frankly developed an unfortunate reputation as a place where scientists are not 

always able to communicate freely and fully with the general public on sensitive 

topics. That said, it’s been a little difficult to pin down specific, clear-cut cases in 

which scientists have been muzzled. One gets more of a sense that scientists are 

‘‘walking on egg shells’’ when discussing issues like climate change. There seems to 

be a problem with the atmosphere at NOAA. 

At the same time, NOAA scientists have continued without constraint to conduct 

their research and participate in scientific conferences. And NOAA has had what 

is generally viewed as a model policy governing communications. Finally, Admiral 

Lautenbacher has issued very clear statements urging open communications, and no 

one has accused him of personally trying to shut down communication. 

So what we have is an agency that clearly has some problems, where scientists 

clearly sometimes feel constrained, for whatever reasons, but where the problem 

seems to originate with discrete steps taken by mid-level and some more senior officials in particular instances and worries that other steps might be taken in the future. 

This is a situation that cries out for remedy, but it hardly cries out for legislation. 

In fact, the last thing needed to create a more settled atmosphere at NOAA is a 

legalistic regime that would send everyone to their lawyers each time there’s a question or misunderstanding about exactly how to communicate with the public or what 

to do when a scientist is talking about policy, as opposed to ‘‘pure’’ science. 

What’s needed instead is more active engagement on the communication issue at 

the top level of NOAA, and Mr. Ehlers and I have sent a letter to Admiral 

Lautenbacher outlining the steps we think need to be taken, and we’ll make that 

public today. This follows up on a letter that I sent to the Admiral back in April. 

These communications issues are subtle, and each one is a little different, and they 

need to be handled through oversight, not legislation. 

209 

I’d add that that strategy seems to be working at NASA. When NASA had a problem, Mr. Gordon and I worked very effectively with NASA, mostly behind the 

scenes, to get the situation straightened out. That doesn’t mean there will never 

again be an issue there—oversight has to be done on a continuing basis—but no one 

has argued that the situation at NASA hasn’t vastly improved—to the credit of Administrator Griffin and Deputy Administrator Dale, as well as to us. 

So I don’t think legislating in this area is a good idea, in general. But let me outline my specific concerns about this amendment. 

First, this amendment would sidetrack this bill by sending it to the Government 

Reform Committee. Needless to say, this language is rather controversial in that 

committee, or they already would have acted on the bill on which this amendment 

is based, which has been sitting in that committee for most of this Congress. 

I’d also point out that this bill also still needs to go through the Resources Committee, perhaps not the ideal venue to debate this subject. 

Second, for the reasons I’ve already described, I don’t think this is a problem that 

is best solved by legislation. 

Third, the language of the amendment doesn’t even address the issues that have 

been raised at NOAA. The amendment language is based on a bill that was drafted 

largely in response to allegations about science issues related to human health. No 

one at NOAA has been accused of (quote) ‘‘tampering’’ with scientific research or 

(quote) ‘‘censoring’’ findings—a vague term, in any event—or disseminating information known to be false. Yet those are the formal offenses created by this amendment. 

So this amendment would have the perverse effect of forcing anyone with a complaint about communications at NOAA to try to describe the problem in the terms 

used in this amendment. That would hardly help resolve these issues. 

The amendment also deals with advisory bodies—again, using language designed 

to apply to different panels than the ones NOAA has. The NOAA advisory bodies 

tend to be, in part, policy bodies, not purely scientific ones. We’re not talking primarily about an advisory panel to determine, say, a safe blood level for lead. 

And I won’t even get into the peer review guideline issues raised by the amendment, which is an entirely separate complex issue that shouldn’t be fought out on 

this bill for one agency. 

So I strongly oppose this amendment. It would kill this Organic Act while only 

making worse the problems at NOAA that its sponsor claims to want to resolve. It 

is based on a bill drafted by and for another committee that didn’t have the NOAA 

situation in mind when it was drafting. 

I think we should swiftly and soundly defeat this amendment, pass this bill, and 

continue to monitor NOAA’s communication policies as part of our oversight responsibilities. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Miller laid 

out the merits of this bill very well, so I won’t proceed to elaborate 

there. What I would like to do is concur with the Chairman in a 

couple of ways. First of all, I want to concur with the Chairman 

in saying that we have had some difficulty with scientific integrity 

at NOAA and secondly, I want to concur with the Chairman in saying he has been a champion in trying to work through these problems. Unfortunately, he is going to be leaving us soon and let me 

just say I don’t consider this a partisan bill. 

Although I may not see another Democrat in my lifetime, certainly Ralph Hall is likely to find one and when that occurs, I think 

that you are going to want, both parties are going to want best information from these agencies without any kind of filtering. This 

is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of trying to allow Congress 

to do its job and if we don’t do it here, I don’t know where we are 

going to get it done. Again, I concur with Mr. Miller’s amendment, 

think that it is a nonpartisan amendment, it is an amendment that 

each side of this roster is going to want at the appropriate times 

so that we can do our job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much for the complimentary words, but I wish to point out that I never, never use the word 

partisan in referring to this amendment and we work, this comVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
210 

mittee works on a bipartisan basis and my view is that we have 

got sort of two choices. We can do as some committees do where 

the Majority runs roughshod over the Minority, not even taking 

into consideration the views of the Minority. 

I am proud to say that that is not the model we follow on this 

committee. And when I look across to your side of the aisle, I look 

across not only to see people I work with and am friendly with on 

a personal basis, but people I work with and am cooperative with 

on a professional basis. This committee can hold its head high and 

say we are not part of the problem. You refer to the fact that I am 

going to be leaving and I am going to be—that wasn’t a draft invitation, was it? But there are many reasons why I am leaving, but 

one of the reasons that I announced in my statement on March 17 

was that I came to this Hill 42 years ago as a starry-eyed young 

staffer and for the past 24 years it has been my privilege to serve 

as a Member of this great institution. 

I have never, never seen a higher level of partisanship or a lower 

level of tolerance for another point of view. Fortunately, in this 

committee, that situation doesn’t exist, nor will it as long as I am 

privileged to be in this chair. Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to discuss 

in some detail why I think it would be inappropriate to adopt this 

amendment at this point. This organic act that we have before us 

has been in preparation for more than six years. We have spent a 

great deal of time on it in subcommittee. I have personally devoted 

a lot of time to it. We have had innumerable roadblocks, including 

the latest, which was a claim of jurisdiction by another committee 

which took us several months to resolve. 

My time, Mr. Chairman, on this subcommittee is coming to an 

end. The time of getting this passed through both the House and 

the Senate is coming to an end. It is going to be touch and go the 

way it is. I would not want to see this bill sidetracked in any way 

and assigned to another committee other than the Resources Committee, which is going to add their part of the organic act to this 

bill. So I urge that we reject this amendment. 

I would also like to point out the nature of an organic act and 

why we have worked so hard on this and we have touched base 

with so many different segments. An organic act is, in a sense, almost a constitution for a committee. There are very few organic 

acts out there. The best example is the National Science Foundation, which has had the same organic act for roughly 50 years. It 

has very seldom, if at all, been amended by the Congress. It is regarded as the guiding act and any laws pertaining to the National 

Science Foundation have avoided amending the organic act. 

Similarly, we are trying to write that type of ‘‘constitution’’ for 

NOAA and all its activities. It is a very concise document, contains 

a great deal, but we have tried to deal with the issue that the 

amendment addresses in the act, in the following words, ‘‘Nothing 

in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability of an administration employee to discuss scientific research performed by that employee.’’ That says it in one sentence what the essence of the 

amendment is. Yet, the amendment goes on for 11 pages. It is onethird the length of our entire bill and I just think it is inappropriate to insert that detail in an organic act. 

211 

If the author of the amendment would wish to offer this as a bill 

which would apply to all the various scientific agencies, NIH, 

NASA, NSF, NOAA and so on down the line, Department of Energy, that might be an appropriate move to go into that kind of detail for a general statement of all governmental science agencies. 

But as I say, it is inappropriate to put something of that length, 

of that detail in an organic act which applies to only one agency 

and certainly not to the largest scientific agency of the Federal 

Government. 

So I encourage the defeat of the amendment and I believe we 

have taken care of it as fully as we need to or should in this organic act with that one sentence which I read. It is very complete, 

very thorough, ‘‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the 

ability of an administration employee to discuss scientific research 

performed by that employee.’’ NASA, or pardon me, NOAA already 

has in place a policy. It is a good enough policy that when NASA 

developed some problems on this, they referred to the NOAA policy 

and made their new policy based on the NOAA policy. 

It is not that there is a pressing need in this particular agency 

for this and as I said, to repeat myself, if this is a serious problem 

that has to be addressed in this detail, an 11-page amendment, it 

should be done with a bill that applies to all science agencies and 

not just to one agency, which has not demonstrated any major 

problems. So I urge the defeat of this amendment and urge that 

we pass the organic bill in the form as submitted to this committee. 

Mr. GORDON. Would my friend yield for just a moment? 

Mr. EHLERS. Yes, I would yield. 

Mr. GORDON. If I could address your specific question. For your 

information, there has been a bill introduced specifically dealing 

with scientific integrity across the board. It is the bill I introduced 

over a year ago. It has been referred, in part, to this committee and 

there have been no hearings on it. 

Mr. EHLERS. May I ask what other committee—— 

Mr. GORDON. I yield back to my time. 

Mr. EHLERS. Just reclaim my time. Could the gentleman inform 

me what other committees it has been referred to? And I yield to 

him for that answer. 

Mr. GORDON. Government Reform, as well as this committee and 

Mr. Miller’s amendment is based almost entirely on that bill, but 

being more specific to this committee since this committee has not 

had hearings on the bill that you requested. 

Mr. EHLERS. I reclaim my time. I would simply state that illustrates precisely the problem. We do not want the organic act to go 

to the Government Reform Committee; we would never see it 

again. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is part of the problem when you refer 

it to other committees. Other committees don’t follow our example. 

They don’t lead and get things done. They sit on legislation for far 

too long and the second thing I would observe is that Dr. Ehlers 

is a very distinguished scientist in his own right, a physicist, Ph.D., 

a fellow of the American Physical Society. No one values unfettered 

scientific inquiry more than the scientific community that we are 

here to try to help and Dr. Ehlers, I thank you for your input. 

Mr. GORDON. May I address that quickly? 

212 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Be glad to recognize Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Let me first concur Dr. Ehlers is a great asset to 

this committee and his integrity should not be challenged in any 

way. But in terms of jurisdiction, let me point out that already this 

year this committee has had 26 bills. We have exchanged letters 

in lieu of referrals between the Science Committee and other committees and I am sure there is going to be additional letters of exchange and as you just mentioned, you have already done that on 

this bill already once, so I feel sure this could be worked out if 

there was an effort, since this bill is specific to NOAA. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the Chair for recognizing me, and I 

would like to reiterate the comment that the Chairman and Mr. 

Ehlers have made. The NOAA Organic Act is highly recommended 

by the Pew Oceans Commission and led by Leon Panetta, and the 

National Ocean Commission led by Admiral Watkins. NOAA right 

now is contained in the Department of Commerce and it is a poor 

second cousin of the Department of Commerce. As a result of this 

structure, the frame that NOAA exists under, the United States 

has no coherent ocean policy. It is not a separate independent 

agency like NASA. It doesn’t have the same kind of clout in Congress that other independent agencies have. That is just the way 

it works. It is the human condition. I said NOAA—the U.S. has no 

coherent ocean policy. We have no ocean policy. There is a myriad 

of committees that deal with these kinds of issues and not just 

Government Reform or Transportation or Science or Resources, but 

we are talking about Commerce, we are talking about Ways and 

Means, we are talking about Armed Services. This goes across the 

board. It is vital at this point to keep the momentum going for good 

Science to take that Ocean Commission report so it doesn’t gather 

dust, like other reports do around here and it is completely ignored, 

to set the stage for NOAA Organic Act so they can be a separate 

independent agency and we can begin the process of developing 

clear ocean policy. The other issues that are brought out here today 

can be dealt with, they must be dealt with, but they can be dealt 

with more effectively outside this particular bill and I, unfortunately, at this point urge a no vote on Mr. Gordon—Mr. Miller’s 

amendment. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. 

Wu. 

Mr. WU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to commend the 

way that the Chairman and Ranking Member Gordon have worked 

together very, very well on a range of issues, including this one. 

And I also want to recognize that Chairman Ehlers and I, on the 

Subcommittee, have worked together on this bill. And I want to lay 

out the reasons why I think it is important to support Mr. Miller’s 

amendment today. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that you have been 

very forthright in your statements about the importance of scientific integrity and making those views known to folks at NASA 

and NOAA and other agencies. But if you go back to June of 2005, 

the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a survey of NOAA fishery scientists, found that half of all respondents were aware of instances 

of political interference with scientific opinions, and over half were 

213 

aware of cases where Commerce appointees ‘‘inappropriately altered NOAA fisheries determinations.’’ 

Now fast forward to April of this year and, Mr. Chairman, you 

sent a letter to Admiral Lautenbacher, highlighting some of the 

issues and I believe that one of the statements was, our staff has 

heard concerns about politicization repeatedly and the problem 

goes beyond just a few instances. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WU. Once I finish, I would be happy to yield. But after you 

sent the letter, Mr. Chairman, Greenway reported that NOAA directed all media inquiries on salmon to go through several political 

appointees. And the reason why I am pointing it out, there is this 

problem with NOAA fisheries. It also applies to the National 

Weather Service, on climate research, which is a part of NOAA. It 

was my personal experience to have met with NOAA folks on the 

Klamath salmon issue and their proposal to prohibit all sport and 

commercial fishing in the Pacific Ocean. And the prohibition on all 

ocean salmon fishing would have saved, at most, 500 salmon; 

whereas all the studies show that the up-river policies were killing 

85,000 salmon, 85,000 spring Chinook salmon every year. And this 

is not a threatened run, this is not an endangered run, but NOAA 

was proposing to close down the entire fishery to close—to protect 

this one run in one river, the Klamath River, and I struggled with 

the NOAA administrators back and forth, back and forth, and it 

was like a debate to get them to admit that it was up-river policies 

that was causing this problem. 

And I asked them a direct question several times: wouldn’t 

water—changing water management solve this problem much more 

effectively, and they repeatedly answered no. And finally I got the 

form of the question right and I said, well, if we change up-river 

water management and ecosystem recovery in the water basin, 

would that solve the problem? And the answer magically became 

yes. And without contact, direct contact with NOAA scientists, I 

never would have been able to form that question and get that admission out of the folks at NOAA. I think it is very, very important, it is very, very important, specifically, in a policy instance and 

in direct dealings with the folks at NOAA. But I think Mr. Miller’s 

amendment is also important for one other reason and that is the 

Supreme Court case which came out, I believe, after your letter, 

Mr. Chairman, Garcetti v. Ceballos, which dramatically cut back on 

the protection which whistleblowers have. In that particular case, 

Mr. Ceballos, a district deputy district attorney in Los Angeles, 

found that a deputy sheriff had lied in order to get a search warrant and brought it to the attention of his superiors, he was ignored and when, as required by Bar rules, disclosed this to the defense, he was removed from the case, demoted and transferred. 

And the Supreme Court ruled that he was not protected, and the 

law has changed just recently. This is May 30. And it is appropriate to provide statutory protection when the traditional protections have been cut back. I understand the Chairman’s concern and 

Dr. Ehlers’ concern about a referral to another committee, but I 

think that it is extremely important that we get this right, especially with the underlying change in the law because of the SuVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:44 Jul 07, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR545P1.XXX HR545P1
214 

preme Court Case. I would like to yield to Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. 

Miller. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. There is no more time. Your time has expired, the red light is on, and Mr. Gilchrest graciously consented 

not to go further. Let me point out that both sides, I think, have 

fairly well capsulized and expanded on their respective positions, 

and so we will go to a vote, but before we go to the vote, Dana— 

Mr. Rohrabacher asked for a minute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will just go very quickly. I don’t believe that 

what we are talking about here is politics within this committee, 

but I do believe it is based on political posturing that happened 

outside of this committee, and this is, frankly, the charges that this 

Administration has been stifling people on the issue of global 

warming is just total nonsense. But based on some actions that 

were politically-based actions by certain scientists, especially at 

NASA, let me note that the very first action taken by the Clinton 

Administration was to fire the head of the—the chief scientist at 

the Department of Energy because he was skeptical of global 

warming. I will put in the record at this point a number of references and articles by scientists who have noted that they have 

not received, they have not been able to receive grants in recent 

years since the Clinton Administration and into this Administration because of their skepticism of global warming. And if there is 

any type of muzzling going on, it is the opposite of what is being 

presented here today and this is turning, you know, reality on its 

head, and that is why even though I understand—— 

[The information follows:] 

215 


h5450v3.eps
216 


h5450w3.eps
217 


h5450x3.eps
218 


h5450y3.eps
219 

Mr. HONDA. Will Mr. Rohrabacher yield? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. You know what? I promised the Chairman I 

would be less than two minutes and that is it, so I have had my 

say. Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Honda, 

did you have a brief intervention? 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to strike the 

last word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes, and—— 

Mr. HONDA. And I would like to yield my time Mr. Miller. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. But not for the full five minutes. Look, 

here is what the Chair is trying to do, recognize that a number of 

Members of the Committee have other committees competing with 

us and some of those committees are actually voting and require 

their attendance, so we would like to get on with it. But, Mr. Miller, for a brief intervention. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will defer. I will not use—— 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, and that is the spirit of cooperation that is so evident. Both sides have laid out the 

case, so now the vote is on the Miller Amendment. All in favor say 

aye. Opposed, no. The noes appear to have it. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded voted. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. A recorded vote has been requested. The 

Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert. 

Mr. REICHERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Reichert votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Bartlett. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Biggert votes no. Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

220 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Bonner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel votes no. Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schwarz votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes yes. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lipinski. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Sherman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costa votes yes. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes yes. Mr. Moore. 

221 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Yes. 

The CLERK. Ms. Matsui votes yes. Mr. Sherman, you are not recorded. Mr. Sherman votes yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk, when the Clerk is prepared, 

will report. 

The CLERK. Yes, 13. No, 17. 

222 


h5450c.eps
223 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is defeated. Next, the 

Chair recognizes Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that the 

NOAA Organic Act is once again moving forward today. The research information that NOAA provides on our coastal resources, 

climate and weather is critical to policy-making and particularly to 

my home State of California. This agency is certainly deserving of 

an explicit authorization and I applaud Chairman Boehlert, Dr. 

Ehlers, Ranking Member Gordon, and Representative Wu for their 

hard work on this legislation. I was glad to work with the Committee on report language which ensures that we are leveraging 

NOAA’s scientific and technical expertise to support the competitiveness goals this committee advanced during last week’s markup. 

NOAA’s day-to-day operational mission is to protect our coastal resources, manage our fisheries, and forecast weather, provide excellent illustrations of the real-world application of science. I want to 

make sure we continue to take advantage of that opportunity; 

therefore the language we have agreed to will ensure that NOAA 

continues to promote public understanding of these critical issues. 

The world is always changing. My granddaughter is two and a 

half years old and I know she has been born in a very different 

world than I was. I want her to be able to understand the changes 

going on around her and what they mean to her future and her 

children’s future. This language directs NOAA to continue to provide the research and information that will allow Anna and all her 

friends to have such a comprehension of these important issues. I 

thank the Chairman for his willingness to include this report language and I look forward to working with him and other Members 

of the Committee to advance these goals and future legislation. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, I thank the gentlelady for the excellent point she has made regarding this bill and I am pleased she 

is already proving to be a very active Member of this committee 

and I appreciate how cooperative she and her staff have been in 

working this out, the report language, with the majority staff. 

The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by 

Ms. Jackson Lee. I don’t see her here. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, since Ms. Jackson Lee is not here, 

I have an amendment that I would like to offer at this time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Which is not on the roster. Let us proceed 

with the amendment on the roster. We will deal with that, then we 

will get to you, Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Gordon, would you like to offer the 

amendment on behalf of Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I will and with your indulgence, I 

would like to reserve her right to comment on it at some later time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. GORDON. We have an amendment at the desk, H.R. 5450, introduced by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

224 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Ms. Jackson Lee 

of Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading, and without objection, that is so ordered. And now for 

a brief explanation of an amendment that we find in good order 

and we are prepared to accept. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And with that, I don’t 

want to mess up a good thing. Since you said you are going to accept this, let me just congratulate Ms. Jackson Lee on bringing 

forth this amendment. We all know that the Weather Service has 

a vital role to play by communicating warnings and watches of several weather events, within the Federal Government, as well as the 

State and local governments and the general public, and I think 

you do a very good job of this. This amendment will help them do 

that and I thank you for accepting it. And we would like to reserve 

her right to make a comment, if we are still in when she arrives. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. That is fine. The vote will be on the 

amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the 

amendment is adopted. 

Are there any further amendments? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment and send 

the amendment to the Clerk’s desk. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, this is a late entry in the race, so let 

us have the distribution of the amendment so we can look at it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. It is indeed. Mr. Chairman, can I explain the 

amendment while it is being distributed? 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I look forward to your eloquent words of 

explanation. Well, wait. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk needs to designate. First of all, 

Clerk, will you designate the amendment? 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5450 offered by Mr. Costello of 

Illinois. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Would you read it, please, because we 

don’t have it. 

The CLERK. ‘‘In Section 9, add at the end of the following new 

subsection: (C) Direct Transmittal of Reports. All reports the Administration is required to transmit to the Congress shall be transmitted directly by the Administration, without prior review by the 

President or any other federal agency or official.’’ 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized to explain his 

amendment. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and, Mr. Chairman, 

this is a very simple amendment, it is very clear and right to the 

point, and I am sure it is an amendment that the Chairman can 

accept. Mr. Chairman, this provision requires NOAA to provide the 

committees of jurisdiction of the Congress with reports the agency 

has prepared at our direction, that those reports come directly to 

the Committee without prior approval comments or review by other 

officers or agencies of the government. In other words, Mr. Chairman, when the Committee requests information from NOAA, it 

225 

should come directly from NOAA. We should not receive information that has been filtered, edited and manipulated by this Administration, or future administrations, through interagency and OMB 

review processes. 

If we are to exercise our constitutional responsibility, craft legislation, authorize and appropriate funds for agency programs, and 

oversee the activities and expenditures of these agencies within our 

jurisdiction, we must have information. The Executive Branch does 

not have the right to bar Congress from obtaining information from 

agencies. While this problem is not unique to this Administration, 

I must say, the Bush Administration has routinely used procedures 

of interagency and OMB review to bury, delay or alter information 

requested by the Congress. We could cite several examples, but I 

am attempting to be brief here. 

The report on off-shoring of jobs produced by the Technology Administration is a perfect example. Somehow a 250-page report produced by analysts at TA was transformed into a 13-page pamphlet, 

devoid of any substantial information. This editing process was 

done with the participation of offices such as OMB and the National Economic Council. It took a resolution and an inquiry and 

numerous letters and conversations between Members of this committee and the Chairman, as well as the Department of Commerce, 

to obtain the report that we should have been given months ago. 

Mr. Chairman, the Executive Branch has the right to assert its policy preferences; however, they do not have the right to manipulate 

information coming to the Congress to eliminate or distort information that does not conform to their policies. That applies to this Administration or future administrations. 

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is simple, it is clear, it is to the 

point, and that is, when the Congress of the United States or committees of jurisdiction order an agency to produce a report, that report should come directly from the agency to the committee of jurisdiction. It should not be filtered through the OMB and other 

agencies of the Congress. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Costello. You 

are correct, the amendment proposed is simple, it is clear, it is to 

the point. It is also very late. And let me tell you the position of 

the Chair. We have held up marking up this NOAA Organic Act 

for sometime so that we could have the good interaction between 

majority and minority, the staffs could work together, and only 

when we thought we were in a position to go forward and everyone 

was satisfied that we had heard each other out, did we go forward. 

The Chair would probably oppose this late entry, if it suggested 

that we make apple the national fruit. In other words, I would be 

very much in favor of apples the national fruit, but I don’t want 

this committee to deviate from what has been the norm, working 

things out before we come into this room. I don’t like last-minute 

entries in the race. We don’t have a chance to evaluate it. We don’t 

have a chance to discuss it. That is not the way this committee or 

Congress should work. So with that explanation, the Chair will oppose it. 

And let me point out that the one report you cite that was sort 

of delayed, the delay came from within, not because it was vetted 

226 

across the Administration lines or had to be sent down to Pennsylvania Avenue, it came from within. That was the delay. And with 

that, are there any others who seek recognition on this amendment? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this amendment 

is a late entry. It was not done intentionally to go around the process or not to give you notice, but it was—I decided to offer the 

amendment actually last evening when I was reviewing the legislation. There are other examples, not just with the TA report that 

came directly to this committee, but there are specific examples. 

And I know that you are interested in attempting to move the process along because Members have other committees to go to, but I 

could cite reports with Health and Human Services and two other 

agencies where they have been filtered through OMB and other 

governmental agencies. I think it is pure and simple and I don’t 

understand why any Member of this committee or the Congress 

would oppose. When the Congress orders a report from an agency, 

they ought to be able, that committee of jurisdiction, to get the report unfiltered, without going through several other agencies. And 

I think the TA, I would disagree with my friend, the Chairman of 

the Committee, that the 250-page report that was edited down to 

13 pages, it is one example and I think we should have seen the 

250-page report, and I don’t think that OMB and other agencies of 

the government ought to be deleting or amending reports done by 

agencies ordered by this Congress. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Well, in that specific instance, Mr. 

Costello, let me point out, that was within the agency, the delay 

and the summation, if you will, that condensation, it came from 

within, not from without. Secondly, I have the highest regard for 

the gentleman from Illinois, as you well know, but I beg to differ 

with your description about the lateness of it and the reason for it. 

Quite frankly, I am informed that our staff was told very specifically that there would be a late entry and we should be prepared 

to deal with an amendment, not knowing what the amendment 

would be about, not knowing the specifics of the amendment, and 

we were told, quite honestly, that we could not have the specifics 

of the amendment. Now, maybe it was because there was difficulty 

in drafting what you explain as a simple, clear and to-the-point 

amendment, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that. But 

the Chair will vigorously oppose something like this, simply because it deviates from standard accepted Committee procedures, 

where we work across the center aisle, where we invite input, 

where we sometimes listen instead of talking to the minority, because I find that when we listen instead of talking to the Minority, 

we often learn from the Minority, and I take great pride in the 

manner in which this committee operates. And therefore, because 

it is a deviation from the standard practice, and among other reasons, I will vigorously oppose it. 

Is there anyone else who seeks recognition on this? Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will oppose this 

for much the same reason I opposed the Miller Amendment. Once 

again, it is not an appropriate place to put it; secondly, it should 

apply to all governmental agencies, not just to NOAA; and I would 

encourage the gentleman to consider offering this as a separate bill 

227 

to the Government Reform Committee so that it would, in fact, 

apply to all government agencies. Frankly, I would like to see it 

take a different form, as well as this—I think the Administration 

should have the right to review, but I would insist that whatever 

review is given, whatever happens to it, the original report from 

the department or the agency should accompany the final report 

which is submitted to us by the President. And I think that would 

be a much better way to go, to allow the full administration of the 

country to state their point of view, as well as listening to the report from the specific government agency producing it. So I oppose 

this amendment for both reasons. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. I would ask to strike the last word. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with you that I 

think best policy is to notice amendments as well as secondary 

amendments; however, that is not always happens in this committee on either side. That is what markups are for. This is not a 

complicated amendment. Honestly, I don’t know all that has gone 

back and forth on this. You mentioned that our staff, which I didn’t 

know about, put you on notice that something was coming up and 

I am glad that that was done. But let me point out, this is a very 

simple amendment. Dr. Ehlers pointed out that this should be introduced in Government Reform and brought up as, you know, 

Congress-wide. But let me point once again, just like Mr. Miller, 

that was done. I introduced that bill, it was sent to Government 

Reform, and it was referred to this committee and this committee 

has refused to have hearings on it. So I mean, it doesn’t help to 

follow the rules if you are not going to follow through on it. So I 

don’t think that holds water. 

Let me also point out that CRS has given us a legal opinion, 

something that ought to be common knowledge to all of us and that 

is, that if Congress requests an agency to do a study, that Congress 

has a right to have that. Now all Mr. Costello is dong is saying, 

you know, as CRS said is our right, for that not to be filtered. Once 

again, this is not a partisan issue. You know, I think Congress, 

whichever party, regardless of who is in charge, wants to get good 

information, and let me give you some examples why you want that 

information. We had this problem with—as we were trying to investigate the Columbia loss, with OMB and NASA refusing to provide information, saying it was budgetary. The same thing happened with NOAA. And something that I guess we should all remember, if you remember back when we were talking about the 

Medicare prescription drug bill, they, OMB, refused to give us the 

information on what it is going to cost. I think that if we had had 

that information, many of us might have voted a different way. We 

certainly would have had a better bill. Again, this is not a partisan 

issue, this is a matter of trying to let Congress have full information to do its job and when that occurs, we are all better off. And 

I yield back the—well, I ask that the CRS opinion be made a part 

of the record, and I yield back my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

228 


h5450e.eps
229 


h5450f.eps
230 


h5450g.eps
231 


h5450h.eps
232 


h5450i.eps
233 


h5450j.eps
234 


h5450k.eps
235 


h5450l.eps
236 


h5450m.eps
237 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The vote is on the amendment. All in favor 

say aye. Opposed, nay. The nays appear to have it. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, with that, I ask for a recorded 

vote. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Costello requests a recorded vote; 

therefore, would the Clerk please call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes no. Mr. Smith. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weldon. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett votes no. Mr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht. 

Mr. GUTKNECHT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes no. Ms. Biggert. 

Ms. BIGGERT. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Biggert votes no. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Rohrabacher, how is he recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Calvert, how is he recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no. Mr. Calvert is not recorded. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Calvert. 

The CLERK. Mr. Calvert votes no. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Smith recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith is not recorded. Mr. Smith votes no. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Continue the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest. 

Mr. GILCHREST. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin. 

Mr. AKIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes no. Mr. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes. 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Bonner. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney. 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis. 

238 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis votes no. Mr. Reichert. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel. 

Mr. SODREL. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sodrel votes no. Mr. Schwarz. 

Mr. SCHWARZ. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schwarz votes no. Mr. McCaul. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

[No response.] 

Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Johnson recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson is not recorded. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Johnson. 

The CLERK. Mr. Johnson votes no. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. How is Mr. Neugebauer recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer is not recorded. Mr. Neugebauer 

votes no. Mr. Gordon. 

Mr. GORDON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costello votes yes. Ms. Johnson. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Hooley votes yes. Mr. Udall. 

Mr. UDALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lipinski votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Mr. Sherman. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Baird. 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Costa votes yes. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green votes yes. Mr. Melancon. 

Mr. MELANCON. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Melancon votes yes. Mr. Moore. 

239 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Matsui. 

Ms. MATSUI. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Matsui votes yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Yes, 15. No, 19. 

240 


h5450d.eps
241 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The amendment is defeated. Now, there 

are no other amendments on the roster, but we are graced by the 

presence of Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me report to you that in your absence, and I know you had a competing committee assignment, Mr. 

Gordon eloquently explained your amendment. He was so convincing that the Chair adopted it and we passed it, but I will recognize you for a couple of minutes for any comments you might care 

to make to further enlighten us. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

My first word is to thank both the Ranking Member, the Ranking 

Member for offering it and protecting my amendment, and the 

Chairman, and to acknowledge that you are absolutely right. I did 

come to the Science Committee hearing markup and of course the 

time conflicted with a vote in another committee, and so I want my 

colleagues to know that I have great affection and respect for this 

committee and the offering of amendments. I would also like to 

welcome our colleague, Ms. Matsui, and thank her for her vote on 

my amendment. 

I will briefly say this, Mr. Chairman. There are those of us who 

are seasoned hurricane participants. If you spoke to the regions in 

the Gulf Coast two years ago, Florida and Alabama, Louisiana and 

Texas, and other places, we would say we know about hurricanes 

and we are able to weather the storm, but Hurricane Katrina woke 

us up, and my amendment simply allows the local first responders 

to have direct information from NOAA. And I believe that the 

amendment, with the science that NOAA has the opportunity and 

the ability to possess and evidence, gives a much more secure and 

much more—a much greater opportunity, if you will, for the Gulf 

region to be more prepared than we have ever been. Katrina, 

Wilma and Rita gave us a wakeup call in their collective power, 

and I believe that this amendment will help us to be more secure 

and more knowledgeable regarding the pending storms that we are 

to face in the coming season. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank 

you for protecting the amendment. And to my colleagues, thank 

you for supporting the Jackson Lee Amendment. And if I had been 

present, I would have voted aye for the Miller Amendment. With 

that, I don’t have to call for a vote. A vote doesn’t have to be called 

for, and I yield back my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment that I am offering states that it is 

within the National Weather Service’s functions and responsibilities to provide information to federal agencies and other organizations responsible for emergency preparedness and response as required by law. 

Over the last year, we have seen powerful reminders not only of the crucial and 

vital functions of the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), but of the disaster that can befall our communities when the modes of communication breakdown. As diligent and capable as our 

emergency preparedness teams are, we are always vulnerable to Mother Nature and 

the havoc she can wreak. 

I have a great amount of respect for both the National Weather Service and 

NOAA, both for the quality of science that they demonstrate, as well as for the integrity of information that they produce. Their accuracy in detecting and tracking 

storm systems is admirable and impressive. Although they are not and cannot be 

242 

perfect predicting mechanisms, they are in many ways our best first line of defense 

against natural disasters. 

Much of the work that I have done in the Homeland Security Committee has been 

to help foster open communications lines and inter-operability standards and capabilities. In almost every major national security emergency that we have seen in the 

last several years, it is the communications system that has been the most crucial 

element, and yet the greatest failure. 

In this instance, I felt that it was important to underscore the role that the National Weather Service has in trying to prevent catastrophes such as what we saw 

from Hurricane Katrina. With this amendment, I simply contribute language that 

makes it explicit that the National Weather Service must be able to provide information to national emergency stakeholders when necessary. 

I thank the Chairman for continuing the bipartisan collaboration of this committee, and for his friendly and even-handed efforts to engage all of us in the 

progress made by this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. Are there any other 

amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the bill, H.R. 5450, the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, 

the ayes have it and the bill is passed. 

I recognize Mr. Gordon for a motion. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favor report H.R. 5450 as amended, although it has been further amended, 

to the House, with recommendation that the bill as amended do 

pass. Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare 

the legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming 

changes, and that the Chairman will take all the necessary steps 

to bring the bill before the House for consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the motion to report the 

bill, as amended, favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the bill is 

favorably reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is 

laid upon the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental Minority or additional 

views on the measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, that the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary 

in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 5450, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration Act, as amended. Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank the Members for their participation. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(243) 

Appendix: 

H.R. 5450, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, BILL SUMMARY, 

AMENDMENT ROSTER

244 


h5450n.eps
245 


h5450o.eps
246 


h5450p.eps
247 


h5450q.eps
248 


h5450r.eps
249 


h5450s.eps
250 


h5450t.eps
251 


h5450u.eps
252 


h5450v.eps
253 


h5450w.eps
254 


h5450x.eps
255 


h5450y.eps
256 


h5450z.eps
257 


h5450aa.eps
258 


h5450bb.eps
259 


h5450cc.eps
260 


h5450dd.eps
261 


h5450ee.eps
262 


h5450ff.eps
263 


h5450gg.eps
264 


h5450hh.eps
265 


h5450ii.eps
266 


h5450jj.eps
267 


h5450kk.eps
268 


h5450ll.eps
269 


h5450mm.eps
270 


h5450nn.eps
271 


h5450oo.eps
272 


h5450pp.eps
273 


h5450qq.eps
274 


h5450rr.eps
275 


h5450ss.eps
276 


h5450tt.eps
277 


h5450uu.eps
278 


h5450vv.eps
279 


h5450ww.eps
280 


h5450xx.eps
281 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 5450, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT, 

AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 22, 2005 

Section 1. Short Title. 

‘‘National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act’’ 

Section 2. Definitions. 

Defines terms used in the Act. 

Section 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within 

the Department of Commerce and describes the mission and functions of NOAA. 

Section 4. Administration Leadership. 

Describes the leadership structure of NOAA, including a new position of a Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Science and Education, who shall be responsible for coordinating and managing all research activities across the agency, and which must be 

a career position. Also, this section designates the Deputy Under Secretary for 

Oceans and Atmosphere as the Chief Operating Officer of the Administration, responsible for the day-to-day aspects of the Administration’s operations and management. 

Section 5. National Weather Service. 

Directs the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service 

within NOAA. 

Section 6. Operations and Services. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to support operational 

and service functions. This section does not name any organizational units of NOAA, 

but the functions listed include all the activities of NOAA’s National Environmental 

Satellite Data and Information Service and the mapping and charting activities of 

the National Ocean Service. 

Section 7. Research and Education. 

Directs the Secretary to maintain programs within NOAA to conduct and support 

research and education functions. 

Section 8. Science Advisory Board. 

Establishes a Science Advisory Board for NOAA, which would provide scientific 

advice to the Administrator and to Congress on issues affecting NOAA. 

Section 9. Reports. 

Requires two reports from the Administrator. Each report is to be delivered to 

Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the Act. One report, by the 

National Academy of Sciences, should assess the adequacy of the environmental 

data and information systems of NOAA and provide a strategic plan to address any 

deficiencies in those systems. The other report is strategic plan for research at 

NOAA. 

Section 10. Public-Private Partnerships. 

Requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private partnerships once every five 

years. Clarifies the no changes in NOAA’s current policy are required. 

Section 11. Effect of Reorganization Plan. 

Repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970. 

Section 12. Savings Provision. 

Clarifies that the Act does not change the legal status of any NOAA rule, regulation or other legal matter. 

Section 13. Reorganization Plan. 

Requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress not less than 18 

months after enactment of this Act. 

Section 14. Facility Evaluation Process. 

282 

Provides that NOAA cannot expend funds to close or transfer certain facilities 

without a public comment period, review by the Science Advisory Board (if appropriate), analysis of anticipated costs and savings and impact on NOAA services, and 

notification to Congress. 

Section 15. Budget Reprogramming. 

Requires NOAA to submit to the Science Committee a copy of any reprogramming 

requests submitted to Appropriations Committees. 

Section 16. Satellite Notification. 

Requires NOAA to notify Congress when NOAA starts new satellite programs or 

encounters serious problems with, or makes major changes to existing satellite programs. 

Section 17. Limitations on Off-Shore Performance of Contracts for the Procurement of Goods and Services. 

Prohibits the Administrator from contracting for Administration activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United States except 

when the goods or services are necessary for national security or are only available 

outside the United States, when the activities or function under the contract was 

previously performed by Federal Government employees located outside the United 

States, or when the prohibition is inconsistent with international agreements. 

283 

BILL SUMMARY OF H.R. 5450, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION ACT, 

AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 22, 2005 

The legislation establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. 

The legislation maintains the current leadership structure at NOAA except that 

it creates a new position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Education. 

It requires the Secretary of Commerce to maintain the National Weather Service 

within NOAA. The legislation describes programs to support the operations and 

services, and the research and education functions of NOAA. The legislation authorizes the NOAA Science Advisory Board. 

The legislation requires NOAA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) to assess the adequacy of the environmental data and information systems 

of NOAA. It requires NOAA to provide two strategic plans: one to address any deficiencies identified by the NAS data and information system assessment and the second for intramural and extramural research to support the mission of NOAA. The 

legislation requires NOAA to review its policy on public-private relationships once 

every five years. It also requires NOAA to submit a reorganization plan to Congress 

18 months after enactment of the legislation. 

The legislation repeals the Executive Order that established NOAA in 1970 and 

includes a savings provision to preserve the status of all current NOAA rules, regulations and other legal matters. The legislation prohibits NOAA from contracting for 

activities or procurement of goods or services that are performed outside the United 

States, except in some limited circumstances and when the prohibition would be inconsistent with trade agreements. 

The legislation requires NOAA to notify Congress and the public if it plans to 

close or transfer a NOAA facility, and if it starts a new satellite programs, encounters problems with a current satellite program, or makes major changes to a satellite program. 

284 


h5450yy.eps
285 


h5450zz.eps
286 


h5450a3.eps
287 


h5450b3.eps
288 


h5450c3.eps
289 


h5450d3.eps
290 


h5450e3.eps
291 


h5450f3.eps
292 


h5450g3.eps
293 


h5450h3.eps
294 


h5450i3.eps
295 


h5450j3.eps
296 


h5450k3.eps
297 


h5450l3.eps
298 


h5450m3.eps
299 


h5450n3.eps
300 


h5450o3.eps
301 


h5450p3.eps
302 


h5450q3.eps
303 


h5450r3.eps
304 


h5450s3.eps
305 


h5450t3.eps
306 


h5450u3.eps