[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3871-H3889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 164 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 164

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 437) to reauthorize the National Sea Grant 
     College Program Act, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, 
     with forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Resources and twenty minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Science now printed 
     in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII. Each section of that amendment shall be 
     considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogan). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] is recognized for one hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 
my friend, ranking member, former distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is straightforward, fair, was reported without 
dissent by the Committee on Rules. Under House Resolution 164, any 
Member seeking to improve the bill by offering a germane amendment may 
do so. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, 40 minutes 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources and 20 minutes afforded to their counterparts 
from the Committee on Science, as we heard from the reading from the 
Clerk.
  The rule also reconciles a slight difference between those committees 
by considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base 
text for consideration. It is a sensible process that allows us to 
consider the bill in a timely fashion without restricting the rights of 
the minority or individual Members, the deliberative process at work in 
the people's House.
  H.R. 437 reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program. This 
program leverages a small Federal investment of approximately 50 
million a year which is matched by nonfederal funds to over 300 sea 
grant institutions and affiliated schools throughout our Nation. 
Located at the Nation's premier research universities, sea grant 
focuses the skills of hundreds of researchers on issues affecting the 
development and use of our marine and coastal resources. It is a 
program that is working.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 437, especially as a 
Representative from the great State of Florida and its wonderful 
coastline and beaches. I am particularly pleased that my home State of 
Florida is a leading participant in the program. All nine of our State 
universities are involved in sea grant activities, along with several 
private universities and marine research laboratories. Sea grant 
provides a good example of the national benefits that can come with 
local investment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
wide-open fair rule that makes this important bill in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss], for yielding me the customary half hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule. It is a very, very 
good program. The National Sea Grants College Act was created 30 years 
ago to improve the marine resource conservation management and use. 
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. sea grants have provided our 
country with priceless information about our marine resources, how best 
to conserve them, how best to use them.
  This marine science is not only limited to ocean life, Mr. Speaker. 
It includes our coastal and Great Lakes areas as well.
  Today there are over 300 sea grant institutions, two of which are in 
my home State of Massachusetts: the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology and Woods Hole. Woods Hole has been a national leader in 
marine biotechnology research for many years. And Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology has been a leading participant in sea grant 
programs since 1969.
  Today they are researching the northern right whale. This is an 
endangered species whose last natural habitat is in the Stellwagon 
Bank. Unfortunately, something in the environment is changing the 
whale's breeding patterns and causing great concern not

[[Page H3872]]

only to the whales but to humans as well.
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology is currently trying to find out 
what is happening in the whales' environment and how we can fix it. 
Their research really comes none too soon until there are only about 
250 right whales living today. Massachusetts Institute of Technology is 
also working with Massachusetts Water Resource Authority to study the 
contaminants in Boston Harbor and what effect they have on shellfish 
and other marine life indigenous to our area.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It provides for 
continued success in a great program which helps us protect and better 
understand our marine resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we both share, the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts and myself, appreciation for 
this program. I have been to Woods Hole many times and applaud what a 
marvelous facility it is, and I invite the gentleman to come to Florida 
to some of our facilities. I know that he will have equal respect for 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I have also been to Woods Hole, and I also invite this group to the 
Chesapeake Bay to see how the sea grant program operates.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, I support the open rule guiding the 
consideration of the reauthorization of the National Sea Grant college 
program, and I support the bill H.R. 437. I want to commend my 
colleagues on the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources 
for working out a compromise version of H.R. 437 that deserves the 
support of the entire House of representatives.
  Sea grant is a program that enables us to understand how our complex 
coastal and marine environments function, to develop novel ways to 
benefit from our marine resources without overexploiting them and to 
extend and communicate the benefits of scientific ocean research to our 
Nation's citizens.
  In my own State of Maryland, sea grant efforts have played an 
important role in understanding, protecting and restoring the 
Chesapeake Bay. I will give one example. Sea grant researchers in 
Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and North Carolina have detailed over the 
last decade through competitively funded research the life cycle of the 
blue crab. Their findings about the blue crab are already proving 
helpful in understanding threats to the last great Chesapeake Bay 
fishery, and they will enable us to develop sound strategies to protect 
this renowned resource.
  In addition, sea grant leads the Nation in its support for peer 
reviewed fundamental discovery in marine biotechnology in our Nation's 
research institutions. Marine biotechnology research shows great 
promise to help this Nation develop new industries of enormous economic 
potential.
  Sea grant also extends the results of that research to users through 
sea grant's educational and outreach efforts. For example, the Maryland 
sea grant extension program is administered by and works closely with 
the Cooperative Extension Service to advance aquaculture, improve 
environmental decisionmaking and provide citizens with information 
needed for nonregulatory protection of our natural resources.
  Maryland sea grant educational activities provide research 
experiences for undergraduates, help instruct K through 12 students in 
environmental science and biotechnology, and translate complex 
scientific information into terms useful for the average citizen.
  As a member of the Committee on Science and a cosponsor of this 
excellent bill, I am in full support of this reauthorization, which 
balances fiscal responsibility with the protection of important 
programs that work for the good of our Nation.
  I commend the author of this bill, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton], the chairs of my Committee on Science, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the chair of the Committee on 
Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], along with the staffs 
of both committees for their efforts to preserve and improve this 
valuable program.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and H.R. 437, 
a bill that is good for the environment, good for education and 
supportive of sound scientific solutions for the preservation of our 
Nation's marine resources.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I did visit the State of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], and I had great delight in seeing Shamu down there.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the communication from the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts. I want to explain to him 
that he has experienced just the beginning. There is so much more than 
Shamu, but that is a good start.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1045

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). Pursuant to House Resolution 
164 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 437.

                              {time}  1045


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 437) to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program Act, 
and for other purposes, with Mr. Rogan in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] each will control 20 minutes; 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 437, a bill to reauthorize 
the Sea Grant College Program. I introduced H.R. 437 on January 9 of 
this year. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources and then 
to the Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, 
which I chair.
  I am pleased that the bill has the bipartisan support of 107 
cosponsors, including the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman 
of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California, Mr. 
George Miller, the ranking Democrat; and the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, my good 
friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Neil Abercrombie.
  I would also like to thank at this point the members of the Committee 
on Science, particularly the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] who, incidentally, celebrated his 29th birthday 
just 4 days ago, and we wish him every happiness in his 30th year on 
this planet.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] was also very helpful.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's calculator is a 
little bit off, but we will excuse him for that.
  Mr. SAXTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we wish the gentleman a happy, happy 
birthday, anyway.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Calvert] for his able assistance as a member of the Committee on 
Science during this process.
  H.R. 437 was reported to the Committee on Resources on March 12 and 
an amended version of the bill was reported by the Committee on 
Science, which I just mentioned, on April 22.

[[Page H3873]]

 The committees have subsequently reached agreement on a compromise 
text, which is the vehicle before the House today.
  The National Sea Grant College Program was established by Congress in 
1966 to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation efforts, to 
better manage those resources, and to enhance their proper utilization.
  H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act 
of 1997, authorizes funding for Sea Grant through fiscal year 2000; 
simplifies the definition of issues under Sea Grant's authority; 
clarifies the responsibilities of State and national programs; 
consolidates and clarifies the requirements for the designation of Sea 
Grant colleges and regional groups; repeals an international program 
that has never been funded; prohibits lobbying with Federal funds, and 
assures that Sea Grant research will be adequately peer reviewed.
  By enacting this legislation we will be sending a clear message 
supporting the conservation and research-based management of our marine 
and coastal resources. I urge all Members to support the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and I rise in strong support of the bill.
  However, I would like to add that, hopefully, the funding for Sea 
Grant, the funding numbers for the Sea Grant proposal here, are more 
accurate than those recently assigned to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner]. This represents a compromise, Mr. Chairman. 
Perhaps those numbers the gentleman from Wisconsin had assigned to him 
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] also represent a 
compromise.
  But this represents a compromise, Mr. Chairman, between the Committee 
on Resources and the Committee on Science, which shares jurisdiction 
with the Committee on Resources over the research component of Sea 
Grant.
  The bill reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program, which 
for over 30 years has addressed important local, regional, and national 
marine resource management problems through education, research, and 
public outreach.
  The compromise text, Mr. Chairman, reauthorizes Sea Grant for 3 
years. It clarifies the roles of the national office and the Sea Grant 
colleges. It strengthens competitive peer review, as the gentleman from 
New Jersey mentioned, particularly for grants and contracts for 
research, education and outreach, and generally brings Sea Grant up to 
date as a modern education and research program.
  The authorization levels in the bill will force some belt-tightening 
at the national Sea Grant office but will provide for modest growth in 
funding for programs and projects carried out by the Sea Grant colleges 
themselves. These activities are the heart and soul of the Sea Grant 
Program and are parts of the program that must be preserved, especially 
in difficult budget times.
  Since 1968, speaking from personal experience, Mr. Chairman, the 
University of Hawaii's Sea Grant College Program has been a useful 
resource in the areas of aquaculture, marine biotechnology, coastal 
processes, coastal pollution and reef ecology. In the State of Hawaii 
marine resources are vital. Hawaii's coastal resources, which are 
world-renowned tourist attractions, generate nearly 40 percent of our 
gross State product. The value of our coastal resources is dependent on 
their health and beauty.
  I want to express my appreciation for the cooperation the minority 
has received from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and their staffs. H.R. 437 is not 
really a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman, it is a nonpartisan bill. I 
think all of us who represent coastal areas have long appreciated the 
benefits of this practical, noncontroversial program.

  We would have been on the floor nearly 2 years ago reauthorizing this 
popular and pragmatic program if ideology had not interfered. On that 
note, I appreciate the cooperation extended by the leadership of the 
Committee on Science in the person of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] and his staff in working out this compromise. Mr. 
Chairman, I certainly appreciate the work, in addition, of my good 
friend, whom I had the pleasure of working with in a previous 
committee, the Minerals Subcommittee, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Calvert].
  I hope this new spirit of cooperation leads to more timely 
authorization of marine research and oceanography programs, which are 
so vital not only to this Nation but to the planet, Mr. Chairman, over 
which the two committees share jurisdiction. This is a good start on a 
very good bill reauthorizing a popular program. I urge the House and 
all of our colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant 
College Reauthorization Act of 1997. This legislation reflects a 
cooperative effort between the Committee on Science and the Committee 
on Resources to craft a Sea Grant reauthorization bill that is in the 
best interest of the program and of the taxpayers. I believe that the 
product of that effort, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
H.R. 437 brought by the gentleman from New Jersey, achieves these 
goals, and I urge bipartisan support.
  This amendment is a 3-year reauthorization that adds or modifies 
various definitions, clarifies the duties of the program director, sets 
forth the duties of the Sea Grant institutions and certain types of 
entities conducting Sea Grant programs. The amendment includes merit 
reviews of grant and contract applications, repeals the Sea Grant 
International Program, which has never been funded, and reauthorizes 
the Sea Grant program at $54.3 million for fiscal year 1998, $55.4 
million for fiscal year 1999, and $56.5 million for fiscal year 2000. 
It also authorizes, within these amounts for each fiscal year, up to 
$2.8 million for competitive grants for university research on the 
zebra mussel and up to $2.0 million for oyster disease research.
  The amendment also promotes efficiency and to ensure that the 
taxpayers' money is spent on research and not on bureaucracy. It limits 
administrative spending to no more than 5 percent of the lesser of the 
amount authorized or appropriated each fiscal year, and clarifies that 
the maximum pay for voting members of the Sea Grant Board is determined 
by the Secretary of Commerce.
  Finally, the amendment prohibits the use of Sea Grant funds for 
lobbying, and requires the Secretary of Commerce notice the Committees 
on Science and Resources of any reprogramming of Sea Grant funds or 
reorganization of any Sea Grant program, project or activity.
  I believe the Committees on Science and Resources have crafted a 
noncontroversial bill that is good for the Sea Grant Program and good 
for the taxpayers, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  In closing, I wish to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Calvert], the chairman of the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
the subcommittee's ranking member, for their hard work on this 
legislation.
  I would also like to thank the Committee on Science's ranking member, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for his bipartisan support.
  I also want to commend the efforts of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], ranking member of the Committee on Resources; 
my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], chairman of the 
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans; 
and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the subcommittee's 
ranking member, even though the calculator in the Committee on 
Resources on my age is way off, and I excuse them for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House has a chance today to pass 
H.R. 437, to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. The 
Sea Grant

[[Page H3874]]

program was established by Congress in 1966 and has contributed much to 
the marine sciences over the past 30 years.
  The nationwide Sea Grant network is composed of 26 Sea Grant colleges 
which act as centers for the participation of over 300 universities 
from both coastal and inland States. The Sea Grant focus on research, 
education, technology transfer and public service makes this a unique 
program with a long record of accomplishment.
  In 1994, the National Academy of Sciences conducted an indepth review 
of the Sea Grant program and said, and I quote, ``Sea Grant has been 
virtually the only source of funding in the United States for 
activities in marine policy and has been a major contributor for the 
fields of marine aquaculture, coastal and estuarine research, marine 
fisheries management, seafood safety, marine biotechnology, marine 
engineering, and marine technology development.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the leadership of both the 
Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources for working out an 
agreement on Sea Grant reauthorization. It is clear that the Sea Grant 
Program has always enjoyed strong congressional support from both sides 
of the aisle and from all of the committees that have jurisdiction.
  The administration has requested funding for the basic Sea Grant 
Program but has continued to propose the termination of one project of 
great importance to many Members of Congress who live in the Great 
Lakes region. I refer to the zebra mussel research program that has 
been carried out by some of the Sea Grant colleges.
  The zebra mussel was first sighted in 1988 and has rapidly spread 
throughout all of the Great Lakes, the Hudson River, the Saint Lawrence 
River, and much of the Mississippi Basin. The zebra mussel infestation 
has assumed nightmarish proportions and has affected electric power 
generation, industrial water intake facilities, fishing, recreational 
uses of waterways and beaches, and, Mr. Chairman, agriculture.
  A female zebra mussel can lay up to 1 million eggs per year, of which 
more than 5 percent will survive.

                              {time}  1100

  They live up to 5 years and can colonize in a density of 10,000 
mussels per square yard. There are no known predators, and we lack any 
real understanding of what control strategies have any chance of 
success.
  Mr. Chairman, when the committee held hearings on the Sea Grant 
Program, we discussed at length the short-sighted decision of the 
administration to propose no funding for zebra mussel and other 
invasive species research. Indeed, James Baker, the Administrator of 
NOAA, agreed with us that this is a serious problem in need of Federal 
attention.
  A number of members of the committee, some of whom will speak today, 
wrote a letter to the administration emphasizing our desire to see this 
research funded. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record that letter.
         U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, 
           Rayburn House Office Building,
                                   Washington, DC, March 19, 1997.
     Hon. D. James Baker,
     Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic 
         and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Baker: We would like to express our strong support 
     for continued funding for Zebra Mussel research that has been 
     included in H.R. 475, the Marine Research Revitalization Act 
     of 1987. The impact of Zebra Mussel infestation has spread 
     far beyond the Great Lakes and now stands to threaten 
     waterways nationwide.
       Your testimony before the Subcommittee affirmed the vital 
     importance of this problem. It is critical that control 
     strategies and eradication methods be fully explored on an 
     expeditious basis.
       It is our intent to support funding for this program and we 
     look forward to working with you in ensuring that this 
     research is vigorously pursued over the next several years.
           Sincerely,
     Ken Calvert,
                                            Chairman, Subcommittee
                                        on Energy and Environment.
     Vern Ehlers,
                              Vice Chairman, Committee on Science.
     Tim Roemer,
                                    Ranking Democrat, Subcommittee
                                        on Energy and Environment.
     Lynn Rivers,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. Chairman, I am gratified that the funding we identified for zebra 
mussel research has been retained in this bill that we have before us 
today. This problem is not trivial and it is not parochial. It will 
soon affect all coastal areas from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the 
gulf coast. We desperately need to make progress in understanding more 
about invasive species and how to control them.
  The Sea Grant Program has performed a critical role in addressing 
this problem. I would like to further thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Calvert], who I have worked with very closely on this 
bill in a very, very bipartisan way and particularly on this zebra 
mussel problem. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Ehlers] and the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers] and also our 
distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] who has also been very supportive and very knowledgeable 
on this zebra mussel problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the leadership of the two 
committees in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the House has a chance today to pass 
H.R. 437 to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. The Sea 
Grant Program was established by Congress in 1966 and has contributed 
much to the marine sciences over the past 30 years.
  The nationwide Sea Grant network is composed of 26 Sea Grant colleges 
which act as centers for the participation of over 300 universities 
from both coastal and inland States. The Sea Grant focus on research, 
education, technology transfer, and public service makes this a unique 
program with a long record of accomplishment. In 1994, the National 
Academy of Sciences conducted an in depth review of the Sea Grant 
Program and said ``Sea Grant has been virtually the only source of 
funding in the United States for activities in marine policy, and has 
been a major contributor for the fields of marine aquaculture, coastal 
and estuarine research, marine fisheries management, seafood safety, 
marine biotechnology, marine engineering, and marine technology 
development.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the leadership of both the 
Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources for working out an 
agreement on Sea Grant reauthorization. it is clear that the Sea Grant 
Program has always enjoyed strong congressional support from both sides 
of the aisle and from all of the committees of jurisdiction. 
Unfortunately, it has not always enjoyed strong support from the 
administration. From 1984 through 1990, no funding was requested by the 
administration, yet the Congress continued to provide the needed 
resources.
  More recently, the administration has requested funding for the basic 
Sea Grant Program but has continued to propose the termination of one 
project of great importance to many Members of Congress who live in the 
Great Lakes States. I refer to the zebra mussel research program that 
has been carried out by the Sea Grant colleges.
  The zebra mussel were first sited in 1988 and have rapidly spread 
throughout all of the Great Lakes, the Hudson River, the St. Lawrence 
River, and much of the Mississippi Basin. The zebra mussel infestation 
has assumed nightmarish proportions and has affected electric power 
generation, industrial water intake facilities, fishing, recreational 
uses of waterways and beaches, and agriculture.

  A female zebra mussel can lay up to 1 million eggs per year of which 
more than 5 percent will survive. They live up to 5 years and can 
colonize at a density of 10,000 mussels per square yard. There are no 
known predators and we lack any real understanding of what control 
strategies have any chance of success.
  Mr. Chairman, when the committee held hearings on the Sea Grant 
Program, we were unable to determine to our satisfaction why funding 
for zebra mussel research and other invasive species was not requested. 
Indeed, Dr. James Baker, Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration readily agreed with us that this is a 
serious problem in need of Federal attention. I and other interested 
members of the committee, some of whom will speak today, wrote a letter 
emphasizing our desire to see this research funded.
  I am gratified that the funding we identified for zebra mussel 
research has been retained in the bill we have before us today. This 
problem is not trivial and it is not parochial. It will soon affect all 
coastal areas from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the gulf coast. We 
desperately need to make progress in understanding more about invasive 
species and how to control them. The Sea Grant Program has performed a 
critical role in addressing this problem. I'd like to think Mr. Ehlers, 
Ms. Rivers, Mr. Calvert, and others for their help on this.

[[Page H3875]]

  Mr. Chairman, I again want to thank the leadership of the two 
committees in bringing this bill to the floor. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mobile, AL [Mr. Callahan], who also serves as the chairman of the 
powerful Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and 
Related Programs and does such a wonderful job for us.
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. 
Saxton, for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of H.R. 437, 
the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is extremely important to all coastal 
States, not just the State of Alabama. The National Sea Grant College 
Program is a Federal-State partnership which works to support 29 sea 
grant programs in coastal and Great Lakes States and Puerto Rico. It is 
probusiness, proenvironment, and proeducation.
  It is a relatively small program which supports fundamental marine 
research, education, and outreach activities. It assists Federal, 
State, and local coastal decisionmakers to make informed decisions on 
issues which affect marine ecosystems, human health, and coastal 
economies which depend on a healthy and viable research.
  In the State of Alabama, Mr. Chairman, the National Sea Grant College 
Program supports the continuing efforts of the Mississippi-Alabama Sea 
Grant Consortium, which brings together people from different 
occupations and scientific disciplines to address common problems and 
opportunities that affect the coastal regions of the northern Gulf of 
Mexico and the Nation and the world.
  It promotes research on the endangered sea turtle recovery, blue 
crabs, and oyster disease pathology. It conducts outreach and 
educational efforts in coordination with Alabama's Dauphin Island Sea 
Lab so that teachers and the public at large have access to the latest 
scientific information.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 437 so that the 
National Sea Grant College Program can continue to promote marine 
research excellence, environmental conservation, and educational 
outreach.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green].
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Hawaii, [Mr. 
Abercrombie], for allowing me the time to speak today in support of 
H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act.
  The Sea Grant College Program, established in 1966, provides wise 
stewardship over our marine and coastal resources. It is a partnership 
between our universities and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. The mission of the Sea Grant Program is to promote and 
sponsor research, education, and outreach aimed at the wise utilization 
and conservation of our Nation's coastal and marine resources in order 
to develop and maintain a sustainable economy and a healthy 
environment.
  I represent a district in Houston, TX. It is the Port of Houston; and 
our Sea Grant College is Texas A&M at Galveston, with programs spread 
all along the gulf coast of Texas and where a person can learn about 
both the ocean and coast and environment and innovative marine 
technologies.
  The 29th District, like I said, is in the Port of Houston, about 50 
miles away from the Texas A&M campus, but it is vital to all the ports 
along the Texas coast and also to our Nation. Texas A&M Sea Grant 
College provides business owners, fishermen, and community groups 
information about how to achieve the most economically while 
responsibly conserving the marine environment.
  Without the Sea Grant Program, the citizens of Texas and our Nation 
cannot stay current and competitive with the rest of the world. By 
reauthorizing the Sea Grant Colleges through the year 2000, we have 
ensured that we will help train future citizens who will not only look 
to protect our oceans and coastal areas, but they also will be trained 
to properly use our marine resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 437. This bill makes significant 
improvements in the Sea Grant Program by streamlining the review 
process, reducing administrative costs, and clarifying the Federal and 
university roles in the program. This program is a 30-year success 
story. It has proven its value and worth to our country. Again, I rise 
in support of the bill and again thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle for putting together this effort.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to wish a happy birthday to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. I found it 
interesting that I am somewhat older than the chairman, until one of my 
colleagues pointed out that, once you become chairman, you become 20 
years younger, which explains why we have such longevity around this 
place.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. 
Young] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for working together to iron out 
their differences on this Sea Grant Program so we can move forward on 
this bill.
  In particular, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] is to be 
commended for working diligently through two Congresses to authorize 
this program. If our brethren in the other body will cooperate, we will 
succeed this year.
  The National Sea Grant Program has been an integral part of our 
Nation's efforts to better conserve and manage our publicly owned 
coastal marine resources, which are essential to our continued economic 
growth.
  In 1994, the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council 
reviewed the Sea Grant Program and found that it has over the years 
played a significant role in U.S. marine science, education, and 
outreach. In California, the University of California operates the 
largest of 29 Sea Grant Colleges. In fiscal year 1996, the California 
program supported 36 research projects at 12 universities in all parts 
of the State.
  These projects have proved to be important for our coastal areas. For 
example, UCLA's Sea Grant scientists are developing a revolutionary 
technique that will allow us to determine the different types and 
origins of bacteria in our coastal waters. Other projects funded by Sea 
Grant have provided information on the probable movement of oilspills 
under hundreds of different sea conditions.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sea Grant Program is marked by high quality peer-
reviewed scientific research. The committee substitute, as agreed to by 
both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources, is 
fiscally responsible and limits bureaucratic overhead to 5 percent of 
the program's funding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who has been 
very helpful in working with us in a bipartisan way to complete this 
bill. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and move it on.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand in support for funding for the 
Sea Grant proposal, as well as funding in the area of invasive species. 
For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the Great Lakes, 
and, amazingly, a significant number of people are not, there is a song 
that refers to the Great Lakes as the inland seas. And for my 
colleagues who have not actually viewed the Great Lakes, they are very 
awesome. These are not small bodies of water.
  In fact, 20 percent of the world's fresh water exists in the Great 
Lakes basin. They contain 95 percent of the fresh water surface in the 
United States. So when the Great Lakes are threatened, to a larger 
extent our Nation is threatened. We rely on the Great Lakes for

[[Page H3876]]

water, for fish, and for other kinds of foods.
  Right now, the Great Lakes are suffering a plague, a plague of 
incredible magnitude, in that zebra mussels, an invasive species who 
originated in the Caspian Sea, have become predominant across the Great 
Lakes basin.
  Damage attributable to zebra mussels during the 1990's is estimated 
to be as high as $5 billion. That is billion with a ``b.'' They are 
causing extreme difficulty in every manner possible for municipalities 
who are trying to maintain their water systems, for individuals who may 
own property on the shore, for sport fishermen and any other number of 
individuals who take advantage of the Great Lakes.
  It is imperative that we maintain funding for zebra mussel research. 
It is imperative that we recognize the intensity of this problem and 
the enormity of the effects of this problem. Zebra mussels, as has been 
said earlier, reproduce prodigiously and their colonies can cover 
nearly any solid surface in a very short period of time. Inlets become 
clogged. Docked boats become fouled. And most aquatic habitats have 
been covered by dense masses of mussels.
  The Great Lakes Sea Grant network has frequently taken the lead in 
addressing the zebra mussel problem through their research, education, 
and outreach activities. Within a month of the first confirmed sighting 
in Lake Erie, Sea Grant scientists were researching ways to control 
them.
  It is imperative that we maintain these research programs, that we 
make this a top priority in Sea Grant research. For those reasons, I 
support continuing funding of Sea Grant and continuing funding for 
zebra mussel research.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], who is also the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Benefits.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Saxton] yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join others and associate myself with 
the remarks of the previous speakers in favor of H.R. 437, a bill 
reported by the Committee on Resources that would reauthorize the 
National Sea Grant College Program.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that we have heard from speakers this 
morning from Texas and Alabama and Indiana and California and Michigan; 
now I rise from New York to talk about this program. Sea Grant is an 
outstanding research and public outreach program that seeks useful 
answers to many of the nagging problems that affect the Nation's 
oceanic and Great Lakes coastline.
  The program is a model for what all Federal research and outreach 
programs should be. This one, of course, is characterized by peer-
reviewed competitive awarding of research grants, strong focus on 
research that will solve the real coastal problems that people are 
dealing with, a strong commitment to translating and extending the 
results of research to potential users, a shared funding with State, 
local, and private resources, and finally an emphasis on results that 
will benefit the lives of our citizens, communities, and businesses.
  Along the Great Lakes shores, as my colleague just pointed out, the 
New York Sea Grant is playing a key role in helping individuals, water 
and power authorities, Government agencies, and marine business cope 
with the spread of zebra mussels and other exotics that impact the 
Lakes' shoreline and ecosystem.
  Sea Grant specialists in nearby Brockport, New York, the district of 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] operate NOAA's Zebra Mussel 
Information Clearinghouse, which has helped thousands across the State, 
Nation and the globe to address virtually every aspect of this exotic 
pest.
  Sea Grant specialists continue to assist the watersheds through their 
public education programs. And lastly, Sea Grant has been an accessible 
and an impartial source of policy and engineering information on the 
issue of Great Lakes water levels as well as erosion.
  I am also proud to say that the Sea Grant field office, located at 
the State University of New York at Buffalo, has played a key role in 
the University's faculty and administration to develop an excellent 
Great Lakes program that focuses faculty attention and resources on 
pressing Great Lakes issues and reaches out educationally to all 
audiences in the greater Buffalo area on the same issues.
  H.R. 437 will allow Sea Grant to continue its excellent efforts, and 
it also takes steps to improve the program. The Committee on Resources 
has appropriately succeeded in streamlining aspects of the program and 
has removed previously authorized aspects of the same program that were 
not warranted to be continued.
  I ask all our Members, not only from this area, to make sure that 
they understand the program is a good program. It enjoys bipartisan 
support from all sections of the country. All Federal programs, I 
believe, should reflect the track record of success, low cost, and 
effectiveness that this program, the Sea Grant program, has 
exemplified.
  I ask all my Great Lakes colleagues, as well as Members of the House, 
to support H.R. 437 as reported by the Committee on Resources, and I 
commend the committee members on both sides for the great work that 
they have done.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Could the chairman kindly tell me how much allotted 
time remains both with the Science Committee and with my committee?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii has 17 minutes remaining and 
the gentleman from New Jersey has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, we all know how valuable the National Sea 
Grant College Program is and we know how important it is as a catalyst 
for scientific research, but I want to say a word about how the program 
helps young people learn through outreach and education.
  The Michigan Sea Grant Extension offers shipboard education for K 
through 12 students through their Great Lakes Education Program. Sea 
Grant's K through 12 program stresses hands-on exploration of our 
environment to stimulate interest at an early age in scientific 
studies. The program based in Mount Clemens, MI, targets fourth graders 
and is offered to all grade school students throughout the country.
  I had the good fortune recently to join 40 fourth graders from Saint 
Joan of Arc Elementary School in Saint Clair Shores on a trip down the 
Clinton River and into Lake Saint Clair. This is a program that 
operates throughout the spring and the early months in the fall. It 
takes fourth graders and it teaches them about the whole process of the 
lake. The Great Lakes, especially Lake Saint Clair and the connecting 
waters in my district, are going through a huge change in the 
eutrophication process that has resulted because of the zebra mussels 
cleansing the water and letting the sunlight come in, letting the weeds 
grow and then trapping some of the fecal matter that have created 
really a disastrous situation in our Great Lakes.
  This program educates our young people on how that happens and how to 
avoid it from happening. The young people on this vessel move from one 
point on the vessel to another point, and they do experiments for about 
2 hours. It is a wonderful program. It educates them about the 
environment, it teaches them about their lake and how important it is 
to not only their environment but to the economy of the area. It is 
something that Sea Grant has done and done very well. I just

[[Page H3877]]

want to commend all the folks who worked on this program.
  On the day of our trip, the Sea Grant Extension celebrated the 
participation of its 10,000th student. That is 10,000 students who now 
know more about the ecology of our lake and about how to use our water 
resources wisely.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Metcalf].
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 437, I 
rise in strong support of this excellent reauthorization bill for the 
National Sea Grant College Program. I want to commend the gentleman 
from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources, for 
introducing this bill to reauthorize a valuable program.
  The Sea Grant Program was designed to identify marine resource issues 
at the grassroots level and bring the scientific expertise of 
university researchers to bear in addressing them. Sea Grant has a 
broad network of over 300 colleges, universities, and research 
institutions which conduct competitive, peer-reviewed scientific 
research on problems affecting coastal areas.
  The sound scientific research that Sea Grant provides is critically 
important in helping many coastal communities like those I represent in 
Washington State to improve their economies and our competitiveness in 
world markets. As former chairman of the Washington State Senate's 
Environment and Natural Resources Committee and as a member of 
Washington Sea Grant's Ocean Resources Assessment Advisory Committee, I 
have had the opportunity over the years to observe Sea Grant's 
effectiveness. For example, Washington's Sea Grant Program has achieved 
broad ranging successes, from human lives saved as a direct result of 
Sea Grant fishing vessel safety training, to reduced bycatch and waste 
at sea through the development of new fishing techniques. Sea Grant 
represents an effective partnership between the Federal Government and 
the States, in which each Federal dollar must be matched at least 50 
percent by funds from the States, the private sector or other non-
Federal sources.
  H.R. 437 is consistent with and authorizes appropriations at exactly 
the same level as the fiscal year 1997 House-passed Commerce 
appropriations bill. It also makes significant improvements in the Sea 
Grant Program by streamlining the proposal review process, reducing 
administrative costs and capping total program costs below the service 
level. The National Sea Grant College Program plays a vitally important 
role in maintaining the health and usefulness of our coastal and marine 
resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of this 
important bill.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie] for yielding me this time. I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here to voice my strong support for H.R. 437.
  Mr. Chairman, Rhode Island, my State, is known as the Ocean State. It 
has a long and valiant history and a reliance upon Narragansett Bay and 
the Atlantic Ocean for its economic well-being. The bay creates jobs, 
it attracts tourists and supplies the foundation of commercial and 
recreational fishing that is a real mainstay in our economy, not only 
for Rhode Island but for New England. Narragansett Bay generates an 
immediate economic impact of over $2 billion for my small State just on 
fisheries and things immediately associated with the bay and well over 
$10 billion when we think about all the tourism and other aspects that 
it provides.
  The Rhode Island Sea Grant Program and the University of Rhode 
Island, one of the most distinguished oceanographic institutions in the 
country, are indispensable contributors to the knowledge base that 
enables us to be good stewards of our valuable resources. The Rhode 
Island Sea Grant Program is also, though, more than just that. It is 
a collaboration of many agencies, like the university, our Rhode Island 
Department of Environmental Management, the Rhode Island Coastal 
Resources Management Center, the Environmental Protection Agency and a 
host of environmental and community groups like Save the Bay, one of 
the largest environmental groups in the country. At the university, 
much of our money that comes in for marine research is from Sea Grant.

  Currently, the Sea Grant Program is involved in improving long-term 
forecasting of changes in fishing stocks, allowing us not only to 
develop long-term sustainability of fisheries in Rhode Island and New 
England but throughout the world; conducting biotechnical research that 
may result in potential sources of anticancer compounds, certainly one 
that has great impact not only to the country but to the world. Also, 
the Sea Grant Program offers advisory services on harbor management, 
seafood quality and safety, safety at sea, and educational and career 
activities for our youngsters as well as our college students.
  One of the great new areas of Sea Grant is the area of aquaculture, 
an area that in Rhode Island and New England's economy which has been 
very stagnant, is very important, because it will provide new sources 
of revenue through sea farming and the aquaculture community. We think 
this is extremely important.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to strongly 
support this bill. I think that the Sea Grant Program not only is 
helpful to the Ocean State, Rhode Island, but to the Great Lakes, to 
all parts of our country, our economy, our tourism but, most important, 
the resources of our great country.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kennedyville on Maryland's beautiful Eastern Shore [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from the Garden State for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton], the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for this compromise bill that goes a 
long way into understanding the nature and the usefulness and the 
resourcefulness of the Sea Grant Program.
  Mr. Chairman, this program, Sea Grant, takes young idealists and 
inculcates into them knowledge, experience to become pragmatic, 
idealistic scientists, to become a piece of the infinite puzzle to 
understand the mechanics of creation.
  What are the problems in the Great Lakes with zebra mussels and how 
do we solve that? What is the problem in the Chesapeake Bay with MSX 
and dermo? Where did it come from and why is it so tenacious? What is 
the problem of fishkills in North Carolina? Millions of fish have died 
in the estuaries of North Carolina. The tragedy of the commons in the 
Gulf of Mexico; the coastal fisheries of the United States, where there 
are more people, better technology, catching fewer fish. How do we 
solve this?
  To understand the complexities of the power and the weaknesses, the 
endurance and the sensitive limitations of the Earth's natural 
processes, we need educated, knowledgeable, dedicated young people to 
begin a lifetime of service to this environmental end.
  Mr. Chairman, our resources on planet Earth are limited. There are no 
more new frontiers on the other side of the horizon on the ground. Our 
horizons physically are limited and to a certain extent they have come 
to an end. What is our next frontier? Our next frontier is an 
intellectual frontier. If we use up our resources in the manner in 
which we are using them now, especially the resources from the marine 
ecosystem, we cannot go anywhere in this infinite, hostile environment 
we call the universe. We are here.
  Mr. Chairman, we need science, we need knowledge, and we need the 
technique to implement that science and that knowledge to preserve the 
natural processes, which is to preserve the natural resources on this 
planet.
  One of the solutions to this puzzle, Mr. Chairman, is the Sea Grant 
Program. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from Hawaii for yielding 
me this time.

[[Page H3878]]

  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the entire 3 minutes, but I did want to 
say in my prior life, before I was in Congress and before I was a 
politician really, I was a Sea Grant coastal law specialist. I mention 
that, because I learned a lot about the Sea Grant Program and 
particularly how it benefits the average person. Sea Grant really is a 
very valuable program because it reaches out to help so many people in 
very positive ways. I think that many Members of Congress and certainly 
the public at large are not aware of how far-reaching its positive 
efforts are. When I was a coastal law specialist, basically I worked 
with various user groups, if you will, whether it was marina owners or 
commercial or recreational fishermen or longshoremen, anyone really who 
was involved in the coastal environment took advantage of what we 
called the New Jersey Marine Advisory Service, which was basically an 
outreach program financed through Sea Grant to help those people, 
working people mostly, who made their living from the sea or from the 
coastal area.

                              {time}  1130

  It was a very unique program in a way because it is one of the few 
times, I think, when people who are in the Federal employ actually are 
in the working area, if my colleagues will, and actually helping people 
on a daily basis with their problems. I thought that it was 
tremendously valuable, and of course I have also had contact with the 
Sea Grant program because here in Congress and Federal agencies we have 
Sea Grant fellows, and I know that this reauthorization legislation 
specifically provides for the continuation of the Sea Grant fellowship 
program, again another way to get young people involved, to help 
interaction here in Washington, as well as with the Federal agencies, 
to learn more about how we at the Federal Government can be a positive 
force in the field, so to speak.
  In my own State of New Jersey the Sea Grant program is managed by the 
New Jersey Marine Science Consortium which is an alliance of about 30 
colleges, universities, private organizations and individuals 
interested in marine affairs, and New Jersey Sea Grant is very cost 
effective. I have to stress that; very cost effective in that all 
resources are shared by the institutions that participate in the Sea 
Grant program, thereby avoiding duplicative purchases statewide, and 
collective State and Federal funds are used for administration of a 
summer marine science program for college students as well as operation 
and maintenance of a small research fleet and state-of-the art sampling 
equipment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take much more time, but I wanted to, 
say, just give some recent examples of Sea Grant-supported research and 
outreach activities in New Jersey that have positively impacted the 
lives of the residents of my State.
  Right now Sea Grant is funding two biotechnology research projects 
that help develop products with practical uses in the pharmaceutical 
and pulp industries. It is sponsoring a commercial fisherman's safety 
training program. It is supporting a red tide research effort, and the 
list goes on.
  Sea Grant is a valuable program, and we should support this 
legislation.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the State of Washington, [Mrs. Linda Smith].
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the 
Committee on Resources from the beautiful State of Washington, I rise 
in strong support of this bill. The National Sea Grant College Program 
is very important to the Pacific Coast, but especially to my district. 
I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] of the 
Committee on Resources and especially the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Saxton] who is also the bill's sponsor. But never to forget the 
subcommittee staff because they actually do so much of the work in 
making sure that the bill works right.
  The National Sea Grant program is a network of over 300 colleges, 
universities and research institutions throughout the country focused 
on the wise use of marine resources. Literally thousands of coastal 
communities and small coastal businesses depend on Sea Grant for a wide 
range of services and for critical, impartial, scientific advice and 
help. Over half of our Nation's population resides in coastal districts 
and Sea Grant plays a significant role in improving the lives of our 
constituents through high-quality competitive research, education and 
community outreach.
  For example, in my home State of Washington, Sea Grant has helped 
save our State's shellfish industry which is dominated by small family-
owned operations. They have done this through the development of a 
high-quality, year-round triploid oyster. Sea Grant's information on 
strategic planning and financial management of public ports has been 
unmatched, in our area at least, and the program's effort in small 
coastal communities in our area are demonstrating economic and social 
benefits of waterfront revitalization.
  H.R. 437, as reported by the Committee on Resources, makes 
significant improvements in the program by streamlining the proposed 
review processes and reducing administration. Now this is capping the 
overall program costs while still serving the communities, and this is 
what this Congress is all about, doing it better, balancing the budget 
and still serving.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I again want to 
thank the chairman for introducing it and for its sponsor.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 437.
  I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for yielding, and would like to 
congratulate Mr. Saxton and Mr. Ambercrombie for their leadership on 
this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Sea Grant College Program plays a vital 
role in protecting the fragile ecosystem of the Great Lakes. When the 
National Sea Grant College Program was originally authorized, it 
directed that funds be used to research aquatic nuisance species in the 
Great Lakes region. Typically, most of this money has gone toward zebra 
mussel research and has been successful in stemming the flow of zebra 
mussel infestation.
  As many of you know, the zebra mussel is a nonindigenous species that 
infiltrated the Great Lakes in the 1980's when it was dispensed with 
bilge water from a Black Sea cargo ship. Since then, zebra mussels and 
other aquatic nuisance species have caused substantial damage to water 
infrastructure systems. A recent Sea Grant survey of Great Lake 
facilities using surface water showed the cost of battling zebra 
mussels from 1989-94 was over $120 million, in recent years it is up to 
$30 million per year.
  In addition, a recent study by the Office of Technology Assessment 
estimates that the power industry alone may spend more than $3 billion 
over the next 10 years just to control zebra mussel infestation in 
water intake systems.
  Apart from these economic costs, there is evidence that the zebra 
mussel may disrupt the lower food chain and deplete valuable Great Lake 
fish stocks. This could severely impact a $4 billion sport and food 
fishery in the Great Lakes region.
  Zebra mussel infestation is not a problem that is only limited to the 
Great Lakes. The zebra mussel is spreading rapidly across the United 
States, having been found throughout the Mississippi Valley, the Gulf 
Coast, the Chesapeake Bay, and in locations as far away as California. 
In fact, the zebra mussel has now spread to 20 States and continues to 
spread. To give you an idea how fast zebra mussels multiply, it is 
possible that one zebra mussel could produce as many as 1 million eggs.
  The National Sea Grant College Program's research into aquatic 
nuisance species is crucial and must be maintained and even enhanced if 
the spread of these species is to be prevented and controlled. The 
zebra mussel research is especially important, as lessons learned from 
this research can be applied to the prevention and control of other 
aquatic nuisance species.
  H.R. 437 continues the Federal Government's commitment to zebra 
mussel research and to fighting the spread of this aquatic nuisance 
species, which is more than just a nuisance.
  In addition Mr. Chairman, Michigan Sea Grant plays a pivotal role in 
my district in addressing a wide range of issues that are vital to the 
Great Lakes. For example, Sea Grant is a leader in developing new 
approaches for the responsible management of Great Lakes fisheries, 
working with over 600 seafood processors and fishermen to improve 
seafood safety, coordinating citizen volunteers in my

[[Page H3879]]

district to monitor Great Lakes water quality, and helping State and 
local governments create new economic opportunities in coastal 
recreation and tourism, while managing development wisely in an 
industry whose economic impact on my State now rivals that of 
automobile production.
  My Chairman, I strongly urges the passage of this bill.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to wish the Chair of the 
Committee on Science, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], 
a happy birthday, and I also want to thank the Chair of the 
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for his 
very kind comments on the passing of my father.
  Mr. Chairman, we see that there is strong bipartisan support for this 
effort, and I want to tell Members why. I think that America believes 
and understands that it may be the land masses of the world that 
separate the peoples, but it is the oceans that bring us together.
  I co-authored the reauthorization of the Sea Grant program basically 
because I believe it is a great program, one that enables important 
efforts in marine resource conservation to be properly managed. When we 
think about our oceans and our coasts and the Great Lakes, they are 
tremendous resources and of great importance not only to our economy 
but also to our social and to our cultural vitality. But our 
population, over half of which lives on 10 percent of the land defined 
as coastal, puts incredible pressures on these environments. We harvest 
the fish and other living organisms. We alter the physical environment. 
We fill in wetlands. We dredge our harbors. We bulkheaded our 
shorelines. We pollute. We introduce alien species into our ecosystems. 
We are adding substances to the atmosphere that increases the 
ultraviolet radiation and alter the globe's climate.
  We should see it as a priority to have high-quality, competitive, 
peer-reviewed science to better understand these dynamic resources, our 
effects on them, and to propose ways to minimize negative impacts while 
enhancing economic benefits. Hand in hand with this must come programs 
to get this information out to the public and user groups with the goal 
of wise, sustainable use.
  For nearly 30 years this is exactly what the Sea Grant program has 
been doing, and it is doing it in a fiscally responsible way. Federal 
funding for Sea Grant must be matched by non-Federal contributions. 
Over half of the funding of Sea Grant programs come from non-Federal 
sources. Funded at about $50 million annually, we need to support its 
reauthorization.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest] in commending and complimenting the chairman and ranking 
members of these two committees for an excellent bill, and I rise to 
speak in favor of this bill and encourage my colleagues to support it 
and vote for it.
  Over a hundred years ago this Nation established land grant 
universities which have served this Nation well. One of their primary 
purposes was to conduct research in the uses of our land, particularly 
for agriculture, and today we still have a network of agricultural 
research which is second to none in the world and which has been of 
great benefit to the farmers and the citizens of this country.
  More than half, in fact considerably more than half, of our planet's 
surface is occupied by oceans and large lakes, and yet we have devoted 
far less of our resources to research upon the water ways of this 
planet than we have to the land of our Nation. The good feature of this 
bill is that it begins and continues the process of research that we 
have instituted for the oceans and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes of 
this Nation are a valuable resource. They hold more than 90 percent of 
the fresh water in this Nation and are the primary source of fresh 
water throughout the world.
  Michigan alone has greater shoreline than any other State of the 
Union other than Alaska. We have over 3,000 miles of shoreline which 
indicates the importance of aquaculture, fisheries, and things of this 
sort to the State of Michigan. But research and the science necessary 
to really maintain the fisheries of this planet and the resources of 
the Great Lakes has been lacking.
  This bill will help continue the research we have begun in places 
such as Ann Arbor and other resource facilities in the Great Lakes 
area, but throughout this Nation this bill will provide the funding 
that is needed to do the research necessary to continue to ensure that 
our fisheries are adequate to supply the needs of our Nation and of 
other nations.
  A new problem has arisen in the recent past and is also addressed in 
this bill, and that is the problem of invasive nonindigenous species. A 
major problem at the moment, of course, is the zebra mussel which is 
creating havoc in the Great Lakes and is rapidly spreading across this 
Nation. It is plugging water supply lines to power plants, 
municipalities, creating problems for boaters, ship owners, and we need 
a great deal more research in understanding the zebra mussel and other 
invasive species.
  I am very pleased that this bill specifically addresses the zebra 
mussel problem, and I hope in the future we will be able to increase 
the funding for the study of invasive species so that we can in fact 
tackle the problem, reduce the difficulty of dealing with these species 
in the Great Lakes and in other bodies of water in and upon the shores 
of this Nation.
  It is a good bill, and I urge the support of my colleagues. Vote for 
it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has the duty to close the debate. I have four more 
speakers. I am not sure whether he has more speakers and how much time 
is left for him, and I wonder if I might impose upon him to allow our 
speakers to catch up so that we can conclude properly.
  Mr. SAXTON. I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Hawaii has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Other speakers have had more time but, as we 
know, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Traficant] will be able to conclude 
his remarks within 1 minute.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton] for this job, and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] 
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Now no parts of the Great Lakes touches my district, and I have no 
ocean frontage, but I am working on that, and the Congress should know 
that, and I support this bill, but I will be offering an amendment, and 
that amendment is very simple and straightforward. If we buy American-
made products and an American company continues to have business, an 
American worker gets a paycheck. From that paycheck we get some taxes, 
and from those taxes we can provide these grants, and it works for all 
of us.
  So we are going to reach out and touch somebody like the phone 
service, and I will be offering that amendment, and I would appreciate 
my colleagues' support. But again I would like to commend both of the 
committees for the compromises and the efforts they made to bring a 
good bill that will be helpful to science and research in America.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson].
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I join with my other 
colleagues, especially as a representative of Wisconsin, wishing a 
happy birthday to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner].
  I rise in strong support today of the National Sea Grants College 
Program Reauthorization Act as another representative of a Great Lakes 
district with a wide array of boating and marine interests. I know well 
the importance of this bill before us. In this bill we are investing, I 
think, up to $2.8 million next year to research the control of the 
zebra mussels in the Great

[[Page H3880]]

Lakes. For those colleagues who are not familiar, and I am sure many of 
them are with this devastating problem of nonindigenous species, I can 
tell them the invasion of zebra mussels has caused a great burden to 
the Great Lake States in the past decade. The zebra mussel: A mollusk 
that was carried to the Great Lakes in the late 1980's traveling in the 
ballast water of European freighters. Here in an environment without a 
natural predator the mussels spread widely, quickly attaching 
themselves to any hard surface in sight. They have clogged water 
intakes of sewer systems, utilities and factories, filling boat holes, 
covering beaches with their sharp shells. They cause great economic and 
ecological hardship to our region; I used to live on the Great Lakes 
and know about them.
  Currently there is no answer for this disease. If my colleagues can 
imagine, every female mussel can produce 30 to 40,000 offspring several 
times a year, every mussel lives up to 8 years. I know it sounds like a 
bad horror movie, but the problem is real, and unless we contain the 
research on this species and how to control it, we expect the zebra 
mussels to continue to spread to other waters and bring their 
destruction to other regions.
  In this bill we will spend up to $2.8 million to continue the 
research on the zebra mussel, exploring methods of control, examining 
how to prevent invasions in the future. If my colleagues think this is 
a large investment, I ask them to think of businesses all over the 
Great Lakes which are forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
every year to filter and scrape out zebra mussels from their pipes and 
intake systems.

                              {time}  1245

  I hope we will continue our strong support for this vital research.
  Part of the reason we have learned much about the zebra mussel is due 
to this bill and the great Sea Grant College Program. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 437.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional time which I am not 
going to use; and with the permission of the Chair, I yield 4 minutes 
of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for the 
purposes of control, so that he can dispense it to Members on the other 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the information of the majority, the gentleman from 
New Jersey has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 4 of those minutes, 
without objection, are yielded to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. 
Abercrombie].
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, as always, I am very grateful to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This is in the spirit within 
which this bill was concluded, and I very much appreciate it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
[Mrs. Tauscher].
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise to discuss a nonnative aquatic weed which is taking over our 
Nation's waterways and is rapidly becoming a national problem. While I 
recognize the extreme threat that other nonnative aquatic species can 
cause, and the zebra mussel infestation of our Great Lakes and rivers 
throughout the Midwest is a prime example, I believe we need to begin 
to focus national attention on directing research funds on controlling 
and eliminating other nonindigenous aquatic species.
  In my State of California we have more nonindigenous species 
destroying our natural environment than any other State. One of the 
worst offenders in the San Francisco Bay Delta includes Egeria Densa, a 
water weed that originates in Brazil and has taken over not only our 
local waterways but the canals, rivers, lakes, and bays around the 
country, including the Mississippi River, the Florida Everglades, and 
the Chesapeake Bay. This weed impacts water quality in the bay by 
displacing native vegetation and choking the waterways, causing severe 
damage to boats, loss of recreational area, and a dramatic reduction of 
the property values along the deltas in my district.
  Rooted in the bottom of the delta, this nonnative weed reproduces 
when fragments of the plant break off and travel with boats or tidal 
flow to be deposited and then grow in another area. The plant picks up 
nutrients in the delta and, with the help of the Sun, spreads like 
wildfire throughout the delta sloughs. In the past several years, this 
spread has accelerated to the point that I fear any solution may soon 
be too little too late.
  Already there are areas that only a couple of years ago were open for 
boaters, yet are now completely inundated by this weed. In fact, many 
areas of the delta are now so full of Egeria Densa that it has turned 
canals into clogged beds of weeds in which nothing else can compete.
  I support this bill because it provides money for research into 
aquatic nuisance species like Egeria Densa.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking 
members of the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources on 
this very important issue in the future. Research is needed to develop 
an effective and environmentally benign method to eradicate Egeria 
Densa before it becomes a major epidemic in my delta and around the 
Nation.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] to conclude and close out our side of the 
debate.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, to leaders who have worked so hard on 
this issue, congratulations to both sides and I appreciate the 
cooperation of the majority in yielding time for us today.
  This is such an important bill to the great State of Michigan, as has 
already been indicated by my colleague from Grand Rapids, MI, we have 
more Great Lakes, more wonderful waterways than any other State in the 
Union. It is incredibly important that the sea grant research project 
be continued and be strengthened in order to monitor the Great Lakes.
  The sea grant has contributed substantially to improving the use of 
Great Lakes resources and understanding them. For instance, in our 
State, there has been a great focus, as has been talked about already, 
on the issue of zebra mussels. There is a very important program that 
is called the inland lake monitoring program that has helped 
constituents in my district. We have monitored over 100 lakes and found 
45 lakes in which there have been zebra mussels identified.
  The inland lakes program that is operated through this grant research 
project allows citizens to learn important information about how to 
prevent the spread of zebra mussels, how to identify zebra mussels 
early in their life. It greatly relates to the ability to swim, to 
boat, to enjoy the wonderful lakes that we have in Michigan as well as 
around the country, and it is important that we continue our research 
so that we can prevent zebra mussels in the long run.
  I want to share one other important success story about the Michigan 
Sea Grant Program that I have not heard discussed today, and that is 
the development of revival techniques for victims of cold water 
immersion, which is also a success story of the sea grant research 
project. With the help of the sea grant research project, people who 
have been underwater for periods of up to one-half hour are now being 
successfully revived whereas in the past these people had been given up 
as a drowning death. With the support of a successful sea grant 
research project and outreach program, the entire approach to cold 
water immersion has changed.
  We know that there is success story after success story in this 
research program. It is important for our quality of life; it is 
important for our ecosystem; it is important for the country that we 
maintain a vigilant research and outreach project through the national 
sea grant program. I am very pleased to rise with my colleagues in 
support of H.R. 437 and urge a strong bipartisan vote today.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to take a couple of minutes to close the general 
debate by saying that this is obviously a program that is very 
important all across the country. Nowhere is it more important than my 
home State of New Jersey, where a full 10 percent of all of the marine 
science consortium members are from New Jersey, headed up, of course,

[[Page H3881]]

by the sea grant university, Rutgers University. Through these 31 
members of the New Jersey marine science consortium, a number of very 
worthwhile projects have been carried out.
  One of the projects is really a project which is at the forefront of 
development of technology in marine research. That program is known as 
the LEO 15 project. LEO is an acronym which stands for Long-term 
Ecosystem Observatory, which is literally an observatory which is 
stationed several miles off the New Jersey coast in the Atlantic Ocean. 
And through fiberoptic connection to shore and satellite technology, 
the data in a real-time situation is collected and transported via 
fiberoptic and satellite technology to Rutgers University and directly 
there into schoolrooms and university rooms all across the country. So 
that on a real-time basis, people can have knowledge of, study, and 
make use of the data that is collected from the LEO observatory. It is 
a very worthwhile tool in helping us to understand on an ongoing basis 
what is happening in the ocean, on the ocean floor, relative to a 
variety of scientific issues that are important.
  In addition to that, we in New Jersey are studying fish recruitment 
in estuaries, which means essentially how do we enhance fisheries in 
the breeding grounds and the spawning grounds in our estuaries. We have 
a variety of projects with regard to water quality and the impacts of 
sediments in some of our estuarine areas such as Barnegat Bay. We are 
using a $600,000 sea grant each year to study and try and find the 
answers to oyster diseases and research in that area. We have a 
workshop ongoing with regard to environmental sustainability of the 
marine industry, the marina industry, which essentially is a program to 
enhance the understanding of environmental issues as they are affected 
by boaters in marinas and those issues.
  We also have an ongoing program in New Jersey on the industrial use 
of marina biotechnology products. In other words, how can we develop 
and use products which are friendly to the environment. So these 
programs which are of vital importance to the future use of the marine 
estuarine environment are of vital importance, and in each case they 
are carried out because the sea grant program provides the resources to 
do so.
  So I would like to ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
it would be nice to get a unanimous vote on this. I have heard no 
objections.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is another example of 
a Committee on Resources bill emanating from the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, which enjoys the 
bipartisan nature of our good relationships with each other between 
Republicans and Democrats and Members of the House.
  So I ask for everyone to support this very, very worthwhile bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 437 reauthorizes and amends 
the National Sea Grant College Program Act of 1966. This bill was 
introduced by Jim Saxton, and a number of Members, like me, who believe 
that this has been an effective Federal program.
  Sea Grant was established in 1966 in order to improve our Nation's 
marine resource conservation efforts, to manage those resources more 
effectively, and to enhance their proper use. The program is patterned 
after the highly successful Land Grant College Program, which is 
familiar to many of our noncoastal Members.
  For over 30 years, Sea Grant has successfully achieved its goals 
through a unique combination of research grants, marine advisory 
services, and education. Alaska's Sea Grant Program has improved our 
understanding of commercial fish stocks, the factors affecting the size 
and health of those stock, and the best economic uses for fishery 
resources. Using this information, we have developed effective 
management regimes, and we continue to create more jobs with fewer 
long-term impacts to our fisheries.
  Alaska Sea Grant also supports a comprehensive Marine Advisory 
Service, which has provided industry training programs on topics 
ranging from marine safety and seafood technology, to business 
management for fishermen and shoreside support facilities. Through 
proper training, we ensure that our industries, businesses, and 
individuals who depend on productive fisheries can continue to do their 
jobs effectively. Ron Dearborn, who does an excellent job as Director 
of the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, is serving as president of the 
Sea Grant Association this year.
  Sea Grant is a perfect example of the type of program that we should 
support. The program produces tangible results and, most importantly, 
it maximizes immediate and long-range returns by matching Federal 
investments with State and private funds.
  Unfortunately, during the last Congress, the Resources and Science 
Committees were unable to reach an agreement on reauthorization 
legislation. I am pleased that this year those disagreements have been 
resolved, and we are able to bring this compromise text to the floor. 
This bill is the product of 3 years of hard work and dedication.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that we reauthorize Sea Grant this 
year, and I compliment Mr. Saxton for his efforts. This program is 
important to the State of Alaska, our coastal communities, and every 
American. Therefore, I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 437.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 437.
  In 1966, Congress established the National Sea Grant College Program 
in order to encourage the wise stewardship of our marine resources 
through research, education, outreach, and technology transfer.
  Today, there are 29 sea grant programs, one in every coastal State 
and in Puerto Rico, working in partnership with the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration.
  Each program has a common goal: To foster the wise use, conservation, 
and management of marine and coastal resources through practical 
research, graduate student education, and public service.
  The University of Delaware, designated the Nation's ninth sea grant 
college in 1976, conducts research in marine biotechnology, coastal 
engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, marine policy, and 
seafood science--all vitally important to promoting coastal economic 
growth and improving the quality of coastal environments.
  It plays a key role in training graduate students in marine studies 
and its outreach staff provides a variety of groups, from business 
owners to school teachers, with a wealth of timely, objective 
information and assistance in addressing coastal problems and 
opportunities.
  Delaware's Sea Grant Program and others like it across the country 
are focused on making the United States the world leader in marine 
research and the sustainable development of marine resources.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the National Sea Grant 
College reauthorization and help make that goal a reality.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong 
support of the National Sea Grant College Program and H.R. 437.
  The National Sea Grant College Program is an integrated program of 
research, education, and extension activities which has consistently 
proven its value to the taxpayer throughout its nearly 30-year history.
  Sea Grant works at the precommercial stage, with a focus on small, 
family owned businesses, to improve the responsible use and development 
of our Nation's coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources.
  Sea Grant is unique among university-based programs in that it 
develops useful information through research geared toward improving 
economic opportunities and conserving natural resources for future 
generations.
  Federal funding for Sea Grant is highly leveraged by contributions 
from outside the Federal Government. Almost half the funding for Sea 
Grant comes from non-Federal sources; investments made by Sea Grant are 
heavily matched by each of the participating States, as well as by 
universities and the private sector.
  Sea Grant supports high-quality, competitive, peer-reviewed 
scientific research to address critical marine resource issues and 
opportunities and, importantly, to deliver the results of that research 
to constituents through Sea Grant marine extension and education 
programs.
  In my home State of New York, Sea Grant has assisted agencies, 
municipalities and constituents in understanding both the technical and 
policy implications of prospective erosion control measures for our 
coastal communities. On Fire Island in my district, and the Fire Island 
National Seashore, this research has saved taxpayers needless 
expenditures on approaches that would not work. Sea Grant has also 
helped charter fishing operators understand the fishery resources they 
depend on, and has assisted seafood retailers in maintaining the 
quality and safety of products they sell to consumers.
  I would like to commend my colleagues on the Resources and Science 
Committees for bringing H.R. 437 to the floor today. This bill makes 
significant improvements in the Sea Grant Program by streamlining the 
proposal review process, reducing administrative costs, and clarifying 
the Federal and university roles in the program. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in voting for H.R. 437 to make Sea Grant an even better 
program than the fine one it is today.

[[Page H3882]]

  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 437, and I 
want to commend my colleague, Chairman Don Young of the Resources 
Committee, for his initiative in bringing this important piece of 
legislation to the floor.
  The National Sea Grant College Program is a network of over 300 
colleges, universities, technical schools, and research institutions 
located throughout the country which provide economic opportunities and 
address real problems associated with our abundant coastal and marine 
resources. Sea Grant represents a strong university-business-Government 
partnership that responds to local, regional, and national needs.
  Federal funding for the Sea Grant Program is highly leveraged by 
contributions from outside the Federal Government. Almost half of the 
funding for Sea Grant comes from matching grants funds from research 
institutions. In South Carolina, Sea Grant funds are often used as seed 
money to leverage funding from other Federal, State, local, and private 
sources.
  For example, the Sea Grant Program in South Carolina is part of a 
nationwide network of university campuses and marine laboratories 
involved with Operation Pathfinder, an educational initiative involving 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Navy, and 
the U.S. Department of the Interior to train elementary and middle-
school teachers in multidisciplinary skills in oceanography and coastal 
processes.
  Of grave importance, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that South Carolina 
and other Southeastern and Gulf States are subject to a number of 
hurricanes and coastal storms annually. Risks to life and property 
associated with these coastal natural hazards will increase with the 
anticipated growth of coastal populations in this region over the next 
several decades, from 36 million people currently to over 73 million by 
the year 2010. According to the Insurance Institute for Property Loss 
Reduction, these storms cost an estimated $58 billion in insured losses 
attributable to wind alone, with total insured losses produced by 
Hurricane Hugo, Andrew, Iniki, and the winter storms of 1993 and 1994 
of $42.7 billion. The Sea Grant Program in South Carolina has initiated 
a coordinated research and extension program on coastal natural hazards 
which seeks to mitigate and reduce the amount of damage and subsequent 
monetary loss to property owners and the insurance industry. Examples 
of such efforts include research and development of low-cost, 
structural retrofit strategies for homeowners, development of a 
vulnerability mode for use by emergency management personnel to predict 
storm damage and cleanup needs, the formation of a South Carolina 
Association for Hazard Mitigation, and the development of a Community 
Sustainability Center as an educational and training facility for 
schools, planning and building code officials, and hazards engineers.
  H.R. 437 makes significant improvements in the Sea Grant Program. It 
streamlines the proposal review process, reduces administrative costs, 
caps the total program costs below the current services level, and 
clarifies Federal and academic roles in the program.
  I would urge my colleagues to recognize and acknowledge the many 
contributions to the Nation's economic development and resource 
management made by the National Sea Grant College Program over the last 
30 years by voting in support of this important bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, H.R. 
437.
  My home State of California is home to the largest Sea Grant Program 
in the Nation. The California Sea Grant College system is a statewide, 
multiuniversity program of marine research, extension services, and 
education. Through the research it sponsors, California Sea Grant 
contributes to the growing body of knowledge about our coastal and 
ocean resources and helps solve contemporary problems in marine 
ecosystems. Its extension services transfer this knowledge to a wide 
community of users in California, the Pacific region, and the Nation.
  Since the beginning of the Sea Grant Program in 1968, California has 
become a leader in Marine Biology and the development of new products 
in the areas of marine pharmacology, aquaculture, fisheries, water 
quality, coastal habitat, and ocean engineering. The universities 
participating in this program are known for their leadership and 
accomplishments in the study of our oceans. We in San Diego are 
particularly proud of the work done at Scripps Institute of 
Oceanography, a part of the University of California at San Diego. 
Scripps has achieved global recognition for its pioneering work in 
oceanography, due in no small part to the Sea Grant Program.
  Almost everyone living in southern California is affected by the 
management of our oceans for jobs, recreation, goods and services. The 
top seven ocean related industries in California generated nearly $20 
billion in direct and indirect economic activity, supporting nearly 
500,000 jobs. However, the preservation and study of our oceans is 
important not only to those who live in California or along the coasts 
but to the Nation as a whole.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
program by voting for H.R. 437.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 437, the 
Marine Resources Revitalization Act of 1997 and I want to commend both 
the Resources and Science Committees for reaching a compromise on this 
very important bill. We have needed to reauthorize the National Sea 
Grant Program since October 1995 and I applaud Representatives Saxton, 
Young, Abercrombie, and Farr on their leadership.
  As a member from a coastal district, I am acutely aware of the 
problems of the coastal marine environment, and of the excellent work 
of the Sea Grant Program to address these problems. I remain a 
supporter of Sea Grant's peer-reviewed research, education, and 
outreach programs that deal with problems in Maryland such as oyster 
disease and chemical contaminants in coastal waters.
  Established in 1966 to improve the conservation, management, and 
utilization of ocean and coastal resources, the Sea Grant College 
Program has been a national leader in conducting scientifically based 
marine research and distributing the results to hundreds of 
universities throughout the country. The University of Maryland, 
located in my district in College Park, is 1 of 26 designated Sea Grant 
Colleges and is a national leader on living marine and estuarine 
resources research.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay is arguably the world's greatest 
estuary and offers the scientific community one of the most abundant 
and important places to conduct research. Over the past several years, 
the oyster population has become increasingly threatened by diseases 
such as MSX and Dermo, and Sea Grant has been leading the way on the 
Oyster Disease Research Program which is providing a better 
understanding of shellfish disease.
  Today, Sea Grant continues to provide scientific data and analysis 
which are used in efforts to prevent oyster parasites from developing. 
I will support H.R. 437, which will authorize the program through 
fiscal year 2000, and continue to support appropriations for Sea Grant. 
The Chesapeake Bay is one of Maryland's greatest natural assets, and in 
my continued efforts to protect, preserve, and promote this magnificent 
resource, I will remain a strong supporter of the University of 
Maryland's work with the National Sea Grant Program.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation 
to reauthorize this very important environmental program.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
bill, which would fully reauthorize a program that has been vital to 
our Nation's oceanic industries.
  The Sea Grant Program was established in 1966 to improve our Nation's 
marine resource conservation and management efforts, and is modeled 
after the very successful Land Grant College Program.
  The fishing industry in the Pacific Northwest produces about 55 
percent of the Nation's seafood, and is a critical component of many 
coastal economies in my State. The Oregon Sea Grant Program has been 
highly successful in its research and marine extension programs, which 
are oriented toward this industry.
  One example of its research activities involves the utilization of 
seafood wastes. Few people realize that between 30 and 40 percent of 
the seafood raw material is actually used in food products, while most 
of the remaining material typically goes to waste. The Oregon Sea Grant 
Program helps fund research which examines the potential for using some 
of this waste material in products such as fishmeal and bioactive 
products including enzymes. These efforts have spawned new, 
multimillion dollar industries in the Pacific Northwest. Researchers 
are also studying ways to remove bioactive components of seafood waste 
water to save money for both processors, municipalities, and customers.
  The Oregon program has also been very successful in assisting fishing 
dependent families adapt to the changing industry conditions, and has 
been a major force in the development of the Pacific Whiting Industry 
in Oregon. In addition, the Sea Grant Program is also involved in State 
and local efforts to restore severely degraded salmon and watershed 
habitats.
  Other programs around the Nation, working closely with industries, 
have developed new aquaculture techniques, designed improved coastal 
planning schemes, created new methods of saving cold-water drowning 
victims, and created a comprehensive data base on toxic contaminants in 
an aquatic system. And again, I want to stress that the benefits of Sea 
Grant extend beyond the applied commercial and environmental effects. 
This university program has been instrumental in educating future 
generations of researchers in the techniques and nuances of marine 
science.

[[Page H3883]]

  These successes clearly warrant support for fully funding the program 
at levels consistent with those in recent years, as this bill 
authorizes.
  I am convinced that these and many other basic research programs are 
wise investments in the Nation's economic future. We now have more than 
anecdotal evidence that research pays off handsomely for our economy 
over time, but it also pays off by significantly improving our quality 
of life. Scientists have been doing more with less in recent years. 
These advancements of efficiency should be commended and continued. 
However, we must continue to acknowledge the invaluable 
responsibilities shouldered by our research communities, especially on 
university campuses. We must maintain strong support for important 
scientific investigations and for the education of students across the 
science, math and engineering disciplines.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 437, 
a bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program within the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA].
  In New York, the Sea Grant Program, based at the University of Stony 
Brook on Long Island, has been a vital force in finding answers to 
critical coastal issues that affect New York's fishing and tourism 
industries. Stony Brook's Sea Grant supports more than 20 scientific 
research projects annually and has provided more than $25.3 million in 
support of research, education, and outreach projects since its 
formation more than 25 years ago.
  Over the past 4 years, Stony Brook's Sea Grant Program has focused a 
great deal on the causes of periodic outbreaks of brown tide algae in 
Long Island's coastal waters, particularly on the East End and in the 
Great South and Moriches Bays. In fact, the Federal Coastal Ocean 
Program [COP], under NOAA, has awarded $1.5 million in grants to 
researchers studying the brown tide algae blooms that have plagued the 
waters of Long Island's East End and South Shore. Administering the Sea 
Grant Program at Stony Brook, the 3-year Brown Tide Research Initiative 
[BTRI] is a coordinated effort by nationally recognized experts at 
eight universities and research institutions, including the University 
at Stony Brook.
  The National Sea Grant Program is a network of 29 university-based 
programs located in States with coastlines on either oceans or the 
Great Lakes. In New York, the Sea Grant Program is a joint operation 
between the State University of New York at Stony Brook and Cornell 
University. New York Sea Grant conducts important research into the 
forces of coastal erosion, providing invaluable insight for beach 
protection programs.
  The national investment in the Sea Grant Program is a tremendously 
wise one, and not solely from an ecological standpoint. Financially, 
the program works. Every Federal dollar is matched by $2 in State, 
local, and university resources. Though outmatched by other sources, it 
is the Federal investment that acts as the program's catalyst, 
attracting much-needed support from other, diverse sources.
  The Brown Tide Research Program undertaken at Stony Brook, is just 
one example of how the National Sea Grant College Program works, but it 
is indicative of the collaborative effort and broad commitment that is 
the program's hallmark. It is the model for public, private, and 
university partnerships that pool resources, facilities, and brain 
power to tackle a serious problem that no single entity is capable of 
addressing.
  In the long run, an alliance like the New York Sea Grant Program at 
Stony Brook will save Long Island taxpayers' money, while conducting 
important scientific research that ultimately solves the problems that 
afflict our most important industries: fishing and tourism.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 437 and in 
support of the Sea Grant Program that serves as a model for all public 
programs because of its ability to work smarter and more efficiently 
for its customers, the American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the designated 
place in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered by 
section as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and pursuant 
to the rule, each section is considered as having been read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Sea Grant College 
     Program Reauthorization Act of 1997''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Sea Grant Institution.--Section 203 (33 U.S.C. 1122) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(16) The term `sea grant institution' means--
       ``(A) any sea grant college or sea grant regional 
     consortium, and
       ``(B) any institution of higher education, institute, 
     laboratory, or State or local agency conducting a sea grant 
     program with amounts provided under this Act.''.
       (b) Field Related to Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes 
     Resources.--Section 203(4) (33 U.S.C. 1122(4)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(4) The term `field related to ocean, coastal, and Great 
     Lakes resources' means any discipline or field, including 
     marine affairs, resource management, technology, education, 
     or science, which is concerned with or likely to improve the 
     understanding, assessment, development, utilization, or 
     conservation of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources.''.
       (c) Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--Section 203(13) (33 U.S.C. 1122(13)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(13) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Commerce, acting through the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Oceans and Atmosphere.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--The Act is amended--
       (A) by striking section 203(15) (33 U.S.C. 1122(15));
       (B) in section 209(b) (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)), as amended by 
     this Act, by striking ``, the Under Secretary,''; and
       (C) by striking ``Under Secretary'' every other place it 
     appears and inserting ``Secretary''.

     SEC. 4. CONSULTATIONS REGARDING LONG-RANGE PLANNING 
                   GUIDELINES AND PRIORITIES AND EVALUATION.

       Section 204(a) (33 U.S.C. 1123(a)) is amended in the last 
     sentence by inserting after ``The Secretary'' the following: 
     ``, in consultation with the sea grant institutions and the 
     panel established under section 209,''.

     SEC. 5. DUTIES OF DIRECTOR.

       Section 204(c) (33 U.S.C. 1123(c)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) Duties of Director.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall administer the 
     National Sea Grant College Program subject to the supervision 
     of the Secretary. In addition to any other duty prescribed by 
     law or assigned by the Secretary, the Director shall--
       ``(A) advise the Secretary with respect to the expertise 
     and capabilities which are available within or through the 
     National Sea Grant College Program, and provide (as directed 
     by the Secretary) those which are or could be of use to other 
     offices and activities within the Administration;
       ``(B) encourage other Federal departments, agencies, and 
     instrumentalities to use and take advantage of the expertise 
     and capabilities which are available through the National Sea 
     Grant College Program, on a cooperative or other basis;
       ``(C) encourage cooperation and coordination with other 
     Federal programs concerned with ocean, coastal, and Great 
     Lakes resources conservation and usage;
       ``(D) advise the Secretary on the designation of sea grant 
     institutions and, in appropriate cases, if any, on the 
     termination or suspension of any such designation;
       ``(E) encourage the formation and growth of sea grant 
     programs; and
       ``(F) oversee the operation of the National Sea Grant 
     Office established under subsection (a).
       ``(2) Duties with respect to sea grant institutions.--With 
     respect to the sea grant institutions, the Director shall--
       ``(A) evaluate the programs of the institutions, using the 
     guidelines and priorities established by the Secretary under 
     subsection (a), to ensure that the objective set forth in 
     section 202(b) is achieved;
       ``(B) subject to the availability of appropriations, 
     allocate funding among the sea grant institutions so as to--
       ``(i) promote healthy competition among those institutions,
       ``(ii) promote successful implementation of the programs 
     developed by the institutions under subsection (e), and
       ``(iii) to the maximum extent consistent with the other 
     provisions of this subparagraph, provide a stable base of 
     funding for the institutions; and
       ``(C) ensure compliance by the institutions with the 
     guidelines for merit review published pursuant to section 
     207(b)(2).''.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF SEA GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 204 (33 U.S.C. 1123) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Duties of the Sea Grant Institutions.--Subject to any 
     regulations or guidelines promulgated by the Secretary, it 
     shall

[[Page H3884]]

     be the responsibility of each sea grant institution to--
       ``(1) develop and implement, in consultation with the 
     Secretary and the panel established under section 209, a 
     program that is consistent with the guidelines and priorities 
     developed under section 204(a); and
       ``(2) conduct merit review of all applications for project 
     grants or contracts to be awarded under section 205.''.

     SEC. 7. REPEAL OF SEA GRANT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement 
     Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a) is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 209(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1128(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``and section 3 of the Sea 
     Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976''.

     SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF SEA GRANT INSTITUTIONS.

       Section 207 (33 U.S.C. 1126) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 207. SEA GRANT COLLEGES AND SEA GRANT REGIONAL 
                   CONSORTIA.

       ``(a) Designation.--The Secretary may designate an 
     institution of higher learning as a sea grant college, and an 
     association or alliance of two or more persons as a sea grant 
     regional consortium, if the institution, association, or 
     alliance--
       ``(1) is maintaining a balanced program of research, 
     education, training, and advisory services in fields related 
     to ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources;
       ``(2) will cooperate with other sea grant institutions and 
     other persons to solve problems or meet needs relating to 
     ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources;
       ``(3) will act in accordance with such guidelines as are 
     prescribed under subsection (b)(2);
       ``(4) meets such other qualifications as the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the sea grant review panel established 
     under section 209, considers necessary or appropriate; and
       ``(5) is recognized for excellence in marine resources 
     development and science.
       ``(b) Regulations and Guidelines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall by regulation 
     prescribe the qualifications required to be met under 
     subsection (a)(4).
       ``(2) Merit review.--Within 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the National Sea Grant College Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997, the Secretary, after 
     consultation with the sea grant institutions, shall establish 
     guidelines for the conduct of merit review by the sea grant 
     institutions of project proposals for grants and contracts to 
     be awarded under section 205. The guidelines shall, at a 
     minimum, provide for peer review of all research projects and 
     require standardized documentation of all peer review.
       ``(c) Suspension or Termination of Designation.--The 
     Secretary may, for cause and after an opportunity for 
     hearing, suspend or terminate any designation under 
     subsection (a).''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Grants, Contracts, and Fellowships.--Section 212(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1131(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act--
       ``(A) $54,300,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(B) $55,400,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(C) $56,500,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(2) Zebra mussel and oyster disease research.--Of the 
     amount authorized for a fiscal year under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) up to $2,800,000 of the amount may be made available 
     as provided in section 1301(b)(4)(A) of the Nonindigenous 
     Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16 
     U.S.C. 4741(b)(4)(A)) for competitive grants for university 
     research on the zebra mussel; and
       ``(B) up to $2,000,000 of the amount may be made available 
     for competitive grants for university research on oyster 
     disease.''.
       (b) Administration.--Section 212(b) (33 U.S.C. 1131(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(b) Administration.--
       ``(1) Limitation.--Of the amount appropriated for each 
     fiscal year under subsection (a), an amount, not exceeding 5 
     percent of the lesser of the amount authorized under 
     subsection (a) for the fiscal year or the amount appropriated 
     under subsection (a) for the fiscal year, may be used for the 
     administration of this Act, including section 209, by the 
     National Sea Grant Office and the Administration.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``subsections (a) and (c)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2) Limitation on 
     use of other amounts.--''; and
       (3) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right, so that the 
     left margin of paragraph (2) is aligned with the left margin 
     of paragraph (1), as amended by paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 212 (33 U.S.C. 1131) is amended by 
     repealing subsection (c) and redesignating subsections (d) 
     and (e) in order as subsections (c) and (d).
       (d) Prohibition on Lobbying; Notice of Reprogramming or 
     Reorganization.--Section 212 (33 U.S.C. 1131), as amended by 
     subsection (c) of this section, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.--None of the 
     funds authorized by this section shall be available for any 
     activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending 
     before the Congress, except that this subsection shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its 
     departments or agencies from communicating to Members of 
     Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through 
     the proper channels, requests for legislation or 
     appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient 
     conduct of the public business.
       ``(f) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by 
     this section are subject to a reprogramming action that 
     requires notice to be provided to the Appropriations 
     Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate, 
     notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the 
     Committees on Science and Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.
       ``(g) Notice of Reorganization.--The Secretary shall 
     provide notice to the Committees on Science, Resources, and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days before 
     any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity 
     of the National Sea Grant College Program.''.

     SEC. 10. CLERICAL, CONFORMING, AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) Section 203(3) (33 U.S.C. 1122(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``the term'' and inserting ``The term''.
       (2) Section 203(6) (33 U.S.C. 1122(6)) is amended by moving 
     subparagraph (F) 2 ems to the right, so that the left margin 
     of subparagraph (F) is aligned with the left margin of 
     subparagraph (E).
       (3) The heading for section 204 (33 U.S.C. 1124) is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 204. NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM.''.

       (4) Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128) is amended by striking all 
     of the matter that follows the first full sentence through 
     ``shall advise'', and inserting ``(b) Duties.--The panel 
     shall advise''.
       (5) Section 205(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1124(b)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``or section 206''.
       (6) Section 204(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1123(d)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``five positions'' and inserting ``one 
     position''; and
       (B) by striking ``the maximum rate for GS-18 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332'' and inserting ``a rate 
     established by the Secretary, not to exceed the maximum daily 
     rate payable under section 5376''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 204(b)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1123(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``maximum rate for GS-18'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the sentence and inserting ``maximum rate 
     payable under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (2) Section 209 (33 U.S.C. 1128) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(3) by striking ``colleges and sea 
     grant regional consortia'' and inserting ``institutions''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (c)(1) in the last sentence in clause (A) 
     by striking ``college, sea grant regional consortium,'' and 
     inserting ``institution''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 209(c)(5)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
     1128(c)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``the daily rate for 
     GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, 
     United States Code'' and inserting ``a rate established by 
     the Secretary, not to exceed the maximum daily rate payable 
     under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code''.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr of California

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Farr of California:
       Page 6, beginning at line 16, amend section 7 to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 7. SEA GRANT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendment.--Section 3(a) of the Sea Grant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a(a)) is amended in 
     paragraph (6), by striking ``living marine resources'' and 
     all that follows through the end of the paragraph and 
     inserting ``living marine resources.''.
       (b) Program Sunset.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement 
     Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 209(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1128(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``and section 3 of the Sea 
     Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976''.
       (3) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect 
     October 1, 2000.

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment which 
essentially maintains the Sea Grant International Program authorization 
without limitation on the countries with which we can collaborate 
through the year 2000.
  We are now becoming more and more aware of how our oceans and Great 
Lakes are truly international. We just heard of the issue of the zebra 
mussels which obviously is not just a United States issue, it is a 
Canadian issue. The very nature of the marine environment dictates that 
ocean resources are seldom, if ever, conveniently contained within one 
nation's boundaries.

[[Page H3885]]

  On May 19 and 20 of this year, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] hosted an advisory committee on the protection of the seas here 
in this Capitol. I attended that with Vice President Al Gore, with the 
Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich]; 
Secretary of Defense, William Cohen; Secretary of the Navy, John 
Dalton; and fellow Representatives including the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Kennedy], the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher]; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton], and others, as well as representatives from agencies and 
countries from around the world. We were all here to discuss the 
importance of oceans in the world's security.

                              {time}  1200

  We must recognize that the need for international collaboration and 
conservation is indeed international, and our goal is of sustainable 
efforts. My amendment would extend the authorization through the year 
2000, with the hope that in the intervening years we will dedicate 
money to this program and revisit it in the 3 years to judge whether it 
has merit.
  It also opens up the program to be used to collaborate with any 
country which we believe would be advantageous to us to work with for 
marine resources issues. I want to make it clear that this program 
provides for international collaboration on research, education, and 
conservation, and that funding is only allowed to go to institutions of 
higher education, laboratories, and institutes in the United States and 
U.S. territories.
  I will be glad to answer any questions on my amendment. I know of no 
opposition, and I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following document:

                                Annex IV


  potomac declaration: toward enhanced ocean security into the third 
                               millenium

       The Vice-President of the United States of America, Hon. Al 
     Gore; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich; 
     Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence of 
     Portugal, Senhor Antonio Vitorino; Executive Director of the 
     United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Ms. Elizabeth 
     Dowdeswell; Assistant Secretary General of the United 
     Nations, Dr. Nay Htun; 215 governmental and other 
     participants from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cambodia, 
     Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, India, 
     Japan, Korea, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, 
     Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russian Federation, the 
     Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United 
     Kingdom and the United States of America, including 18 
     ministers and deputy ministers; representatives of the 
     following intergovernmental organisations: United Nations; 
     UNEP; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the World 
     Bank; the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of 
     UNESCO; the Organisation of American States (OAS); and the 
     Commission of the European Union; as well as members of the 
     European Parliament and legislatures from Brazil, 
     Philippines, and the United States; representatives of ACOPS 
     and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs); and 
     representatives of the scientific community and private 
     sector adopted the following Declaration:


                             the conference

       Recognising that:
       Continuing intensification of human activity in coastal and 
     marine areas will adversely affect marine and coastal 
     ecosystems world-wide and threatens the well-being of the 
     human population. The natural resource base of world 
     fisheries is threatened by over exploitation, habitat 
     degradation, introduction of alien species and loss of 
     biological diversity. Human security is threatened by 
     unsustainable food production, increased public health 
     hazards and unemployment, which may contribute to escalating 
     human conflicts. Humans themselves have entered into conflict 
     with the very environment which supports them. It is vital to 
     take immediate action to strengthen environmental security if 
     global human security is to be sustained;
       Climate change threatens to affect ocean levels and 
     temperature, the land and peoples living in low elevation 
     coastal regions, and species dependent on oceans and land 
     touched by oceans. The oceans play an essential role in the 
     planet's climate, though the mechanisms are poorly 
     understood; and
       Sustainable development, including conservation of the 
     marine environment, can actually increase environmental, food 
     and economic security and therefore provide a foundation for 
     political security.
       Recommended that:
       1. Policies and action by all economic and social sectors 
     adversely affecting the marine environment and resources 
     should be made compatible with sustainable development in 
     order to promote environmental, food and economic security, 
     and to prevent conflicts over natural resources between and 
     within states. Consciousness of the fact that poverty is a 
     root cause of environmental problems must guide policy 
     making. Wasteful consumption patterns must also be addressed.
       2. Management of marine and coastal ecosystems, carried out 
     within the framework of integrated coastal and watershed 
     areas management and responsible fisheries, should be based 
     on the full application of the precautionary principle and 
     ecosystem approach, thus achieving the conservation and 
     sustainable use of biological diversity and its components in 
     marine and coastal ecosystems.
       3. Scientific research should be increasingly directed 
     towards the understanding of the marine and coastal 
     ecosystems thus providing a basis for policies and action for 
     their conservation and sustainable use. Such research would 
     profit from greater and improved access to data which has 
     been declassified or derived from national security systems, 
     and should include use of innovative techniques for 
     measurement of basic parameters. The possibilities of 
     satellite monitoring of the marine environment should be 
     exploited to the full.
       4. International cooperation for the protection of the 
     marine environment and the sustainable use of marine 
     resources must be expanded following the framework of active 
     implementation of the United Nations Law of the Sea 
     Convention, and other relevant conventions and agreements in 
     the fields of environment, fisheries and marine transport, 
     among others. All governments that have not done so, should 
     ratify UNCLOS, as amended in 1994, given that it is an 
     historical international agreement which establishes global 
     maritime boundaries and provides a framework for balancing 
     governance of marine resources, conservation, and traditional 
     freedoms of navigation for trade and naval movements. Binding 
     agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and 
     the Framework Convention on Climate Change should also be 
     ratified by all governments as soon as possible. Moreover, 
     initiatives such as the Global Plan of Action for the 
     Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Sources 
     and the International Coral Reef Initiative, should also be 
     actively supported. Degradation of the marine environment, 
     not yet covered by international agreements, such as the 
     problems posed by hazardous organic substances, should be 
     addressed as soon as possible in an integrated manner. 
     Regional cooperation for the protection of the marine 
     environment and sustainable fisheries should be strengthened 
     and coordinated.
       5. It is of paramount importance to deepen our current 
     understanding of the root causes of the environmental issues 
     in terms of market failures, inadequacies in policy and 
     governance, and deficiencies in information. A profound 
     interdisciplinary study, bridging social and physical 
     sciences and integrating seas and associated land catchment 
     areas, is required at a national, regional and global level. 
     This should lead to practical measures to address the root 
     causes of the problems themselves. Initiatives such as the 
     recently proposed GEF Global International Water Assessment 
     (GIWA) should be supported.
       6. In order to preserve the availability and health of the 
     world's fisheries, effective conservation measures based on 
     the FAO Code of Conduct of Responsible Fishing and the UN 
     Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory 
     Fish, should be put into place. Harvesting capacities should 
     be controlled, management institutions established, fish 
     habitat protected and the necessary scientific knowledge and 
     data pursued. Major efforts should be made to strengthen 
     decision making in regional fisheries organizations or 
     arrangements.
       7. Data gathering systems should be put in to place so that 
     the information and knowledge is available for wise decision-
     making, especially in the coastal zones. These observation 
     systems should be used to ensure continuous benefit. 
     Governments should actively support global oceanic 
     observation systems at a national, regional and global level. 
     Scientific research and information should be directed 
     towards wise decision-making in marine and coastal areas.
       8. The end of the cold war and diminution of the risk of 
     global conflict has opened up new possibilities for utilizing 
     national security systems formerly devoted to military 
     activities for peaceful purposes and, in particular, for 
     enhancing the capacity for environmental protection and for 
     sustainable development. The military establishment should 
     share with other societal sectors its enormous scientific and 
     technological capabilities in order to improve our 
     understanding of the functioning of the coastal and marine 
     ecosystems, a condition to enhance environmental security of 
     marine and coastal areas. Each nation should initiate a 
     review of their sensitive data and information, as pioneered 
     by Russia and the US, for declassification and use in 
     diagnosing environmental problems and expanding our knowledge 
     base.
       9. Environmental considerations should be incorporated into 
     all sectors of government, while empowering environmental 
     ministries to actively promote this development. Civil 
     society should also be empowered through greater access to 
     environmental information and more active participation in 
     decision-

[[Page H3886]]

     making. This is of particular relevance for local communities 
     which have traditionally inhabited coastal zones and made use 
     of marine resources.
       10. Concerted national and international efforts should be 
     undertaken to introduce environmental studies into all levels 
     of formal school curricula at a global level, in order to 
     eliminate environmental illiteracy, increase environmental 
     awareness, and promote deeper environmental ethics. Up-to-
     date scientific knowledge about the oceans should be 
     popularised and disseminated to the public both through 
     formal education and creative communication channels such as 
     arts, music, and multi-media. In support of this effort, the 
     year 2000 should be declared as the ``Year of Environmental 
     Awareness'' by the UN General Assembly at its forthcoming 
     Special Session.
       11. Efforts should be directed at national, regional, and 
     global levels for mitigation and adaptation to global climate 
     change, as it is likely to threaten the lives and livelihood 
     of millions of people via sea-level rise, changes in ocean 
     salinity, temperature, and production of fisheries and other 
     aquatic life. Climate change affects the economic, 
     environmental and food security of nations. Therefore 
     multilateral and bilateral cooperation should be enhanced to 
     reduce the negative effects of climate change.
       12. Given the urgent and imperative need to fully implement 
     the above recommendations, a concrete action plan should be 
     developed to elaborate problems and root causes, and to 
     propose specific actions by ACOPS, and to recommend 
     appropriate organisations and parties to bear responsibility 
     for the implementation of the measures. Such an action plan 
     could be presented to the ACOPS/GLOBE Conference (Stockholm, 
     January 1998) and could be adopted at its ministerial 
     segment. The Conference will inaugurate the 1998 
     International Year of the Oceans.
       13. The Potomac Declaration should be submitted, through 
     the host country, to: the Special Session of the General 
     Assembly of the United Nations, to be held in June 1997; to 
     appropriate United Nations Agencies and regional 
     organisations, including regional economic integration 
     communities; appropriate government agencies; legislative 
     bodies, including GLOBE, Asia Pacific Parliamentarians for 
     Environment and Development, and the International 
     Parliamentary Union; appropriate representatives of the 
     private sector; and local authorities and non-governmental 
     organisations.

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the Farr amendment will maintain authorization of the 
Sea Grant International Program which promotes shared marine activities 
in nations which have mutual interest with the United States.
  As we all know, the world is 70 percent covered with water, and the 
oceans and their resources recognize no political boundaries. It is 
helpful to our national interests to have a mechanism through which we 
can collaborate with other coastal nations on research that will 
ultimately affect all of us, so I believe the Farr amendment is well-
intended, well-written, and I rise in support, and ask others on this 
side of the aisle to support his amendment as well.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Farr amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tauzin:
       Page 8, strike line 24 and all that follows through page 9, 
     line 3, and insert the following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act--
       ``(A) $55,300,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(B) $56,400,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(C) $57,500,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       Page 9, line 4, strike ``disease''.
       Page 9, strike lines 14 though 16 and insert the following:
       ``(B) up to $3,000,000 of the amount may be made available 
     for competitive grants for university research on oyster 
     diseases and oyster-related human health risks.''.

  Mr. TAUZIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today is an amendment 
to provide authority for up to $3 million of the amount that may be 
available for competitive grants for university research on oyster 
diseases and oyster-related human health risks.
  Oysters are an important national resource in America. They are a 
safe and nutritional meat protein that provides many benefits to those 
who enjoy eating them. Of course, millions are consumed each year. But 
research into health-related aspects of oyster growing and harvesting 
and sales and consumption in America is very important.
  Earlier this year the President called for the national food safety 
initiative. The proposal we make today is consistent with the 
President's approach of developing positive and practical solutions to 
improve food safety. The program brings the Sea Grant scientists and 
the oyster industry together to find solutions to concerns related to 
oysters' health and particularly to diseases that might be related to 
humans, who enjoy eating oysters in America.
  This amendment provides for an increased authorization of $1 million 
in each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and the year 2000, and the 
authority to make available those moneys for competitive grants at Sea 
Grant universities around the country.
  Sea Grant universities are currently in fact doing a great deal of 
work in this area. This amendment is meant to make sure that not only 
the oyster diseases are studied but oyster-related health concerns to 
humans who enjoy oyster products in America are also studied and, 
indeed, identified, and taken care of in this country.
  I urge the committee to adopt this amendment. It is very much in line 
with the excellent work the Sea Grant College Program authorization has 
already accomplished in many areas, and will compliment the work 
already being done by many Sea Grant universities in this country in 
this important health and food safety area.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana for a very well 
thought out amendment, Mr. Chairman. Obviously New Jersey's Sea Grant 
Program involves some research relative to oysters. This is a side of 
the aisle, different but equally important angle. I offer my strong 
support and ask others to do the same.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]. We are all oyster lovers.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: 
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 11. BUY AMERICAN.

       (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds 
     appropriated pursuant to section 212(a), as amended by this 
     Act, may be expended by an entity unless the entity agrees 
     that in expending the assistance the entity will comply with 
     sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c, popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment or 
     products that may be authorized to be purchased with 
     financial assistance provided under section 212(a), as 
     amended by this Act, it is the sense of Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under section 212(a), as amended by this 
     Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I too am concerned about zebra mussels 
and oyster diseases. I certainly wish and hope that I never get any of 
them.
  My amendment is a little bit different. It deals with a buy-American

[[Page H3887]]

provision. Just briefly, 90 percent of American workers, according to 
an analysis performed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, 90 percent, by 
major print media, it says that 90 percent of American workers are 
worried about losing their jobs, their homes, and maybe their pensions. 
They have never seen so much fear in the workplace.
  They also said for every $1 of income there is $2 of debt for 
American workers. Individual bankruptcies hit an all-time record, an 
all-time record level. Credit card debt is at an all-time level, 
manufacturing jobs continue to leave, and the trade deficit with Japan 
and China is so much we cannot count it.
  So my amendment basically says when expending the dollars under this 
Sea Grant Program, they shall comply with the buy-American laws and do 
everything possible competitively to buy American-made goods and 
products, and there shall be a notice made to recipients of assistance 
of the concerns of Congress, and their encouragement of them to buy 
American.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       At the end of the amendment, add the following new tile:

              TITLE II--GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ACT

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 202. CONTINUING FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--If any regular appropriation bill for 
     fiscal year 1998 does not become law prior to the beginning 
     of fiscal year 1998 or a joint resolution making continuing 
     appropriations is not in effect, there is appropriated, out 
     of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and 
     out of applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and 
     funds, such sums as may be necessary to continue any program, 
     project, or activity for which funds were provided in fiscal 
     year 1997.
       (b) Level of Funding.--Appropriations and funds made 
     available, and authority granted, for a program, project, or 
     activity for fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall be 
     at 100 percent of the rate of operations that was provided 
     for the program, project, or activity in fiscal year 1997 in 
     the corresponding regular appropriation Act for fiscal year 
     1997.
       (c) Period of Availability.--Appropriations and funds made 
     available, and authority granted, for fiscal year 1998 
     pursuant to this title for a program, project, or activity 
     shall be available for the period beginning with the first 
     day of a lapse in appropriations and ending with the earlier 
     of--
       (1) the date on which the applicable regular appropriation 
     bill for fiscal year 1998 becomes law (whether or not that 
     law provides for that program, project, or activity) or a 
     continuing resolution making appropriations becomes law, as 
     the case may be; or
       (2) the last day of fiscal year 1998.

     SEC. 203. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General--An appropriation of funds made available, 
     or authority granted, for a program, project, or activity for 
     fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall be made 
     available to the extent and in the manner which would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act for fiscal year 
     1997, including all of the terms and conditions and the 
     apportionment schedule imposed with respect to the 
     appropriation made or funds made available for fiscal year 
     1997 or authority granted for the program, project, or 
     activity under current law.
       (b) Extent and Manner.--Appropriations made by this title 
     shall be available to the extent and in the manner which 
     would be provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.

     SEC. 204. COVERAGE.

       Appropriations and funds made available, and authority 
     granted, for any program, project, or activity for fiscal 
     year 1998 pursuant to this title shall cover all obligations 
     or expenditures incurred for that program, project, or 
     activity during the portion of fiscal year 1998 for which 
     this title applies to that program, project, or activity.

     SEC. 205. EXPENDITURES.

       Expenditures made for a program, project, or activity for 
     fiscal year 1998 pursuant to this title shall be charged to 
     the applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization whenever 
     a regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution making 
     continuing appropriations until the end of fiscal year 1998 
     providing for that program, project, or activity for that 
     period becomes law.

     SEC. 206. INITIATING OR RESUMING A PROGRAM, PROJECT, OR 
                   ACTIVITY.

       No appropriation or funds made available or authority 
     granted pursuant to this title shall be used to initiate or 
     resume any program, project, or activity for which 
     appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available 
     during fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 207. PROTECTION OF OTHER OBLIGATIONS.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to effect 
     Government obligations mandated by other law, including 
     obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, 
     Medicaid, and veterans benefits.

     SEC. 208. DEFINITION.

       In this title, the term ``regular appropriation bill'' 
     means any annual appropriation bill making appropriations, 
     otherwise making funds available, or granting authority, for 
     any of the following categories of programs, projects, and 
     activities:
       (1) Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies 
     programs.
       (2) The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and related agencies.
       (3) The Department of Defense.
       (4) The government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 
     revenues of the District.
       (5) The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
     and Education, and related agencies.
       (6) The Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban 
     Development, and sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices.
       (7) Energy and water development.
       (8) Foreign assistance and related programs.
       (9) The Department of the Interior and related agencies.
       (10) Military construction.
       (11) The Department of Transportation and related agencies.
       (12) The Treasury Department, the U.S. Postal Service, the 
     Executive Office of the President, and certain independent 
     agencies.
       (13) The Legislative Branch.
       Before section 1, insert the following:

      TITLE I--NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. SHADEGG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I object that this amendment is 
not germane to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] reserve 
his point of order, or is the gentleman from California making his 
point of order at this time?
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman makes a point of order that the amendment 
is not germane.
  Does the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is recognized 
on the point of order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me this is in fact very 
germane. It has to do with the operations of the Federal Government. It 
is clear to me we do not need to see another Federal Government 
shutdown. It is important that we take steps now to ensure that Federal 
employees not lose their jobs, and that we not go through that scenario 
again.
  This is a proposal to assure the American people that we do not once 
again face the prospect of shutting down the Government, and to assure 
that neither side blackmails the other to ensure or to force increased 
spending. It seems to me that is germane to this measure. It seems to 
me it will place this Congress and the U.S. Government in the position 
that we all agree it should be in.
  The President has said that we should never again shut down the 
Government. He made that statement both in January, twice in January, 
and once again in March of this year. This measure, I believe, is 
germane in that it assures that Federal employees, veterans, Social 
Security recipients, all of those who depend upon the services of the 
Federal Government, would not lose their jobs.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, it assures that we will not face a 
situation where one side can blackmail the other side into increasing 
more spending. It is identical to the provision which was offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] last week, and it takes 
important steps that this Government needs to take to assure that

[[Page H3888]]

operations continue when we reach the end of the fiscal year.
  It seems to me that if that is not germane to this legislation and 
the operations of this Government, then it ought to be germane and it 
ought to be allowed to have a vote at this particular time. I would 
urge that it is germane, I would urge that it is important that we make 
it clear to the people of America that we will not ever again shut down 
the Government, nor will we allow one side to threaten the other side 
in a blackmail.
  It is quite evident that the President wants to use the threat of a 
shutdown in this Congress in order to force increased spending. I think 
that is inappropriate. This is a proposal offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to accomplish a very important task for this 
Nation. It seems to me essential that we act upon it and that we act 
upon it now.
  Whether we send it to the President as a freestanding bill or we send 
it to the President attached to this measure, it is important that we 
assure all of those who rely upon Government services that spending 
will continue, that certain minimal services will be preserved.
  It is also important for those who pay the tax bill that we not allow 
spending to get out of hand, and that we not allow one side to 
blackmail the other into spending more money with the threat of a 
Government shutdown hanging over our heads. It seems to me clearly 
germane to this issue and very important that we act on this, and that 
we act on it now. What we were seeking to do last year was serious.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I call for regular order and a 
point of order. This is an authorization bill, not an appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FARR of California. It has to do with sea grants.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Members will suspend.
  The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] should confine his remarks 
simply to the question of the point of order. With that admonition, the 
gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. GEKAS. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] wish 
to be heard on the germaneness point of order?
  Mr. GEKAS. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, we have had a recurring battle over the 
years as to whether or not this type of amendment would be germane to a 
subject like the one that is presently on the floor. We are trying to 
convince the Parliamentarian and the Speaker's office that when we talk 
about a matter that has to do with a continuation of Government, to 
prevent shutdown of Government by a transition type of mechanism that 
we are constantly proposing, that we are, in effect, allowing this 
measure today to actually go into effect, because if we do have to shut 
down Government, then this measure and all its sister measures will be 
of no avail. They will be of no force, because during the shutdown of 
Government they will go out of existence.
  That is why we say that a motion, an amendment that would continue 
Government, prevent Government shutdown, facilitates this legislation, 
the subject matter that is on the floor here. Although it has to do 
with perhaps a budget concept, the very existence of the agency that 
would be promulgating and continuing the work of the subject matter of 
this would be in jeopardy if the Government shuts down. That is why we 
feel this is germane.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member desires to argue on the point of 
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] simply wish to submit 
the issue to the Chair with respect to germaneness?
  Mr. FARR of California. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment involves legislative jurisdictions and 
subject matters, to wit, appropriations, beyond those in the pending 
bill, and pursues purposes different from those pursued in the bill. 
The amendment is not germane. The point of order is sustained.

                              {time}  1215

  Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having resumed the chair, Mr. Rogan, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 437) to 
reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 164, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422, 
nays 3, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               YEAS--422

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham

[[Page H3889]]


     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--3

     Hefley
     Paul
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Barton
     Largent
     Lipinski
     Miller (CA)
     Pombo
     Schiff
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)

                              {time}  1236

  Mr. BERMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________