House Report 106-987 - MARINE RESEARCH AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

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

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

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

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

_______

October 18, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

_______

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

R E P O R T

together with

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 1552]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

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

CONTENTS

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

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

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

SEC. 4. OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

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

SEC. 6. FACILITIES.

SEC. 7. FLEET MAINTENANCE, PLANNING AND REPLACEMENT.

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

SEC. 8. MARINE SERVICES.

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

SEC. 9. REPEAL.

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

SEC. 10. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

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

SEC. 11. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

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

II. Purpose of the Bill

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

III. Background and Need for the Legislation

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

IV. Summary of Hearings

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

V. Committee Actions

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

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

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

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short title

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

Section 2. Definitions

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

Section 3. National Ocean Service

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

Section 4. Oceanic and Atmospheric Research

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

Section 5. Program support

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

Section 6. Facilities

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

Section 7. Fleet maintenance, planning and replacement

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

Section 8. Marine services

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

Section 9. Repeal

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

Section 10. Internet availability of information

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

Section 11. Eligibility for awards

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

VIII. Cost Estimate

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

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

H.R. 1552 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

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

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

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

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

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

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

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

XV. Congressional Accountability Act

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

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

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

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

authorized numbers in grades

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

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

----------

NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION ACT

[TITLE VI--NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION

[SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

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

[SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

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

[SEC. 603. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

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

[SEC. 604. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PLAN.

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

[SEC. 605. DESIGN OF NOAA VESSELS.

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

[SEC. 606. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

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

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

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

[SEC. 608. USE OF VESSELS.

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

[SEC. 609. INTEROPERABILITY.

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

[SEC. 610. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

XVII. Committee Recommendations

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

XVIII. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

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

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS BY REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

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

XIX. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup

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

Statement of the Honorable Jerry Costello

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

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

H.R. 1552

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

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

SEC. 4. OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

SEC. 5. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

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

SEC. 6. FACILITIES.

SEC. 7. FLEET MAINTENANCE, PLANNING AND REPLACEMENT.

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

SEC. 8. MARINE SERVICES.

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

SEC. 9. REPEAL.

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

SEC. 10. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next amendment on the roster is
one by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. For what
purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
Mr. Green Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1552, offered by Mr. Green of
Wisconsin.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read and the gentleman from Wisconsin is
recognized for 5 minutes.
[The information follows:]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 10. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

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

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

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

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

SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION INCREASE.

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

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

Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is still not
agreed to. That concludes the number of amendments that are
listed on the roster. The Chair is informed by minority staff
that is what is listed in your packet as amendment number eight
by Mr. Wu is in effect an amendment for the next bill. So are
there further amendments to H.R. 1552? If there are no
amendments, is there any proposed report language to H.R. 1552?
If there is no proposed report language, the chair will
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello, for a
motion to report the bill?
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
favorably report H.R. 1552, as amended, to the House with the
recommendation that the bill as amended to pass. Furthermore, I
move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative
report and make necessary technical and conforming amendments
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the
bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on reporting the
bill. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, the Chair
notes the presence of a reporting quorum.
All those in favor of the motion to favorably report the
bill will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the bill
is favorably reported. Without objection, the bill will be
reported in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute reflecting the amendments adopted here today.
Without objection, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII of the
Rules of the House, the Committee authorizes the Chairman to
offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to
conference with the Senate on the bill and Members will have
two subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental
minority or additional views on the legislation.