[House Report 104-237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                            Rept. 104-237
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1995

_______________________________________________________________________


                 August 4, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

   THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
          ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                                  and

                     MINORITY AND ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1815]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1815) to authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendments......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the bill.............................................9
 III. Background and need for legislation.............................9
  IV. Summary of hearing.............................................15
   V. Committee actions..............................................17
  VI. Summary of authorizations and major provisions of the bill.....20
 VII. Section-by-section analysis....................................22
      Section 1. Short Title.........................................22
      Section 2. Definitions.........................................22
      Title I. Atmospheric, Weather, and Satellite Programs..........23
      Title II. Marine Research......................................24
      Title III. Program Support.....................................25
      Title IV. Streamlining of Operations...........................26
      Title V. Miscellaneous.........................................27
VIII. Committee views................................................28
      Agency budget justification....................................28
      Titles I, II & III. Authorizations of appropriations...........29
          National Weather Service...............................    29
          Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.......................    32
          National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
            Service..............................................    35
          National Ocean Service.................................    36
          Program Support........................................    38
          Non-ORF Accounts.......................................    39
      Title V. Streamlining of Operations............................40
          Terminations...........................................    40
          Limitations on appropriations..........................    42
          Reduction in commissioned officer corps................    42
      Title V. Miscellaneous.........................................42
          Duties of National Weather Service.....................    42
          Reimbursement of expenses..............................    43
          Eligibility for awards.................................    43
          Prohibition of lobbying activities.....................    43
          Report on laboratories.................................    43
  IX. Committee cost estimate........................................43
   X. Congressional Budget Office analysis and cost estimates........44
  XI. Effect of legislation on inflation.............................47
 XII. Oversight findings and recommendations.........................47
XIII. Oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................47
 XIV. Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported..........47
  XV. Minority views.................................................59
 XVI. Additional views...............................................61
XVII. Proceedings from Subcommittee markup...........................64
XVIII.Proceedings from Full Committee markup........................166


                             I. Amendments

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this Act, the term--
          (1) ``Act of 1890'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        increase the efficiency and reduce the expenses of the Signal 
        Corps of the Army, and to transfer the Weather Bureau to the 
        Department of Agriculture'', approved October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 
        653);
          (2) ``Act of 1947'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to define 
        the functions and duties of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and 
        for other purposes'', approved August 6, 1947 (33 U.S.C. 883a 
        et seq.);
          (3) ``Act of 1970'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        clarify the status and benefits of commissioned officers of the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other 
        purposes'', approved December 31, 1970 (33 U.S.C. 857-1 et 
        seq.);
          (4) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
          (5) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.

         TITLE I--ATMOSPHERIC, WEATHER, AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS

SEC. 101. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

  (a) Operations and Research.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out the operations and research duties of the 
National Weather Service, $472,338,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such 
duties include meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic public 
warnings and forecasts, as well as applied research in support of such 
warnings and forecasts.
  (b) Systems Acquisition.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out the public warning and forecast systems 
duties of the National Weather Service, $79,034,000 for fiscal year 
1996. Such duties include the development, acquisition, and 
implementation of major public warning and forecast systems. None of 
the funds authorized under this subsection shall be used for the 
purposes for which funds are authorized under section 102(b) of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 
1992 (Public Law 102-567). None of the funds authorized by such section 
102(b) shall be expended for a particular NEXRAD installation unless--
          (1) it is identified as a National Weather Service NEXRAD 
        installation in the National Implementation Plan for 
        modernization of the National Weather Service, required under 
        section 703 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567); 
        or
          (2) it is to be used only for spare parts, not as an 
        installation at a particular site.
  (c) New NEXRAD Installations.--No funds may be obligated for NEXRAD 
installations not identified in the National Implementation Plan for 
1996, unless the Secretary certifies that such NEXRAD installations can 
be acquired within the authorization for NEXRAD contained in section 
102(b) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of 1992.
  (d) ASOS Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in subsection 
(b), $16,952,000 for fiscal year 1996 are authorized to be appropriated 
to the Secretary, for the acquisition and deployment of--
          (A) the Automated Surface Observing System and related 
        systems, including multisensor and backup arrays for National 
        Weather Service sites at airports; and
          (B) Automated Meteorological Observing System and Remote 
        Automated Meteorological Observing System replacement units,
and to cover all associated activities, including program management 
and operations and maintenance.
  (e) AWIPS Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in subsection (b), 
there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $52,097,000 
for fiscal year 1996, to remain available until expended, for--
          (1) the acquisition and deployment of the Advanced Weather 
        Interactive Processing System and NOAA Port and associated 
        activities; and
          (2) associated program management and operations and 
        maintenance.
  (f) Construction of Weather Forecast Offices.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out construction, repair, and 
modification activities relating to new and existing weather forecast 
offices, $20,628,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such activities include 
planning, design, and land acquisition related to such offices.
  (g) Streamlining Weather Service Modernization.--
          (1) Repeals.--Sections 706 and 707 of the Weather Service 
        Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) are repealed.
          (2) Conforming amendments.--The Weather Service Modernization 
        Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended--
                  (A) in section 702, by striking paragraph (3) and 
                redesignating paragraphs (4) through (10) as paragraphs 
                (3) through (9), respectively; and
                  (B) in section 703--
                          (i) by striking ``(a) National Implementation 
                        Plan.--'';
                          (ii) by striking paragraph (3) and 
                        redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as 
                        paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
                          (iii) by striking subsections (b) and (c).

SEC. 102. ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

  (a) Climate and Air Quality Research.--(1) There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out its climate and air quality 
research duties, $86,757,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such duties include 
interannual and seasonal climate research and long-term climate and air 
quality research.
  (2) The Administrator shall ensure that at least the same percentage 
of the climate and air quality research funds that were provided to 
institutions of higher education for fiscal year 1995 is provided to 
institutions of higher education from funds authorized by this 
subsection.
  (b) Atmospheric Programs.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out its atmospheric research duties, 
$39,894,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such duties include research for 
developing improved prediction capabilities for atmospheric processes, 
as well as solar-terrestrial research and services.
  (c) GLOBE Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out the Global Learning and Observations to 
Benefit the Environment program, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 103. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, AND INFORMATION 
                    SERVICE.

  (a) Satellite Observing Systems.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out its satellite observing systems 
duties, $319,448,000 for fiscal year 1996, to remain available until 
expended. Such duties include spacecraft procurement, launch, and 
associated ground station systems involving polar orbiting and 
geostationary environmental satellites, as well as the operation of 
such satellites. None of the funds authorized under this subsection 
shall be used for the purposes for which funds are authorized under 
section 105(d) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567).
  (b) POES Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in subsection 
(a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
$184,425,000 for fiscal year 1996, to remain available until expended, 
for the procurement of Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites K, L, M, 
N, and N1, and the procurement of the launching and supporting 
ground systems of such satellites.
  (c) Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites.--Of the sums 
authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
to the Administrator $46,300,000 for fiscal year 1996, to remain 
available until expended--
          (1) to procure up to three additional Geostationary 
        Operational Environmental NEXT Satellites (GOES I-M clones) and 
        instruments; and
          (2) for contracts, and amendments or modifications of 
        contracts, with the developer of previous GOES-NEXT satellites 
        for the acquisition of the additional satellites and 
        instruments described in paragraph (1).
  (d) Environmental Data and Information Services.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its environmental 
data and information services duties, $35,665,000 for fiscal year 1996. 
Such duties include climate data services, geophysical data services, 
and environmental assessment and information services.
  (e) National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 
System Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in subsection 
(a), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for 
fiscal year 1996, $39,500,000, to remain available until expended, for 
the procurement of the National Polar- Orbiting Operational 
Environmental Satellite System, and the procurement of the launching 
and supporting ground systems of such satellites.

                       TITLE II--MARINE RESEARCH

SEC. 201. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

  (a) Mapping and Charting.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out mapping and charting activities under the 
Act of 1947 and any other law involving those activities, $29,149,000.
  (b) Geodesy.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out geodesy activities under the Act of 1947 
and any other law involving those activities, $19,927,000 for fiscal 
year 1996.
  (c) Observation and Prediction.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration to carry out observation and prediction 
        activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
        those activities, $11,279,000 for fiscal year 1996.
          (2) Circulatory survey program.--In addition to amounts 
        authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Circulatory 
        Survey Program, $695,000 for fiscal year 1996.
          (3) Ocean and earth sciences.--In addition to amounts 
        authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration to carry out ocean and earth 
        science activities, $4,231,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (d) Estuarine and Coastal Assessment.--
          (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration to support estuarine and coastal assessment 
        activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
        those activities, $1,171,000 for fiscal year 1996.
          (2) Ocean assessment.--In addition to amounts authorized 
        under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration to carry out the National Status and Trends 
        Program, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Program, and 
        the Hazardous Materials Response Program, $8,401,000 for fiscal 
        year 1996.
          (3) Damage assessment program.--In addition to amounts 
        authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Damage 
        Assessment Program, $585,000 for fiscal year 1996.
          (4) Coastal ocean program.--In addition to amounts authorized 
        under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration to carry out the Coastal Ocean Program, 
        $9,158,000 for fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 202. OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES RESEARCH.

  (a) Marine Prediction Research.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine prediction research 
activities under the Act of 1947, the Act of 1890, and any other law 
involving those activities, $13,763,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (b) National Sea Grant College Program.--(1) Section 212(a) of the 
National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1131(a)) is amended 
to read as follows:
  ``(a) Grants and Contracts; Fellowships.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out sections 205 and 208, $34,500,000 for fiscal 
year 1996.''.
  (2) Section 212(b)(1) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1131(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``an amount'' and all 
that follows through ``not to exceed $2,900,000'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``$1,500,000 for fiscal year 1996''.
  (3) Section 203(4) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 
U.S.C. 1122(4)) is amended by striking ``discipline or field'' and all 
that follows through ``public administration)'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``field or discipline involving scientific research''.

SEC. 203. USE OF OCEAN RESEARCH RESOURCES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

  (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
          (1) Observing, monitoring, and predicting the ocean 
        environment has been a high priority for the defense community 
        to support ocean operations.
          (2) Many advances in ocean research have been made by the 
        defense community which could be shared with civilian 
        researchers.
          (3) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
        missions to describe and predict the ocean environment, manage 
        the Nation's ocean and coastal resources, and promote 
        stewardship of the world's oceans would benefit from increased 
        cooperation with defense agencies.
  (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress that the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should expand its 
efforts to develop interagency agreements to further the use of 
defense-related technologies, data, and other resources to support its 
oceanic missions.
  (c) Report.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
        the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 
        submit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
        Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
        Transportation of the Senate a report on the feasibility of 
        expanding the use of defense-related technologies, data, and 
        other resources to support and enhance the oceanic missions of 
        the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
          (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall 
        include--
                  (A) a detailed listing of defense-related resources 
                currently available to the National Oceanic and 
                Atmospheric Administration and the National Oceanic and 
                Atmospheric Administration missions which utilize those 
                resources;
                  (B) detailed findings and recommendations, including 
                funding requirements, on the potential for expanding 
                the use of available defense-related resources;
                  (C) a detailed listing and funding history of the 
                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
                resources, including data and technology, which could 
                be supplemented by defense-related resources;
                  (D) a listing of currently unavailable defense-
                related resources, including data and technology, which 
                if made available would enhance the National Oceanic 
                and Atmospheric Administration mission performance;
                  (E) recommendations on the regulatory and legislative 
                structures needed to maximize the use of defense-
                related resources;
                  (F) an assessment of the respective roles in the use 
                of defense-related resources of the Army Corps of 
                Engineers, data centers, operational centers, and 
                research facilities of the National Oceanic and 
                Atmospheric Administration; and
                  (G) recommendations on how to provide access to 
                relevant defense-related data for non-Federal 
                scientific users.

                       TITLE III--PROGRAM SUPPORT

SEC. 301. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

  (a) Executive Direction and Administrative Activities.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out executive direction 
and administrative activities under the Act of 1970 and any other law 
involving those activities, $20,632,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (b) Central Administrative Support.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out central administrative support 
activities under the Act of 1970 and any other law involving those 
activities, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (c) Retired Pay.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary, for retired pay for retired commissioned officers of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Act of 1970, 
$7,706,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (d) Marine Services.--
          (1) Contracting authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, the Secretary is authorized to enter into 
        contracts for data or days-at-sea to fulfill the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration missions of marine 
        research, climate research, fisheries research, and mapping and 
        charting services.
          (2) UNOLS vessel agreements.--In fulfilling the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mission requirements 
        described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use excess 
        capacity of University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System 
        vessels where appropriate, and may enter into memoranda of 
        agreement with operators of those vessels to carry out those 
        mission requirements.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to 
        be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine 
        services activities, including activities described in 
        paragraphs (1) and (2), $60,689,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (e) Aircraft Services.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out aircraft services activities (including 
aircraft operations, maintenance, and support) under the Act of 1970 
and any other law involving those activities, $9,548,000 for fiscal 
year 1996.
  (f) Facilities Repairs and Renovations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration to carry out facilities repairs and 
renovations, $7,374,000 for fiscal year 1996.

                  TITLE IV--STREAMLINING OF OPERATIONS

SEC. 401. PROGRAM TERMINATIONS.

  (a) Terminations.--No funds may be appropriated for the following 
programs and accounts:
          (1) The National Undersea Research Program.
          (2) The Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding, and Construction 
        Account.
          (3) The Charleston, South Carolina, Special Management Plan.
          (4) Chesapeake Bay Observation Buoys.
          (5) Federal/State Weather Modification Grants.
          (6) The Southeast Storm Research Account.
          (7) The Southeast United States Caribbean Fisheries 
        Oceanographic Coordinated Investigations Program.
          (8) National Institute for Environmental Renewal.
          (9) The Lake Champlain Study.
          (10) The Maine Marine Research Center.
          (11) The South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic Survey Account.
          (12) Pacific Island Technical Assistance.
          (13) Sea Grant/Oyster Disease Account.
          (14) National Coastal Research and Development Institute 
        Account.
          (15) VENTS program.
          (16) National Weather Service non-Federal, non-wildfire Fire 
        Weather Service.
          (17) National Weather Service Regional Climate Centers.
          (18) National Weather Service Samoa Weather Forecast Office 
        Repair and Upgrade Account.
          (19) Dissemination of Weather Charts (Marine Facsimile 
        Service).
  (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate a report certifying that all the 
programs listed in subsection (a) will be terminated no later than 
September 30, 1995.
  (c) Repeal of Sea Grant Programs.--
          (1) Repeals.--(A) Section 208(b) of the National Sea Grant 
        College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) is repealed.
          (B) Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 
        1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a) is repealed.
          (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 209 of the National Sea 
        Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)(1)) is amended by 
        striking ``and section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement 
        Act of 1976''.
  (d) Additional Repeal.--The NOAA Fleet Modernization Act (33 U.S.C. 
851 note) is repealed.

SEC. 402. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no funds are authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year 
after fiscal year 1996 for carrying out the programs, projects, and 
activities for which funds are authorized by this Act.
  (b) Fiscal Year 1996.--No more than $1,692,470,000 is authorized to 
be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 1996, by this Act or 
any other Act, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to carry out all activities associated with Operations, 
Research, and Facilities.
  (c) Reduction in Travel Budget.--Of the sums appropriated under this 
Act for Operations, Research, and Facilities, no more than $20,000,000 
may be used for reimbursement of travel and related expenses for 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration personnel.

SEC. 403. REDUCTION IN THE COMMISSIONED OFFICER CORPS.

  (a) Maximum Number.--The total number of commissioned officers on the 
active list of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
shall not exceed--
          (1) 369 for fiscal year 1996;
          (2) 100 for fiscal year 1997; and
          (3) 50 for fiscal year 1998.
No such commissioned officers are authorized for any fiscal year after 
fiscal year 1998.
  (b) Separation Pay.--The Secretary may separate commissioned officers 
from the active list of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, and may do so without providing separation pay.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 501. WEATHER DATA BUOYS.

  (a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized person to 
remove, change the location of, obstruct, willfully damage, make fast 
to, or interfere with any weather data buoy established, installed, 
operated, or maintained by the National Data Buoy Center.
  (b) Civil Penalties.--The Administrator is authorized to assess a 
civil penalty against any person who violates any provision of this 
section in an amount of not more than $10,000 for each violation. Each 
day during which such violation continues shall be considered a new 
offense. Such penalties shall be assessed after notice and opportunity 
for a hearing.
  (c) Rewards.--The Administrator may offer and pay rewards for the 
apprehension and conviction, or for information helpful therein, of 
persons found interfering, in violation of law, with data buoys 
maintained by the National Data Buoy Center; or for information leading 
to the discovery of missing National Weather Service property or the 
recovery thereof.

SEC. 502. DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

  (a) In General.--To protect life and property and enhance the 
national economy, the Secretary, through the National Weather Service, 
except as outlined in subsection (b), shall be responsible for--
          (1) forecasts and shall serve as the sole official source of 
        weather warnings;
          (2) the issue of storm warnings;
          (3) the collection, exchange, and distribution of 
        meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic data 
        and information; and
          (4) the preparation of hydrometeorological guidance and core 
        forecast information.
  (b) Competition With Private Sector.--The National Weather Service 
shall not compete, or assist other entities to compete, with the 
private sector when a service is currently provided or can be provided 
by commercial enterprise, unless--
          (1) the Secretary finds that the private sector is unwilling 
        or unable to provide the services; and
          (2) the service provides vital weather warnings and forecasts 
        for the protection of lives and property of the general public.
  (c) Amendments.--The Act of 1890 is amended--
          (1) by striking section 3 (15 U.S.C. 313); and
          (2) in section 9 (15 U.S.C. 317), by striking all after 
        ``Department of Agriculture'' and inserting in lieu thereof a 
        period.
  (d) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Science of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate a report detailing all National 
Weather Service activities which do not conform to the requirements of 
this section and outlining a timetable for their termination.

SEC. 503. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.

  (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 3302 (b) and (c) of title 
31, United States Code, and subject to subsection (b) of this section, 
all amounts received by the United States in settlement of, or judgment 
for, damage claims arising from the October 9, 1992, allision of the 
vessel ZACHERY into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
research vessel DISCOVERER--
          (1) shall be retained as an offsetting collection in the 
        Marine Services account of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration;
          (2) shall be deposited in that account upon receipt by the 
        United States Government; and
          (3) shall be available only for obligation for National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessel repairs.
  (b) Limitation.--Not more than $518,757.09 of the amounts referred to 
in subsection (a) may be deposited into the Marine Services account 
pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 504. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for awards of financial assistance made by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration after fiscal year 1995 any person who 
received funds, other than those described in subsection (b), 
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal 
funding source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
merit-based award process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to 
this section shall be effective for a period of 5 years after the 
person receives such Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by law.

SEC. 505. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

  None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available for any 
activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the 
Congress, provided that this 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.

SEC. 506. REPORT ON LABORATORIES.

  (a) In General.--No later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a review of the 
laboratories operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and submit a report to the Committee on Science of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate.
  (b) Requirements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall--
          (1) address potential efficiencies and savings which could be 
        achieved through closing or consolidating laboratory 
        facilities;
          (2) review each laboratory's--
                  (A) mission and activities and their correlation to 
                the mission priorities of the National Oceanic and 
                Atmospheric Administration;
                  (B) physical assets, equipment, condition, and 
                personnel resources; and
                  (C) organization and program management; and
          (3) address other issues the Inspector General considers 
        relevant.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for 
fiscal year 1996 and streamline NOAA operations.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
created in 1970 by Executive Order of President Nixon, has 
obtained most of the funding for its programs over the last 
twenty years through direct appropriation without annual 
legislative authorization. In the 98th Congress, legislation 
authorizing NOAA activities for fiscal year 1984, S. 1097, was 
vetoed on October 19, 1984. In the 99th Congress, the 
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Public 
Law 99-272) authorized various NOAA activities, including 
nautical and aeronautical chart programs, marine research and 
monitoring, ocean pollution research, and weather modification 
research. During the 100th Congress, provisions authorizing 
fiscal year 1989 appropriations for NOAA's satellite, 
atmospheric, and weather programs (previously approved by the 
House of Representatives and the Senate as S. 1667) were 
included in Title IV of S. 2209, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989, 
which was signed into law on November 17, 1988 (Public Law 100-
685).
    During the 102nd Congress, the first comprehensive NOAA 
authorization bill was approved and signed into law, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567). With three exceptions, Public 
Law 102-567 only authorized funding for fiscal years 1992 and 
1993. The exceptions are the Next Generation Weather Radar 
(NEXRAD) program and the Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellite (GOES) program which are authorized to 
completion, and NOAA Fleet Modernization which is authorized 
through FY 1997. No comprehensive NOAA authorization bills have 
been signed into law since the 102nd Congress.
    NOAA programs under the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee include all of the National Weather Service, the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Services 
(NESDIS), and portions of the National Ocean Service (NOS).

                      national ocean service (nos)

    NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) is responsible for 
conducting research on the marine environment and providing 
accurate and timely marine, coastal, and aeronautical data in 
various map and chart formats. The NOS mission is to increase 
the efficiency and safety of marine and air transportation, for 
purposes of offshore engineering, coastal zone management, 
military operations and recreational activities. It is also 
responsible for maintaining the National Geodetic Reference 
Systems for accurate geographic positions, elevations, and 
gravity values and their variation with time for national 
defense and space activities, mapping and charting, 
infrastructure maintenance, public works, land information 
systems, and earth science investigations. NOS supports use of 
the Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation and 
positioning and provides consistent spatial coordinates 
critical to Geographic Information System (GIS). NOS also 
includes the Coastal Ocean Program (COP). COP was established 
to promote effective partnerships among academia, non-Federal 
communities and NOAA through long-range grants to conduct 
scientific research which enhances NOAA's marine science and 
management missions.

                 oceanic and atmospheric research (OAR)

    The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) 
conducts most of the scientific research in support of NOAA's 
service organizations. OAR directs research programs in marine 
and atmospheric sciences through its own laboratories and 
offices, as well as through university-based programs across 
the country. OAR's research objectives are aligned with the 
three primary environmental programs of NOAA: Climate, Air 
Quality, and Global Climate Change; Ocean and Great Lakes 
Programs; and Atmospheric Research. The objectives of the 
Climate, Air Quality, and Global Climate Change programs 
include the development of reliable prediction of seasonal and 
interannual climate variation; simulation and assessment of 
long-term climate and air quality changes and effective 
scientific differentiation between natural variability and 
human-induced changes. The objectives of the Ocean and Great 
Lakes programs include research and development of reliable 
marine prediction techniques and the development of sound 
scientific basis for management of marine resources. The 
objectives of the atmospheric research programs include support 
for the modernization of national weather services; development 
of reliable and cost-effective prediction techniques; and 
improved solar-terrestrial (geo-magnetic storm warning) 
services.

                     NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS)

    NOAA's National Weather Service is responsible for weather 
forecasts and severe weather services such as hurricane, 
tornado, and flash flood warnings and alerts. The National 
Weather Service is also responsible for climate forecasts, 
agriculture weather and fire weather services, as well as 
marine forecasts and marine severe weather warnings.
    The United States experiences more severe weather than any 
other country in the world, with loss of life and annual 
property damages estimated in the billions of dollars. Yet, the 
capability of the National Weather Service to provide timely 
warnings of severe weather events is limited by its continued 
reliance on outdated and often inoperable equipment, some of 
which dates back to the 1950s. The existing technological base 
for weather services is obsolete and costly to maintain. The 
existing network of radars is already more than 30 years old. 
Obtaining some replacement parts is impossible.
    In 1988, Congress passed legislation directing the 
Secretary of Commerce to prepare and submit to Congress a 10-
year plan to modernize the technology of the National Weather 
Service (Title IV of Public Law 100-685, the NASA-NOAA 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1989). As a result, NOAA 
issued the ``Strategic Plan for the Modernization and 
Associated Restructuring'' of the National Weather Service in 
March 1989. The National Weather Service is required to 
annually submit a National Implementation Plan to provide the 
framework and strategies involved in accomplishing a successful 
modernization transition.

             NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR PROGRAM (NEXRAD)

    The Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) program is a 
tri-agency program consisting of the Department of Commerce 
(DOC), Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). The program was created within the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to 
develop and implement a network of advanced weather 
surveillance radars nationwide and at selected overseas 
locations. The NEXRAD program is a critical element of the 
National Weather Service (NWS) modernization plan. NEXRAD 
replaces the existing obsolete WSR-57 (1957) and WSR-74 (1974) 
weather surveillance radars.
    NEXRAD is a state-of-the-art Doppler weather radar system 
designed to detect impending weather dangers and increase the 
ability to protect property and save lives. NEXRAD radar 
incorporates sophisticated software technology, solid state 
architecture, improved communications, and advanced display 
techniques to produce a highly accurate weather detection tool. 
The NEXRAD system provides the principal users--NOAA's National 
Weather Service, the Air Weather Service and the Naval 
Oceanography Command within the Department of Defense, and the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) within the Department of 
Transportation--with a wide array of automated weather 
information products that will increase their capability to 
meet operational requirements including general weather 
forecasting, warning of hazardous weather, prediction of flash 
floods, flight safety, worldwide military mission planning, and 
water resources management. With its proven Doppler technology, 
NEXRAD provides outstanding ability to detect weather phenomena 
such as thunderstorms, hail, strong winds, tornadoes, and wind 
shear.

               AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEMS (ASOS)

    NOAA is well into the installation and commissioning of the 
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) network, a major 
component of the modernization efforts of the National Weather 
Service (NWS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and U.S. 
Navy. ASOS represents a substantial change in decades-old 
procedures and products. The system will replace manual 
collection of surface weather observations, now done at 
National Weather Service facilities. Once operational, ASOS 
should provided round-the-clock automated data on pressure, 
temperature, wind direction, wind speed, runway visibility, 
cloud ceiling heights, and precipitation. The information will 
flow directly to warning and forecast offices and local airport 
control towers. Implementation of ASOS into NWS field 
operations is intended to reduce time-consuming manual 
observations and provide continuous weather monitoring. NOAA is 
developing and competitively acquiring ASOS units in 
cooperation with DOT/FAA and DOD. FAA and DOD have asked NWS to 
assume responsibility for acquiring and installing planned FAA 
and DOD ASOS units, and maintaining FAA ASOS units under 
reimbursable funding arrangements.

    ADVANCED WEATHER INTERACTIVE PROCESSING SYSTEM (AWIPS/NOAA PORT)

    The Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) 
will support National Weather Service forecasters in combining 
and interpreting hydrological and meteorological data and 
preparing forecasts and warnings. AWIPS is the computer system 
and communication link necessary to collect, integrate, analyze 
and disseminate weather-related observational data. The AWIPS 
system will enable forecasters in NWS offices throughout the 
United States to use new scientific forecasting techniques and 
knowledge to acquire and use the large volume of data that is 
becoming available as a result of the implementation of new, 
advanced weather observing systems, most notably the new 
generation of radars (NEXRAD) and the new GOES and ASOS.

    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE 
                                (NESDIS)

    NESDIS is responsible for providing operational satellite 
services for NOAA and the nation. NESDIS procures, operates and 
maintains the spacecraft and ground system components for two 
weather satellite systems, the Geostationary Operational 
Environmental Satellite (GOES) and the Polar-Orbiting 
Operational Environmental Satellites (POES). The geostationary 
system provides near-continuous observations of the earth's 
western hemisphere to support NWS weather warnings, forecasts 
and other applications. The polar-orbiting system obtains 
global environmental data such as measurements of the vertical 
temperature of the atmosphere, sea surface temperatures, cloud 
motion and winds. The polar satellites also provide a relay 
function for global emergency signals from aircraft and ships 
in distress.
    NESDIS is also responsible for archiving environmental 
data, from satellites and other sources, and making the data 
available to users. Oceanic geophysical, and climatic data are 
archived at three facilities: (1) the National Oceanic Data 
Center in Washington, D.C.; (2) the National Geophysical Data 
Center in Boulder, Colorado; and (3) the National Climatic Data 
Center, in Asheville, North Carolina.

        GEOSTATIONARY OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE (GOES)

    The Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 
(GOES) system provides critical, continuous weather 
observations for the nation. The operating objectives of the 
geostationary system line item are to continue procurement of 
spacecraft, instruments, launch services, and ground equipment 
necessary to maintain an uninterrupted, two-satellite, 
operational geostationary satellite system to provide images of 
the United States, including adjacent ocean areas, to enable 
detection of hurricanes and other major weather events, for use 
in weather forecasts and warnings. In 1992, Congress passed the 
NOAA Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567), which 
authorizes $1,005,225,000 to complete the procurement of GOES 
I, J, K, L, and M and the procurement of the launching and 
supporting ground systems of such satellites. The law prohibits 
funds being authorized to be appropriated unless the Secretary 
certifies within 60 days after the President's budget 
submission that the satellites meet the technical performance 
specifications in the contract; the procurement can be 
completed without requiring further authorization of 
appropriations; and there are no foreseeable gaps in two-
satellite service operations resulting from non-performance of 
the satellite contract.

       POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITES (POES)

    NOAA Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES) provide 
global observations of weather patterns and environmental 
conditions. The data from these satellites are key inputs to 
NOAA weather forecast computer models and are used extensively 
by the environmental research community. Other key applications 
are tropical cyclone bulletins, global sea surface temperature 
and water mass analyses, polar and Great Lake ice analyses, 
Northern Hemisphere snow cover monitoring, ozone monitoring and 
climate change research. In addition, these satellites 
broadcast meteorological data directly to thousands of users 
worldwide. As part of an international cooperative effort, NOAA 
polar spacecraft carry search and rescue satellite equipment 
(SARSAT) used to locate emergency distress signals.
    NOAA has a requirement to maintain two POES in orbit at all 
times, providing for an a.m. and p.m. fly-over every day. This 
requires NOAA to continually fund replacement satellites and 
their associated ground systems. As part of a cost reduction 
effort, NOAA has entered into agreements with the DOD to 
``converge'' its POES into a single system. It also has an 
agreement with the European Organization for the Exploitation 
of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) to allow the Europeans 
to take responsibility for the morning polar mission beginning 
around the year 2000.
    This legislation is required for two reasons. First, with 
the exception of the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), 
the Geostationary Satellite Observing Systems (GOES), and Fleet 
Modernization program, all of NOAA's programs under the Science 
Committee's jurisdiction are currently unauthorized.
    Second, H. Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent Resolution on the 
Budget, requires a balanced budget by the year 2002. In order 
to meet the target in H. Con. Res. 67 and maintain NOAA's 
primary missions significant structural changes to NOAA 
programs and budget must be made.
    The Administration's FY 1996 budget request for NOAA 
includes an increase of almost $180 million, or nine percent, 
over FY 1995. These increases are inconsistent with efforts to 
balance the budget.


             NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION            
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Change from 
                                            Fiscal year     fiscal year 
                                           1996 request        1995     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service \1\..............           198.8           +18.6
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research........           270.8           +12.2
National Weather Service................           624.3           -34.4
National Environmental Satellite, Data,                                 
 and Information Service (NESDIS).......           552.5          +165.1
National Marine Fisheries Service \2\...           315.8           +43.2
Program Support.........................           163.6           +15.6
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, Operations, Research and                                   
       Facilities.......................         2,125.9          +224.3
Construction............................            52.3           -45.0
NOAA Fleet Modernization................            23.3            +0.4
                                         -------------------------------
      Total, NOAA.......................         2,201.5         +179.8 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Activities under NOS outside the Science Committee's jurisdiction   
  are not included in the bill.                                         
\2\ NMFS is not within the Science Committee jurisdiction and is not    
  included in the bill.                                                 


    The Committee on Science examined closely NOAA's programs 
and missions and applied rigorously, as appropriate, the 
following six criteria in prioritizing its funding 
recommendations for FY 1996.
    1. Federal R&D should be focused on long-term, non-
commercial research and development, with potential for great 
scientific discovery, leaving economic feasibility and 
commercialization to the marketplace.
    2. Federal funding of R&D on specific processes and 
technologies should not be carried out beyond demonstration of 
technical feasibility, requiring significant additional 
investment for production.
    3. Revolutionary new ideas and pioneering capabilities that 
make possible the ``impossible'' (that which has never been 
done before) should be pursued.
    4. The Federal government should avoid funding research in 
areas that are receiving, or should be reasonably expected to 
obtain funding from the private sector, such as evolutionary 
advances or incremental improvements.
    5. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and 
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research 
to industry, private research foundations, and universities.
    6. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused 
to the agency's stated mission; those that are not should be 
terminated. All research programs should disseminate the 
results of the programs to potential users.
    H.R. 1815 provides authorization for National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs within the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee for fiscal year 1996. 
H.R. 1815 authorization levels are in keeping with the House 
Budget Resolution's spending cap of $1.725 billion for NOAA. 
This authorization level represents a decrease of almost $300 
million from NOAA's fiscal year 1995 total of $2,021,752,000 
and over $475 million from the President's fiscal year 1996 
request of $2,201,531,000.
    This bill contains numerous cost saving measures. It 
eliminates costly certification requirements for the National 
Weather Service, allowing the Weather Service to close old and 
unneeded weather offices. H.R. 1815 terminates NOAA's $1.9 
billion fleet modernization effort, allowing NOAA to use 
private and university ships and data to meet its mission 
requirements. It also phases out the uniformed NOAA Corps over 
the next three years.
    The bill also contains important privatization initiatives 
which refocus the National Weather Service on providing basic 
weather forecasts and warnings, eliminating National Weather 
Service programs that compete with the private sector.
    The Committee believes that this authorization bill, H.R. 
1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of 1995, meets the Committee's responsibility 
to authorize programs under its jurisdiction, set priorities 
within NOAA and streamline NOAA operations while staying within 
the Budget Resolution targets for NOAA required to balance the 
budget by 2002. H.R. 1815 reflects a strong commitment to good 
fundamental science that is vital to the nation's future and a 
balanced budget.

                         IV. Summary of Hearing

    On February 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing titled ``Federal Energy and 
Environmental Research and Development: Setting New Priorities 
for the Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA)'' to receive testimony from outside 
witnesses on ways to reduce spending in the research and 
development programs. Among the witnesses was Mr. Tom Schatz, 
President of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, 
DC.
    Mr. Schatz made several recommendations including: (1) the 
privatization of the NOAA research fleet on the grounds that 
the fleet is ``too expensive to maintain and operate as 
compared to the services provided by private-sector fleets''; 
(2) freezing remaining NOAA funding ``to further encourage 
better management in NOAA programs''; (3) the closure of 
antiquated National Weather Service offices; and (4) the 
privatization of parts of the National Weather Service as 
proposed by the Clinton Administration in the fiscal year 1996 
budget request.
    On February 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held a hearing to receive testimony from NOAA and 
outside witnesses on NOAA's fiscal year 1996 budget request for 
the programs under the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. Among the 
witnesses were: (1) Dr. D. James Baker, Under Secretary for 
Oceans and Atmospheres, and Administrator of NOAA, U.S. 
Department of Commerce; (2) Mr. Joel Myers, President of Accu-
Weather, Inc.; and (3) Mr. Joel Willemssen, Director of 
Accounting and Information Management Division, U.S. General 
Accounting Office.
    Dr. D. James Baker outlined the priorities within NOAA's 
$2,201,531,000 fiscal year 1996 budget request. Of these funds, 
approximately $1.8 billion fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Energy and Environment Subcommittee. The fiscal year 1996 
request represents an increase of more than $179 million over 
fiscal year 1995 appropriations. Dr. Baker listed modernization 
of the National Weather Service as NOAA's top priority to 
improve technology used for weather forecasting and lead to the 
consolidation of almost 300 weather service offices into 118 
facilities. Dr. Baker indicated that the country's initial 
investment in the weather service modernization will be repaid 
within two years, and once complete, contribute over $7 billion 
in savings to the Nation's economy through improved capacity 
for storm weather and long-term forecasting. Dr. Baker 
emphasized the importance of NOAA's strategic plan, which 
creates the ``vision'' for the agency through the year 2005, 
enabling NOAA's environmental stewardship assessment and 
prediction programs to become ``keystones to enhancing economic 
prosperity.''
    Mr. Joel Myers stated that the commercial weather services 
can save the government substantial sums by replacing services 
currently provided by the National Weather Service. He 
suggested amending the 1890 National Weather Service Organic 
Act to conform with the 1990 National Weather Service policy 
statement on the role of the private weather industry and the 
National Weather Service. Mr. Myers also cited the potential 
savings identified by a Booz Allen & Hamilton study that noted 
overlapping National Weather Service structures and found 
savings of $100 million annually if the National Weather 
Service reduced its weather service offices from 334 to 25.
    Mr. Joel Willemssen emphasized three main points from GAO's 
review of the National Weather Service modernization efforts: 
(1) the modernization effort is an outstanding opportunity for 
the National Weather Service to streamline and downsize its 
organization while at the same time improving its services; (2) 
the National Weather Service has made progress on modernization 
but problems and risks remain in key systems; and (3) the 
National Weather Service must act quickly to correct these 
problems and address the risks or the modernization effort 
could fail to meet its goals.

                          V. Committee Actions

                          subcommittee markup

    On June 8, 1995 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
convened to mark up the Subcommittee Print, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 
1995. The purpose of the markup was to authorize appropriations 
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 
fiscal year 1996.
    Of the four amendments offered three were adopted and one 
was defeated.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Weldon (PA) offered an amendment to fund 
the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment 
(GLOBE) program at $7,000,000 by reducing funding for Executive 
Direction and Administration (-$3,251,000 and Central 
Administrative Support (-$3,749,000)--both in the Program 
Support account. The amendment was adopted by a roll call vote 
of 8 yeas to 5 noes.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. McHale offered an amendment to strike 
Section 101(f) language repealing certification requirements 
under the National Weather Service Modernization Act. Current 
law requires the Secretary to provide certification that no 
degradation of service will occur before closing a national 
weather station. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Ehlers offered an amendment to remove the 
GLERL/zebra mussel and the Sea Grant/zebra mussel research 
accounts from the list of Program Terminations in Title IV. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. McHale offered Mr. Roemer's amendment to 
clarify the duties of the National Weather Service. The 
amendment alters language in the ``Duties of the National 
Weather Service'' section to read that the National Weather 
Service ``shall be responsible for . . . forecasts and shall 
serve as the sole official source of weather warnings.'' The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Walker moved that a clean bill 
be prepared by the Subcommittee Chairman for introduction in 
the House and further consideration by the Committee. The 
motion was approved by voice vote. The Subcommittee print was 
adopted, as amended, by a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 3 noes 
and ordered reported to the Full Committee for consideration. 
Subsequently, Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself and Mr. Hayes) 
introduced H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995, on June 13, 1995.

                         Full committee markup

    On June 28, 1995, the Committee on Science convened to mark 
up H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995. The purpose of the 
markup was to authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 1996.
    Of the 17 amendments submitted six were adopted, three were 
defeated, four were withdrawn, three were included in the 
Walker En Bloc Amendment #1 and one was not offered.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Walker offered an en bloc amendment 
stating that no funds under subsection 101(b) can be used for 
new NEXRAD installations not identified in the National 
Implementation Plan for 1996, unless the NEXRAD installations 
can be acquired under section 102(b) of the NOAA Authorization 
Act of 1992. The amendment transfers over $4.4 million from the 
Polar Orbiting Satellite account to the Environmental Data 
Management System's Data and Information Services program, 
encourages NOAA to expand its efforts to develop interagency 
agreements to further the use of defense-related technologies, 
data, and other resources to support its oceanic missions, and 
requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to 
Congress on the feasibility of expanding the use of defense-
related technologies no later than 120 days after enactment of 
this Act. The amendment also narrows the definition of ``fire 
weather forecasts,'' adds language limiting the use of federal 
funds for lobbying activities and for programs that receive 
Congressional earmarks, and makes technical changes to the 
bill. The amendment, as amended by the Brown amendment, was 
adopted by voice vote. (The Walker en bloc amendment includes 
amendment #4, as modified, and amendments #7 and #8.)
    Amendment 1a.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the Walker 
en bloc amendment amending the lobbying activities section to 
allow officers or employees of the U.S. or of its departments 
or agencies to communicate with Members, at the Member's 
request or with Congress, through proper channels, on requests 
for legislation or appropriations that they deem necessary for 
official conduct of public business. The amendment was adopted 
by voice vote.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Walker offered an amendment to insert a 
new Sec. 504--Report on Laboratories, requiring the Inspector 
General of the Department of Commerce to submit a report no 
later than 120 days after enactment of the Act, reviewing the 
laboratories operated by NOAA. The amendment, as amended by the 
Brown amendment, was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 2a.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the Walker 
amendment replacing the term ``Inspector General'' with 
``Secretary.'' The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute. The substitute amendment funds NOAA at $110 
million over the authorized level in H.R. 1815. Relative to the 
base text, the substitute increases National Weather Service 
operations by $10.8 million; National Weather Service systems 
acquisition by $11.3 million; Climate and Air Quality Research 
by $52.5 million; Marine Prediction Research by $1.2 million; 
Sea Grant by $13.4 million; Satellites by $2 million; Oceans 
Observation and Assessment by $5.7 million; Executive Direction 
and Administration by $5 million; new construction by $19 
million; and Marine Services by $1.3 million. The amendment was 
defeated by voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Mr. Cramer submitted an amendment stating 
that no funds under subsection 101(b) can be used for new 
NEXRAD installations not identified in the National 
Implementation Plan for 1996, unless the NEXRAD installations 
can be acquired under section 102(b) of the NOAA Authorization 
Act of 1992. The amendment was included in the Walker en bloc 
amendment(#1).
    Amendment 5.--Mr. McHale submitted an amendment to strike 
subsection (f) of Section 101--Streamlining Weather Service 
Modernization. The amendment would remove language to 
streamline the process for closing weather service offices. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Cramer offered an amendment requiring the 
Secretary to publish in the Federal Register and certify to 
Congress that there has been no degradation of service as a 
result of closings, consolidations, automations or relocations 
of any National Weather Service field office under the weather 
service modernization plan. The amendment was defeated by a 
roll call vote of 18 yeas to 21 noes.
    Amendment 7.--Mr. Boehlert submitted an amendment to ensure 
that the same percentage of Climate and Air Quality Research 
funds as were provided to institutions of higher education in 
fiscal year 1995 are provided in fiscal year 1996 by NOAA. The 
amendment was included in Walker en bloc amendment (#1).
    Amendment 8.-- Mr. Weldon (PA) submitted an amendment to 
create a new Sec. 203--Use of Ocean Research Resources of Other 
Federal Agencies. The amendment encourages NOAA to expand its 
efforts to develop interagency agreements to further the use of 
defense-related technologies, data, and other resources to 
support its oceanic missions. The amendment also requires the 
Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to Congress no later 
than 120 days after enactment of this Act on the feasibility of 
expanding the use of defense-related technologies. The 
amendment was included in Walker en bloc amendment (#1.)
    Amendment 9.--Mr. Weldon (PA) submitted an amendment to 
create a new Sec. 504--to allow for additional authorizations 
to Climate and Air Research, the Coastal Ocean Program and the 
National Sea Grant College Program, if the budget resolution 
conference approved by the House and Senate is based on an 
assumption of a tax cut of less than $350 million. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    Amendment 10.--Mr. Cramer submitted an amendment to create 
a new Sec. 504--Additional Authorization for National Weather 
Service Modernization. The amendment states that from sums 
otherwise authorized by this Act, up to $7 million may be used 
to augment National Weather Service modernization for those 
areas identified as having potentially degraded service. The 
amendment was withdrawn.
    Amendment 11.--Mr. Traficant submitted an amendment to add 
a new Sec. 504--Buy American--to ensure that no funds 
appropriated pursuant to this Act may be expended by an entity 
unless the entity complies with the ``Buy American Act.'' The 
amendment was not offered.
    Amendment 12.--Mr. Brown submitted an amendment to create a 
new Title VI--Contingent Authorization. The amendment states 
that should the budget resolution conference approved by the 
House and Senate assume less than a $350 million tax cut, 
additional funds should be appropriated in fiscal year 96 for 
Atmospheric Research and for Ocean and Great Lakes Research. 
The amendment was withdrawn.
    Amendment 13.--Mr. Calvert offered an en bloc amendment to 
remove the National Weather Service Agriculture and Fruit Frost 
Programs from the list of programs to be terminated in Title 
IV. The amendment did not provide any funding authorization for 
Agriculture and Fruit Frost in fiscal year 1996. The amendment 
was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 14.--Mr. Roemer offered an amendment to Title IV 
adding Dissemination of Weather Charts (Marine Facsimile 
Service) to the list of programs to be terminated. The 
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 15.--Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment to add a 
new Title VI--authorizing $152,528,000 for FY 96 for Climate 
and Air Quality Research. The amendment was defeated by a roll 
call vote of 8 yeas to 32 noes.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved that the Committee 
report the bill, H.R. 1815 as amended, the staff prepare the 
legislative report to make technical and conforming amendments, 
and the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill 
before the House for consideration. Mr. Brown also moved that 
the Members have three days to file minority dissenting or 
additional views. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee authorize the Chairman 
to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 1815 or a similar Senate 
measure. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved that the Committee adopt, as part 
of the legislative report on H.R. 1815, the summary chart. The 
motion was adopted by voice vote.

     VI. Summary of Authorizations and Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995, authorizes all 
unauthorized NOAA programs within the Committee's jurisdiction 
for fiscal year 1996. H.R. 1815 holds NOAA's overall 
authorization to the totals included in the Budget Resolution 
Conference Report. The Committee supports all reductions from 
NOAA's fiscal year 1995 funding levels proposed by the 
Administration in its fiscal year 1996 request.
    In February, 1995, the President transmitted to Congress a 
request of $2,201,531,000 for NOAA for fiscal year 1996, an 
increase of $179,779,000--or 8.9 percent--over the fiscal year 
1995 estimate of $2,021,752,000.
    The Committee recommends an authorization level of 
$1,725,201,000 for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of 
$476,330,000--or 21.6 percent--from the request level, and a 
decrease of $296,551,000--or 14.7 percent--from the fiscal year 
1995 estimate. The Committee's recommendation is consistent 
with the amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 1995 (H. Con. Res. 
67), as well as the conference report on the Resolution.
    The following table provides a summary of the amounts 
requested (using the President's February, 1995, request) and 
that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill (in the 
column labeled ``FY 1996 Mark''). Also included are current 
year estimates (in the column labeled ``FY 1995 Adjusted'') as 
well as comparisons of the Committee recommendation with both 
current year estimates and the 1996 request.

                             NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY                            
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Mark compared with (+ or
                                                                                                   -)           
                                                 Fiscal year  Fiscal year  Fiscal year -------------------------
                                                     1995         1996      1996 mark   Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                                   adjusted     request                     1995         1996   
                                                                                          adjusted     request  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Ocean Service:                                                                                         
    Mapping, charting, and geodesy.............       49,816       53,513       49,076         -740       -4,437
    Observation and assessment.................       66,591       74,091       42,732      -23,859      -31,359
    Ocean and coastal management...............       63,811       71,222       10,927      -52,884      -60,295
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Ocean Service............      180,218      198,826      102,735      -77,483      -96,091
                                                ================================================================
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research:                                                                               
    Climate and air quality research...........      119,542      159,528       93,757      -25,785      -65,771
    Atmospheric programs.......................       46,946       46,909       39,894       -7,052       -7,015
    Ocean and Great Lakes programs.............       92,091       64,384       49,763      -42,328      -14,621
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research..      258,579      270,821      183,414      -75,165      -87,407
                                                ================================================================
National Weather Service:                                                                                       
    Operations and research....................      513,269      487,289      472,338      -40,931      -14,951
    Systems acquisition........................      145,429      137,043      132,369      -13,060       -4,674
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Weather Service..........      658,698      624,332      604,707      -53,991      -19,625
                                                ================================================================
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and                                                                     
 Information Service (NESDIS):                                                                                  
    Satellite observing systems................      351,741      508,837      435,421      +83,680      -73,416
    Environmental data management systems......       35,665       43,664       35,665            0       -7,999
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NESDIS............................      387,406      552,501      471,086      +83,680      -81,415
                                                ================================================================
Program Support:                                                                                                
    Administration and services................       72,847       91,127       58,338      -14,509      -32,789
    Marine services............................       62,011       62,202       60,689       -1,322       -1,513
    Aircraft services..........................       13,153       10,248        9,548       -3,605         -700
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, program support...................      148,011      163,577      128,575      -19,436      -35,002
                                                ================================================================
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) \1\...      268,650      315,828      210,651      -57,999     -105,177
    General reduction to operations, research                                                                   
     and facilities............................  ...........  ...........       -8,698  ...........  ...........
    Total, operations, research and facilities.    1,901,562    2,125,885    1,692,470     -209,092     -433,415
    Construction...............................       97,254       52,299       32,731      -64,523      -19,568
    NOAA fleet modernization...................       22,936       23,347            0      -22,936      -23,347
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, NOAA..............................    2,021,752    2,201,531    1,725,201     -296,551     -476,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Illustrative. Not in Science Committee jurisdiction or bill.                                                   

    The major provisions of the bill are as follows:
          Authorizes appropriations for the National Oceanic 
        and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for fiscal year 
        1996;
          Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress 
        on the feasibility of expanding the use of defense-
        related technologies, data, and other resources to 
        support and enhance the oceanic missions of NOAA;
          Gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to 
        contract out for data and days-at-sea;
          Terminates 19 programs and accounts;
          Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress 
        certifying that all programs and accounts listed to be 
        terminated will be terminated by September 30, 1995;
          Does not authorize funding for any fiscal year after 
        1996 for carrying out programs authorized under this 
        Act;
          Sets the total number of commissioned officers of the 
        NOAA Corps at no more than 369 in fiscal year 1996, 100 
        in fiscal year 1997, 50 in fiscal year 1998, and 
        eliminates authorization for any fiscal year after 
        1998;
          Prohibits unauthorized persons from interfering with 
        any National Data Buoy Center weather data buoys; and 
        authorizes the Administrator to assess a penalty for 
        each violation and to offer and pay rewards for 
        information regarding violations;
          Delineates the duties of the National Weather 
        Service;
          Stipulates that the National Weather Service will not 
        compete with the private sector when a service is 
        provided or can be provided by commercial enterprise 
        unless the Secretary finds that the private sector is 
        unwilling or unable to provide the service, and the 
        service provides vital weather warnings and forecasts;
          Requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress 
        detailing all National Weather Service activities which 
        do not conform to the requirement and outlines a 
        timetable for their termination;
          Requires all amounts received by the U.S. in 
        settlement of damage claims arising from the allision 
        of the vessel Zachery in the NOAA vessel Discoverer 
        shall be retained as an offsetting collection in the 
        Marine Services account, shall be deposited in that 
        account upon receipt by the U.S. Government, and shall 
        be available only for obligation for NOAA vessel 
        repairs;
          Prohibits the funding of programs that have received 
        federal funding not based on a competitive merit-based 
        award process with the exceptions of awards to persons 
        who are members of a class specified by law for which 
        assistance is awarded according to a formula provided 
        by law;
          Prohibits the expenditure of authorized funds for the 
        purpose of influencing legislation pending before 
        Congress; and
          Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a report 
        reviewing the laboratories operated by NOAA.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1. Short title

    Entitles the act the ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995.''

Section 2. Definitions

    Section 2 defines: (1) ``Act of 1890'' as the Act entitled 
``An Act to increase the efficiency and reduce the expenses of 
the Signal Corps of the Army, and to transfer the Weather 
Bureau to the Department of Agriculture''; (2) ``Act of 1947'' 
as the Act entitled ``An Act to define the functions and duties 
of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and for other purposes''; (3) 
``Act of 1970'' as the Act entitled ``An Act to clarify the 
status and benefits of commissioned officers of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other 
purposes''; (4) ``Administrator'' as the Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and (5) 
``Secretary'' as the Secretary of Commerce.

         TITLE I.--ATMOSPHERIC, WEATHER, AND SATELLITE PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. National Weather Service

    (a) Authorizes $472,338,000 for fiscal year 1996 for 
operations and research activities of the National Weather 
Service.
    (b) Authorizes $79,034,000 for acquisition of major public 
warning and forecast systems. None of the funds authorized 
under this subsection can be used for the purposes for which 
funds are authorized under 102 (b) of the NOAA Authorization 
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567), which authorizes NEXRAD. None 
of the funds authorized for NEXRAD will be expended for a 
particular NEXRAD installation unless: (1) it is identified as 
a National Weather Service NEXRAD installation in the National 
Implementation Plan for modernization of National Weather 
Service required under section 703 of the NOAA Authorization 
Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567); or (2) it is to be used only 
for spare parts, not as an installation at a particular site.
    (c) Further clarifies that no funds may be obligated for 
NEXRAD installations not identified in the National 
Implementation Plan for 1996, unless the Secretary certifies 
that such NEXRAD installations can be acquired within the 
authorization for NEXRAD contained in section 102(b) of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
Act of 1992.
    (d) Authorizes $16,952,000 of the sums authorized in 
subsection (b) in fiscal year 1996 for (A) the Automated 
Surface Observing System and (B) the Automated and Remote 
Automated Meteorological Observing System.
    (e) Authorizes $52,097,000 of the sums authorized in 
subsection (b) in fiscal year 1996 for the acquisition and 
deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing 
System (AWIPS) and NOAA Port and associated activities; and 
associated program management and operations and maintenance.
    (f) Authorizes $20,628,000 for the planning, design, and 
land acquisition related to the construction of Weather 
Forecasting Offices.
    (g) Repeals certification requirements under sections 706 
and 707 of the Weather Service Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 
note) for closure of Weather Service offices and conforms the 
Act accordingly.

Sec. 102. Atmospheric research

    (a)(1) Authorizes $86,757,000 for Climate and Air Quality 
Research, including interannual and seasonal climate research 
and long-term climate and air quality research; and (2) 
requires that the same percentage of the funds which were 
provided to institutions of higher education through Climate 
and Air Quality Research in FY 1995 are provided in FY 1996.
    (b) Authorizes $39,894,000 for Atmospheric Programs, 
including research for developing improved prediction 
capabilities for atmospheric processes, as well as solar-
terrestrial research and services.
    (c) Authorizes $7,000,000 for the Global Learning and 
Observations to Benefit the Environment program.

Sec. 103. National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
        Service

    (a) Authorizes $319,448,000 for Satellite Observing Systems 
including spacecraft procurement, launch, and associated ground 
station systems involving polar orbiting and geostationary 
environmental satellites (GOES), as well as the operation of 
such satellites. None of these funds will be used for GOES I-M, 
authorized under section 105(d) of the NOAA Authorization Act 
of 1992.
    (b) Authorizes $184,425,000 of the sums authorized in 
subsection (a) for the procurement of the Polar Orbiting 
Environmental Satellites (POES) K, L, M, N, and N\1\ and their 
launching and supporting ground systems.
    (c) Authorizes $46,300,000 of the sums authorized in 
subsection (a) for GOES NEXT (1) to procure up to three 
additional Geostationary Operational Environmental NEXT 
Satellites (GOES I-M clones) and instruments; and (2) for 
contracts, and amendments or modifications of contracts, with 
the developer of previous GOES-NEXT satellites, for the 
acquisition of the additional satellites and instruments.
    (d) Authorizes $35,665,000 for Environmental Data and 
Information Services including climate data services, 
geophysical data services, and environmental assessment and 
information services.
    (e) Authorizes $39,500,000 of the sums authorized in 
subsection (a) for the procurement of the National Polar-
Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) 
and its launching and supporting ground systems.

                       TITLE II.--MARINE RESEARCH

Sec. 201. National Ocean Service.

    (a) Authorizes $29,149,000 for Mapping and Charting 
activities under the Act of 1947.
    (b) Authorizes $19,927,000 for Geodesy activities under the 
Act of 1947.
    (c) (1) Authorizes $11,279,000 for Observation and 
Prediction activities under the Act of 1947; (2) authorizes 
$695,000 for the Circulatory Survey Program; and (3) authorizes 
$4,231,000 for Ocean and Earth Science activities.
    (d) (1) Authorizes $1,171,000 to support Estuarine and 
Coastal Assessment activities under the Act of 1947; (2) 
authorizes $8,401,000 for the National Status and Trends, the 
Strategic Environmental Assessment, and the Hazardous Materials 
Response Programs; (3) authorizes $585,000 for the Damage 
Assessment Program; and (4) authorizes $9,158,000 for the 
Coastal Ocean Program.

Sec. 202. Ocean and Great Lakes research

    (a) Authorizes $13,763,000 for Marine Prediction Research 
activities under the Act of 1947, the Act of 1890, and any 
other law involving those activities.
    (b) Authorizes $36,000,000 for the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et. seq.) of which (1) 
$34,500,000 will be used for the extramural program; (2) 
$1,500,000 will be used for NOAA administrative support; and 
(3) amends the National Sea Grant College Program Act to focus 
on scientific research.

Sec. 203 Use of ocean research resources of other Federal agencies

    (a) The Congress finds: (1) observing, monitoring, and 
predicting the ocean environment has been a priority for the 
defense community; (2) many of the advances made by the defense 
community can be shared with civilian researchers; (3) NOAA's 
missions would benefit from increased cooperation with defense 
agencies.
    (b) It is the sense of the Congress that NOAA should expand 
its efforts to develop interagency agreements to further the 
use of defense-related technologies, data, and other resources 
to support its oceanic missions.
    (c) (1) The Secretary, no later than 120 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, will submit a report to 
Congress on the feasibility of expanding the use of defense-
related technologies, data, and other resources to support and 
enhance the oceanic missions of NOAA. (2) The report shall 
include (A) a list of defense-related resources currently 
available to NOAA and the missions which utilize those 
resources; (B) detailed findings and recommendations for 
expanding the use of available defense-related resources; (C) a 
listing and funding history of NOAA resources which could be 
supplemented by defense-related resources; (D) a listing of 
currently unavailable defense-related resources which if made 
available would enhance NOAA's mission performance; (E) 
recommendations on the regulatory and legislative structures 
needed to maximize the use of defense-related resources; (F) an 
assessment of the roles in the use of defense-related 
resources; and (G) recommendations on how to provide access to 
relevant defense-related data for non-Federal scientific users.

                     title iii. -- program support

Sec. 301. Program support

    (a) Authorizes $20,632,000 for Executive and Administrative 
activities under the Act of 1970 and any other law involving 
those activities.
    (b) Authorizes $30,000,000 for Central Administrative 
Support activities under the Act of 1970 and any other law 
involving those activities.
    (c) Authorizes $7,706,000 for retired pay of retired 
commissioned officers of NOAA under the Act of 1970.
    (d) (1) Gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to 
contract out for data and days-at-sea; (2) requires the 
Secretary to use excess days-at-sea from University-National 
Oceanographic Laboratory System vessels ``where appropriate'' 
and authorizes the Secretary to enter into a memorandum of 
agreement with the operators of those vessels; and (3) 
authorizes $60,689,000 for Marine Service activities (including 
activities outlined in (1) and (2)) for fiscal year 1996.
    (e) Authorizes $9,548,000 for Aircraft Service activities 
(including aircraft operations, maintenance, and support) under 
the Act of 1970 and any other law involving those activities.
    (f) Authorizes $ 7,374,000 for facilities repairs and 
renovations.

                 title iv.--streamlining of operations

Sec. 401. Program terminations

    (a) The following programs and accounts are terminated:
          (1) The National Undersea Research Program;
          (2) The Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding, and 
        Construction Account;
          (3) The Charleston, South Carolina, Special 
        Management Plan;
          (4) Chesapeake Bay Observation Buoys;
          (5) Federal/State Weather Modernization Grants;
          (6) The Southeast Storm Research Account;
          (7) The Southeast United States Caribbean Fisheries 
        Oceanographic Coordinated Investigations Program;
          (8) National Institute for Environmental Renewal;
          (9) The Lake Champlain Study;
          (10) The Maine Marine Research Center;
          (11) The South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic Survey 
        Account;
          (12) Pacific Island Technical Assistance;
          (13) Sea Grant/Oyster Disease Account;
          (14) National Coastal Research and Development 
        Institute Account;
          (15) VENTS program;
          (16) National Weather Service non-Federal, non-
        wildfire Fire Weather Service;
          (17) National Weather Service Regional Climate 
        Centers;
          (18) National Weather Service Samoa Weather Forecast 
        Office Repair and Upgrade Account; and
          (19) Dissemination of Weather Charts (Marine 
        Facsimile Service).
    (b) The Secretary, no later than 60 days after the date of 
this Act's enactment, will submit a report to Congress 
certifying that all programs listed in subsection (a) will be 
terminated by September 30, 1995.
    (c) Repeals two programs of the National Sea Grant College 
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.); (A) The Dean John Knauss 
Marine Policy Fellowship Program (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)); and (B) 
Sea Grant International Program (section 3 of The Sea Grant 
Program Improvement Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a)).
          (2) Conforms the National Sea Grant College Program 
        Act to changes made in (c).
    (d) Repeals the NOAA Fleet Modernization Act (33 U.S.C. 851 
note).

Sec. 402. Limitation on appropriations

    (a) Does not authorize funding for any fiscal year after 
1996 for carrying out programs authorized under this Act.
    (b) Authorizes no more than $1,692,470,000 to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out all activities under 
NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities account.
    (c) Authorizes no more than $20,000,000 of the sums 
appropriated to the Operations, Research, and Facilities 
account for travel and related expenses for NOAA personnel.

Sec. 403. Reduction in the Commissioned Officer Corps

    (a) Sets the total number of commissioned officers of the 
NOAA Corps at no more than 369 in fiscal year 1996, 100 in 
fiscal year 1997, 50 in fiscal year 1998, and eliminates 
authorization for any fiscal year after 1998.
    (b) Authorizes the Secretary to make separations without 
providing separation pay.

                        title v.--miscellaneous

Sec. 501. Weather data buoys

    (a) Prohibits unauthorized persons from interfering with 
any National Data Buoy Center weather data buoys.
    (b) Authorizes the Administrator to assess a penalty of not 
more than $10,000 for each violation of this section.
    (c) Authorizes the Administrator to offer and pay rewards 
for information regarding violations of this section.

Sec. 502. Duties of the National Weather Service

    (a) Provides that the Secretary of Commerce, in order to 
protect life and property and enhance the national economy, 
through the National Weather Service, shall be responsible for 
forecasts and shall serve as the sole official source of 
weather warnings; the issue of storm warnings; the collection, 
exchange, and distribution of meteorological, hydrological, 
climatic, and oceanographic data and information; and the 
preparation of hydrometeorological guidance and core forecast 
information; except as provided in subsection (b).
    (b) Stipulates that the National Weather Service will not 
compete with the private sector when a service is provided or 
can be provided by commercial enterprise unless the Secretary 
finds that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide 
the service, and the service provides vital weather warnings 
and forecasts for the protection of lives and property of the 
general public.
    (c) Amends the Act of 1890 accordingly.
    (d) Requires the Secretary submit a report no later than 60 
days after the enactment of this Act to Congress detailing all 
National Weather Service activities which do not conform to the 
requirements of this section and outlining a timetable for 
their termination.

Sec. 503. Reimbursement of expenses

    (a) Stipulates that all amounts received by the United 
States in settlement of damage claims arising from the allision 
of the vessel ZACHERY into the NOAA vessel DISCOVERER shall be 
retained as an offsetting collection in the Marine Services 
account, shall be deposited in that account upon receipt by the 
United States Government, and shall be available only for 
obligation for NOAA vessel repairs.
    (b) Stipulates that not more than $518,757.09 of the 
amounts in subsection (a) may be deposited into the Marine 
Services account.

Sec. 504. Eligibility for awards

    (a) The Administrator shall exclude from consideration, for 
awards of financial assistance made by NOAA after fiscal year 
1995, any person who received funds, other than those described 
in subsection (b), appropriated for any fiscal year after 
fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a project 
that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
process.
    (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons who 
are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class.

Sec. 505. Prohibition of lobbying activities

    None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available 
for any activity whose purpose is to influence legislation 
pending before Congress, unless the information is requested by 
a Member of Congress or it is transmitted to Congress through 
proper channels and its information is necessary for efficient 
conduct of public business.

Sec. 506. Report on laboratories

    (a) The Secretary, no later than 120 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, will submit a report to Congress 
reviewing the laboratories operated by NOAA.
    (b) The report required by subsection (a) will (1) address 
potential efficiencies and savings which could be achieved 
through the closing or consolidation of laboratory facilities; 
(2) review each laboratory's mission and activities, physical 
assets, and organization and program management; and (3) 
address other issues the Inspector General considers relevant.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    This bill is consistent with the funding levels set by H. 
Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. In order 
to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002, significant 
reductions to NOAA's budget are necessary. The Committee 
therefore supports streamlining NOAA's operations, reducing 
NOAA's overhead costs and eliminating NOAA's low priority 
programs which do not support its principal mission.

                      AGENCY BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

    The Committee is concerned with the performance of NOAA 
Congressional Affairs. The Committee notes that Congressional 
Affairs in many instances has been unwilling or unable to 
provide in a timely manner the detailed information on NOAA's 
budgets and programs needed for the Committee to conduct its 
business. The Committee notes that the absence of timely and 
accurate budgetary and programmatic data makes it more 
difficult for the Committee to justify continued funding of 
NOAA's programs. Further, the Committee objects to NOAA's use 
of baseline budgeting. Baseline budgeting presupposes 
significant annual increases in NOAA's budget. Such increases 
are inconsistent with the Congress' mandate to balance the 
budget by the year 2002.

          TITLE I, II & III--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS

National Weather Service

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
fiscal year 1996 request for National Weather Service programs 
and activities.
            National Weather Service (NWS): -$19,625,000
          -$14,951,000 from NWS Operations and Research, 
        including
          -$12,878,000 (or 3% below the Administration's 
        request) from the Local Warnings and Forecast account. 
        The Committee finds that Modernization and Associated 
        Restructuring Demonstration and Implementation (MARDI) 
        has been largely completed and therefore recommends 
        rolling MARDI into the Local Warnings and Forecast 
        line. The reductions are expected to come from reducing 
        administrative costs and closure of duplicative or 
        unneeded non-modernized weather offices; -$1,442,000 
        from Central Forecast Guidance, which is maintained at 
        the FY 1995 level, and -$631,000 from Atmospheric and 
        Hydrological Research, which is funded at the FY 1994 
        level.
          -$4,674,000 from Systems Acquisition, including 
        -$2,760,000 from Computer Facility Upgrades to maintain 
        funding at the FY 1995 level; and-$1,914,000 from Next 
        Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) by eliminating the 
        Planned Product Improvements for NEXRAD.
    The Committee supports continuation of the National Weather 
Service's modernization efforts. With one exception--Planned 
Product Improvements for NEXRAD--the Committee has funded the 
systems acquisition accounts at the levels requested by the 
Administration. The Committee believes this funding level is 
sufficient to ensure that modernization continues on schedule 
and expects the National Weather Service to make modernization 
its top priority.
    The Committee is concerned with reports about the lack of 
progress the National Weather Service is making with Advanced 
Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS). The program 
appears behind schedule and over budget. The Committee has 
authorized funding for AWIPS at the level requested by the 
Administration. Continuation of support for the program will be 
based on the National Weather Service's ability to fix the 
systemic problems that have plagued both the management and 
development of the system.
    The Committee has authorized funding for the Automated 
Surface Observing System (ASOS) at the level requested by the 
Administration. The Committee notes that concerns have been 
raised about the system's performance. The Committee is 
concerned about reports that ASOS may not meet its design 
performance criteria. The Committee's continued support for the 
program will be based on the National Weather Service's ability 
to address these concerns.
    The Committee has reduced the National Weather Service's 
Operations and Research account by three percent from the 
Administration's request. The National Weather Service is 
expected to meet these reductions by reducing staff and 
overhead, closing unneeded weather service offices, and 
terminating services the private sector is willing and able to 
provide. The Committee supports the continuation of the 
National Weather Service's modernization efforts and does not 
expect these reductions to delay the Service's modernization 
schedule, including the completion of work at the existing 
schedule for completion of new modernized offices such as the 
National Weather Service station at Riverton, Wyoming. The 
NEXRAD for the Riverton station is scheduled to be commissioned 
within six months of its September 15, 1995 acceptance date.
    The Committee emphasizes that completion of modernization 
should be the National Weather Service's top priority. The 
Committee notes that since 1990 the number of National Weather 
Service full time equivalents (FTEs) has increased by 75 
percent--from roughly 3,300 to 5,800. Although these increases 
may have been justified during the modernization process, as 
modernization is completed the Committee expects large savings 
from significant reductions in staff. These savings will not 
occur unless modernization is completed on schedule. The 
Committee notes that the construction of weather forecast 
offices account has been authorized to the levels requested by 
the Administration and expects these levels to be sufficient to 
meet the Service's current modernization schedule.
    The Committee supports the elimination of the certification 
process required under Sections 706 and 707 of the Weather 
Service Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) for closure of 
weather service offices. The Committee rejected amendments in 
both Subcommittee and Full Committee to alter this provision in 
the bill. The Committee notes that NOAA has calculated the 
savings from elimination of the certification process at $35.1 
million over five years. The Committee believes that the 
certification process is burdensome and costly, and that the 
$35.1 million could be better spent on weather service 
modernization.
    The Committee supports the National Weather Service's plan 
to downsize the number of its offices by more than half to 118 
modernized offices. This downsizing should occur as rapidly as 
is feasible without jeopardizing the lives and property of the 
communities whose offices must be closed. The Committee notes 
that this downsizing will significantly improve the National 
Weather Service's ability to issue severe weather warnings 
since the new modernized offices, although fewer in number, 
will be better equipped to forecast the weather.
    The Committee further notes that the bill does not 
authorize any additional funds for NEXRAD installations beyond 
those authorized in section 102(b) of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992, and 
therefore the cost of any additional NEXRAD installations 
recommended in a future National Implementation Plan would have 
to be borne within the existing authorization. The Committee 
does not support the obligation of funds for any NEXRAD 
installations unless:
          (1) The NEXRAD is identified in the National 
        Implementation Plan for 1996; or
          (2) The NEXRAD is identified in a future National 
        Implementation Plan and the Secretary certifies that 
        the NEXRAD installations can be acquired within the 
        authorization for NEXRAD contained in section 102(b) of 
        the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
        Authorization Act of 1992.
    The Committee supports the Administration's request of 
$16,952,000 for fiscal year 1996 for the Automated Surface 
Observing System and the Automated and Remote Automated 
Meteorological Observing System.
    The Committee supports the Administration's request of 
$52,097,000 for fiscal year 1996 for the acquisition and 
deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing 
System (AWIPS) and NOAA Port.
    The Committee supports the Administration's request of 
$20,628,000 for fiscal year 1996 for the planning, design, and 
land acquisition related to the construction of Weather 
Forecasting Offices.
    The Committee supports funding NEXRAD systems acquisition 
at $53,335,000. The funding level represents a decrease of 
$1,914,000 from the Administration's request. The Committee 
expects this decrease to be taken from NEXRAD planned product 
improvements.

Summary of NWS recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for NWS are 
outlined in the following table.

                                         NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS)                                         
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                                1995      1996 Request    1996 Mark    Fiscal year              
                                              Adjusted                                    1995       Fiscal year
                                                                                        Adjusted    1996 Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research:                                                                                        
    Local Warnings and Forecasts..........      $323,579      $418,567      $405,689      -$34,417      -$12,878
    Modernization and Restructuring                                                                             
     Demonstration and Implementation                                                                           
     (MARDI)..............................       115,946   (see above)   (see above)                            
    Agricultural and Fruit Frost Program..         2,316             0             0        -2,316             0
    Fire Weather Services.................           449             0             0          -449             0
    Aviation Forecasts....................        35,596        35,596        35,596             0             0
    Samoa.................................           100             0             0          -100             0
    Regional Climate Centers..............         3,200             0             0        -3,200             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Local Warnings and                                                                               
         Forecasts........................       481,767       454,163       441,285       -40,482       -12,878
    Central Forecast Guidance.............        29,015        30,457        29,015             0        -1,442
    Atmospheric and Hydrological Research.         2,487         2,669         2,038          -449          -631
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Operations and Research....       513,269       487,289       472,338       -40,931       -14,951
                                           =====================================================================
Systems Acquisition:                                                                                            
    Public Warning and Forecast Systems:                                                                        
      Next Generation Weather Radar                                                                             
       (NEXRAD)...........................        82,982        55,249        53,335       -29,647        -1,914
      Automated Surface Observing System                                                                        
       (ASOS).............................        17,515        16,952        16,952          -563             0
      Advanced Weather Interactive                                                                              
       Processing System (AWIPS)/NOAA Port        34,947        52,097        52,097       +17,150             0
      Computer Facility Upgrades..........         9,985        12,745         9,985             0        -2,760
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Systems Acquisition........       145,429       137,043       132,369       -13,060        -4,674
                                           =====================================================================
          Total, National Weather Service.       658,698       624,332       604,707       -53,991       -19,625
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the fiscal year 1996 request for Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Research:
            Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR): -$87,407000
          -$65,771,000 from Climate and Air Quality Research, 
        including -$747,000 from Interannual & Seasonal Climate 
        Research which is funded at the FY 1994 level; 
        -$13,270,000 from Long-Term Climate and Air Quality 
        Research, which is funded at the FY 1994 level; and --
        $14,558,000 from the High Performance Computing 
        Account, which is funded at the FY 1994 level.
          -$37,196,000 from the Climate and Global Change 
        account, which has been rolled into the Interannual and 
        Seasonal Climate Research line to ensure research is 
        relevant to near- to mid-term climatic events such as 
        El Nino. The Committee specifically recommends 
        elimination of -$1,407,000 from Economic and Human 
        Interactions research and -$2,496,000 from the study of 
        underseas vents and their impact on global climate 
        change.
          -$7,015,000 from the Atmospheric Programs, including 
        -$4,395,000 from the Weather Research Account, which is 
        funded at the 1994 level, and -$2,620,000 from Solar-
        Terrestrial Services and Research, which is funded at 
        the 1994 level.
          -$14,621,000 from the Ocean and Great Lakes Programs, 
        including -$1,221,000 from Marine Prediction Research 
        which is funded at the FY 1994 level. The National Sea 
        Grant College Program is reduced by -$13,400,000 to a 
        level of $36,000,000, including reducing Sea Grant 
        administrative funding to $1,500,000.
    The Committee notes that OAR research on important climatic 
processes, such as El Nino, has benefited from research done 
under the broad heading of climate and global change. The 
Committee supports long-term climatic research which improves 
our understanding of near-term climatic variability. The 
Committee supports combining the Global Climate Change account 
with the Interannual and Seasonal Climate Research account. The 
Committee believes that this restructuring will ensure that 
climate and global change research will be focused on improving 
our understanding of near- and mid-term climatic events.
    The Committee supports funding the expanded Interannual and 
Seasonal Climate Research account at $59,883,000 for fiscal 
year 1996. This total represents a decrease of $18,887,000 from 
current funding. The Committee notes that the Administration's 
fiscal year 1996 budget request for global climate change 
research represents almost a 400 percent increase from fiscal 
year 1990. The Full Committee rejected an amendment to increase 
the funding for the Climate and Air Quality Research account to 
the level requested by the Administration by a vote of 33 noes 
to 8 yeas. In order to meet the reductions included in the 
bill, the Committee recommends the elimination of the study of 
economic and human interactions and the termination of the 
VENTS program, which the Administration recommended moving into 
the global climate change program.
    The Committee recommends that NOAA maintain its successful 
collaboration with the extramural research community in 
implementing its climate research program. The Committee 
directs NOAA to allocate at least the same percentage of 
available resources to extramural research in fiscal year 1996 
as it did in fiscal year 1995. The Committee believes that, in 
order to maintain the highest scientific standards, NOAA's 
Office of Global Programs should continue to allocate all of 
its climate research funds through a competitive, peer-reviewed 
process.
    The Committee supports funding atmospheric research at 
$39,894,000 in fiscal year 1996. This level represents a 
decrease of $7,052,000 from current funding for atmospheric 
programs. The Committee recommends funding Weather Research and 
Solar Terrestrial Research at their fiscal year 1994 levels. 
The Committee supports termination of Federal/State Weather 
Modification Grants and the Southeastern Storm Research 
programs. The Committee recommends continuing the Wind Profiler 
program and supports funding the program at the level requested 
by the Administration.
    The Committee supports continuing the Global Learning and 
Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program in 
fiscal year 1996 and has authorized $7,000,000 for the program.

                   NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM

    The Committee believes that the National Sea Grant College 
Program's strongest component is the pursuit of scientific 
knowledge of the marine environment. The Committee supports 
making scientific research the primary focus of the National 
Sea Grant College Program. The Committee recommends maintaining 
funding for Sea Grant marine research while reducing funding 
for Sea Grant education, outreach and national program 
administration.

Summary of OAR recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for OAR are 
outlined in the following table.

                                     OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR)                                     
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                                1995      1996 request    1996 mark    Fiscal year              
                                              adjusted                                    1995       Fiscal year
                                                                                        adjusted    1996 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate and Air Quality Research:                                                                               
    Interannual & Seasonal Climate                                                                              
     Research.............................        $7,933        $8,284       $59,883         -$396         -$747
    Long-Term Climate and Air Quality                                                                           
     Research.............................        27,272        39,144        25,874        -1,398       -13,270
    High Performance Computing............         6,500        15,558         1,000        -5,500       -14,558
    Climate and Global Change.............        70,837        89,542   (see above)       -18,491       -37,196
    Globe.................................         7,000         7,000         7,000             0             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Climate and Air Quality                                                                          
         Research.........................       119,542       159,528        93,757       -25,785       -65,771
                                           =====================================================================
Atmospheric Programs:                                                                                           
    Weather Research......................        33,613        34,720        30,325        -3,288        -4,395
    Wind Profiler.........................         4,350         4,350         4,350             0             0
    Federal/State Weather Modification                                                                          
     Grants...............................         3,100             0             0        -3,100             0
    Southeastern Storm Research...........           400             0             0          -400             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Weather Research...........        41,463        39,070        34,675        -6,788        -4,395
                                           =====================================================================
    Solar-Terrestrial Services and                                                                              
     Research.............................         5,483         7,839         5,219          -264        -2,620
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Atmospheric Programs.......        46,946        46,909        39,894        -7,052        -7,015
                                           =====================================================================
Ocean and Great Lakes Programs:                                                                                 
    Marine Prediction Research............        15,175        14,984        13,763        -1,412        -1,221
    Vents.................................         2,496             0             0        -2,496             0
    Southeast Fisheries Oceanographic                                                                           
     Coordinated Investigations...........           450             0             0          -450             0
    Lake Champlain Study..................           150             0             0          -150             0
    Pacific Island Technical Assistance...           190             0             0          -190             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Marine Prediction Research.        18,461        14,984        13,763        -4,698        -1,221
                                           =====================================================================
Sea Grant:                                                                                                      
    Sea Grant College Program.............        51,698        49,400        36,000       -15,698       -13,400
    Sea Grant-Oyster Disease..............         1,500             0             0        -1,500             0
    National Coastal R&D Institute........         1,000             0             0        -1,000             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Sea Grant..................        54,198        49,400        36,000       -18,198       -13,400
                                           =====================================================================
Undersea Research Program:                                                                                      
    NOAA Undersea Research Program (NURP).       $17,932             0             0       -17,932             0
    Maine Marine Research Center..........         1,500             0             0        -1,500             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Undersea Research Program..        19,432             0             0       -19,432             0
        Total, Ocean & Great Lakes                                                                              
         Programs.........................        92,091        64,384        49,763       -42,328       -14,621
                                           =====================================================================
          Total, Oceanic and Atmospheric                                                                        
           Research.......................       258,579       270,821       183,414       -75,165       -87,407
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the fiscal year 1996 request for National Environmental 
Satellite, Data, and Information Service:
            National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
                    Service: -$81,415,000
          -$73,416,000 from Satellite Observing Systems, 
        including -$24,228,000 from GOES (construction of three 
        GOES Next satellites, GOES I-M funding reduced by 5%), 
        elimination of Ocean Remote Sensing, and -$6,689,000 
        from Environmental Observing Systems to fund at the FY 
        1994 level; -$12,000,000 from LandSat 7 which is not 
        funded through NOAA; and -$14,500,000 from Polar 
        Convergence by requiring a 50/50 split with the 
        Department of Defense.
         Environmental Data Management Systems (EDMS) and Data 
        and Information Service are maintained at the FY 1995 
        level.
    Although the Committee supports the substantial increases 
outlined in the bill and this report for GOES and POES in 
fiscal year 1996, the Committee notes that the NESDIS budget 
request has increased by 127 percent since 1990. The Committee 
believes these increases are not sustainable and that the 
NESDIS budget over the next seven years will have to decline.
    The bill reduces the increases requested by the 
Administration for funding for the current GOES and POES 
programs by roughly five percent each. The Committee expects 
these reductions to come in a large part from increases in 
efficiency and reductions in overhead costs. The Committee does 
not expect these reductions in the rate of growth to delay 
NOAA's projected launch schedules for GOES or POES.
    The Committee supports continuation of the NOAA/Department 
of Defense (DOD) efforts to converge their polar orbiting 
satellite systems. The Committee also supports sharing the 
costs of convergence on an equal basis. The Committee notes 
that, although over the life of the project, costs will be 
shared equally between DOD and NOAA, under the Administration's 
current plan, NOAA will bear the brunt of up-front costs for 
the new converged system.
    The Committee recommends initiating a 50/50 cost share plan 
in fiscal year 1996. The bill's authorization of $39,500,000 
for the National Polar Orbiting Operational Satellite System 
(NPOESS) which, when matched by DOD, represents funding of 
polar convergence at the President's fiscal year 1996 request.
    The Committee supports funding three new GOES I-M series 
``clones'' beginning in fiscal year 1996. The bill authorizes 
$46,300,000 for fiscal year 1996 to initiate construction of 
these satellites. While the Committee has included sole source 
authority for the construction of these three new satellites, 
it recommends that the Secretary only use this authority if he 
finds that it will result in significant cost savings.

Summary of NESDIS recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for NESDIS are 
outlined in the following table.

                    NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, AND INFORMATION SERVICE (NESDIS)                    
                                                 [In thousands]                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                            1995 ajusted  1996 request    1996 mark    Fiscal year              
                                                                                          1995       Fiscal year
                                                                                        adjusted    1996 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite Observing Systems:                                                                                    
    Polar Spacecraft and Launching........      $146,228      $198,824      $184,425      +$38,197      -$14,399
    Polar Convergence/Joint Program Office        16,000        54,000        39,500       +23,500       -14,500
    Geostationary Spacecraft and Launching       132,242       186,501       162,273       +30,031       -24,228
    Ocean Remote Sensing..................         6,000         1,600             0        -6,000        -1,600
    Environmental Observing Services......        51,271        55,912        49,223        -2,048        -6,689
    LandSat Operations....................             0        12,000             0             0       -12,000
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Satellite Observing Systems       351,741       508,837       435,421       +83,680       -73,416
                                           =====================================================================
Environmental Data Management Systems                                                                           
    Data and Information Services.........        24,365        28,564        24,365             0        -4,199
    Environmental Services Data and                                                                             
     Information Management (ESDIM).......        11,300        15,100        11,300             0        -3,800
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Environmental Data                                                                               
         Management Systems...............        35,665        43,664        35,665             0        -7,999
                                           =====================================================================
          Total, NESDIS...................       387,406       552,501       471,086       +83,680       -81,415
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         National Ocean Service

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the fiscal year 1996 request for National Ocean Service 
programs and activities:
          National Ocean Service (NOS): -$96,091,000.
                  -$4,437,000 from Mapping, Charting and 
                Geodesy, including -$3,187,000 from Mapping and 
                Charting, and -$1,250,000 from Automated 
                Nautical Charting System II, which are both 
                maintained at FY 1995 levels.
                  -$31,359,000 from Observation and Assessment, 
                including -$1,845,000 from Observation and 
                Prediction, -$1,959,000 from Estuarine and 
                Coastal Assessment, -$13,524,000 from the Ocean 
                Assessment Program, -$3,915,000 from Damage 
                Assessment, and -$9,383,000 from the Coastal 
                Ocean Program, which are each funded at the FY 
                1994 level.
    The Committee supports continuation of National Ocean 
Service research programs. Although most of NOAA's research is 
conducted by OAR, the National Ocean Service houses the Coastal 
Ocean Program (COP), a peer-reviewed long-term cross-cutting 
marine research program. The Committee supports continued 
funding of COP. The Committee notes that among the marine 
research programs which are worthy of NOAA's consideration are 
studies of coastal ocean processes including the effect of 
ocean circulation on coral reefs.

                     Summary of NOS recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for NOS are 
outlined in the following table.

                                             NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE                                             
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                                1995      1996 request    1996 mark    Fiscal year              
                                              adjusted                                    1995       Fiscal year
                                                                                        adjusted    1996 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping, charting, and geodesy:                                                                                 
    Mapping and charting..................       $27,899       $31,086       $27,899            $0       -$3,187
    Automated nautical charting system II.         1,250         2,500         1,250             0        -1,250
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, mapping and charting.........        29,149        33,586        29,149             0        -4,437
                                           =====================================================================
Geodesy:                                                                                                        
    National spatial reference system                                                                           
     (including LIS)......................        19,667        19,927        19,927          +260             0
    South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic                                                                         
     Survey...............................         1,000             0             0        -1,000             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, geodesy......................        20,667        19,927        19,927          -740             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, mapping, charting, and                                                                             
       geodesy............................        49,816        53,513        49,076          +260        -4,437
                                           =====================================================================
Observation and assessment:                                                                                     
    Observation and prediction............        12,358        12,899        11,279        -1,079        -1,620
        Circulatory Survey Program........           700           700           695            -5            -5
        Chesapeake Bay observation buoys..           400             0             0          -400             0
        Ocean services....................         4,418         4,451         4,231          -187          -220
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, observation and                                                                                
           prediction.....................        17,876        18,050        16,205        -1,671        -1,845
                                           =====================================================================
Estuarine and coastal assessment..........         2,674         3,130         1,171        -1,503        -1,959
    Ocean Assessment Program..............        24,528        21,925         8,401       -16,127       -13,524
    Damage assessment.....................         1,200         4,500           585          -615        -3,915
        Transfer from damage assessment                                                                         
         fund \1\.........................         6,770         6,550         6,550          -220             0
        Oil Pollution Act of 1990 \1\.....         1,300         1,395           662          -638          -733
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, estuarine and coastal                                                                          
           assessment.....................        36,472        37,500        17,369       -19,103       -20,131
                                           =====================================================================
Coastal Ocean Science:                                                                                          
    Coastal Ocean Program.................       $10,943       $18,541         9,158        -1,785        -9,383
    Oil spill research....................           800             0             0          -800             0
    National Institute of Environmental                                                                         
     Renewal..............................           500             0             0          -500             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, coastal ocean science........        12,243        18,541         9,158        -3,085        -9,383
      Total, observation and assessment...        66,591        74,091        42,732       -23,859       -31,359
Ocean and coastal management \1\..........        63,811        71,222        10,927       -52,884       -60,295
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Ocean Service.......       180,218       198,826       102,735       -77,483       -96,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Illustrative. Not in Science Committee jurisdiction or bill.                                                

       USE OF OCEAN RESEARCH RESOURCES OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

    The Committee supports efforts to maximize the use of 
defense-related data and technologies to support NOAA's oceanic 
missions.

Program support

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the fiscal year 1996 request for Program Support:
            Program support: -$35,002,000
          -$32,789,000 from Administration and Services, 
        including -$7,857,000 from Executive Direction and 
        Administration, and -$24,749,000 from Central 
        Administrative Support, which reflect diminished 
        programmatic efforts.
          -$183,000 from Retired Pay Commissioned Officers, 
        which is funded at the Fiscal year 1995 level.
          -$1,513,000 from Marine Services, which is funded at 
        the Fiscal year 1994 level.
          -$700,000 from Aircraft Services, which is maintained 
        at the Fiscal year 1995 level.
    The Committee has reduced the Program Support accounts to 
reflect the reduced level of effort associated with reductions 
to other NOAA accounts. The Committee expects NOAA to 
streamline its administrative activities and reduce overhead 
and staff to meet these new funding levels.
    The Marine Services account has historically been used to 
fund personnel to pilot NOAA's fleet. The Committee supports 
termination of the NOAA fleet at the earliest feasible date and 
the use of the Marine Services account for contracting for data 
and days-at-sea.

Summary of program support recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for Program 
Support are outlined in the following table.

                                                 PROGRAM SUPPORT                                                
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                                1995      1996 request    1996 mark    Fiscal year              
                                              adjusted                                    1995       Fiscal year
                                                                                        adjusted    1996 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administration and services:                                                                                    
    Executive direction and administration       $27,288       $28,489       $20,632       -$6,656       -$7,857
    Central administrative support........        37,853        54,749        30,000        -4,104       -24,749
    Retired pay commissioned officers.....         7,706         7,889         7,706             0          -183
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, administration and services..        72,847        91,127        58,338       -14,509       -32,789
                                           =====================================================================
Marine services...........................        62,011        62,202        60,689        -1,322        -1,513
                                           =====================================================================
Aircraft services:                                                                                              
    Aircraft services.....................         9,153         9,853         9,153             0          -700
    Critical safety and instrumentation...         4,000           395           395        -3,605             0
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, aircraft services............        13,153        10,248         9,548        -3,605          -700
                                           =====================================================================
      Total, Program support..............       148,011       163,577       128,575       -19,436       -35,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Non-ORF accounts

    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the fiscal year 1996 request for non-ORF accounts:
            Other accounts: -$42,915,000
          -$19,568,000 from construction including, -$4,400,000 
        from the New Construction account, which is not funded, 
        and -$3,833,000 from Facilities Repairs and 
        Renovations, which is maintained at the FY 1995 level.
          -$23,347,000 from the NOAA fleet modernization 
        account, which is eliminated.
          -$11,295 from Environmental Compliance (illustrative)
    The Committee believes NOAA does not need its own fleet, 
and that the non-profit and the private sectors are capable of 
supplying NOAA with the data and/or days-at-sea its missions 
require. The NOAA fleet is aging and already requires 
substantial repair.
    The Committee notes that a new NOAA fleet would cost $1.9 
billion. Such an expenditure is inconsistent with efforts to 
balance the budget by 2002. In light of this fact, the 
Committee believes that the only cost-effective alternative 
available to NOAA is the use of the University-National 
Oceanographic Laboratory Service (UNOLS) and private vessels. 
The Committee sees no reason to extend the life of the NOAA 
fleet by continuing to build, retrofit and conduct major 
repairs on NOAA vessels. The Committee therefore supports a 
moratorium on the construction and repairs-to-extend (RTEs) of 
NOAA vessels. The Committee further supports retiring the rest 
of the NOAA fleet at the earliest possible date. In no case 
should NOAA continue to own and operate any major vessels 
(above 90 feet) beyond October 1, 1998, when the NOAA Corps 
will cease to exist.
    The Committee recommends that the Secretary of Commerce, in 
consultation with the Inspector General, develop a plan to 
dispose of the assets of the NOAA fleet at the earliest date 
practicable and in a manner that maximizes return to the United 
States Treasury. The Secretary may consider the benefits of 
donating vessels to existing UNOLS institutions if the 
institutions can meet NOAA's research needs in a more cost-
effective manner than the current NOAA owned and operated 
fleet.

Summary of non-ORF recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations for non-ORF 
accounts are outlined in the following table.

                                                NON-ORF ACCOUNTS                                                
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Mark compared with (+ or -
                                                                                                   )            
                                             Fiscal year   Fiscal year   Fiscal year ---------------------------
                                                1995          1996       1996  Mark    Fiscal year   Fiscal year
                                              Adjusted      Requested                     1995          1996    
                                                                                        Adjusted       Request  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction:                                                                                                   
    NWS modernization and WFO maintenance.       $20,226       $20,628       $20,628         +$402            $0
    Facilities repairs and renovations....         7,374        11,207         7,374             0        -3,833
    Environmental compliance \1\..........         5,979        16,024         4,729        -1,250       -11,295
    New construction......................        63,675         4,440             0       -63,675        -4,400
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, construction.................        97,254        52,299        32,731       -64,523       -19,568
NOAA fleet mod............................        22,936        23,347             0       -22,936       -23,347
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-ORF total.............................       120,190        75,646        32,731       -87,459      -42,915 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Illustrative. Not in Science Committee jurisdiction or bill.                                                

                 TITLE IV.--STREAMLINING OF OPERATIONS

Terminations

     The Committee supports terminating the following programs:
            (1) The National Undersea Research Program
    The Committee notes that the Administration did not request 
funding for this program and considers it a low priority for 
NOAA. The Committee supports the Administration's position.
            (2) The fleet modernization, shipbuilding, and construction 
                    account
    As noted above, the Committee supports termination of the 
NOAA fleet modernization effort.
            (3) The Charleston, South Carolina, special management plan
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (4) Chesapeake Bay observation buoys
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (5) Federal/State weather modernization grants
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (6) The Southeast storm research account
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (7) The Southeast United States Caribbean Fisheries 
                    Oceanographic Coordinated Investigations Program
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (8) National Institute for Environmental Renewal
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (9) The Lake Champlain study
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (10) The Maine Marine Research Center
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (11) The South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic Survey account
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (12) Pacific Island technical assistance
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (13) Sea Grant/oyster disease account
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (14) National Coastal Research and Development Institute 
                    account
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (15) VENTS Program
    The Committee notes that the Administration recommended 
terminating this program in fiscal year 1995. The Committee 
understands that the Administration supports the program in 
fiscal year 1996 because of the possible impact of underwater 
vents on global climate change. The Committee does not feel 
that underwater vents are any more important to global climate 
research in fiscal year 1996 than they were in fiscal year 1995 
and recommends termination of the program.
            (16) National Weather Service non-Federal, non-wildfire 
                    Fire Weather Service
    In keeping with the Committee's support for eliminating all 
specialized National Weather Service services which the private 
sector is willing and able to conduct, the Committee supports 
the Administration's proposal to terminate this program.
            (17) National Weather Service Regional Climate Centers
     The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (18) National Weather Service Samoa Weather Forecast Office 
                    repair and upgrade account
    The Committee supports the Administration's proposal to 
terminate this program.
            (19) Dissemination of weather charts (Marine Facsimile 
                    Service)
    In keeping with the Committee's support for eliminating all 
specialized National Weather Service services which the private 
sector is willing and able to conduct, the Committee supports 
the Administration's proposal to terminate this program.
            (20) National Sea Grant College Program
    The Committee supports termination of both the Dean John A. 
Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship and the Sea Grant International 
Program.

Limitation on appropriations

    The Committee recommends the following general reduction to 
NOAA's budget:
            General reductions: -$8,698,000 from NOAA travel budget
    The Committee supports reducing NOAA's total travel budget 
for FY 1996 to $20,000,000. This represents a reduction of 
$8,698,000 from FY 1995, or $11,069,000 from the 
Administration's fiscal year 1996 request.
    Due to the uncertainty about the future of both NOAA and 
the Department of Commerce, it is the Committee's view that 
this bill should not authorize NOAA programs beyond fiscal year 
1996.
    The Committee recommends a ceiling on the NOAA Operations, 
Research, and Facilities (ORF) account of $1,692,470,000 for 
fiscal year 1996. This total is in keeping with the totals 
recommended by H. Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent Resolution on 
the Budget.

Reduction in the Commissioned Officer Corps

     The Committee supports elimination of the NOAA Corps. The 
Committee sees no reason to maintain the NOAA Corps once the 
NOAA fleet is terminated. The Committee supports phasing out 
the Corps in no more than three years. The Committee recommends 
the Secretary explore options for termination of the Corps in 
less than three years. The Committee also recommends that the 
Secretary not grant severance pay to any Corps officers who are 
rehired as civilian employees by NOAA.

                        TITLE V.--MISCELLANEOUS

Duties of the National Weather Service

    The Committee supports privatizing National Weather Service 
specialized weather services. The Committee recommends that the 
National Weather Service cease to provide services which the 
private sector is willing and able to provide. The Committee 
also recommends that Secretary of Commerce develop criteria for 
determining which services should be privatized.
    The Committee notes that the National Weather Service has a 
good working relationship with the commercial weather service 
sector. The Committee supports the continuation of this close 
working relationship. The Committee recommends that the 
National Weather Service continue its practice of collecting, 
exchanging and distributing weather data and information in 
real time and in a non-discriminatory manner.
    The Committee notes that the National Weather Service is 
the sole official source of weather warnings. The Committee 
supports the National Weather Service's role in providing 
severe weather warnings. The Committee further notes, however, 
that this designation should in no way preclude private weather 
forecasters from issuing weather forecasts.
    The Committee supports terminating the National Weather 
Service's Agricultural and Fruit Frost specialized weather 
forecast programs in fiscal year 1996. The Committee notes that 
concerns have been raised about terminating the programs on 
October 1, 1995. The Committee believes that the Secretary of 
Commerce should have the flexibility to continue the programs 
beyond October 1, 1995, if he finds that the private sector is 
unwilling or unable to provide replacement services. Under no 
circumstances should such an extension last beyond April 1, 
1996.
    No additional money has been authorized for the 
continuation of existing Agricultural and Fruit Frost services 
and any expenses associated with continuing these services, if 
necessary, should come from National Weather Service's 
operating budget authorized under the Local Warnings and 
Forecasts account.

Reimbursement of expenses

    The Committee supports refunding the Marine Services 
Account with the proceeds, up to $518,757.09, of any settlement 
from the ``allision'' between the Zachery and the Discoverer.

Eligibility for awards

    The Committee only supports Federal research grants awarded 
through a competitive merit-based process.

Prohibition of lobbying activities

    The Committee believes that no Federal funding should be 
used to lobby Congress.

Report on laboratories

    The Committee directs the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 
a review of all laboratories operated by NOAA. The Committee 
intends that the Secretary not delegate this responsibility to 
NOAA. Rather, the Committee expects the Secretary to work with 
the Commerce Inspector General to conduct the review.

                      IX. Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority, new spending 
authority, new credit authority, changing revenue or tax 
expenditure to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 
308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget 
authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding relevant 
program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current 
law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires each committee report 
accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a public 
character to contain the committee's cost estimates, which 
include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The 
Committee notes, however, that the Congressional Budget Office 
determined that termination of the National Undersea Research 
Program will result in direct spending of roughly $2 million. 
This contrasts with the Administration's fiscal year 1996 
budget request for NOAA, which includes this same termination 
without factoring in any termination costs.

       X. Congressional Budget Office Analysis and Cost Estimates

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1815, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 
1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 1815 would affect direct spending and 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to 
the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1815.
    2. Bill title: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on June 28, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 1815 would authorize appropriations 
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
for fiscal year 1996. The bill also would set a cap on total 
NOAA appropriations, terminate several NOAA programs, establish 
a civil penalty for tampering with data buoys, and permit NOAA 
to retain and spend without appropriation funds received from a 
possible judgment against the vessel which collided with the 
NOAA vessel Discovere.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
that H.R. 1815 would result in direct spending of about $2 
million in 1996 and in discretionary spending totaling $1,331 
million over the 1996-2000 period, assuming that the amounts 
authorized will be appropriated. The estimated budgetary impact 
of the bill is summarized in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1995     1996     1997     1998     1999     2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                   
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
    Budget authority \1\..................................    1,651        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................    1,617      686      261      117        5        0
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization level...................................        0    1,331        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................        0      787      357      101       84        1
Spending Under H.R. 1815:                                                                                       
    Authorization level \1\...............................    1,651    1,331        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................    1,617    1,474      618      218       88        1
                                                                                                                
                                         MANDATORY SPENDING AND RECEIPTS                                        
                                                                                                                
Additional direct spending:                                                                                     
    Estimated budget authority............................        0        2        0        0        0        0
    Estimated outlays.....................................        0        2        0        0        0        0
    Estimated revenues....................................        0    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)    (\2\)   (\2\) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1995 amount represents appropriations for the activities authorized in this bill.                       
\2\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
    6. Basis of estimate: Spending Subject to Appropriations 
Action.--Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, H.R. 
1815 would result in discretionary spending totalling $1,331 
million over the 1996-2000 period. Titles I through III of the 
bill would authorized fiscal year 1996 appropriations of $1,061 
million for NOAA's atmospheric, weather, and satellite 
programs, $134 million for NOAA marine research, and $136 
million for NOAA program support, respectively. Outlays are 
estimated based on historical spending rates for these 
activities.
    Title IV of the bill would place a ceiling of $1,692 
million on 1996 appropriations for all NOAA programs. (This 
bill authorizes funding for only a portion of NOAA's 
activities.) The figures in the above table only encompass the 
programs authorized by H.R. 1815.

Direct spending

    Terminations.--CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1815 would 
necessitate direct spending in fiscal year 1996 for the costs 
of terminating certain NOAA programs. Some of the costs 
associated with program termination may be covered by existing 
funds, but other costs could not be funded out of 
appropriations authorized in this bill or by existing balances. 
Specifically, section 401 of the bill prohibits the 
appropriation of funds for several NOAA programs and requires 
certification of their termination no later than 60 days after 
enactment. CBO estimates that the cost of terminating at least 
one of these programs, the National Undersea Research Program 
(NURP), would exceed that program's existing unobligated 
balances. Hence, direct spending authority would be created to 
cover these costs.
    Based on information provided by the Department of 
Commerce, NOAA, and NURP, CBO estimates that the incremental 
cost of terminating NURP--that is, the cost beyond amounts that 
could be paid using existing funds--is likely to total about $2 
million. This estimate includes $1.2 million for removing the 
Aquarius underwater habitat from the Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary. Failure to remove the submersible would 
likely be a violation of various environmental laws and 
regulations. Even in the absence of a clear statutory 
obligations to remove the structure, the government would be 
liable under these same laws for potential damages to 
individuals or the sanctuary. This estimate also includes 
$400,000 for reductions-in-force that would likely result from 
enacting the bill. The cost of terminating all of the specified 
programs may be as high as $15 million. However, CBO estimates 
that most of these expenses could be paid from existing funds.
    Judgments.--Title V also would permit NOAA to retain up to 
$519,000 from a possible judgment against the vessel that 
collided with the NOAA vessel Discoverer, and to spend the 
retained funds for the repair of the Discoverer. Funds 
collected from judgments are usually categorized as revenues in 
the federal budget. This provision would have the effect of 
converting revenues into offsetting collections and making them 
available for spending. Under Congressional scorekeeping rules, 
reclassifications of spending or revenues are not scored, so 
the only effect of this provision would be an increase in 
direct spending. Based on information from NOAA, we expect that 
repairs to the Discoverer will cost less than $500,000. We 
therefore estimate that this provision would increase direct 
spending by less than $500,000 in fiscal year 1996.

Revenues

    Title V of H.R. 1815 would establish a civil penalty of 
$10,000 for tampering with weather data buoys established, 
installed, or maintained by the National Data Buoy Center. 
Collections from imposing this penalty would be governmental 
receipts. CBO expects that any collections from this penalty 
would be less than $500,000 a year.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. Enactment of H.R. 1815 would 
affect direct spending in two ways. First, NOAA would have to 
pay for program termination costs that could not be paid out of 
existing funds. Next, permitting NOAA to retain and spend 
without appropriation funds received from a judgment against 
the vessel that collided with the vessel Discoverer also would 
result in new direct spending. Finally, the bill's provisions 
establishing a penalty for tampering with data buoys could 
affect receipts. The following table shows CBO's estimate of 
the pay-as-you-go impact of H.R. 1815.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1995       1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...........          0          2          0          0
Change in receipts..........          0          0          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Gary Brown, John Webb and Melissa 
Sampson.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                 XI. Effect of Legislation on Inflation

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assumed to 
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the 
operation of the national economy.

              XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

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

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

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

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

 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1992

          * * * * * * *

                  [TITLE VI--NOAA FLEET MODERNIZATION

[SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

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

[SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

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

[SEC. 603. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

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

[SEC. 604. FLEET REPLACEMENT AND MODERNIZATION PLAN.

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

[SEC. 605. DESIGN OF NOAA VESSELS.

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

[SEC. 606. CONTRACT AUTHORITY.

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

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

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

[SEC. 608. USE OF VESSELS.

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

[SEC. 609. INTEROPERABILITY.

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

[SEC. 610. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

                TITLE VII--WEATHER SERVICE MODERNIZATION

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Weather Service 
Modernization Act''.

SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

  For the purposes of this title, the term--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(3) ``Committee'' means the Modernization Transition 
        Committee established by section 707;]
          [(4)] (3) ``degradation of service'' means any 
        decrease in or failure to maintain the quality and type 
        of weather services provided by the National Weather 
        Service to the public in a service area, including but 
        not limited to a reduction in existing weather radar 
        coverage at an elevation of 10,000 feet;
          [(5)] (4) ``field office'' means any National Weather 
        Service Office or National Weather Service Forecast 
        Office;
          [(6)] (5) ``Plan'' means the National Implementation 
        Plan required under section 703;
          [(7)] (6) ``relocate'' means to transfer from one 
        location to another location that is outside the local 
        commuting or service area;
          [(8)] (7) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Commerce;
          [(9)] (8) ``service area'' means the geographical 
        area for which a field office provides services or 
        conducts observations, including but not limited to 
        local forecasts, severe weather warnings, aviation 
        support, radar coverage, and ground weather 
        observations; and
          [(10)] (9) ``Strategic Plan'' means the 10-year 
        strategic plan for the comprehensive modernization of 
        the National Weather Service, required under section 
        407 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1989 (15 
        U.S.C. 313 note).

SEC. 703. NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.

  [(a) National Implementation Plan.--]As part of the budget 
justification documents submitted to Congress in support of the 
annual budget request for the Department of Commerce, the 
Secretary shall include a National Implementation Plan for 
modernization of the National Weather Service for each fiscal 
year following fiscal year 1993 until such modernization is 
complete. The Plan shall set forth the actions, during the 2-
year period beginning with the fiscal year for which the budget 
request is made, that will be necessary to accomplish the 
objectives described in the Strategic Plan, and shall include--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(3) identification of any field office that the 
        Secretary intends to certify under section 706, 
        including the intended date of such certification;]
          [(4)] (3) special measures to test, evaluate, and 
        demonstrate key elements of the modernized National 
        Weather Service operations prior to national 
        implementation, including a multistation operational 
        demonstration which tests the performance of the 
        modernization in an integrated manner for a sustained 
        period;
          [(5)] (4) detailed plans and funding requirements for 
        meteorological research to be accomplishment under this 
        title to assure that new techniques in forecasting will 
        be developed to utilize the new technologies being 
        implemented in the modernization; and
          [(6)] (5) training and education programs to ensure 
        that employees gain the necessary expertise to utilize 
        the new technologies and to minimize employee 
        displacement as a consequence of modernization.
  [(b) Transmittal to Committee.--The Secretary shall transmit 
a copy of each annual Plan to the Committee.
  [(c) Consultation.--In developing the Plan, the Secretary 
shall consult, as appropriate, with the Committee and public 
entities responsible for providing or utilizing weather 
services.]
          * * * * * * *

[SEC. 706. RESTRUCTURING FIELD OFFICES.

  [Sec. 706. (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary shall not close, 
before January 1, 1996, any field office pursuant to 
implementation of the Strategic Plan.
  [(b) Certification.--The Secretary shall not close, 
consolidate, automate, or relocate any field office, unless the 
Secretary has certified that such action will not result in any 
degradation of service. Such certification shall include--
          [(1) a description of local weather characteristics 
        and weather-related concerns which affect the weather 
        services provided within the service area;
          [(2) a detailed comparison of the services provided 
        within the service area and the services to be provided 
        after such action;
          [(3) a description of any recent or expected 
        modernization of National Weather Service operations 
        which will enhance services in the service area;
          [(4) an identification of any area within any State 
        which would not receive coverage (at an elevation of 
        10,000 feet) by the next generation weather radar 
        network;
          [(5) evidence, based upon operational demonstration 
        of modernized National Weather Service operations, 
        which was considered in reaching the conclusion that no 
        degradation in service will result from such action; 
        and
          [(6) any report of the Committee submitted under 
        section 707(c) that evaluates the proposed 
        certification.
  [(c) Public Review.--Each certification decision shall be 
preceded by--
          [(1) publication in the Federal Register of a 
        proposed certification; and
          [(2) a 60-day period after such publication during 
        which the public may provide comments to the Secretary 
        on the proposed certification.
  [(d) Final Decision.--If after consideration of the public 
comment received under subsection (c) the Secretary, in 
consultation with the Committee, decides to close, consolidate, 
automate, or relocate any such field office, the Secretary 
shall publish a final certification in the Federal Register and 
submit the certification to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives.
  [(e) Special Circumstances.--The Secretary may not close or 
relocate any field office--
          [(1) which is located at an airport, unless the 
        Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
        Transportation and the Committee, first conducts an air 
        safety appraisal, determines that such action will not 
        result in degradation of service that affects aircraft 
        safety, and includes such determination in the 
        certification required under subsection (b); or
          [(2) which is the only office in a State, unless the 
        Secretary first evaluates the effect on weather 
        services provided to in-State users, such as State 
        agencies, civil defense officials, and local public 
        safety offices, and includes in the certification 
        required under subsection (b) the Secretary's 
        determination that a comparable level of weather 
        services provided to such in-State users will remain.
  [(f) Liaison Officer.--The Secretary may not close, 
consolidate, automate, or relocate a field office until 
arrangements have been made to maintain for a period of at 
least 2 years at least one person in the service area to act as 
a liaison officer who--
          [(1) provides timely information regarding the 
        activities of the National Weather Service which may 
        affect service to the community, including 
        modernization and restructuring; and
          [(2) works with area weather service users, including 
        persons associated with general aviation, civil 
        defense, emergency preparedness, and the news media, 
        with respect to the provision of timely weather 
        warnings and forecasts.

[SEC. 707. MODERNIZATION TRANSITION COMMITTEE.

  [(a) Establishment.--There is established a committee of 12 
members to be known as the Modernization Transition Committee.
  [(b) Membership and Terms.--(1) The Committee shall consist 
of--
          [(A) five members representing agencies and 
        departments of the United States which are responsible 
        for providing or using weather services, including but 
        not limited to the National Weather Service, the 
        Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation 
        Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency; and
          [(B) seven members to be appointed by the Secretary 
        from civil defense and public safety organizations, 
        news media, any labor organization certified by the 
        Federal Labor Relations Authority as an exclusive 
        representative of weather service employees, 
        meteorological experts, and private sector users of 
        weather information such as pilots and farmers.
  [(2) The terms of office of a member of the Committee shall 
be 3 years; except that, of the original membership, four shall 
serve a 5-year term, four shall serve a 4-year term, and four 
shall serve a 3-year term. No individual may serve for more 
than one additional 3-year term.
  [(3) The Secretary shall designate a chairman of the 
Committee from among its members.
  [(c) Duties.--(1) The Committee may review any proposed 
certification under section 706 for which the Secretary has 
provided a notice of intent to certify in the Plan, and should 
review such a proposed certification if there is a significant 
possibility of degradation of service within the affected 
service area. Upon the request of the Committee, the Secretary 
shall make available to the Committee the supporting documents 
developed by the Secretary in connection with the proposed 
certification. The Committee may prepare and submit to the 
Secretary, prior to publication of the proposed certification, 
a report which evaluates the proposed certification on the 
basis of the modernization criteria and with respect to the 
requirement that there be no degradation of service.
  [(2) The Committee shall advise the Congress and the 
Secretary on--
          [(A) the implementation of the Strategic Plan, annual 
        development of the Plan, and establishment and 
        implementation of modernization criteria; and
          [(B) matters of public safety and the provision of 
        weather services which relate to the comprehensive 
        modernization of the National Weather Service.
  [(d) Pay and Travel Expenses.--Members of the Committee who 
are not employees of the United States shall each be paid at a 
rate equal to the daily equivalent of the rate for GS-18 of the 
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States 
Code, for each day (including travel time) during which the 
member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in 
the Committee. Members shall receive travel expenses, including 
per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 
of title 5, United States Code.
  [(e) Staff.--The Secretary shall make available to the 
Committee such staff, information, and assistance as it may 
reasonably require to carry out its activities.
  [(f) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate on December 
31, 1999.]
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                 NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM ACT

          * * * * * * *

              TITLE II--NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``National Sea Grant College 
Program Act''.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this title--
          (1)  * * *
          * * * * * * *
          (4) The term ``field related to ocean, coastal, and 
        Great Lakes resources'' means any [discipline or field 
        (including marine science (and the physical, natural, 
        and biological sciences, and engineering, included 
        therein), marine technology, education, marine affairs 
        and resource management, economics, sociology, 
        communications, planning, law, international affairs, 
        and public administration)] field or discipline 
        involving scientific research which is concerned with 
        or likely to improve the understanding, assessment, 
        development, utilization, or conservation of ocean, 
        coastal, and Great Lakes resources.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 208. FELLOWSHIPS.

  (a)  * * *
  [(b) Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship.--The Under 
Secretary may award marine policy fellowships to support the 
placement of individuals at the graduate level of education in 
fields related to ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources in 
positions with the executive and legislative branches of the 
United States Government. A fellowship awarded under this 
subsection shall be for a period of not more than 1 year.]
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 209. SEA GRANT REVIEW PANEL.

  (a)  * * *
  The Panel shall advise the Secretary, the Under Secretary, 
and the Director concerning--
          (1) applications or proposals for, and performance 
        under, grants and contracts awarded under section 205 
        [and section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act 
        of 1976];
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  [(a) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
provisions of sections 205 and 208 of this Act, and section 3 
of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 
1124a), an amount--
          [(1) for fiscal year 1991, not to exceed $44,398,000;
          [(2) for fiscal year 1992, not to exceed $46,014,000;
          [(3) for fiscal year 1993, not to exceed $47,695,000;
          [(4) for fiscal year 1994, not to exceed $49,443,000; 
        and
          [(5) for fiscal year 1995, not to exceed 
        $51,261,000.]
  (a) Grants and Contracts; Fellowships.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out sections 205 and 208, 
$34,500,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (b)(1) There is authorized to be appropriated for 
administration of this Act, including section 209, by the 
National Sea Grant Office and the Administration, [an amount--
          [(A) for fiscal year 1991, not to exceed $2,500,000;
          [(B) for fiscal year 1992, not to exceed $2,600,000;
          [(C) for fiscal year 1993, not to exceed $2,700,000;
          [(D) for fiscal year 1994, not to exceed $2,800,000; 
        and
          [(E) for fiscal year 1995, not to exceed $2,900,000] 
        $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1996.
  (2) Sums appropriated under the authority of subsections (a) 
and (c) shall not be available for administration of this Act 
by the National Sea Grant Office, or for Administration program 
or administrative expenses.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


       SECTION 3 OF THE SEA GRANT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1976

 H4  deg.[SEC. 3. SEA GRANT INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM.

  [(a) In General.--The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
and Atmosphere may enter into contracts and make grants under 
this section to--
          [(1) enhance cooperative international research and 
        educational activities on ocean, coastal and Great 
        Lakes resources;
          [(2) promote shared marine activities with 
        universities in countries with which the United States 
        has sustained mutual interest in ocean, coastal, and 
        Great Lakes resources;
          [(3) encourage technology transfer that enhances wise 
        use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources in 
        other countries and in the United States;
          [(4) promote the exchange among the United States and 
        foreign nations of information and data with respect to 
        the assessment, development, utilization, and 
        conservation of such resources;
          [(5) use the national sea grant college program as a 
        resource in other Federal civilian agency international 
        initiatives whose purposes are fundamentally related to 
        research, education, technology transfer and public 
        service programs concerning the understanding and wise 
        use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources; and
          [(6) enhance regional collaboration between foreign 
        nations and the United States with respect to marine 
        scientific research, including activities which improve 
        understanding of global oceanic and atmospheric 
        processes, undersea minerals resources within the 
        exclusive economic zone, and productivity and 
        enhancement of living marine resources in--
                  [(A) the Caribbean and Latin American 
                regions;
                  [(B) the Pacific Islands region;
                  [(C) the Arctic and Antartic regions;
                  [(D) the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; and
                  [(E) the Great Lakes.
  [(b) Eligibility, Procedures, and Requirements.--Any sea 
grant college, sea grant program, or sea grant regional 
consortium, and any institution of higher education, 
laboratory, or institute (if the institution, laboratory, or 
institute is located within a State, as defined in section 
203(14) of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 
U.S.C. 1122(14)), may apply for and receive financial 
assistance under this section. The Under Secretary shall 
prescribe rules and regulations, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, to carry out this section. Before approving 
an application for a grant or contract under this section, the 
Under Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of State. A 
grant made, or contract entered into, under this section is 
subject to section 205(d) (2) and (4) of the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1124(d) (2) and (4)) and to any 
other requirements that the Under Secretary considers necessary 
and appropriate.]
                              ----------                              


                            THE ACT OF 1890

    CHAP. 1266.--An act to increase the efficiency and reduce 
the expenses of the Signal Corps of the Army, and to transfer 
the Weather Service to the Department of Agriculture.
          * * * * * * *
    [Sec. 3. That the Chief of the Weather Bureau, under the 
direction of the Secretary of the Agriculture, on and after 
July first, eighteen hundred and ninety-one, shall have charge 
of the forecasting of weather, the issue of storm warnings, the 
display of weather and flood signals for the benefit of 
agriculture, commerce, and navigation, the gauging and 
reporting of rivers, the maintenance and operation of sea-coast 
telegraph lines and the collection and transmission of marine 
intelligence for the benefit of commerce and navigation, the 
reporting of temperature and rain-fall conditions for the 
cotton interests, the display of frost and cold-wave signals, 
the distribution of meteorological information in the interests 
of agriculture and commerce, and the taking of such 
meteorological observations as may be necessary to establish 
and record the climatic conditions of the United States, or as 
are essential for the proper execution of the foregoing 
duties.]
          * * * * * * *
    Sec. 9 That on and after July first, eighteen hundred and 
ninety-one, the appropriations for the support of the Signal 
Corps of the Army shall be made with those of other staff corps 
of the Army, and the appropriations for the support of the 
Weather Bureau shall be made with those of the other bureaus of 
the Department of Agriculture [, and it shall be the duty of 
the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare future estimates for 
the Weather Bureau which shall be hereafter specifically 
developed and extended in the interests of agriculture.].
          * * * * * * *
                           XV. MINORITY VIEWS

    Throughout the legislative process this Congress, the 
Democrats have offered alternative funding proposals for 
agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction. These proposals 
meet the twin tests of contributing to a balanced budget and 
maintaining core research and development programs vital to our 
Nation's future. The defining difference between the substitute 
plans offered by the Democrats and the legislation adopted by 
the Committee is the Republicans' willingness to inflict large 
reductions in such critical programs in order to finance a 
politically popular tax cut.
    For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
the Democratic alternative would have trimmed spending by $40 
million below fiscal year 1995 appropriated levels while 
maintaining a healthy level of spending in NOAA's oceanic and 
atmospheric research activities. In addition, the Democratic 
alternative would have addressed only programs within the 
Committee's jurisdiction. The legislation adopted by the 
Committee purported to reduce spending $296 million below F.Y. 
95, however over $110 million of this was acknowledged to be 
outside the Committee's purview and another large fraction lies 
within shared jurisdictions. Further, the Committee bill 
contains far-reaching recommendations for administrative and 
program areas for which no hearings were ever held. As a 
consequence, the legitimacy and credibility of these actions is 
open to question.
    The most disturbing aspect of H.R. 1815 as adopted by the 
Committee is the disproportionate reductions recommended for 
NOAA's basic research programs. Whereas other major program 
areas within NOAA were reduced by about 14% below the request 
level, the Committee reduced oceanic and atmospheric research 
programs by over 32%.
    Research programs aimed at long term climate prediction 
have been especially targeted at a time when computational 
modeling and observation and monitoring programs have matured 
to a critical stage. The ability to forecast the effects of 
natural and human-induced climate influences will have profound 
consequences, not only for our quality of life, but also for 
our future role in the global economy. Over one third of the 
GDP directly depends on annual and long term trends in 
environmental conditions. Future investments in economic 
sectors such as agriculture, transportation, forestry, public 
utilities, and real estate will substantially benefit from 
climate related information.
    NOAA's basic research activities are not only important to 
the national R&D agenda, they are essential to NOAA's central 
operational missions in weather forecasting and coastal and 
ocean management. H.R. 1815 would seem to place research and 
development at the lowest possible priority level and ignores 
this coupling that has proved fruitful in the past. Moreover, 
it is difficult to rationalize these targeted cuts with the 
overall stated goal of the Committee to protect basic research.

                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Tim Roemer.
                                   Mike Ward.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   James A. Traficant.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   Karen McCarthy.
                         XVI. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    The Committee's treatment of global climate change research 
is one of the most troubling features of H.R. 1815. Just at the 
time when scientific studies are beginning to provide evidence 
that global climate change may already be underway, the 
Committee bill would cut NOAA's climate change budget in half, 
terminate NOAA's research on long-term climate change, and 
limit research only to short-term, natural climate variability. 
Coming on the heels of the Committee's decisions to terminate 
global change research at EPA and to dramatically cut it at 
DOE, it is apparent that the Committee is engaged in a 
concerted effort to defund the federal global change research 
effort.
    The message of these cuts to our research establishment is 
clear: for all of the lavish praise of ``good science'' to 
support environmental decisions, good scientific studies are 
only welcomed if they happen to comport with the new majority's 
political orthodoxy. Science to support inaction or 
deregulation is therefore considered ``good science''--but 
studies showing real environmental deterioration that might 
require some action will be dismissed as a fabrication of the 
liberal establishment.
    Indeed, the Chairman of the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee has already called the nation's global change 
research programs ``scientific nonsense.'' He said that the 
majority's budget ``does not operate on the assumption that 
Global Warming is a proven phenomenon. In fact, it is assumed 
at best to be unproven and at worst to be liberal claptrap, 
trendy but soon to go out of style in our NEWT Congress.''
    The Chairman's statement and the Committee's action in 
supporting massive cuts to global change research reveal again 
the folly of blundering into a scientific policy determination 
without conducting a single hearing or evidently consulting 
with any reputable, active researchers in the relevant field. 
If conducted, hearings would likely have revealed that:
          (1) Far from being duplicative, the federal 
        government's activities in this area form a coordinated 
        Global Change Research Program (GCRP) in which each 
        participating agency addresses a different critical 
        aspect of the problem. For example, NOAA research looks 
        at long-term climate trends; NASA is working to develop 
        worldwide, satellite-based climate monitoring 
        capability; and EPA is studying the ecological and 
        agricultural effects of changing greenhouse gas levels. 
        While efficiencies may be found in these efforts, there 
        is no basis for terminating them.
          (2) The United States is uniquely positioned to study 
        and evaluate global climate change phenomena. The U.S. 
        has the best and most complete meteorological data, the 
        most extensive space- and ground-based monitoring 
        systems, and the best network of university, federal, 
        and private laboratories having relevant expertise. In 
        large measure, the world looks to U.S. leadership in 
        this area of research--leadership that the Committee 
        would have this nation abdicate.
          (3) The threat of climate change over the next 
        century is sufficiently serious that governments 
        worldwide are discussing targets for curtailing 
        greenhouse gas emissions. Pursuing these targets is 
        fully consistent with efforts to conserve energy and 
        fossil resources and to reduce ground-level air 
        pollution, worthwhile goals in themselves.
          (4) There is a growing body of scientific evidence 
        indicating that global climate change is a disturbingly 
        real possibility and may already be happening. Just in 
        the past several months, reputable, peer-reviewed 
        journals have published papers showing that (a) the 
        incidence of the weather extremes (droughts, torrential 
        rains, unseasonal temperatures) is increasing beyond 
        the bounds of normal statistical variation; (b) 
        acoustic and borehole temperature measurements suggest 
        that significant warming is already in progress; (c) a 
        new statistical analysis from a well-known industrial 
        research lab shows that the timing of the seasons has 
        been shifting in concert with the rising levels of 
        greenhouse gases.
          (5) A vote to support further research on global 
        climate is not necessarily a vote to increase 
        regulatory burdens on industry or society in general. 
        In the first place, this country's response to the 
        threat of global warming has, to this point, been a 
        cautious one largely involving voluntary actions. The 
        Climate Change Action Plan involves among other things 
        enhancing energy efficiency, improving public 
        transportation, and increasing our reliance on 
        hydroelectric power and other renewable energy sources. 
        Moreover, research into the earth's climatic feedback 
        mechanism may show that climate change will be less 
        significant than current models hold, news that would 
        be universally welcome.
    Contrary to the Chairman's claim, the Administration's 
budget does not operate on any assumption that global warming 
is a proven phenomenon. The whole purpose of the global change 
program, like any scientific research, is to determine the 
validity of hypotheses through careful scientific testing and 
verification.
    Global climate change is a critically important hypothesis 
that ultimately involves the future quality of life of the 
entire human race. As such it deserves the most thorough and 
rigorous scientific investigation, free of prejudice and 
political meddling. This Committee would do well to give our 
atmospheric and meteorological scientists the resources they 
need to carry out this vital task.

                                   James A. Traficant.
                                   Mike Ward.
                                   Karen McCarthy.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Tim Roemer.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Jim Barcia.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   David Minge.
              XVII. Proceedings From Full Committee Markup

                              ----------                              




   SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1815, THE NOAA AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We will now consider the Committee print 
to authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration for fiscal year 1996, and for other 
purposes.
    [Subcommittee print and related documents follow.]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair will now entertain amendments.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Who is seeking recognition?
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.
    Mr. Weldon. First of all, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the 
time constraints, I will not go through my extensive opening 
statement. But, I would ask unanimous consent that it be 
included in the record.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Weldon follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Weldon. As a past Ranking Member of the Oceanography 
Subcommittee on the Merchant Marine Committee, we had 
jurisdiction over NOAA. I am extremely concerned about the cuts 
that are occurring with NOAA's budget for this next fiscal 
year.
    Those cuts are not just being brought about by our own 
budget actions. I would note for the record the Clinton 
Administration zeroed out funding for the NURP program, the 
National Undersea Research Program, one of the most progressive 
programs I think this Congress has funded.
    And, it was very difficult for us to put money into a 
program the Administration, in fact, zeroed out. But, I think 
we are being somewhat shortsighted in the dollar amounts that 
we are authorizing here.
    And, I would reserve the right at some future time, either 
at Full Committee or on the floor, to attempt to deal with the 
funding shortfall for the marine programs and the ocean 
programs.
    I do have--I would like to also, Mr. Chairman, enter in the 
record a three-page letter that I received from Jim Baker, who 
heads NOAA, at my request in response to the shortfall and what 
it will mean in terms of ocean research and ocean technology. 
With that, I would like to--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Without objection, that will be submitted 
for the record.
    [The letter from Jim Baker follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Weldon. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer 
an amendment and would ask the staff to circulate the amendment 
dealing with Globe.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Weldon has an amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Weldon follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, that amendment that I was going 
to offer dealt with dual use research. As Chairman of the 
Defense Research Committee, I am very strongly committed to 
having our private--our scientific community share research 
technology with what the military is doing.
    But, because you've zeroed out funding for that, I will not 
offer that amendment. But, I have asked staff to prepare some 
language for the en bloc consideration to deal with that issue.
    So, I will not be offering that amendment. The amendment 
that I am offering now deals with the Globe program.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Weldon, you may proceed in the 
description of your amendment.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will not take a 
significant amount of time. The Globe program was a program 
introduced by Vice President Gore in the last session of 
Congress.
    Initially, last year, I had some concerns with the funding 
and the intent of the program. I went into this program in 
depth and became convinced that it was a logical program and 
deserved consideration.
    It allows us to establish an international network of 
school children, including 16 hundred schools in this country, 
which I might add are in every congressional district of 
members on this Subcommittee. It allows them to share in the 
process of assessing and dealing with environmental and 
technological information worldwide.
    I participated in the first teacher training program for 
Globe. And, my amendment would, in fact, reinstate the funding 
for Globe by taking funding from the Program Support accounts 
in the amount of seven million dollars.
    My understanding is that both the Majority side agrees with 
this amendment and the Minority side. I mentioned Vice 
President Gore. It's one of his top priorities. My 
understanding is also the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, has indicated 
his support for the program.
    So, in deference to our time constraints, I would ask our 
colleagues to support the reinstatement of this funding for 
this program. And, if there are specific questions, I will be 
happy to try to answer them.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If there is no further discussion--
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. McHale. A parliamentary inquiry. Do we have sufficient 
members to conduct business?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, we do.
    [Ms. Rivers is conferring with the Chairman.]
    Mr. Walker. Not in the room at the present time. There are 
some people outside. But, we can conduct business with regard 
to amendments.
    And, I think what we will probably do is if--since there 
seems to be a concerted effort to move people out of the room 
on the other side, I think we will probably just have votes on 
all these amendments.
    Ms. Rivers. And, ultimately, do you have the quorum to move 
the bill out of Committee?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We will face that--
    Mr. Walker. We will face that situation when we get there.
    Ms. Rivers. Does that mean no?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No. That means that when we get there, we 
may well have enough to move it out.
    We might not. But, in the meantime, we can get this part of 
the bill--work done on the bill. And, we intend to do that.
    Mr. Weldon, have you got something else? The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, we have barely--this is not, at 
least from my perspective, a concerted effort on anybody's part 
on either side of the aisle. Clearly, members on both sides of 
the aisle are departing.
    We have a bare minimum number of members to conduct 
business. We may or may not have sufficient members to report 
out the bill.
    I would respectfully suggest to the Chairman that perhaps 
we reconsider the course of action we are on.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would like to get this done. We have 
people here willing to get the work done.
    If, in the end, we don't have the quorum--what we need to 
actually get the--report the bill out, we will see that at the 
end. But, let's get these amendments done.
    If we operate in good faith, we can actually get some work 
done, for Pete's sake.
    Mr. Weldon. Would the Chairman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman, on that question, many of us have 
the Defense Authorization bill on the floor next week. I know 
my colleague from Pennsylvania and I will be on the floor 
almost the entire week.
    I would like to get this bill done today. I was under the 
impression we were going to do it.
    I was told that all three bills would be marked up today. 
Every member was told that. They have an obligation to be here.
    We are here. They should be here.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That's absolutely correct. If there is no 
further discussion, we will move on to--yes, Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. Just briefly, I would like to know what the 
program accounts are we are looting for this Global 
enhancement.
    Mr. Weldon. Would you yield to me, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Mr. Weldon will share the accounts 
that are--
    Mr. Weldon. The seven million dollars--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Being looted.
    Mr. Weldon. Is being paid for from cuts in Program Support 
accounts; $3,251,000.00 from the Executive Direction and 
Administrative Activities accounts; and, $3,749,000.00 from the 
Central Administrative Support accounts.
    Mr. Baker. Right. I just want to know what the program 
accounts are.
    What are we taking this out of?
    Mr. Walker. Mostly out of NOAA Administrative Support.
    Mr. Baker. So, they are carrying around an extra seven 
million they didn't need?
    Mr. Walker. Sure.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Baker. Well, I can't believe that our--the Chairman of 
this Subcommittee would have allowed seven million dollars' 
worth of administrative overhead to sit there waiting--just 
waiting for the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the 
Environment program.
    Mr. Weldon. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Baker. Yes, I certainly will.
    Mr. Weldon. I am not saying that NOAA is necessarily 
enthusiastic about where these funds are coming from.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Weldon. If you heard me make my opening comments and 
the support that has been indicated for this program, I think 
NOAA is looking to try to come up with the funding. And, these 
are the pots identified.
    There may be some attempts to modify that at the Full 
Committee level or on the floor. But, I think it is certainly 
evident that this is a top priority of the Vice President.
    And, therefore, NOAA is trying to accommodate those 
requests.
    Mr. Baker. Well, as close as I am to the Vice President and 
to the--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Baker.--Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the 
Environment program, I would still like to know really what we 
are--what we are taking apart to fund this.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The gentleman's inquisitive nature is 
noted.
    Mr. Minge. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And, does anyone else--
    Mr. Minge. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Minge. Do we have any comment from NOAA with respect to 
these changes, from the agency itself?
    Mr. Weldon. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Minge. Yes.
    Mr. Weldon. My--I have been in contact with NOAA. NOAA 
supports the program, wants to see it continue.
    They are not overly anxious to have the funding taken from 
these accounts. I have expressed a willingness to work with 
them between the time that we mark this bill up and the time we 
hit the Full Committee to see if we can make some modifications 
as to where the funding will come from.
    Mr. Minge. Well, why not wait until the Full Committee 
before we send it forward if we are going to be doing that?
    I have worked a great deal with NOAA in the last two months 
and seen some of their activities. And, I've seen computer 
systems that are 15 years old they are trying to use to predict 
flooding.
    And, I'm concerned that we not undermine some other 
activity unwittingly here at the end of the day. And, if, in 
fact, this is well taken, I would certainly join with you in 
supporting it at the Full Committee level.
    Mr. Weldon. If the gentleman will further yield, I am as 
strong a supporter as perhaps the gentleman is. And, I have 
indicated that support as the Ranking Member of the 
Oceanography Subcommittee in past years.
    And, I am not going to do anything to hurt NOAA's efforts. 
And, in fact, if you listened to my opening statement, I am 
going to be one that will speak out for additional funding for 
NOAA and for the ocean programs.
    This is an attempt to reinstate the program. I think it's 
important that we make this statement at this level and get on 
with dealing with the funding issue which NOAA has indicated a 
willingness to work with us on.
    Mr. Minge. Well, I'm also concerned--there were some fairly 
disparaging remarks made about coloring books on energy. And, 
you know, are we just setting ourselves up for that type of 
criticism a few years down the road here?
    We have a learning program. And, there's a coloring book 
prepared as part of that learning program and then it comes 
back to haunt us.
    And, I--I just see us doing things here that may not be 
consistent with what we have done earlier in the day.
    Mr. Weldon. Well, I would just say to the gentleman, if he 
is continuing to yield, that this program is leveraging private 
dollars. And, in fact, three and a half million dollars of 
private money has already been leveraged.
    And, my understanding is that the bulk of those kinds of 
costs will be paid for by the private sector. Believe me, I--as 
someone who was very skeptical of this program last year--have 
gone through it and have agreed to offer this amendment, 
because I think there have been changes made.
    Is there a need for perhaps additional changes? Perhaps 
there are. And, I will work with the gentleman in our oversight 
role to make sure that we clean it up as much as possible and 
get maximum value for our dollars.
    But, it is clearly a program that has bipartisan support. I 
think we are willing to make that move on this party and 
hopefully that the Minority party would work with us, since the 
request is coming from the Administration.
    Mr. Schiff. Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
    Mr. Weldon. It's not my time, but I would be happy to if 
someone would grant me the time.
    Mr. Minge. I will yield if I have any time.
    Mr. Schiff. I appreciate it. Could the gentleman--mindful 
of the time, could the gentleman, in about 60 seconds, say 
exactly what the purpose of the Globe program is, please?
    Mr. Weldon. Yes. The program is basically a--it's Global 
Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment. It 
establishes a worldwide Internet system of schools that want to 
focus on science, technology relative to the environment.
    In fact, there are teacher training programs underway. 
Curriculum materials have already been developed.
    And, the program is in operation in 16 hundred schools 
across the country. In fact, there were 180 schools in the 
members' districts on this Subcommittee that have been 
designated as Globe schools.
    These schools are involving the children in both taking 
technical data and sharing it with schools all over the world 
as well as incorporating environmental education and technology 
into the school curriculum. It is a valid program.
    Before coming to Congress, I spent three years as an 
environmental education specialist. I'm convinced that it's--
it's a good value for our dollar.
    It leverages private money. And, therefore, that's why I've 
indicated a willingness to offer this amendment to reinstate 
funding within the NOAA accounts.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If that answers the gentleman's question--
and in terms of the other gentleman's question, I think that in 
terms of blame for spending these funds on coloring books and 
other things that some people might find questionable, I'm 
certain that in the future Vice President Gore, with his 
support of this program, will step forward and be willing to 
accept that responsibility along with Speaker Gingrich who, I 
guess, supports this program as well. So, with that type of 
strong bipartisan support, I'm sure that they will be able to 
have a spirited defense of all this money that is being spent 
for this program.
    Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the--to 
this amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If not, a vote on this amendment will move 
forward. Anyone in favor of the amendment should be saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All opposed, say no.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, oh. It sounds like the ayes have it. 
The Chair rules the ayes have it.
    Mr. Minge. Roll call.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We will have a roll call. The Clerk will 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rohrabacher passes at this moment.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fawell.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Wamp.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes no. Mr. Salmon.
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Salmon votes no. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker votes no. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Stockman.
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes no. Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes yes. Mr. Hayes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Minge.
    Mr. Minge. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Minge votes no. Mr. Olver.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ward.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes yes. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes yes. Ms. McCarthy.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the roll call tally is yea's 
eight, nay's five.
    Mr. Weldon. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Weldon. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record 
comments that I made as well as a listing of participating 
schools by congressional district. Thank you.
    [The listing follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The amendment is agreed to. And, without 
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
    We will now move on to the Cramer amendment. But, Mr. 
Cramer is not here.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale has an amendment in its stead.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, I do. I offer the McHale 
amendment, which is identical to the previously listed Cramer 
amendment. Both appear on the agenda.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. We will now consider the McHale 
amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. McHale follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale, would you like to move forward 
and discuss your amendment?
    Mr. McHale. I would, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me 
just indicate preliminarily that the--basically the 
parliamentary inquiry that I had raised earlier was presented 
in good faith.
    I had expected that Mr. Cramer would be here and that his 
amendment would be offered and that mine would be withdrawn. In 
light of the changed circumstances, I now offer an amendment 
that I had not intended to bring before the Subcommittee.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. When we 
enacted Public Law 102567 back in October of 1992, we contained 
in Section 706 of that Act a provision that was described as 
restructuring field offices.
    And, in Subsection B, Certification, we essentially made a 
promise to the American people and to those geographic areas 
that could conceivably be affected by the closing of weather 
stations. And, that promise reads in the current law as 
follows. ``The Secretary shall not close, consolidate, automate 
or relocate any field office unless the Secretary has certified 
that such action will not result in any degradation of 
service.''
    And, so for the past three years in many areas, including 
my own in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, we have, in 
reliance upon existing law, given a good faith commitment to 
our constituents that a local weather station would not be 
closed unless there were a certification, as required by law, 
that the closing of that station would not result in a 
degradation of service. Those of us who believe that 
consolidation in certain areas is appropriate and cost 
effective have said, with absolute good faith to our 
constituents, ``Before this office is closed, we will give you 
an assurance, through the Secretary, that you will not, as a 
result of that closing, experience a degradation of service.'' 
And, that's what we have said to our constituents for a three 
year period of time.
    My amendment simply retains current law by deleting the 
provisions in the bill that would eliminate that certification 
requirement. If we now fail to pass the McHale amendment, we 
will, in effect, be breaching faith with all of those 
constituents who have heard us say for three years, ``If this 
station closes, we can assure you there is no degradation of 
service to be expected.''
    My amendment simply requires that that certification 
continue in full force and effect as it has since 1992 and that 
before we close a weather station, as promised, that we require 
the Secretary to provide such a certification that after 
closing those who depend on that service will not experience a 
loss of service.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale, could I ask you a question 
before you yield back the balance of your time?
    Does that mean that if some type of service was being 
provided by the private sector or such that that would be 
calculated into the level of service?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You are not saying that the government has 
to provide the same level of service but that the public has to 
be--at least receive that same level of service if it's from a 
private company or whatever?
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, I believe that to be correct. 
But, more specifically, the certification is described in 
detail under existing law.
    If you turn to Section 706, Subsection B, Certification, 
while I read to you the actual language at the beginning of 
that subsection, it goes on in six different subcategories to 
describe what the certification should include. As far as I'm 
concerned, a private sector assurance would be satisfactory.
    The key is that there be no degradation of service once the 
station is closed; and, in fact, that the station not be closed 
if such a certification cannot, in good faith, be given.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Mr. McHale, we are not forcing 
anyone to close. We are not forcing the Weather Service to be 
closing these offices.
    Mr. McHale. That's correct.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It's not part of this authorization that 
they have to close these offices. But, adding the--your 
amendment would add pressure to them in the decision-making of 
their professional decision-making.
    Mr. McHale. That is correct. But, Mr. Chairman, I would 
point out what you describe as pressure is the promise 
currently included in law that we have been repeating to our 
constituents for three years.
    It does, indeed, limit their discretion to some degree. 
But, we have been telling our constituents, the American 
people, for three years that those limitations are reasonable, 
that they are part of the existing statutory framework.
    And, in fact, we will be breaking faith with our 
constituents if, after three years of promises, we suddenly 
change the statutory requirement.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Does anyone else seek to be recognized?
    Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, for a number of years, NOAA has 
told us that we will get a far better weather system if we go 
to the new modernized program primarily described as NEXRAD. 
They have told us that with that system it would be possible to 
close outmoded weather offices; and, thereby, save money while 
producing a better product. Faster, cheaper, better has been a 
part of what the NOAA new program is all about.
    I have gone to the floor on several occasions and fought to 
try to keep that modernization program in place when Congress 
has made a determination that what it wants to do is try to 
preserve the old system along side the new system. That is, in 
fact, the most costly option--that you preserve the old, 
inefficient system while at the same time trying to modernize 
into the new system.
    The certification process was designed as a way for 
Congress to impede the National Service from reducing the old 
weather stations from roughly 300 to 118 offices. What we have 
in this bill is an attempt to try to streamline the process to 
get to the new system because, in large part, in the out years 
the savings are such that they do help us balance the budget.
    When you have totally completed the new system, we, in 
fact, assume the savings that the Weather Service has always 
told us would be there; and, therefore, get some of the savings 
that show up in the NOAA accounts. If, in fact, what we do is 
load off on NOAA the need to have both the new system and the 
old system along side each other in place at the same time, in 
the out years that, in fact, will put a strain on the rest of 
NOAA's budget.
    And, I've got to tell you, NOAA has been in the paper 
recently saying some just absolutely absurd things about what 
the budget document said in--with regard to their programs, 
because the main assumption in the budget document was that the 
new system and the savings incumbent thereto would, in fact, be 
reflected in our budget options in the years hence. Now, I'm 
beginning to understand why NOAA is doing that, is because we 
now have people who are suggesting that we don't do that 
streamlining and NOAA is going to be required to have both in 
place at the same time.
    I just don't think that you can afford to do that. We are 
either for making the modernization changes which are necessary 
or we are not.
    We are attempting in our bill to streamline that 
modernization process in a way to assure that we get to the 
NEXRAD system. It seems to me that by going to--to language 
which gets in the way of doing that modernization program that 
we make a--a mistake, not only in terms of better weather 
delivery but certainly in terms of the--the need to proceed 
ahead with a balanced budget.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. I don't disagree at all with the concept 
described by the distinguished Chairman of the Committee. I 
think we have to go to a new system.
    I think that system should be smaller and, if possible, 
less expensive than the existing system. The question is 
whether we are going to act dishonorably.
    We have made a promise in law for three years, one that I 
have personally repeated on many occasions, that we will not 
achieve savings by degrading service. If we can achieve savings 
while maintaining or improving service, that is an obligation 
that we have.
    But, we should not achieve savings by degrading service. 
And, worse, after three years of making promises in good faith, 
including enshrining those promises in existing statutory law, 
we should not now go back to those people who have believed us 
for three years and change the system of assurance that we 
wrote into law three years ago.
    All we simply said was, ``Before you move to that newer, 
more efficient, hopefully less expensive system of 
consolidation,'' which I support, ``before you close an 
individual weather station, there should quite reasonably be a 
certification requirement, as written into current law, that 
there will be no degradation of service.''
    And, above and beyond the degradation issue, I truly 
believe there is an issue of good faith here. We have promised 
people for three years that their station won't be closed 
unless there is a certification of non-degradation.
    And, to break that promise now would be dishonorable.
    Mr. Walker. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. McHale. I certainly will.
    Mr. Walker. The--as with any statute that we put in place, 
when new information is developed we ought to have the good 
sense to look at the new information. The Commerce Inspector 
General has, in fact, specifically singled out the 
certification language as an unneeded expense, which is helping 
to increase the cost of modernization.
    Now, given the fact that we now know that, it seems to me 
that simply because we have put something in the statute before 
it turns out to have been the wrong thing to do that maybe now 
we need to revise the statute. And, that is exactly what we are 
attempting to do in this bill.
    We are revising the statute to say we are going to 
streamline the process to get to the better system faster. And, 
we are doing it in line with what the Inspector General has 
already told us is the right thing to do.
    Mr. McHale. Our citizens believed us. It's a question of 
not breaking faith.
    Mr. Stockman. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. One moment.
    Mr. Stockman. I have a question. Was I understanding the 
gentleman correctly that he said before we close them we have 
to certify them?
    Mr. McHale. That's what the law says.
    Mr. Stockman. We are changing law?
    Mr. McHale. Current law.
    Mr. Stockman. But, what you are saying is that before we 
close something we have to certify it?
    Mr. McHale. No. What the law currently says--and, let me--
if I may answer the gentleman's question--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale.--simply by reading the law for the last three 
years, existing law says--and I quote. ``The Secretary shall 
not close, consolidate, automate or relocate any field office 
unless the Secretary has certified that such action will not 
result in any degradation of service.''
    That has been the law for the last three years. We have 
said to people, ``Look, your station may have to close. But, we 
promise you we won't close it unless we can also commit to you 
there will not be a loss of service in your community.''
    I have farmers. I have many other citizens who are 
dependent upon such weather service. And, I'm prepared to look 
them in the eye and tell them that the weather station in our 
community, as part of a cost saving measure, should be closed 
if I can simultaneously promise them that a more efficient 
consolidated system will provide the same quality of service.
    Mr. Stockman. I can just tell you that they closed two in 
my district. And, you know, I don't think it's much of a--well, 
never mind.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there any further discussion on this 
issue?
    Mr. Minge. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Minge. Do we have anything from NOAA or the Weather 
Service on this proposal?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there--let me ask staff.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Minge. Have they asked that we do this or indicated 
that they--
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We have received some communication from 
them concerning these reform efforts. But, it is not identical 
to the amendment that we are being offered here today to the 
bill.
    Mr. Minge. I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Russell. The amendment? We have no communication of 
this amendment.
    Mr. Minge. This is not something they've suggested or that 
we've run by them to find out how this was--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Apparently, the staff tells me, there has 
been no communication with NOAA about this particular 
amendment.
    Mr. Minge. Okay. Mr. Walker, you indicated that the 
Inspector for the Department of Commerce had looked at--
    Mr. Walker. Yes.
    Mr. Minge.--The problems of closing weather stations and 
indicated that a change of this type was desirable. Could we 
place that in the record so that--
    Mr. Walker. I will get the document. I will get the 
document for the record that the Inspector General came forward 
with.
    But, he singled out this certification language. The 
problem with the certification is not the Secretary simply 
saying, ``I certify this.'' It's a very, very long and involved 
process, which means that it makes it extremely difficult to 
close an office.
    And, then even after you close the office, you have to keep 
the employees on for a couple of years after you've closed the 
office, whether they have anything to do or not. And, so you--
you end up with this long, involved, expensive process that the 
Inspector General is saying it really does increase the cost of 
the whole modernization program.
    We are simply saying we think that we ought to change the 
statutory language and get by where some of that is. You know--
    Mr. Minge. And, this change that has made in the Chair's 
mark is consistent with the recommendation that has come from 
the Inspector?
    Mr. Walker. That's my understanding.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. And, apparently what--
    Mr. Walker. I'm told he did not propose specific 
legislation. But, what we did was take the recommendation of 
the Inspector General and put language into the bill which we 
think follows what he was saying was needed in order to change 
the certification process.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. What we have here is Mr. McHale, who is 
suggesting very sincerely that we have made a commitment not to 
in any way diminish the level of service to the American 
people. On the other hand, we have those people opposing, Mr. 
Walker in particular who is opposing, the amendment saying that 
the certification that is being demanded to meet Mr. McHale's 
demands will, indeed, be more costly than they are worth and 
that it is being indicated by certain members of the Executive 
Branch that it is unnecessary costs in the certification level.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I do have a document here from 
NOAA indicating that the cost savings to the modernization 
budget from the repeal of Public Law 102567, which is the 
certification law, would amount, during the 1996 to 2000 time 
frame, to 35 million dollars. So, NOAA has, in fact, prepared 
that kind of document indicating those kinds of savings.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unusual 
situation, in that the distinguished Chairman of the Full 
Committee is defending the viewpoint of the bureaucrats and I 
am defending the impact on the ordinary citizen. I certainly 
understand why NOAA wants to eliminate the challenge of 
complying with the certification requirement that was written 
into law three years ago.
    It makes their job of closure far easier. I would expect 
nothing else from those who administer the closure process.
    I'm speaking out on behalf of the ordinary citizens, many 
of them farmers, for instance, in my district who rely on this 
Weather Service and who have been told by their government and 
by their congressmen for the last three years that their 
weather station won't be closed unless there is a simple, 
straightforward certification that the service will not be 
degraded by the closure. So, I clearly understand why NOAA 
supports the position advocated by the Chairman of the Full 
Committee.
    But, we are breaking faith with those people who have 
believed us for three years if we now change the system three 
years after the promises were made.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale, I--the Chair would suggest 
that Mr. Walker's position is that it's not such a simple and 
cost effective certification process and that, indeed, if one 
leaves it up to the professionals that we can trust that the 
people in NOAA are really there not to decrease quality of 
service, but adding these extra layers of oversight is a costly 
and extraneous expense.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. With that, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. I would like to ask the offeror of this 
amendment a question briefly, because of the time. Is there any 
other precedent that the gentleman can offer where the Congress 
has said we may terminate a facility, may close a facility, but 
only if we certify that whatever service was provided by that 
facility won't be degradated for your particular area?
    Is there any other subject matter that this has ever been 
used? I yield to the gentleman to answer.
    Mr. McHale. Frankly, I think it's implicit in the BRAC 
process. I think it's implicit in the BRAC process that what we 
are saying is, ``We won't close bases unless we can 
simultaneously conclude that the national security of the 
United States isn't adversely affected.''
    In any event, a requirement of non-degradation was written 
into the law three years ago. I have said to many of my 
constituents on numerous occasions that they may well have to 
face the prospect of a closure but that in good faith their 
government will promise to them that if that weather station is 
closed and if another facility several hundred miles away 
assumes that responsibility and does so with improved 
technology, though the facility is distant from the area being 
served, the quality of service will not be degraded.
    And, we've been telling them that, not just in my district 
but as a systematic element of this process, for three years 
that they can rely on that commitment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It is--it is my understanding that what is 
being advocated here is not a--to go along with the degradation 
of service but instead what Mr. Walker has been suggesting is 
that, indeed, we are not advocating degrading the service but 
we are saying that the certification process is a costly and 
extraneous expenditure.
    Mr. Walker. Well, Mr. Chairman--
    Mr. McHale. I don't think the statute requires that.
    Mr. Walker.--The argument of NOAA has been that the NEXRAD 
system, when fully implemented, is vastly better than the old 
system. There can be no degradated system if, in fact, NOAA has 
been correct in telling us what the NEXRAD system is going to 
do.
    I happen to believe that NOAA does have a better system. I 
believe we ought to move quickly to that better system so that 
we have better weather forecasting, not worse weather 
forecasting.
    Mr. McHale. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Walker. What we are now getting is the idea that 
somehow we ought to pile one on top of the other so that we end 
up in the end with more offices, not less. And, I simply 
believe that at a time when we are trying to have fiscal 
restraint, that costs too much money.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. I was going to ask the gentleman to yield for a 
question. I certainly don't want two systems.
    I want a smaller system. I want consolidation.
    And, I believe, for the most part, that improved technology 
will allow the system to move in precisely the direction 
described by Mr. Walker.
    If that is the case, and the statute is clear in terms of 
certification, the issuance of a certification should not be 
complicated or expensive. The statute simply says that if Mr. 
Walker and I are correct and that evolving technology allows 
for consolidation without a loss of service, then under the 
statute all the Secretary has to do is issue a certification to 
that effect.
    I don't want cost savings that result from degraded 
service. And, if the Chairman of the Full Committee is correct 
and the savings can be achieved through better, technologically 
enhanced service, why not certify it?
    Mr. Walker. Well, because it costs one whale of a lot of 
money, 35 million bucks. So, you are going to spend 35 million 
dollars on something other than good weather service.
    And, that's the issue. We don't have 35 million dollars to 
throw away.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. Yes. I need some clarification, because I've 
been listening to this and I--Mr. Chairman, indulge me.
    Does it cost 35 million dollars for the certification 
process or for the new--or for the new system?
    Mr. Walker. For all the delays caused by the certification 
process.
    Ms. Rivers. Is 35 million dollars?
    Mr. Walker. Yes.
    Ms. Rivers. Was there an attempt to streamline--to make the 
recommendation in this process, to streamline the certification 
process to one that makes sense as opposed to eliminating it?
    Mr. Walker. Well, the problem is that we are operating 
under this public law that describes the certification process 
in some detail.
    Ms. Rivers. I understand.
    Mr. Walker. And, what we are attempting to do is streamline 
the process to go to the new, better weather service.
    Ms. Rivers. But, my recollection--and I could be wrong--is 
that the--that the bill does not propose a new, easier way to 
assure people that they are not going to be left in the lurch 
in the changeover. It simply eliminates the current way of 
doing so; is that right?
    Mr. Walker. Well, the language does streamline the process 
in a way that--that basically removes the certification 
process.
    Ms. Rivers. Because I think the argument that is being put 
forward and that I can resonate to as a regular citizen is just 
as when you close down one emergency room and open a brand new 
one that is more cost effective and that is better equipped, 
you don't close it and then build the new one. You have both of 
them for at least the period of time when they overlap when you 
can open the new one and get it going.
    And, that is what I think was being--was being suggested 
with the original language. And, it sounds like no one is 
disagreeing with that.
    Mr. Walker. Well, the original law that put NEXRAD into 
place, in fact--
    Ms. Rivers. Right.
    Mr. Walker.--It fully anticipated--and that is the part of 
the NEXRAD process--that you build the coverage for the area 
and then close the stations behind that. We are not going to 
leave the nation uncovered.
    I can't imagine that NOAA would countenance such a thing. 
This Administration, the Secretary of Commerce, is not going to 
permit NOAA to allow that to happen in the country.
    I mean, that--that is a--the question of the certification 
process that gets very complicated is, you know, when you say 
degradated service and so on, there are all kinds of things 
that that can imply, you know, in fringe areas on the radar. 
And, so you get all kinds of questions raised.
    And, you can take--you can take years to argue through 
those. And, we--we believe that you ought to go to the more 
modernized system once you have the modernized system built.
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes. I am a farmer. And, there are many 
farmers in our districts.
    And, I depend on the Weather Service. If I'm going to cut 
hay, I want to look ahead to see whether we are going to have 
dry weather or not.
    Could we meet the goal that Mr. McHale wants to reach by 
putting in report language that says that it is--the 
presumption of the Committee, whatever the proper language is, 
that stations will not be closed that will degrade service?
    I understand from the Chairman that the problem is that 
there is a very detailed certification procedure that runs 
costs up. And, I think everybody agrees that we shouldn't close 
these stations and degrade service.
    Can we simply meet his objectives by putting report 
language in that says that it is presumed that we will not 
close them if service is going to be degraded and leave it that 
way?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair would be very happy to work with 
Mr. McHale to come up with that report language. I am not sure 
that that would--that this commitment will satisfy Mr. McHale 
in terms of his current amendment, however.
    Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I thank you for the 
courtesy of making that offer. And, Mr. Bartlett, I think it's 
a reasonable proposal.
    And, frankly, if this were 1992, prior to the enactment of 
the statute, you and I at this point would have an agreement 
and there would be no need to go any further. But, I think, 
inevitably, now that we've had a statute in place for three 
years and that statute, in a not very complicated process, 
takes less than half a page of statutory text, has given a 
commitment inevitably to remove it from the statutory law and 
place it in report language communicates a message that weakens 
the requirement of a certification.
    And, so, regrettably, we are three years into the process 
and I think it's too late to approach it solely from the 
perspective of report language.
    Mr. Bartlett. How could it cost 35 million dollars if it 
only is a half a page?
    Mr. McHale. Well, that is what I'm concerned about. Let us 
have some skepticism here that those figures, I believe, have 
come from those who would hope to eliminate the requirement.
    And, I don't mean to suggest bad faith. But, I can 
guarantee you that in determining the cost of certification, 
those who would like to eliminate it are likely to stretch to 
the maximum extent of truth the cost involved in complying with 
the law.
    I am extremely skeptical that it cost 35 million dollars to 
give such a certification.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. McHale, would you say that that's a 
pretty good summary of your position and that we might move on 
now for a vote?
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, I think the issue has been well 
debated on both sides and that it is time for a vote.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. With no further discussion on the 
issue, we will move to the vote.
    Those in favor of the McHale amendment will signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Those opposed, signify by saying no.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It appears that the no's have it.
    The next amendment is Mr. Roemer's. Is Mr. Roemer here to 
present his amendment?
    Mr. Ehlers, do you seek recognition?
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 
I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Ehlers has an amendment. And, Mr. 
Ehlers' amendment is at the desk.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers follows.]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you proceed to describe the purpose 
of your amendment as the Clerk passes it out?
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In perusing the bill 
of NOAA, I was surprised to find on Page 15 and 16 under the 
Program Terminations, termination of the Great Lakes 
Environmental Research Lab/Zebra mussel work and also on Page 
16 the termination of the Sea Grant/Zebra mussel account.
    Now, I'm not sure if everyone here is familiar with the 
Zebra mussel, but if you aren't and particularly if these 
programs are terminated you will become very familiar. And, 
this vote to terminate it would come back to haunt you.
    The Zebra mussel appeared in the Great Lakes a few years 
ago. It came over from Europe, where it is prevalent, and 
apparently was in the ballast tanks of some ships that came in, 
entered the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
    It is a very small mussel. It's not eatable. It doesn't 
have any natural predators here.
    And, it has clogged a great many intake pipes of power 
plants, municipal water supplies and many other areas. It is 
also troublesome to boaters.
    Initially, it was in the Great Lakes. It has now moved 
through the Chicago channel into the Mississippi River.
    And, because boaters haul their boats from lake to lake, it 
has appeared in fresh water inland lakes from the New England 
states through the midwest and is rapidly spreading nationwide.
    At this point, it's costing hundreds of millions of dollars 
per year to municipalities, utilities and others just to try to 
keep their water intake pipes clean, because they grow--they 
are so prolific that they rapidly block the pipes. And, most 
pipes, even when not blocked, are running at less than full 
efficiency and creating problems.
    I would say that if we don't get a handle on it and find 
out what we can do to get rid of the Zebra mussels, either 
chemically or through importation of predators, we are facing 
billions of dollars in annual expense here. So, I would 
certainly oppose terminating those programs.
    That's where the research is centered to try to get rid of 
the Zebra mussel. And, I would certainly appreciate the support 
of the Committee in removing them from the termination list.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Is there any other discussion on this 
issue?
    Mr. Walker. Yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Walker first, please.
    Mr. Walker. Well, I just wanted to point out that the only 
reason why these are in the bill is because these are programs 
zeroed out by the Administration, the specific programs. And, 
so we included all programs zeroed out by the Administration in 
the bill.
    Nothing in this language precludes that program from 
competing for the general fund group. I mean, these are 
specific designations, but nothing would prevent money from 
going to that kind of research work or to--to the laboratory 
and so on.
    I mean, that is all included under the general framework. 
But, the Administration, in its budget presentation, has zeroed 
out a number of these programs. And, we included those things 
zeroed by the Administration in the overall document.
    Mr. Ehlers. If I may, just to respond--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Please.
    Mr. Ehlers. I just would hate to see the Administration's 
actions serve as a guideline for this Committee. So, I would 
hope that we would not terminate this.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Rivers first and--
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Then, Mr. Stockman, you will be next.
    Ms. Rivers. First, I want to commend the maker of this 
amendment. These are, as he pointed out, indeed, very, very 
important issues for the whole Great Lakes Basin and now into 
the midwest as this problem expands across the country.
    There are a couple of issues I want to raise, specifically 
to the Chairman. If you read Line 4 of Page 15 of the bill, it 
says, ``No funds may be appropriated.'' It expressly says that 
they may not be appropriated, not that we are not going to 
compete or that we have a chance to compete.
    But, as I read it, it says they may not even compete for 
dollars.
    Mr. Walker. That's true for the specific account as listed. 
You have to understand, these are specific accounts within the 
appropriation.
    But, it doesn't stop them from getting money under the 
general framework.
    Ms. Rivers. These are programs. As I read through and see 
them, they are all specific programs.
    Mr. Walker. That's right.
    Ms. Rivers. And, it says, ``No funds may be appropriated 
for the following programs and accounts,'' which suggests to me 
a different situation than the idea that all of these are still 
in the mix but they aren't--they aren't going to be handled in 
the way that they have been in the past.
    Mr. Walker. Well, as I understand it, the Zebra mussel 
research could be done through Sea Grant. It can be done under 
our--under our approach.
    These are simply the line items. They will be able to get 
their money under--under the other general accounts. The Sea 
Grant account remains in place.
    Ms. Rivers. So--oh, I see. So, what you are saying is that 
the money that will go to those depart--or to those particular 
entities for their general research, which is probably going to 
be cut, they can also use that money to cover these programs?
    Mr. Walker. Right.
    Ms. Rivers. So--
    Mr. Walker. That's right. These are specific line items. 
And, we are striking the line item.
    But, there is still the overall pot of money from which 
they could get money.
    Ms. Rivers. The likely to be very diminished pot of money.
    Mr. Walker. It could be a diminished pot of money. That's 
right.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. They may want--
    Ms. Rivers. Yes, an extremely diminished pot of money.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. They may want to research the Tiger mussel 
instead of the Zebra mussel or perhaps some other kind of 
mussel that they know about.
    Ms. Rivers. Or under-used mussels.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Or, under-used mussels. They are probably 
more expert--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. They probably have more expertise on which 
mussels are important than the members of this Committee--
    Ms. Rivers. And, lastly--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Including the Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Rivers:--The point that I would make about whether or 
not this has been zeroed out in the President's proposed 
budgets over the years is that's one of the lovely things about 
the Constitution. The President gets to make decisions down at 
that end of Pennsylvania Avenue and we get to make decisions 
here.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That's correct.
    Ms. Rivers. And, this is one issue that I think should stay 
in the budget and should be funded, because it's certainly a 
``you can pay me now or you can pay me later'' issue. Zebra 
mussels are not going away.
    They are costing an astronomical amount to this country. 
They are going to continue to expand. And, we are going to have 
to do something about it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Mr. Stockman has a position.
    Mr. Stockman. I will be a little quicker. I--just because I 
sit next to Vernon and he's buying me dinner tonight doesn't 
mean that I--I'm actually--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Even if it's mussel that you get.
    Mr. Stockman. That's right.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Stockman. It is a serious problem. And, it is causing 
problems in Michigan with the drinking water and everything 
else.
    And, I support it even though I am from Texas.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I appreciate that. Now, Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to 
reiterate the sentiments of my two colleagues from Michigan and 
indicate that in the 5th Congressional District in Michigan I 
have some 500 miles of shoreline on Lake Huron.
    And, it is a very important problem that is impacting our 
sport fishery and recreational boating on the Great Lakes. And, 
I really think the amount of money involved in the Zebra mussel 
research is minimal compared to the impact that it could have 
should we be able to effectively control their growth in the 
Great Lakes Basin.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. McHale. Mr. Ehlers is buying dinner for all of us who 
vote with him?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, but, as I say, it's all Zebra 
mussel. So, if you--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Ehlers. Dinner will be at 10 p.m. this evening.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The--just the Chair will note that this 
amendment does not necessarily preclude--as we have said, there 
is nothing in the law right now that precludes any of the 
various agencies or departments or research facilities that are 
financed through the legislation, this legislation and other 
legislation, from delving into this project, delving into the 
Zebra mussel problem. This is--but, specifically this mandates 
that money be spent for this problem.
    And, again, this is the--the Committee has a perfect right 
to set the priority. And, this is something that if members of 
the Committee choose to do so, that--as Ms. Rivers talked 
about, having--this should be a priority.
    And, that's what we will be voting on. With no further 
discussion, I would like to take this to a vote.
    And, it would be all in favor of--and this is Mr. Ehlers' 
amendment. All in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All opposed will say nay.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It appears that the ayes have it. And, I 
hope no one calls for a roll call vote on that one.
    Okay. The amendment is agreed to.
    Now, we will move on to what may be the final amendment. 
Mr. McHale will offer the Roemer amendment.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my 
understanding is that the Roemer amendment has been previously 
accepted by the leadership on both sides of the aisle. That is 
my understanding.
    Mr. Roemer--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Could you read the amendment?
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Roemer (by Mr. McHale) 
follows:]


    Mr. McHale. I certainly would. The Roemer amendment, which 
I offer on behalf of Mr. Roemer. Page 19, Lines 20 and 21, 
amend paragraph [1] to read as follows. Subparagraph [1] 
forecasts and shall serve as the sole official source of 
weather warnings.
    I was advised by Mr. Roemer's staff that the Majority 
leadership had agreed to accept such an amendment. And, in that 
spirit, I offer it.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And, the Chair also 
accepts this amendment.
    And, I compliment Mr. McHale as well as Mr. Roemer for all 
the good work that they have done on this issue of Weather 
Service Privatization. I know in both your cases that it's 
something that is near and dear to your hearts and you believe 
this is an important responsibility and you make sure that the 
job is done right.
    And, I really appreciate--even if there is some 
disagreement, you folks are very responsible people. And, you 
have my admiration for the hard work you've put into this.
    So, with that support, I guess we will just bring it to a 
vote. If there is no further discussion, I will bring the 
Roemer amendment to a vote.
    And, those in favor of the Roemer amendment will signify by 
saying aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It appears that the ayes have it. And, the 
Roemer amendment is agreed to.
    Do we have any further amendments? Are there any further 
amendments?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Hearing none, the Chair moves the bill, as 
amended. All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All those opposed will say no.
    [A chorus of nays.]
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that you have a 
quorum in the room. And, so, therefore, we may have to wait 
until we can round up enough members to come in to finalize the 
vote, because--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This is a voice vote right now.
    Mr. Walker. Right.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So, with the--it appears that the ayes 
have it. It is the opinion of the Chair that the ayes have it.
    Mr. Walker. I believe we do have a quorum now. We have 11 
of ours in the room. So, okay.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We are now moving to final passage.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We just passed the bill.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. We have been asked for a roll call vote on 
the final passage which was--which is what we just voted.
    Mr. McHale. Right. Ask for a roll call.
    [The Chairman is conferring with staff.]
    Ms. Rivers. A point of order. It appears there is not a 
quorum present.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. A point of order has been raised that a 
quorum is not present. The Chair calls for a recess of 10 
minutes.
    And, after that, we will reconvene and hopefully we will 
have a quorum present at that time.
    [Whereupon, a recess is taken at 5:26 p.m., to reconvene at 
5:38 p.m., this same date.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The Chair will be calling the meeting back 
to order. The Chair believes a quorum is present.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. This is a vote on final passage, a vote on 
final passage.
    Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Fawell.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Weldon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon votes yes. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes yes. Mr. Wamp.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham.
    Mr. Graham. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Graham votes yes. Mr. Salmon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Largent.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin.
    Mrs. Cubin. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin votes yes. Mr. Foley.
    Mr. Foley. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Foley votes yes. Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff votes yes. Mr. Baker.
    Mr. Baker. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baker votes yes. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes yes. Mr. Stockman.
    Mr. Stockman. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Stockman votes yes. Mr. Walker.
    Mr. Walker. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes yes. Mr. Hayes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Minge.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Olver.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ward.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Doyle.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Roemer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cramer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia.
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Barcia votes yes. Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes no. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers.
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Rivers votes no. Ms. Johnson votes no. Ms. 
McCarthy.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The Clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, I count 13 yea's, three nay's.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. It appears that the ayes have it. And, the 
bill is agreed to and passed.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a clean bill be 
prepared by the Chairman for introduction in the House for 
further consideration by the Committee.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. With no objection--
    Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief statement?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mrs. Cubin.
    Mrs. Cubin. I would like to thank you and all of the 
Committee for the hard work that you've put into this bill. 
And, I do support this legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure that the ongoing effort to 
modernize the National Weather Service station in Riverton, 
Wyoming continues to move forward and that the site opens on 
schedule. I believe that the bill accomplishes this goal, but I 
would like to make a request that report language be included 
to this effect.
    My office has worked with the Committee staff on suggested 
language.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, thank you.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. One moment. On Mr. Walker's motion, the 
Subcommittee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The motion is agreed to. And, the bill be 
reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Five seconds, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
compliment you and Mr. Walker.
    In the last amendment by Mr. Ehlers, there were two no 
votes that I heard. And, I heard them both behind me.
    And, I've been here long enough in previous congresses to 
know those two votes would have carried the day in previous 
committees. So, I congratulate you for standing by your 
statement that one person, one vote.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just like to close this hearing by 
saying--this markup, I should say, by saying that we have 
really accomplished a great deal today. It has been a lot of 
hard work.
    This was the first markup that I have ever chaired. And, so 
I was a little bit rusty.
    But, there is also something that we should all be aware 
of. We are all in new roles.
    I mean, I had the distinguished former Chairman, Mr. Brown, 
who was here in a totally different role than he has been in 
for the entire time that I've been in the United States 
Congress; and, Mr. Walker, who is now the Chairman of the 
overall Committee. And, we are all trying to make sure that we 
are not just comfortable but doing what we have to be doing--
have to do in our new responsibilities the very best way we 
can. And, in terms of the way this Committee, the Subcommittee, 
has functioned during this markup, I am very pleased that we 
are able to keep the process as open as we did.
    We--I operated in good faith that anybody who wanted to try 
to rearrange the priorities within the caps that we've been 
given were permitted to have that opportunity. And, in many 
cases, the decisions were made not by the Republicans on one 
side versus the Democrats on the other but by groups of people 
who are members of this Committee making the decision that this 
was the right priority to have on the particular item that was 
being voted on.
    And, I think that's exactly the type of spirit. It's a 
democratic spirit that I would like to maintain.
    And, I'm very pleased with the way we have turned out.
    Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Mr. Walker. Let me compliment you. I mean, this is a tough 
job for somebody who has never done any markups before as 
Chairman.
    And, to have done three bills today and done them in a way 
that gave the whole Subcommittee an opportunity to have their 
voice, I think is a compliment to you and your staff. And, we 
thank you for the hard work that went into getting us ready for 
this and taking us through it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. With that, I declare that this 
markup is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 5:35 p.m.]

    [Additional material follows:]
    
    
             XVIII. Proceedings From Full Committee Markup

                              ----------                              




  FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1815, THE NOAA AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995

             U.S. House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met at 12:10 p.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn 
House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker, chairman 
of the committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. Good afternoon.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science is meeting 
today to consider the following measures:
    HR 1815--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995;
    HR 1175, the Marine Resources Revitalization Act of 1995;
    HR 1601, the International Space Station Authorization Act 
of 1995;
    HR 1851, the U.S. Fire Administration Act;
    HR 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act; 
and
    HR 1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995.
    The Chair would request unanimous consent for authority to 
recess.
    Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If there is no objection, so ordered.
    I have an opening statement then on the bill HR 1815.
    Then we'll recognize Mr. Brown for an opening statement.
    [The bill follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Prior to that opening statement, I do want to 
indicate that included in your packs that you received at your 
offices last week, I'll be offering a substitute text to HR 
1175, the Sea Grant bill, and incorporating portions of 1815, 
the NOAA Authorization Act of 1995, as passed by the Committee, 
which are relevant to the National Sea Grant College Program 
Act.
    If you desire to amend the Sea Grant Reauthorization in any 
manner that is different from what is currently in 1815, you 
should offer an amendment to debate the issue during the 
consideration of the bill 1815.
    Am I making that clear?
    All we're going to do is take the language out of 1815 and 
put it into this other bill a little later on, and so what we 
ought to do is get the amendments that you might want to offer 
in that case taken care of while we consider 1815.
    HR 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of '95, provides 
authorizations for NOAA programs within the Science Committee's 
jurisdiction for fiscal year 1996.
    With few exceptions, such as the Next Generation Weather 
Radar, NEXRAD, and the GOE Stationary Satellite Observing 
Systems, GOES, all of NOAA's programs are currently 
unauthorized.
    HR 1815 authorization levels are in keeping with the House 
budget resolution spending cap of $1.752 billion for NOAA. This 
authorization level represents a decrease of almost $300 
million below NOAA's 1995 total and over a $475 million 
reduction below the President's FY 1996 request.
    I might also say that this is a figure which is precisely 
the same as what was in the Conference Report adopted for the 
budget. That Conference Report accepted the House figures in 
this arena.
    Shortly after the passage of the House Budget Resolution, 
NOAA released an analysis claiming that its budget could not be 
cut without jeopardizing American lives and property.
    Specifically, NOAA stated that the budget of $1.725 billion 
would cause the agency to reduce weather satellite coverage by 
half, leading to gaps in service and loss of the ability to 
predict severe weather events.
    NOAA went on to claim that meeting the budget resolution 
target would force the agency to suspend its $4 billion 
National Weather Service modernization program and close 
already modernized offices across the country.
    Miraculously, HR 1815 meets the House passed budget targets 
without fulfilling any of NOAA's grave predictions. In truth, 
this is no miracle, it's just sound budgeting.
    NOAA's budget has grown almost exponentially over the last 
five years. Between 1990 and 1995 fiscal years, NOAA's budget 
increased from $1.3 billion to $2 billion. That's over 50 
percent.
    HR 1815 would pare this astronomic growth back to just over 
30 percent through fiscal year 1996.
    Contrary to NOAA's dire forecasts, HR 1815 fully funds the 
National Weather Service Modernization Acquisition Initiative, 
allowing the Weather Service to build and turn on all of its 
new doppler radar units on schedule.
    The National Weather Service account is trimmed only 
slightly, around three percent, from the President's budget 
request. This reduction can be absorbed as the Weather Service 
downsizes with the completion of modernization.
    HR 1815 also provides a 25 percent increase for NOAA's 
satellite programs over fiscal year 1995. This increase, 
although below the President's request, would give the program 
the funding it requires to maintain healthy polar and 
geostationary satellite programs without degrading service.
    The bill also contains numerous cost saving measures. It 
eliminates cumbersome and costly certification requirements for 
the National Weather Service, allowing the Service to close old 
and unneeded weather offices.
    It terminates NOAA's ill-conceived $1.9 billion fleet 
modernization effort, transitioning NOAA out of owning and 
operating its own vessels in favor of private, non-profit ships 
and data gathering.
    The bill also phases out the uniformed NOAA corps over the 
next three years, an anachronistic throwback to the 1800s when 
mapping of the U.S. coastline was considered military, not 
civilian endeavors.
    HR 1815 also contains important privatization initiatives, 
refocusing the National Weather Service's charter to ensure it 
concentrates on providing basic weather forecasting warnings 
but does not compete with the growing private weather 
forecasting industry, which is ideally suited to provide 
specialized weather services.
    The bill language should not only expand the availability 
of specialized commercial products, but also save the taxpayers 
money as the private sector continues to build the capacity to 
provide the same high quality service which at one time only 
the U.S. Government could offer.
    HR 1815 is an important measure. It is fiscally sound, and 
will make needed reforms in the way NOAA conducts its business.
    The bill's authors, Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher, 
and Ranking Member Jimmy Hayes, deserve praise for their good 
work, and I encourage all my colleagues to support this 
measure.
    I would now recognize Mr. Brown for an opening statement.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I would just like to make some general comments.
    First of all, I think that the Chairman and the 
Subcommittee Chairmen and Ranking Members all deserve 
commendation for bringing the full list of authorization bills 
to the floor this early in the session.
    While we have in the past been able to bring some bills to 
the floor earlier than this, I doubt if the Committee record 
will ever reflect that we brought this number of bills before 
the Committee for action this early in the session.
    This praise is modified somewhat by the fact that in most 
cases, we felt, on our side, that there was an inadequate 
hearing record and inadequate opportunity to fully discuss, at 
the Subcommittee level, all of the policy implications of these 
bills.
    We recognize, of course, that this is in part due to 
scheduling matters which the Chair had no control over, and we 
hope that these will not be repeated in the future.
    I also want to point out that the Chair is not bringing up 
a bill which is extremely important, an authorizing bill, to 
the Members of the minority and the Administration, and 
apparently he's doing this deliberately to avoid any action on 
authorizing the continuation of the Advanced Technology 
Programs in NIST and the Manufacturing Extension Program.
    We regret this very much, and hope that this can be 
resolved.
    Proceeding into some other, more general items, I have a 
very strong objection to the process that the Chair has used 
this year, and I've expressed it previously, in indicating that 
he was following a certain mandate dictated by the Budget Act, 
or the budget actions. He's described it as a 602[b] process. 
And to the degree to which he implies that there's any legality 
to what he's done in assigning arbitrary numbers to the 
subcommittees which needed to be met, that is not the case.
    As we all know, the Budget Act and the 602[b] process, 
which describes the way in which the Appropriations Committee 
shall act, has no relevance to, bearing on, or in any way 
relates to what the Authorizing Committee does.
    This is indicated in every authorizing bill that comes 
before the House and which, under the Section CBO cost 
estimate, it says this measure is an authorization bill and is 
not covered by spending limitations in the Budget Act or any 
budget resolution, because it does not directly result in 
expenditures.
    I think what the Chairman has done appears to contradict 
this actual factual situation, and to that degree, I think he 
has, deliberately or not, misled the Committee as to the 
relevance of his proposals.
    I should note also that in making a survey of what other 
Committees have done, we find that, other than the 
Appropriations Committee, there is no other Committee that has 
followed this procedure.
    And I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a 
survey conducted by the staff, showing the practices of the 
various other Committees.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [``Current Authorization Practices of the Various 
Committees'' follows:]


    Mr. Brown. Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, I was 
personally affronted by the fact that the process that you 
followed involved no consultation with the minority in any way, 
shape, or form. I regret that very much, and I hope it can be 
remedied in the future.
    I would like to quote a paragraph from a recent book that 
describes the operations of the--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Is the distinguished Ranking Member aware 
that I did call him in the Subcommittee process?
    I know that I called him, the ranking minority member, and 
consulted with him, and my staff, and instructed my staff to 
consult with his staff during the process.
    We did, at least on my part, I can tell you that we 
consulted quite a bit.
    Mr. Brown. I accept that comment. I think that the 
gentleman did exactly what he describes, but that is not what 
I'm talking about. I'm talking about the assignment to you by 
the Chairman of a number which he described as a 602[b] cap 
which you were not going to be allowed to exceed, until of 
course the Chairman subsequently changed that number.
    Proceeding, I would like to quote just one paragraph from 
this book describing the Appropriations Committee process, and 
I quote:
    ``Although Appropriations remains the most bipartisan of 
Congressional Committees, interparty bickering has increased.''
    This was written about two years ago. When Silvio Conte 
served as the House Panels Ranking Republican throughout the 
nineties, it didn't seem to matter that the minority party 
didn't participate in the allocation process since Conte 
informally worked with Whitten to get what he wanted.
    Relations changed in February, 1991, after Conte died 
suddenly and the more conservative Joseph McDade took over and 
demanded increased control. When Whitten, as usual, informed 
the Ranking Republicans of the allocations only after the 
cardinals, that's the Democratic cardinals, had met, McDade 
filed a formal protest calling the process troubling and at 
present unsatisfactory. Joined by the Committee's 21 other 
Minority Members, McDade declared that the allocations, and 
this is quoting McDade's and the Minority Leader, ``heavily 
influence and in some instances, dictate the future funding 
decisions of each of the Subcommittees, and complained that 
there is no consultation, no solicitation of opinions, and no 
sharing of information prior to the time the allocations are 
brought forth in Full Committee for ratification. Whitten 
promised to investigate ways to open the process but no one on 
the panel expects new procedures.''
    Now, and that's the end of the quotation. This is precisely 
the process which Mr. Walker followed without the benefit of 
clergy. In other words, there was no legal basis for him to do 
it. There was a legal basis for the Appropriations Committee to 
do it.
    I am protesting. I will put it in writing and have it filed 
later on, but I'm making the statement at this point to try and 
discourage the Chairman from working this kind of magic on the 
Committee in the future.
    And while he may say that if it was good enough for 
Whitten, it's good enough for him, I had hoped that the new 
revolutionary majority would set a higher standard of conduct 
in accordance with what, when they were in the minority, they 
thought ought to be done by the majority at that time.
    That concludes my opening statement.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his opening 
statement.
    Just a couple of points.
    The Chair did share with the gentleman from California the 
numbers that he was giving to the Subcommittee Chairman at 
exactly the same time that he gave them to the Subcommittee 
Chairman.
    So to suggest that this information came as a surprise to 
the gentleman, it was in fact a process where the Chair did 
share that information. And secondly, the Chair has never 
suggested that there was any legal mandate to do this.
    The Chair, in consultation with his Subcommittee Chairmen, 
decided this was the way we wanted to proceed in order to make 
ourselves relevant in the process. And the bottom line was that 
in the bill that we are about to consider, if we could get back 
to the subject matter, the budget number ends up being exactly 
the number to which we are working.
    Now that does in fact mean that we have some ability then 
to set priorities within the number that is going to be real 
throughout the process.
    It seems to me that there's some advantage to us in 
proceeding that way. There's no legal mandate on it. It just 
simply is something which in fact increases our chance to 
participate in a meaningful way. Some people may not want to 
participate in that meaningful way. That's certainly their 
right.
    Mr. Brown. May I respond briefly, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Brown. The example the Chairman has given of course is 
a fluke actually in which the final budget number is the same 
as the House passed number. That is not true in most other 
budget categories.
    The Chair, himself, has recognized this by making a major 
change in the number that he handed down on energy research and 
development, and if he were to be consistent, he would make 
similar changes in the other numbers that he handed down from 
on high.
    The Chairman. Well, the fact is that in most cases, the 
numbers, other than the energy number, have not changed.
    They are, the Committee is working within those numbers. 
And if anything, in a couple of cases, we may end up with lower 
numbers than what were in the Budget Resolution.
    Mr. Brown. That's always possible.
    The Chairman. And so, you know, we are proceeding in good 
faith to try to maintain that kind of relevance. But, you know, 
we are hopeful that all of this will result in some better 
policy initiatives. We'll just have to wait and see.
    Part of the revolutionary majority is to in fact change 
things not only in the operational style of Congress, but also 
ultimately change things that have been going wrong in terms of 
the policies of the country, and we're making a big effort in 
that regard.
    The Chairman would ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
considered read, open to amendment at any point.
    I ask the members would proceed then with amendments in the 
order of the roster.
    The first amendment on the roster on this bill is an en 
bloc amendment that the Chairman is offering.
    Is that in the package?
    That amendment will have to be distributed.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. I have no objection to considering an en bloc 
amendment, provided we agree that the text of the bill as 
amended would be considered as original text for the purposes 
of amendment.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is correct. That's what we'll 
be doing. That will leave you the availability for your 
substitute, then.
    Let me explain the en bloc while it's being distributed.
    What I'm trying to do is make several minor technical 
changes, and it combines noncontroversial amendments to the 
NOAA bill in order to speed consideration of the bill. The bill 
as originally drafted or the en bloc amendment, as originally 
drafted, included an authorization report from the Inspector 
General of the Department of Commerce on consolidating NOAA 
laboratory facilities.
    This item was considered controversial by Mr. Brown, so 
therefore I will offer that as a separate amendment, rather 
than having it considered as part of the en bloc.
    The en bloc amendment adds language supported by, first of 
all, Mr. Boehlert, which specifies that NOAA should expend the 
same percentage on extramural climate research as it did last 
year, with reductions the climate research accounts. Some have 
speculated that NOAA would simply cut extramural research. The 
Boehlert amendment preserves a working relationship between 
NOAA and the academic community.
    Mr. Weldon's is included to initiate a study within NOAA to 
ensure that defense-related assets and data which could assist 
the agency in doing research are not lost.
    A number of important defense-related systems such as the 
Over the Horizon Radar, the Navy's Underwater Sonar Arrays, 
have exciting potential to assist in data collection for 
climate, weather and marine research.
    Some work has already been done in this area. However, the 
Weldon amendment should be a clear indication that this 
Committee supports NOAA's exploring the dual use area.
    I will also note that identical language, also sponsored by 
Mr. Weldon, passed the House last year but died in the Senate.
    The en bloc amendment also includes an amendment by Mr. 
Cramer to allow for new NEXRADs to be sited if two criteria are 
met. They are contained within the National Weather Service 
modernization implementation plan, and second, the Secretary of 
Commerce can certify that they can be acquired and sited 
without requiring additional authorizations of funds.
    At the Administration's request, it shifts over $4 million 
to within two satellite accounts. The increase is taken from 
the Polar Orbiting Satellite Account and is shifted to the Data 
and Information Services.
    If my amendment is adopted, Data and Information Services 
will be funded at its 1995 level. This change is being made at 
the Administration's request.
    The amendment also makes some minor technical changes to 
the bill, including narrowing the definition of Fire Weather 
Forecasts, correcting the term Weather Modification Grants, and 
giving the Secretary of Commerce the authority to reduce the 
number of NOAA Corps offices in keeping with the bill's intent 
to do away with the Corps by the end of fiscal year 1998.
    It also adds the same language prohibiting lobbying 
activities and earmarking, as we have added to the DOE and EPA 
bills.
    Are there additional members who wish to be heard?
    Mr. Cramer and then I'll come to Mr. Weldon.
    Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to say very quickly, I thank you for accepting my 
amendment.
    My amendment would have simply corrected the limitation on 
the Weather Service's modernization plan that was contained in 
the bill.
    The current bill language that was offered would not have 
allowed any flexibility for changes in that modernization plan.
    As this Committee knows, we began a process last summer, 
even a field hearing in my district there, over the Weather 
Service's modernization plan. Several of us on this Committee, 
others in Congress were concerned that perhaps we were in gap 
areas.
    We started a National Research Council review of the 
Weather Service modernization plan. That review was completed 
two weeks ago. It identified five geographic areas, my district 
included, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Roemer and others in the Congress of 
course, as areas that would likely experience a degradation of 
service under the existing Weather Service modernization plan.
    So I think by the language that the Chairman has accepted 
here, we've allowed flexibility to meet the safety needs of the 
public and to accommodate needed changes in the modernization 
plan if that is eventually recommended. And we now expect that 
that will be recommended.
    So I thank the Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much.
    Mr. Weldon?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. I thank the Chairman for yielding. I thank 
the Chairman for also accepting our amendment in his en bloc 
amendment.
    The amendment that I've offered, I offer as the Chairman of 
the Research and Development Subcommittee for the National 
Security Committee, and it's partly because of my frustration 
with the level of funding for ocean research coming out of our 
budget mark.
    I happen to think that we've gone too far in that area. I 
understand the realities of the budget situation. But I want to 
be able to look for possible ways that what we're doing for the 
military can be shared with the environmental community where 
that use is in fact compatible.
    I also want to thank our colleague, Mr. McHale, who sits on 
the Research and Development Subcommittee and who helped in 
this amendment because I think it sends a signal to both NOAA 
and to the military that we want to maximize those dollars 
we're spending on an extensive undersea research effort by the 
military, where possible, for civilian use and for on-going 
environmental activities.
    I think it's fairly noncontroversial.
    And once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your 
willingness to accept this amendment in your en bloc.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in strong support of the Chairman's en bloc 
amendments. We have been working with a number of people on the 
Committee, including Mr. Cramer, Mr. Wamp, in making sure that 
the 15-year-old national weatherization plan incorporates true 
science and protection of public safety.
    This plan is 15 years old. It is not perfect by any stretch 
of the imagination. The National Resource Council just came out 
with a new, scientific report saying that there are five areas 
that are going to experience gaps in current coverage.
    And my area, Northern Indiana, is particularly vulnerable 
to lake effect snow and thunderstorms coming off of Lake 
Michigan with absolutely no warning, threatening school 
children on buses and farmers out in the field. And the next 
generation, NEXRAD radar would certainly help in providing 
protection that the current radar in Illinois and Michigan 
cannot provide. It's based upon true science, it seeks to 
protect the public, and I strongly encourage support of the 
Chairman's amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment at 
the desk.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. And, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
it be modified to make the proper page and line references.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman,--
    The Chairman. The Chair is prepared to take the amendment 
so the gentleman can describe it.
    Mr. Brown. --I will very briefly describe it.
    The purpose is to slightly focus the rather broad section 
505 and to conform it to the existing law which prohibits 
lobbying by officers and employees of the United States.
    And as the gentleman has already indicated, he's willing to 
accept it. We think that it will make the language both more 
specific and more in conformity with the present law so that it 
can be enforced more effectively.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The Chair understands 
that this is language that presently exists in the U.S. Code, 
and thinks that this does help conform the language to present 
law, and is prepared to accept the amendment to the en bloc 
amendment.
    Is there any further discussion on the amendment to the en 
bloc amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The amendment to the en 
bloc amendment is agreed to.
    Is there further discussion of the en bloc amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the en bloc amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The en bloc amendment is 
adopted.
    The next amendment would be Mr.--
    Oh, I'm sorry, I have an additional amendment that we 
pulled out of the en bloc and the Clerk will distribute the 
amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. This is a study by the Inspector General, and 
the Chair will indicate his intention on the amendment.
    The Chief Scientist at NOAA has already completed a study 
of the NOAA laboratory functions, and although we have not seen 
the study yet, indications are that NOAA judges all of its 
laboratories to be models of efficiency.
    As long as NOAA or the Department of Commerce is reviewing 
itself, I'm afraid we're going to get the same result. The 
Commerce Inspector General is far more likely to look 
objectively at NOAA's labs and see if there are areas where 
money can be saved.
    There's nothing wrong with the I.G. investigating ways to 
save money. The Commerce I.G. has a dual charter. One portion 
is ferreting out waste, fraud and abuse. The other, however, is 
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the programs 
within Commerce.
    This study falls under that category and is fully 
consistent with the I.G.'s charter.
    The Committee, by adopting this language, is not accusing 
NOAA's labs of graft or corruption, but rather is ensuring that 
NOAA's facilities are run in the most efficient and effective 
manner possible.
    Neither the Secretary of Commerce nor the Congress is 
required to follow the I.G.'s recommendations. I, however, 
think that it would be very worthwhile to hear his opinion, and 
have that to consider as we do our deliberations in further 
authorizations.
    Is there further discussion of the amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Again, I have a perfecting amendment which I 
would like to offer at this time.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the perfecting 
amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. And I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified so it makes the proper page and line corrections.
    The Chairman. The Chair has not seen this amendment, and so 
therefore would reserve a point of order until I've had a 
chance to look at the language.
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Mr. Chairman, this is really a very simple amendment. It 
substitutes, for the Inspector General, the Secretary of the 
Department, and we feel that the main justification for this is 
that the scope of the study requested here, which obviously 
would establish a base for the closing of facilities and 
activities within the department, and as such is probably 
comparable to a base closing process as much as anything else, 
and is a much broader function than that which the Inspector 
General is normally called upon to perform.
    We're talking here about factors such as the organization 
of activities, their location, their mission, their detailed 
activities, and while we concur that the Inspector General will 
have familiarity with some of these things, we feel that the 
broad policy nature of the activity would be better served if 
the Secretary, acting of course in cooperation with the 
Inspector General as he deems necessary, were to be the one 
responsible for the actual carrying out of this mission.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Brown. I certainly would yield.
    The Chairman. The concern that has been expressed about 
giving it to the Secretary is the fact that the likelihood is 
that the Secretary would simply give it back to NOAA who have 
already given us a report telling us that everything is hunky 
dory, and that's the concern.
    Would the gentleman, if the Chair was prepared to accept 
this language, be willing to accept report language that 
specifically tells the Secretary he cannot give it to NOAA to 
do, and with a recommendation that the Secretary assign this to 
the Inspector General?
    Mr. Brown. This gentleman would like to be flexible on that 
point, and appreciates the Chair's willingness to be flexible 
also. We think that that kind of language could be done, and 
I'd like to see the exact form of the language in the report, 
of course.
    But I would like to also point out that in connection with 
similar activities in other departments, such as the Department 
of Energy, for example, the Secretary has been the one who 
carried out these functions, and has done so very aggressively 
and has done so to initiate actions which have resulted in 
major reductions in the functions of the department.
    We think that this is a parallel situation. But if the 
language that you suggest in the report--
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair's principal concern is that 
the Secretary simply not hand this off to the agency and allow 
the agency to do another study.
    So I mean if we could have at least report language 
indicating that that would not be acceptable, the Chair would 
also prefer that we give some indication that the appropriate 
place to handle this may be the Inspector General but has some 
flexibility with regard to that.
    If that's acceptable to the gentleman in terms of having 
some report language in that sense, then I'm prepared to accept 
his amendment.
    Mr. Brown. I'll accept as approved, but the gentleman is 
getting to the point where he likes to see the specific 
language, however.
    The Chairman. Sure, that being the case.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. One thing that struck me is I'd like to get rid 
of the Department of Commerce. What are we going to do if we do 
that?
    The Chairman. Well,--
    Mr. Brown. All bets are off then.
    The Chairman. Yes. Let me say to the gentleman that all 
this is predicated on the fact that we're authorizing within 
the present framework, and this is a one-year authorization. 
The chances are that even if we have a proposal to get rid of 
the Department of Commerce, it will take most a year for that 
to play out.
    This would simply be language that will assure that the 
appropriate policies are being pursued during the time of 
transition to something other than the Department of Commerce.
    This is not an assumption that we're keeping the Department 
of Commerce in any way, shape. We're just doing our work 
relative to the present structure.
    The Chair will put the question on the amendment to the 
amendment.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment as amended?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The amendment is approved.
    The next amendment is Mr. Brown's amendment.
    Mr. Brown. We've already taken that up, Mr. Chairman, or 
have we?
    The Chairman. No, you have one in the nature of a 
substitute. That amendment is in the package.
    [Pause.]
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. If I may proceed, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I'm sorry, the gentleman's recognized.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, the substitute is a continuation 
of our effort in connection with many of these bills to present 
an alternative funding profile based upon our sense of the 
higher priority of research and development and our previously 
stated position.
    While we are in accordance with the Chair's desire to 
follow a path which will lead to a balanced budget, we do not 
necessarily agree that his path is the only path to follow in 
order to achieve this.
    I'm offering this amendment as a part of this overall 
budgetary approach with regard to critical investments in 
research and development, and I'd like to make a few points.
    First, this bill cuts spending by over, this substitute 
cuts spending by over $40 million below the FY '95 levels. We 
arrived at this figure, not through some arbitrary limitation 
given to us by another committee, but through a detailed 
examination of what was needed to sustain our critical 
investments in NOAA operations and research.
    This spending reduction is real and responsible. We have no 
illusory savings here, as does the Committee bill.
    We do not purport to save money by cutting programs that 
are not in our Committee's jurisdiction. And we are not 
assuming large savings in report language.
    Because we are confining our bill to the Committee's 
jurisdiction, the substitute is $300 million below the 
Committee bill in spending. If we were to faithfully follow the 
allocation system, as do the Appropriations Committees, this 
sum should be available to other programs in our jurisdiction, 
such as energy research or NIST, extramural programs, or as 
some members would prefer, for deficit reduction.
    Within our jurisdiction, we've taken a responsible look at 
the programs we have some understanding of, and we have trimmed 
spending where it was possible.
    Although the Committee hearing record this year provides 
little guidance for either side of the aisle in making the far-
reaching recommendations called for, we have limited the scope 
of our substitute to programs with which the Committee has some 
history of involvement. Weather modernization, satellite 
programs, and so on.
    The second and related point is that the substitute is 
intended to minimize jurisdictional conflicts. It contains some 
programs for which we have overlapping jurisdiction with the 
Resources Committee, but by and large, it's a clean bill.
    We've not cluttered the bill with program decisions that 
other Committees clearly have greater competence to make.
    At the outset of this Congress, I welcomed the Republican 
initiative to streamline the referral process. The gridlock 
that slowed down legislation in the past truly did not serve 
the taxpayer well.
    What we have in the Committee bill amounts to a repudiation 
of this reform. We have far-reaching decisions on ocean and 
coastal management programs and operational aspects of NOAA 
that will surely be the subject of jurisdictional dispute.
    The Committee bill is not a serious effort at streamlining 
the legislative process.
    And the third point that I would like to make is that we've 
made a serious effort to fund some aspects of NOAA that were 
seriously underfunded in the Committee bill. These areas of 
concern are primarily in the basic research area, in air 
quality research, weather research, oceans and great lakes 
research, and environmental research.
    We've recognized for some time that NOAA's research 
capability has been eroding. The Committee bill takes this in 
an irreversible direction that I hope we can avoid.
    And lastly, the substitute that I offer makes some serious 
attempts to reformulate some new policies in light of the 
problems we face today.
    One notable area in this regard is our effort to streamline 
the certification procedure for weather service modernization. 
The certification procedures that were in effect were developed 
in a very bipartisan manner with the hard work of both the 
House and Senate. These were, however, cumbersome and in need 
of a new look.
    The Committee bill takes a unilateral step toward 
eliminating them in their entirety, together with the basic 
standards we've used in ensuring that our communities do not 
suffer any degradation of service.
    It is highly unlikely the Committee bill position will 
prevail. The substitute, however, presents a workable 
compromise that I believe will make sense in the long run.
    Another policy area which needs to be addressed is how we 
can move in a rational way toward privatization of specialized 
weather services. The Administration has proposed eliminating 
some traditional services such as agriculture and fruit frost 
forecasts.
    My substitute defines more carefully what is and what is 
not an appropriate role for the Federal Government. It also 
provides for a transition period.
    We would expect to review this transition plan early next 
year and make sure that there will be continued service at 
affordable rates.
    And I ask for support of this substitute.
    The Chairman. Are there additional people wishing to be 
heard on the substitute?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will close the debate on 
the substitute.
    I have a couple of concerns about the substitute that has 
been presented to us.
    First of all, the parliamentarian, in reviewing the 
substitute, has indicated to us that this substitute would 
cause a sequential referral of our bill to Judiciary, in large 
part because of Section 15, which limits National Weather 
Service employees from being able to testify in court.
    Also because of the exemption of state, local, and 
municipal taxes in the work of the National Weather Service 
contractors, that exemption would also cause this bill to end 
up in the Judiciary Committee.
    It should also be noted this is a bill that breaks above 
the cap. Now we had an understanding here just a little while 
ago that the fact is that in this case, the cap is real because 
the budget conference report in fact adopts exactly the House 
numbers, so we're operating precisely within the House budget.
    This particular amendment goes well above what the budget 
assumes in that particular area.
    More importantly, it also reverses the direction that we 
need to go in terms of some reform, rescoping, restructuring, 
of NOAA.
    Under this proposal, we would continue the funding for the 
NOAA fleet modernization, rather than eliminating the fleet. We 
would not phase out the NOAA corps. In fact, under this 
amendment, we actually improve their retirement benefits, 
instead of moving in the direction of the reform.
    It eliminates the privatization language, replacing it with 
language that would even allow existing private specialized 
private weather services which the President has identified in 
his budget for elimination. And those would be allowed to 
continue under this particular provision.
    And so there are a number of things in here which are the 
antithesis of the reform effort that I think most people 
acknowledge has to be done if NOAA is to live within its budget 
in the years ahead.
    And so the Chair would ask for a no vote on the substitute.
    Mr. Brown. Would the Chair allow one minute rebuttal?
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair will yield to the gentleman 
under his own time.
    Mr. Brown. I appreciate that.
    The statements that the Chair has made of course are not 
ones that we can agree with. Every member has before them a 
table comparing the funding levels in my substitute with the 
funding levels in the bill.
    And it says very clearly that the funding levels in the 
substitute is $1391.8 million while the Committee bill is about 
$300 million higher, $1725. The difference stems from the fact 
that the Committee bill authorizes funds that are not within 
the jurisdiction of this Committee while mine does not, but it 
is well within the cap set for matters within the jurisdiction 
of this Committee.
    Secondly, the Chair, I have already stated that the 
Committee bill will be subject to referral to other Committees. 
He's pointed out that it also might be referred to Judiciary. I 
think this is nitpicking compared with the Committees that will 
claim jurisdiction of the bill that the Chair has presented to 
this Committee.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    I would simply point out that we do share jurisdiction with 
regard to this bill. And we are in fact taking up the numbers 
that relate to our particular part of the bill and they are in 
line with the overall budget resolution. And it is true that 
the Committee on Resources would also have jurisdiction in some 
of these areas.
    I would simply point out again that the gentleman's goes 
much further than simply dealing with money issues. It also 
reverses many of the reforms that are contained within the 
Committee bill.
    With that, the Chair would put the question.
    Those in favor of the substitute will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it. The noes have it. The substitute is not agreed to.
    The next amendment is an amendment by Mr. McHale, number 4 
on your chart.
    Mr. Cramer's amendment was included in the en bloc.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. McHale follows:]
    
    
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I'm about to withdraw 
dealt with the subject of certification of non-degradation of 
service prior to the closure of any National Weather Station 
facilities. I have one such facility in my own district.
    Reserving the right to offer this on the floor when the 
appropriate time comes, I will now withdraw my amendment and 
offer my support for Amendment Number 5, about to be offered by 
Mr. Cramer.
    The outcome of deliberation on Amendment Number 5 may well 
preclude any further consideration of the amendment I had 
previously planned to offer.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his explanation, 
and of course he does have the right to offer amendments on the 
floor when the bill comes to the floor, and I thank him for his 
cooperation.
    Amendment Number 5, Mr. Cramer.
    Mr. Cramer. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that should 
be in the package.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's amendment is in the package 
and he may proceed to explain his amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Cramer follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Cramer. I thank the Chairman. I'll try to be brief but 
I'm going to have to cover some time here.
    As Mr. McHale just indicated, this is an amendment that 
speaks to the certification process. Under the Weather Service 
Modernization Act, which was passed back in 1992, we 
established procedures for the modernization of the Weather 
Service, and a crucial part of law was a requirement that no 
Weather Service Office can be closed or automated without a 
certification that the closure would not result in degradation 
of service to the affected area.
    This certification requires a review of local weather 
characteristics, comparison of weather services with the 
affected area, and importantly, a review of weather radar 
coverage.
    The process requires a publication in the Federal Register 
and a period of public comment before a closure takes place.
    The public's participation in this process I think is 
crucial.
    Now under the bill that we have under consideration, we are 
eliminating any certification requirement before a Weather 
Service Office can be closed. To me, that is unacceptable. 
There must be some process for the review and certification of 
the closure of a Weather Service Office.
    Requiring a certification that there's no degradation of 
service, as Mr. McHale has stated before, is a matter of public 
trust. No Weather Service Office should be closed without a 
guarantee that an area shall receive at least the same level of 
weather service protection that it is currently receiving.
    There must be some specific accountability to the process 
of closing Weather Service Offices and the certification 
requirement provides that accountability.
    I don't want some Government bureaucrat alone to determine 
that my Weather Service Office can be closed. I want a 
certification process to make sure that my services are not 
degraded.
    The issue here is not one of convenience for the 
Government; it shouldn't be a matter of a few dollars of budget 
savings. We're talking about the protection of people's lives 
and their property.
    And I can't believe we're even considering a bill that 
would eliminate entirely a certification process.
    I strongly support the Weather Service Modernization Plan, 
and we've struggled very hard to make sure that those areas of 
the country like mine, that we think are not included and 
should be included under this modernization plan, at least are 
protected while we implement that certification or that 
modernization plan.
    My amendment today achieves a compromise between the need 
to streamline the certification process and the crucial need to 
certify that public safety will not be impacted.
    My amendment streamlines the certification process while 
maintaining the requirement that the Secretary of Commerce 
certify that there is no degradation of service before a 
Weather Service Office is closed.
    The amendment does the following specific things:
    Number one, currently there's a requirement that each 
closing certification be published in the Federal Register for 
60 days. We reduced that in this amendment to 30 days.
    Number two, currently there's a requirement that the 
Modernization Transition Committee be consulted with twice 
during the certification process. We reduced that to one 
consultation.
    Three. Currently, there is a requirement that the Weather 
Service maintain a liaison officer in every closed office for 
two years. This is wasteful and not necessary. We eliminate 
that requirement and simply require that the Weather Service 
maintain a program for two years that will provide timely 
information to Weather Service users and the community that is 
losing its Weather Service Office.
    Now this streamlining that I'm proposing will save almost 
$15 million over five years and will eliminate redundancies 
that are currently in the law.
    At the same time, we maintain the essential requirement 
that there be a certification of no degradation of service 
before a weather office can be closed.
    And I think these changes are essentially streamlining 
proposals that NOAA supports. And I'm in favor of streamlining 
the modernization service and process, but I'm not willing to 
sacrifice the safety of the people.
    Mr. Chairman, I might remind the Committee, in February of 
this year, my area there in North Alabama, which under the 
current modernization plan is planned to be covered by NEXRAD 
from Birmingham and to have our weather station there in North 
Alabama closed and to be covered by the Weather Service Station 
office in Birmingham.
    The Huntsville, Alabama Weather Service Station was struck 
by lightening and went down so we in fact during that time were 
covered from the Birmingham Weather Service Office.
    Many counties in North Alabama, as many as 13, had maybe 
one to two-minute notice under this coverage of tornadoes that 
swept through our area. Three months later, a series of 
tornadoes swept through my area, as serious a property damage 
as we've ever had.
    So we're in an area that's constantly bearing the brunt of 
this, and I think this streamlined certification process 
certainly protects the citizens in my area.
    I'm aware that the Chairman has an I.G.'s letter that says 
we don't need the certification process, but we do have a 
letter that I would like to circulate, from NOAA, that does 
endorse a streamlined certification process.
    So I would ask this Committee to please be careful as you 
consider the certification process. We're talking about 
people's lives.
    I thank the Chairman.
    [Letter to Mr. Cramer from NOAA of 6/27/95 follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Are there additional members that wish to be heard on the 
amendment of the gentleman from Alabama?
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would simply very briefly but also very firmly support 
the amendment that's being offered by my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Cramer.
    I want to commend him on finding what I think is a fiscally 
responsible middle ground that preserves the commitments that 
many of us have given to our constituents over the past three 
years.
    Particularly for the new members of the Committee, I would 
point out that this is an issue that has been before us for at 
least a three- or four-year period of time.
    And I would ask you to bear in mind that for those of us 
who are directly affected, we have on many occasions sat down 
with our constituents and assured them that prior to the 
closure and consolidation of these stations that there would be 
a certification of non-degradation.
    And so there are two issues, Mr. Chairman, that I would 
submit are now before the Committee.
    Number one is the substance of the public policy. Does it 
make sense to close and consolidate some of these stations? I 
think the answer to that is yes.
    The second is frankly an issue of public trust, public 
integrity. We have promised our citizens who are dependent upon 
these services in law over a period of years that the stations 
will not be closed unless there is a certification, a promise 
from their Government that there will be no degradation of 
service following the closure.
    Mr. Cramer I think has very effectively addressed this 
issue by keeping that commitment that many of us have given in 
face to face meetings with our constituents while 
simultaneously accomplishing that goal in the most cost 
effective manner possible.
    I strongly urge support for the Cramer amendment, both in 
its substance and in its commitment to integrity, avoiding the 
breaching of a promise that many of us have previously given.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama. And I think it is very consistent with 
what the Chairman has just offered in his en bloc amendments.
    He has just said, in accepting the en bloc amendments, 
which dealt with inadequacies in the modernization plan, that 
he has acknowledged that there are certain areas in the country 
that are not adequately served by the existing radar. And if we 
don't have the next generation radar in place, the current 
services provided by the Weather Stations are not doing the 
job. That's been confirmed by this report from the National 
Resources Council.
    That's one of the reasons I think that the Chairman 
accepted the amendment to modernize these areas, including 
Alabama, and Tennessee, and Indiana, based upon a scientific 
report.
    Now to take the next step and say, we are not going to 
allow certification that there is no erosion in these services 
when in fact the National Resources Council has said there will 
be a huge gap in continuing these resources and protections and 
warnings to the general public.
    All the gentleman from Alabama is asking is that there be 
fairness and uniformity from one congressional district to 
another.
    Many people that sit on this particular Science Committee 
have adequate resources within their districts to protect their 
citizens. Some of us do not, and we're just asking with the 
approval of this amendment that based upon a scientific report, 
that not only we have access to the next generation radar that 
many of these districts already have in their modernization 
plans, but that we do not allow the closing of our existing 
facilities until this new radar is in place.
    And I think the language that Mr. Cramer has worked out 
will streamline bureaucracy. It will assure public safety. It 
will achieve fairness and uniformity from one district to 
another, based upon science.
    We can all tell horror stories upon horror stories in our 
districts. I just had three tornadoes go through northern 
Indiana and the existing weather service did not pick it up, 
did not issue any warnings to the general public until a TV 
reporter got on the air and announced that there was tornado 
activity in northern Indiana.
    So the existing radar, the existing plan did not catch 
these things. We are just asking for fairness and uniformity 
and time to get the next generation radar in before the 
existing radar is closed, shutdown and moved out.
    And I would encourage support for the gentleman's 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wamp.
    Mr. Wamp. I just want to commend the Chairman for working 
with us and agreeing to Mr. Cramer's earlier amendment, and 
including it in the en bloc amendment, and the attitude. I know 
that the Chairman's intent is to assure that everyone of these 
congressional districts and everyone of these systems are safe 
and that there is no lapse whatsoever in quality service.
    I think it's extraordinary that three of the five districts 
that the National Research Council identified as possibly soft 
are three members of this Committee, including two 
congressional districts that are contiguous to each other. Mr. 
Cramer's district and my district join at the Alabama/Tennessee 
line. We could actually cure our joint dilemmas with one system 
or maybe one tower on one mountain, and we've already 
identified the county that that could actually be done in if 
necessary.
    And I hope that the Chairman will address this. I believe 
that his intent is to address this, and I look forward to his 
comments on this issue, so that maybe we can work this out.
    I know it just affects primarily these five districts, and 
hopefully we can arrive at a common cure.
    Yield back.
    The Chairman. Are there other members seeking to be 
recognized?
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. If what Mr. Wamp was talking about relates 
to the Chairman of the Full Committee, it certainly relates to 
the Chairman of the Subcommittee, and my intent is certainly 
not to leave anyone vulnerable.
    And I'm sure that this is not the Chairman's intent as 
well, but we have to make sure that, we also have to make sure 
that we're not being overly protective and to the point that 
we're going to be raising costs, privatization and basic 
fundamental change, no matter what we're talking about, when 
you're talking about a Government service, is going to mean 
that there is a transition time and an expenditure of money.
    We want to make sure that we're not spending anything more 
than we have to, but of course we want to make sure that we're 
not spending anything more than we have to but we can't spend 
anything less than we have to either because safety is 
important, and we're not going to leave anybody hanging out to 
dry.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee.
    Are there other members seeking recognition on this 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will close the debate.
    I am fully in accord with what the gentleman has an intent 
in his amendment. I understand that we do not want to leave 
gaps in weather service for anybody in the country, and it is 
certainly not the intention within this authorization or the 
Weather Service to have any kind of gaps in coverage. That 
would be unacceptable.
    The question here is what the certification process really 
does. And the problem with the certification process as 
presently constituted is that it not only assures that there 
are no gaps, it also allows weather stations which are 
presently obsolete, once you get the NEXRAD in place, to 
continue on for two or three years after the NEXRAD has been 
opened up.
    The gentleman is seeking in his amendment to streamline 
that process. I understand that. But I think it still has some 
problems and in fact he made the reference to the Inspector 
General's letter, which we have from the Department of 
Commerce, in which the Inspector General makes it clear that 
even a streamlined process is costly and unnecessary, and 
that's really what we're talking about here.
    We want to make certain that we have the full coverage but 
the Inspector General reviewed the language that's in the bill. 
He supports the current language in 1815, and in his letter of 
June 19th, he specifically states:
    Any legislative proposal that seeks only to streamline but 
not eliminate certification will maintain a process that is 
both unnecessary and costly.
    The amendment before us, in my view, will slow down the 
Weather Service's proposed consolidation efforts, and will cost 
the taxpayers several millions of dollars.
    In fact, the language in the bill is estimated to save 
approximately $35 million in costs. The certification language 
included in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Authorization Act of '92 was specifically crafted to make it as 
difficult as possible to close unneeded weather service 
offices.
    The Subcommittee print strikes that language and will 
facilitate NOAA's proposed Weather Service Office 
consolidations and closures.
    We believe that that will be done in a way, that 
modernization, which is a $4 billion project, will in fact move 
in the right direction.
    The Chairman's intent in accepting the Cramer amendment 
earlier was to see to it that we do not have gaps in this, but 
we also don't do things which simply cost a lot of money but 
don't enhance the Weather Service.
    And so the Chair thanks the gentleman for his earlier 
amendment but would oppose this particular amendment.
    Mr. Cramer. Would the gentleman yield, please?
    The Chairman. The Chair would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
    Mr. Cramer. Just very quickly, over the I.G. letter, I want 
to point out to the members that while that letter does say 
what you've said it said, that's from the Inspector General, I 
think it's more noteworthy that we look to NOAA and to look to 
them for a read on whether they want a certification process, 
streamlined certification process that would give them some 
protection too, because otherwise they're going to be going 
about this without any review process whatsoever, and that's my 
concern.
    And I appreciate the Chairman's comments. I know you've 
worked with me over some period of time, even prior to the 
104th Congress, and I appreciate that, but I did want to point 
that out.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman.
    I would point out that our letter's from the Inspector 
General, that's true. His letter, however, is from the general 
counsel of NOAA, and it does in fact largely support what is in 
1815.
    It does say that they can now accept the streamlining 
process but they also have language in here saying that we 
support the goal of the section of the bill reducing 
unnecessary costs and delays as negotiated.
    And so I mean, if you assume that the Inspector General is 
right about where those unnecessary costs and delays are, your 
letter is at least somewhat helpful, and I thank the gentleman 
for that.
    The gentleman from Michigan.
    Mr. Ehlers. Will the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. Be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
    I'd just like to clarify something.
    When the gentleman from Indiana commented earlier about 
ensuring that the new system is in place before the old one is 
shut down, I think that's certainly what we want. And from my 
knowledge of these, the new ones are so far superior that we 
want to get them in action immediately.
    Mr. Chairman, I guess I'm just a little puzzled.
    If we just want to make sure they're in place, that's easy. 
If we want to insist that the new ones are certified, that 
involves a delay.
    And I'm wondering why we don't just have the requirement 
that they be in place and operating and not deal with the 
certification.
    Perhaps either Mr. Cramer or the Chairman could give me 
some enlightenment on that.
    The Chairman. Well that is my understanding of the standard 
under which NOAA is now operating is that you do not shut down 
any old station until there is a new station in that is 
providing a similar level of coverage. I mean that is the 
standard that is in the modernization program.
    The certification process is an attempt to put a lot of 
legal hurdles within the process so that everybody can get a 
level of comfort I guess about it.
    But the situation, as the gentleman described it, is in 
fact the standard under which NOAA is operating in the 
modernization program.
    Mr. Ehlers. So you're saying then that what Mr. Roemer 
stated as a requirement that it be in place and operating is 
already met, and the only question is whether we also want it 
to be certified before the old one's shut down?
    The Chairman. Well, that is the question, but the 
certification process, because it does lead to substantial 
amounts of time, even after the new systems are up and running, 
does in fact cost a lot of money, and that's--
    Mr. Cramer. Will the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. The Chairman's time has expired. I will yield 
briefly to the gentleman.
    Mr. Cramer. I simply want to say, in partial response to 
the question offered, what we've got here is a modernization 
plan that determines how many new NEXRADs that there will be 
around the country, and I think that's admirable and we should 
not cause any delay in that.
    However, once the NEXRADs are in place, then you might have 
the NEXRADs served by a Weather Service Office that's covering 
a much bigger territory than they've covered before, and 
they're not experienced in doing that.
    So what we're saying is that we're going to have a process 
that allows NOAA now, without this amendment, to determine 
themselves when these offices should be closed, and that 
they're at a level of acceptability.
    We've had an experience in my district recently that showed 
me right there, with bad weather situations through there, that 
they're not prepared to do that yet, and I want some more 
formalized, though streamlined process, that would protect 
that.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman yield?
    The Chairman. Well, I think--
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentleman--since the gentleman 
mentioned my statement and my question, and I will be brief, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair is attempting to limit himself in 
the same way he limits other members, and I will be happy to 
yield but when the Chair indicates that he is going to close 
the debate, it is his intention to close the debate on these 
things.
    I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Indiana.
    Mr. Roemer. One of the reasons that the National Research 
Council did rule that we had a gap in Northern Indiana was that 
we have a very unique condition and that's the Lake effect that 
creates windshear and creates thunderstorms and eight inches of 
snow in the winter time that could drop within a couple hours, 
creating public safety hazards.
    They've never dealt with these things. They have no 
longitudinal studies dealing with the threat to safety on these 
things.
    And for this then to be in place and for some kind of 
standard to establish that it's going to provide that needed 
protection, that's all we're asking for in this amendment; not 
delay, not modernization weather stations staying there for an 
inordinate amount of time, but just to make sure it provides 
the public safety.
    The Chairman. The Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Alabama will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Cramer. I ask for a roll call vote, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman requests a roll call vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes yes.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes yes.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. Yes
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Doyle recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle is not recorded.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Gutknecht recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht is not recorded.
    Mr. Gutknecht. He votes no.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Morella?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella's not recorded.
    Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members who wish to be 
recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Boehlert recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert is not recorded.
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    The Chairman. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the Clerk reports 18 yes, 21 
no.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Weldon is going to withdraw his amendment, I think, 
number 8 in the package, but he does want to be recognized at 
this point, and so I would recognize the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of PA follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Curt Weldon. I thank the Chairman for yielding, and Mr. 
Chairman, I am withdrawing my amendment primarily because my 
amendment was going to address my concern regarding the funding 
levels for NOAA in our bill and to allow us to have the ability 
if, at such point in time the final budget resolution had a 
higher number, that we could have increased funding in the 
ocean research area which I think have been decimated to say 
the least.
    Unfortunately, the budget agreement that was reached 
between the various conferees over the past weekend takes the 
House Committee number and freezes funding for NOAA at that 
level.
    So wanting not to break the budget agreement on the part of 
this Committee, I will not offer that amendment.
    However, I cannot let this point in time go by without 
expressing my sincere concerns over what we're doing in the 
area of ocean research.
    I chaired a session, a classified session this morning with 
the CIA for two hours, where we listened to the damage and 
what's been done in terms of the past practice of the Soviet 
Union in dumping their nuclear waste in the oceans of the 
world, not just along their coastal areas but in the open 
international waterways.
    And I'm greatly concerned with declining fish stocks around 
the world. And find that at a time where these concerns are 
being expressed world wide that we're cutting back NOAA to such 
an extent that we're not going to be able to fully assess and 
deal with these international problems.
    What further scares me beyond what we're doing in this 
Committee is what the bill would do being offered by our 
colleague, Mr. Chrysler, who wants to dismantle the Commerce 
Committee and spread NOAA's duties across other agencies.
    My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that bill will in effect 
cut NOAA's funding from the Science Committee mark of $1.7 
billion to close to $1 billion. That would be a $.7 billion cut 
beyond what we're doing here.
    And so, Mr. Chairman, what I would ask you at this point in 
time is, ``Do you intend to act on a portion of the Chrysler 
bill that has been referred to the Science Committee dealing 
with the issue of funding for activities relating to Ocean and 
Atmospheric Administration operations, NOAA's operations?
    Do you expect to take that up?
    The Chairman. That would be our intention.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Mr. Chairman, in line with that, I will 
plan to amend the Chrysler bill in the Committee to protect the 
ocean and atmospheric research programs from elimination and I 
will seek your support at that time, and would seek the support 
of our colleagues.
    I think this is a vital issue and a vital concern that we 
on this Committee really can't ignore.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman that it depends 
upon what the final structure of those bills are. I mean, some 
of that may be referred to us for consideration. However, any 
organizational aspects of that are purely in the jurisdiction I 
think of the Government Reform Committee, but I would certainly 
be sympathetic to what the gentleman's proposing insofar as we 
have jurisdiction.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. I thank the Chairman for those comments.
    And let me say for the record, I'd like to insert a letter 
that all of us received from Admiral Jim Watkins. Admiral 
Watkins is a life-long Republican who served the Bush 
Administration in the Cabinet as the Secretary of Energy.
    Admiral Watkins wrote to each of us on behalf of the 30 
oceanographic institutions that currently are doing 
oceanographic research. And he wrote to us, each of you 
individually, about his concerns and their concerns with what 
we're doing in this area.
    I would ask, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to include 
that letter in the record because I think it points out the 
concerns that I have.
    Secondarily, I would ask for unanimous consent to include a 
letter that was sent to me by Sylvia Earle who, during the Bush 
Administration, was chief scientist for NOAA. She how heads up 
Deep Ocean Exploration and Research, and she also raises her 
concerns relative to what we're doing in terms of oceanographic 
research.
    Specifically in Dr. Earle's letter, she mentions that 
because of the elimination of the NURP program, the National 
Undersea Research Program, that we could in fact eliminate 
funding for such vital programs as Alvin and the Aquarius 
program which have been critical for the work that we've done 
in this country.
    And what I would like to do now, Mr. Chairman, besides ask 
unanimous consent to submit those letters for the record, is to 
ask Committee staff and perhaps the Chairman to clarify a point 
for me.
    And that is, my understanding is that HR 1815 currently 
allows NOAA to use Marine Service funds for the UNOLS vessels, 
such as Alvin and Aquarius.
    I'd just like to clarify this for the record that funds can 
be used for these submersible platforms.
    That if I might ask the staff or the Chairman to clarify 
that for me.
    The Chairman. The Chair would request counsel to confirm 
the gentleman's understanding.
    Mr. Russell. It is accurate that under the provisions of HR 
1815, the Marine Services Account can be used for UNOLS vessels 
and there is no prohibition associated with the use of such 
funds for submersibles.
    So as long as the submersibles are a UNOLS vessel, they 
would be included in that list.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. I thank the Chairman and the staff for 
that clarification.
    Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, say I am not offering an 
amendment that busts the budget on behalf of this Committee. I 
appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman and ranking member 
in attempting to deal with the funding levels of NOAA and I 
would ask our colleagues, both in this Committee and the Full 
House to look seriously at the bill that will dismantle 
Commerce, because as it impacts NOAA, it would be devastating.
    We've already cut back on ocean research activities 
significantly, and I think it's important that we understand 
that when that bill comes to our attention.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Without objection, the letters referred to by the gentleman 
will be included in the record.
    [The letters from Admiral Watkins and Dr. Earle follow:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
    I concur with the comments of the previous gentlemen that 
we are underfunding some of our underseas or ocean research 
programs and I commented on that in connection with my 
statement in connection with my substitute.
    Given the realities of the situation that face us, it's the 
most promising course to follow in the near term to beef up 
that research is going to be to more actively seek to combine 
the fruits of the classified and military research and the 
civilian research programs, as we are already doing in 
connection with the National Reconnaissance Office and the 
LANDSAT program.
    Now that's a long, slow, tedious process which needs to be 
carefully evaluated, both by the Defense Intelligence people 
and by the scientific community, but there's a great payoff if 
we can proceed through that analysis and determine what we can 
use that is now not being used because of the classification 
matter and other things.
    I hope the gentleman will pursue that further. I certainly 
will cooperate with him in every way that I can, and he is in a 
unique position to help us make some progress there.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. I appreciate the comments of the Ranking 
Member, and I pledge to him my full cooperation in that regard 
as the Chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee 
for the National Security Committee, that will be one of my 
highest priorities.
    And that's why I offered the dual use amendment which the 
Chairman accepted today.
    And in these tough budget times, there are areas where our 
military capabilities can be shared and should be shared with 
the environmental community, and I will work to make sure that 
happens.
    I invite your active participation. I expect to have a 
hearing in the R&D Subcommittee on this very issue and will 
invite members of this Committee to participate in that hearing 
so we can fully explore our options.
    I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Brown. I commend the gentleman for his statement and 
yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, strike the last word.
    Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say very briefly that I not 
only serve with Mr. Weldon on this Committee, I have the 
privilege of serving on his R&D Subcommittee of the National 
Security Committee.
    I too attended the classified briefing to which he made 
reference earlier.
    I simply want to indicate my wholehearted support for the 
comments that were made by Mr. Weldon. It is absolutely 
critical that we have shared technology, going beyond the 
military sphere and providing civilian service as well.
    We are fortunate to have Mr. Weldon's leadership on this 
issue, and I want to fully associate myself with his earlier 
remarks.
    The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
    The next amendment on the roster is Mr. Traficant's.
    Mr. Traficant is not present.
    The next amendment--that does complete the roster because I 
understand that Mr. Brown is not going to offer his.
    Mr. Brown. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
Amendment Number 11 which is listed on the roster.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Any other members that are seeking recognition for an 
amendment?
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 
at the desk.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized to describe his 
amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Calvert follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Providing weather information to American agriculture was 
one of the most fundamental reasons why the U.S. Congress 
established the Weather Bureau, or predecessor to the National 
Weather Service back in 1890. In fact, the U.S. Bureau was an 
agency of the Department of Agriculture for its first 50 years.
    Since the last World War, advances in weather forecasting 
and accuracy have been combined with parallel advances in the 
science and technology of agribusiness, produce crop and 
livestock yields in this country that are certainly the envy of 
the world.
    Agriculture remains one of the most weather sensitive 
industries in the country, and agricultural activity, on a year 
to year basis, can vary significantly based upon prevailing 
weather conditions and the success which farmers can adapt to 
respond to these changing conditions.
    In economic terms, agribusiness is nearly $200 billion per 
year in this country. It's certainly the biggest industry in 
the State of California and certainly the biggest industry in 
my district.
    America's trade surplus of 20 billion in agriculture 
products is a vital offset to the nation's negative trade 
balance.
    During the next ten years, expected advances in weather 
prediction arising from the modernization and associated 
restructuring of the National Weather Service will provide 
dramatic increases in the accuracy and geographic resolution of 
the weather information that can be used by all farmers to 
increase their productivity.
    I believe that the private sector cannot at this time, 
however, provide critical weather information in key 
agricultural areas.
    I have therefore introduced an amendment that would delete 
the National Weather Service Agriculture and Fruit Frost 
Program for immediate termination in the NOAA budget. I believe 
this is necessary since the proposed budget calls for permanent 
elimination on October 1st, 1995.
    Even though the agriculture community relies on fast, 
efficient and specific accurate weather data throughout the 
year.
    The resulting impact of an immediate end to these elements 
could affect the economic foundation of several states, jobs 
and inexpensive supplies of fresh fruit and vegetables to the 
American consumer.
    It's incumbent upon this Congress to ensure that minimal 
disruption occur as the weather program is reduced in size and 
scope.
    My amendment would still eliminate the Ag Weather and Fruit 
Frost Programs but it'll do so over a transitional period.
    I believe this is necessary in order to allow the private 
sector, as well as users, to develop the necessary parameters 
for a long term Ag weather program.
    I've been assured by the Chairman's staff that they will 
work with me to create the necessary report language to provide 
a transitional period for the agriculture community to adapt 
these new provisions in the NOAA funding authorization.
    The Chairman. Are there other members that wish to be heard 
on the amendment?
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the gentleman from California's amendment, and so for the 
following reasons:
    About a month ago, I introduced, with Mr. Klug from 
Wisconsin, a Republican, a bipartisan bill, HR 1450, that would 
privatize these certain portions of the Weather Service that 
can be provided by the private sector, that can be done more 
efficiently, that should not be duplicated by the Government, 
and the private sector can do it.
    And when taxpayers' money can be used for different things, 
whether we use it to reduce the deficit or to streamline 
government.
    Certainly the last election, and the election before that, 
were about encouraging the private sector to step into these 
roles and to not provide repetitive services.
    The private sector can do absolutely these kinds of things.
    I have a letter from Weather Vision, a private sector 
company in Florida. Mr. Roy Leap, the Executive Director, says, 
and I quote:
    ``Please be advised that we have been providing such 
forecasts to users for over 30 years.''
    He goes on to say, we would be happy to provide these 
services to the private sector.
    I have another letter from BMS, Incorporated. Again, he 
says, Mr. Bruce Campbell, I make most of my income in the fall, 
winter and spring months providing fruit and vegetable frost 
forecasts to farmers, food brokers, chemical companies, et 
cetera, et cetera. He wants to continue to provide this.
    The private sector can and should do this. The public 
sector should not. We should be very clear about reinventing 
and reforming government and saving the taxpayers' money.
    This saves the taxpayers, if we keep this in the bill, this 
language that Mr. Klug and I and others have worked on, this 
provision saves the taxpayers $2.3 million a year over a five-
year period, over $10 million. Now that's a lot of money to 
people in Indiana.
    And I think if we're going to talk about all of this, you 
know, reinventing government, downsizing government, 
streamlining government,--
    Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield?
    Mr. Roemer. I'll be happy to yield when I'm finished with 
my remarks.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Indiana controls the time.
    Mr. Roemer. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for 
maintaining the language in the bill, a bill that was worked on 
in a bipartisan way, a bill that saves the taxpayers money, and 
a bill that says to the private sector, we certainly have 
confidence in your ability to continue to provide services and 
to get better at providing these services.
    So I would encourage defeat of the Calvert amendment.
    And I would be happy to yield at this time to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    The agricultural community, at least in my area in 
California, is not opposed to privatization of weather service. 
It's concerned about the transitional period from point A to 
point B.
    In California--I don't know about the State of Indiana--
where fruit and vegetables are grown in large quantity, it's 
incredibly important to have accurate weather information that 
is 100 percent reliable.
    And during this transitional period, which may only take a 
year or a maximum of two or three years, we want to make sure 
that that service is in place, and that that accurate weather 
information is provided, where you can continue to enjoy 
California citrus, grapes, and other products from the great 
State of California.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Calvert, we want to continue to enjoy your 
great products in California, we want you to continue to enjoy 
Indiana corn and beans and so forth, but we're also willing in 
Indiana to have the private sector take over some of these 
services.
    And I have five letters, six letters right here that say 
the private sector can do it.
    We've been talking about corporate welfare. Here's an 
instance where we can save $10 million.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I don't see any major 
incompatibilities between Mr. Calvert's amendment and the 
position taken by Mr. Roemer.
    And I do have to speak up in support of an orderly 
transition away from the Government Agriculture and Fruit Frost 
Program to a private activity.
    I do this because this issue has come up many times in the 
past and on the Agriculture Committee. And as far as the 
agricultural weather service is concerned, and particularly the 
Fruit Frost Program, I think it probably at least has joint 
jurisdiction with this Committee.
    We've considered the issue, we've had many hearings on it, 
and as both gentlemen have indicated, the agricultural industry 
is not opposed to privatization. I'm not opposed to 
privatization. In fact, I'd rather have it privatized and not 
have to go through the headaches that we do so often on this 
matter.
    But I do feel very strongly that we cannot have a period in 
which this industry, which is a multi-billion dollar industry 
in California, is subject to no service whatsoever. Now I don't 
think it's unreasonable to expect to have an orderly 
transition.
    I think that through suitable report language, indicating 
that we expect private industry to pick up the slack here, we 
can easily achieve that transition within a year. And it would 
be my hope that we could provide them with that year before 
there's a complete cutoff of services to the existing setup.
    I could spend a great deal more time describing the nature 
of this micro-meteorological activity because it sometimes 
involves pinpointing areas of a few acres or a few hundred 
acres in which there will be climate changes, climate 
variations as small as two or three percent.
    These are vital to the protection of crops in California, 
and I'm sure Mrs. Seastrand will testify to that also.
    Mr. Roemer. Will the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
from California yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield. As long as he agrees with 
me completely on what I've said.
    Mr. Roemer. I usually do, Mr. Brown. On this one, I have a 
slight disagreement with the way you've phrased it. I don't 
think that there will be a cutoff of services. There are six 
letters here from the private sector saying they are anxious to 
step in providing heightened services. They're already 
providing these services currently.
    Certainly there is going to be a transition, but we just 
voted a couple of minutes ago on moving toward a quick 
transition from the current weather modernization plan to 
NEXRADs. We'll certainly accept the Committee's vote on that.
    But sure there might be a bump in the road here or there, 
but what the private sector can do better than the government 
in this instance I think we should let them do.
    Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman from California would yield. 
A bump in the road can put a lot of California agricultural 
folks out of business. Farming is a very risky business to say 
the least, and there are a great many farmers in California, 
all of which are agreeing that we should move to privatization.
    We just want to be assured of the fact that the service is 
in place. Quite frankly, we are not assured of the fact. I have 
not seen the gentleman's letters, but in California, at least, 
that that service would be provided in a fashion to make sure 
that that continual service is in effect.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Just to reconfirm the point made by our respected senior 
ranking member, Mr. Brown. Report language will be included to 
ensure that we are not putting our farmers at a disadvantage or 
putting them in a situation where they will not be able to 
receive a service from the private sector that they have been 
receiving from the public sector.
    Obviously what Mr. Calvert is articulating is apprehension 
on the part of a major industry in the United States that there 
will be some sort of glitch or there will be some sort of a 
window of vulnerability that's created that could cost this 
industry billions of dollars.
    We have no intent in taking a chance that this will happen. 
We in fact will be working with you to make sure that the 
report language gives the appropriate leeway so that the 
private sector, to ensure that the private sector will have the 
time and will have the inclination to use that time so that 
this information that is now disseminated by the Federal 
Government is disseminated instead by profit-making and private 
sector or just private sector operations.
    So while I will be opposing your amendment, I think that 
what Mr. Calvert is suggesting is something that deserves our 
attention, and that we plan at least to address that as the 
ranking member suggested. We will be looking at the report 
language to try to modify it in some way to ensure that there 
is no situation where your people are held vulnerable.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there additional members seeking recognition on this 
amendment?
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    I support the Calvert amendment. I would just assure 
everyone here that users of this program, especially on the 
central coast of California, are well aware of the fiscal 
situation facing us in Congress, and I can assure you that they 
are behind us in trying to balance our budget by the year 2002.
    But as has been stated here by many members quite 
eloquently, all that we're concerned and they're concerned 
about is that we do so in a manner that won't jeopardize a 
wonderful agribusiness on the central coast and in California.
    So I'm in support of the Calvert amendment and would ask 
for a transition period here so that we can be assured that 
this won't jeopardize business.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Chairman, could I address a question to Mr. 
Calvert?
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. It's his time.
    Mr. Geren. Mr. Calvert, how do you pay for the $10 million 
that your amendment would add to the cost of the bill?
    Mr. Calvert. We're not advocating that any money be spent. 
If you look at the amendment, earlier we were talking about 
some money. We're asking that report language be used that 
money is available be found to work through this transitional 
period. If we can work through this transitional period quick 
enough, there may be very little if any money spent on this.
    Mr. Geren. So your amendment has no impact on the 
authorization level of the bill?
    Mr. Calvert. That's correct.
    Mr. Geren. Where does the money come from if it should cost 
more to keep this going for a couple years than it would cost 
to not keep it going for a couple of years?
    Mr. Calvert. That would be as money is available within the 
department.
    Mr. Geren. I see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
recognized on this amendment?
    Mr. Hayes. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    I've only been back a few minutes and I once again am ready 
to embrace that Democratic tactic where we boycott everything.
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman's recognized for five 
minutes of boycott.
    Mr. Hayes. Thank you. It just appears to me that my not 
being here was equally productive, and therefore, in weighing 
those two, it becomes a clearer option.
    The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, the bill of 
which he is a cosponsor was moving very smoothly until the 
gentleman arrived.
    Mr. Hayes. Precisely, precisely.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hayes. I like the tactic where we all go home and read 
about it later. That way, I just don't have to worry about the 
interim time.
    And in that, I'll yield back to the Chairman, and hope that 
we can go ahead and have some votes.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Are there additional 
members seeking to be recognized on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair would close the debate.
    The Chair would indicate that he intends to support the 
gentleman's amendment. The termination list that's included in 
the bill was largely one recommended by the Administration and 
it included terminating this particular program.
    They have indicated they did so because the private sector 
can step in and fill the void.
    The question raised by the gentleman from California is 
whether or not that you could have a period of time here where 
there is no private sector availability in a particular area.
    What the gentleman's amendment does is it doesn't add a 
dime of spending. The report language that we intend to draft 
will indicate that these programs were kept in place to give 
the department authority to spend money in these efforts on an 
individual basis where there seems to be a problem and private 
interests cannot take over.
    And so all he's doing is removing the particular subject 
matter from the termination list, but adding no additional 
moneys. This does not in fact impact the cap in any way, and 
the report language certainly will indicate then to the 
department that they're going to have to do some prioritizing 
if in fact they decide to spend money in this particular 
direction.
    In that light, the gentleman's amendment is acceptable to 
the Chairman, and I would be in favor of it.
    With that, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the gentleman's amendment will say aye,.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment is Mr. Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I've an amendment at the desk.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for purposes of 
explaining his amendment.
    [The amendment offered by Mr. Roemer follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Roemer. I thank the Chairman, and I would ask unanimous 
consent that I can change my amendment on line 1, since Mr. 
Calvert's amendment was adopted, to change--
    The Chairman. That's a technical change. You don't really 
need to do that, but yes, we'll do that by unanimous consent.
    Mr. Roemer. I thank the Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, again, this is part of a bill that I 
introduced with Mr. Klug, HR 1450, to try to save the taxpayers 
some money, and have the private sector do what the public 
sector has been doing.
    We have a number of bipartisan cosponsors on our bill. This 
is called, in simple terminology, the Marine Facts Issue.
    It is a service provided to fisherman and yacht clubs to 
give them what kind of weather they can expect to run into when 
they go out on the seas.
    This language that we incorporate in our amendment would 
save the taxpayer a half a million dollars a year if we move 
the service from the Weather Service to the private sector.
    I believe the private sector should provide this service. I 
do not think that taxpayers in Indiana or Michigan or Texas 
should be providing weather service forecasts for the yacht 
clubs in San Diego, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Is there anyone else that wishes to be 
recognized on the gentleman from Indiana's amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair would close the debate.
    The Chair is prepared to accept the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana. The Administration has recommended 
terminating the program and privatizing the service. This is 
something which is the intent of the bill, and I'm pleased to 
accept the amendment.
    Mr. Roemer. I thank the Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.
    Next amendment, which is the last amendment that we're 
aware of, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I'd ask 
unanimous consent that it be considered as read.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    Would you hold onto your unanimous consent request until 
I've had a chance to look at it.
    Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
    The Chairman. The unanimous consent request is agreed to 
without objection.
    [The amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would restore funding for global change 
research at NOAA to the 1996 request level of $159 million. If 
there was ever a case made for prudent prevention, it's here 
where maintenance of a stable global climate is concerned.
    We're dealing with a potential environmental problem that 
is so huge that it really boggles the mind. Just as the 
dinosaurs faced extinction from global change 65 million years 
ago, humanity may now face great upheavals over the next 
century of scientifically plausible forecasts of global warming 
are realized.
    The dinosaurs couldn't plan ahead and they couldn't respond 
to changes but we can. The question is whether we will. And 
whether we will or not is a matter of choice and it's really 
very much a matter for this Committee to decide.
    The bill before us would almost half NOAA's budget for 
global change research. And I believe this is an ill-considered 
reduction which comes fast on the heels of last week's 
Committee action terminating funding for all EPA and DOE global 
change programs.
    The reductions go far beyond simply trimming supposedly 
duplicative research efforts. They are without question part of 
a concerted and I would acknowledge well-planned attempt to 
wipe out the nation's global climate research programs on a 
Government-wide basis.
    It would seem that there are some members of this Committee 
who would rather kill the messenger than risk hearing what 
could prove to be disturbing information.
    In a recent press release, Chairman Rohrabacher indicated, 
and I quote his press release, ``nowhere is scientific nonsense 
more evident than in global warming programs that are sprinkled 
throughout the current year's budget. Our fiscal year '96 
budget does not operate on the assumption that global warming 
is a proven phenomena. In fact, it is assumed at best to be 
unproven and at worst, to be liberal claptrap, trendy but soon 
to go out of style in our Newt Congress.''
    With all due respect to Chairman Rohrabacher, I suggest 
that this charge that global warming concerns are motivated by 
any kind of political ambition objective are very much 
misplaced.
    We've heard many affirmations recently of the value of good 
science and published research that has passed the trial of 
rigorous peer review. And all of our environmental decisions, 
we're told, should be based on this most objective form of 
knowledge.
    The latest scientific findings on global climate change 
make one thing clear. While fortunately there's been no 
indisputable signal that human induced global warming is 
occurring, there's less and less basis for those skeptics who 
claim there's nothing to worry about recent climatic trends.
    Some of the most recent scientific studies, peer reviewed, 
I would add, include a paper in the April 7th Journal of 
Science, indicating that the timing of the earth's seasons has 
been changing since 1940 at a rate without historical 
precedent, and the author, a statistical expert from Bell Labs, 
AT&T, said, ``You almost have to invoke magic if it's not 
CO2, it's the only logical explanation.''
    For the first time recently, a new British computer model 
can accurately account for the global variations in temperature 
over the past 130 years based on concentrations of both 
greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants, and that Hadley model 
predicts significant future warming over the next five decades 
as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate.
    And just last month, in May, the National Climatic Data 
Center in North Carolina indicated in their monthly paper that 
U.S. weather patterns have become at least 40 percent more 
extreme in the period since 1980. This means we're having more 
hot weather days, more torrential rains, more droughts than 
chance alone would predict.
    The author of the study, a global warming skeptic, 
concluded that there was a 90 to 95 percent chance that man-
made greenhouse effects are responsible for the changes.
    These studies have all kinds of potential ramifications for 
agriculture, for the future of coastal zones in all of 
California and the future of disaster assistance and relief 
efforts, and we should not neglect the peril.
    The last study I mentioned needs some particular attention 
because it came directly from a NOAA lab, and it's the kind of 
research that would be endangered by this bill. It's the kind 
of knowledge on climatic extremes that the Chairman feels we 
should not learn about.
    And I believe that we owe it to ourselves and to the future 
of our country to move forward to get good peer reviewed 
science to work forward on.
    You know, we have a Federal budget that is troublesome but 
it would be pennywise and pound foolish to cut the research we 
need to make sound scientific decisions. For our future, I do 
not want to be a member of Congress explaining to my children 
why we failed to act when planet-wide disaster hits us.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Are there additional members who wish to be recognized on 
the gentlelady's amendment?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, what the Lofgren amendment 
does is basically increase the total spending in this bill by 
$65.8 million with no offset.
    It also basically continues a multi-faceted approach toward 
global climate change. And the fact is, there are several 
accounts that will be studying global climate change.
    What we are basically doing, and what this bill does is 
basically cut $18.5 million from fiscal year 1995 budget in 
terms of what we are doing for global climate change.
    The interannual and seasonal account is funded at $59.8 
million in the bill, and basically we're talking about coming 
at a problem from many different directions and I'm just saying 
that that's not necessarily the best approach.
    If we have several accounts studying the same problem, 
maybe it would be better to focus this and focus our 
examination of global climate change at least in one account or 
two accounts, rather than many, many different approaches 
throughout the Federal Government.
    But besides that, I am indeed, as we've just heard, we've 
heard that I've been attacking the idea that there's a 
scientific basis for the whole global warming concept.
    And I have gone through hearing after hearing as many of 
the other people on this Committee, and sat and listened to the 
experts come before us, and within five minutes of asking them 
questions, the so-called experts on global warming are arguing 
among themselves as to whether it's not global cooling that 
we're really experiencing.
    And I find this over and over again. There is no scientific 
basis for us to be spending so much of our resources on what is 
probably, what seems to me to be a politicized instead of a 
scientific concept.
    Basically we've heard these stories and I've heard these 
stories about how, it's not the sky is falling now, but the sky 
is getting warmer. Well, it used to be the sky is falling.
    And we have come to a point now, when we're trying to make 
sure that each and every one of our dollars is well spent, that 
we can no longer spend money coming at these problems from a 
variety of different angles.
    Let's just fund, which we do in the budget, the inner 
annual and seasonal account is funded at $59.8 million. That 
should be enough.
    And the fact is that global warming, as it stands now, 
doesn't warrant the type of massive approach that the liberals 
have been suggesting over the years and that has been funded 
over the years.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the Chairman yield briefly?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would.
    Ms. Lofgren. I recognize that you and I don't agree on 
this, but I just wanted to point out, and I recognize again 
that you don't agree with this, but this doesn't bust the 
budget. There is unallocated funding within the caps. This 
amendment would allocate part of that, but it would still 
remain within the caps.
    And I recognize that people can disagree over whether to do 
that or not, but it doesn't go beyond the caps.
    Secondarily, last week, we wiped out climate research in 
DOE and in EPA, and I understand that the Chairman's intent, 
and we'll see if the Committee agrees, is to wipe out the NASA 
program that does the same thing.
    And so really the intent is to wipe out this line of 
inquiry as a funded program for our National Government.
    I think that is a bad idea.
    Now what the scientists are saying is that the Northern 
Hemisphere is cooling some as a product of air pollution and 
the Southern Hemisphere is heating considerably.
    I hope that there isn't a problem, and it is what it says. 
We know there's something going on. We should find out what it 
is.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Reclaiming my time, my staff does suggest 
to me that the budget, that your proposal does bust the budget. 
You're asking for $65.8 million more in spending with no 
offset.
    Let me just say that indeed the climate is changing. There 
is no doubt the climate is changing, all right. There used to 
be huge glaciers that covered all of North America, and the 
climate has changed. That's why we can exist here.
    Climate change in and of itself does not mean that we have 
to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in 
order to say the climate is changing, when indeed the climate 
may be in one phase of the ice age or another. That doesn't 
necessarily mean to us that this expenditure is justified.
    I believe, as the scientists believe, there's just as good 
a chance that we're going to have global cooling as global 
warming. The money is unjustified. The spending is unjustified.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there other members seeking recognition on this 
amendment?
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lofgren 
amendment. I can be accused of bias in this respect since I've 
made it very clear that I support higher research 
appropriations and that I do believe that funding of the global 
climate change program is important.
    I was one of the authors of the legislation creating this 
program many, many years ago. I still feel that it's necessary, 
not because there's any proof of global warming, but because 
there's considerable uncertainty as to what is happening in 
terms of global climate.
    The purpose of scientific investigation is to help to 
resolve that uncertainty over a period of time.
    I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a longer 
statement of my views, and I will shorten my remarks somewhat, 
Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. Let me add, also, that I don't believe that Mr. 
Rohrabacher's position that this busts the budget, I think he 
feels that it busts the budget for a number of reasons, but on 
page 17 of the bill, Section 402, under limitations on 
appropriations, there is contained for fiscal year 1996, the 
limitation $1.692.470, $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion.
    The addition provided by Ms. Lofgren's amendment does not 
increase that amount. The specific expenditures confined within 
that cap do not approach that amount. They are several hundred 
million dollars less, and Ms. Lofgren's amendment takes up a 
little bit of that unspent funding that falls within the cap.
    So she is correct in stating that it does not increase 
caps.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the distinguished ranking member 
yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield to Mr. Rohrabacher for a 
moment.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Does that number that you just stated 
include the National Marine Fisheries Service?
    Mr. Brown. No, that is not within our jurisdiction, and is 
not contained--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. But does the figure you stated include 
that, allocations for that? I believe it does and that means 
that the numbers are not compatible.
    Mr. Brown. The numbers, the National Marine Fisheries is 
not an item in your bill, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That's right, but the figure that you were 
just quoting, does that include the National Marine Fisheries 
Service?
    Mr. Brown. My guess is that it does, and I'm going to--
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That's correct.
    Mr. Brown. I think you've acted illegally in doing that, 
but I will debate that point at another time.
    The statement that I'm making is that the $1.7 billion is 
in excess of the items within our Committee's jurisdiction 
contained in your bill, and that Ms. Lofgren's amendment does 
not break that number.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Ms. Lofgren. Just briefly, it's my understanding that the 
Resources Committee does not intend to feel bound by our caps 
in any way. That's not what I'm hearing.
    Mr. Brown. Well, this is going to be resolved. Basically, 
we're going to have a head-on collision, Mr. Rohrabacher, when 
this gets over to the Resources Committee, because the item 
that you mentioned is within their jurisdiction, and they're 
not going to be bound by the language that you have in your 
report, not even in the bill, but in your report.
    So we'll face that problem later on.
    I'm just pointing out Ms. Lofgren's amendment does not 
violate that figure and that it is not fair to characterize it 
as a budget buster.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the ranking member yield for a 
question?
    You're not suggesting that we give up jurisdiction are you, 
or are you?
    Mr. Brown. We never had jurisdiction.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. So you're suggesting we recognize that we 
don't have jurisdiction on this?
    Mr. Brown. I suggest that we recognize facts, Mr. 
Rohrabacher. You have made a bold and brilliant attempt to 
capture some jurisdiction here with report language in your 
bill. It will be doomed to failure, I can assure you.
    Mr. Hayes. Would the ranking member yield? If he still has 
the time, would the ranking member yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Hayes. As a famous Chief Justice, former Chief Justice 
in Louisiana, Chief Justice O'Neal, who ruled that Louisiana 
did not have an alienation of affection statute, in a case 
called Moolan versus Monteleon, and Chief Justice O'Neal lived 
in the Monteleon Hotel and knew all about a relationship as man 
and wife, and looked at the plaintiff in that case and said, 
``Son, you can never lose what you never had.''
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hayes. I think that's pretty much the point the Ranking 
Member's trying to make on jurisdiction.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. I thank the gentleman for that clarification, I 
think.
    The Chairman. It will certainly make an interesting note in 
our record.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Are there additional Members seeking 
recognition on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair would close the debate.
    In reading the gentlewoman's amendment, it's one of two 
things, and I'm not certain I know which.
    Either it does as Mr. Rohrabacher suggests, it exceeds the 
caps by saying, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
Act,'' and therefore what it does is wipes one of the 
provisions of the Act is the limitation set, and so therefore 
notwithstanding that, it just decides to go above that cap.
    Or if it is as the gentlelady and the gentleman from 
California have described it within the caps, then it says, 
``Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act,'' it means 
that this is the number one priority over and above anything 
else NOAA does. And so if NOAA has to close weather stations in 
order to do this, they close weather stations.
    I mean, it's one of two things. Either this prioritizes 
this to an extent that exceeds everything else in the Act, or 
it exceeds the caps, which is a problem.
    The only thing I would take some umbrage with is the 
particular statement that what we are attempting to do is wipe 
out all of this research.
    I think that the figures belie that in the bill.
    The President's request was very high.
    In 1990, we were spending about $53.8 million in these 
accounts. This bill calls for spending something on the order 
of $86 million in these accounts.
    We are really talking about a significant increase in 
moneys since the beginning of this decade that we in fact 
endorse in our particular bill. We're simply not willing to go 
as far as some of the moneys.
    Under the Lofgren amendment, she would have us go up 280 
percent since 1990. In some accounts, she is almost 400 percent 
higher than where would be.
    And so it's a question here of whether or not you have a 
balanced program of research in those areas, or whether or not 
you just go exceedingly high in these areas.
    We believe that the more balanced approach is the right 
approach. And I would ask the members to vote against the 
amendment.
    With that, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it. The noes have--
    Ms. Lofgren. Can I have a roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady requests a roll call vote.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    Mr. Hayes. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes votes no.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes no.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes no.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes no.
    Mr. Barcia?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes no.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes no.
    Mr. Olver?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Barcia. Madame Clerk, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman, could I ask how I'm recorded?
    The Chairman. How's Mr. Barcia recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia is not recorded.
    Mr. Barcia. I'll cast a no vote.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes no.
    The Chairman. How is Mrs. Seastrand recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand is not recorded.
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that have not 
been recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the Clerk reports yes 8, no 32.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, the question then is on the 
bill, HR 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The ranking member?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee report 
the Bill HR 1815 as amended. Furthermore, I move to instruct 
the staff to prepare the legislative report, to make technical 
and conforming amendments, and that the Chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I request three days in which to file 
minority views.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it and motion's agreed to. 
Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the 
table.
    I recognize Mr. Ehlers for a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to Clause 1 of 
Rule 20 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that the 
Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate 
on the Bill HR 1815 or a similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. Those in favor of the motion will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    I ask unanimous consent that the Committee adopt, as a part 
of the legislative report on HR 1815, the summary chart which 
the members have before them.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Brown. Reserving the right to object, as I noted in our 
consideration of the DOE bill last week, Committee Rule 21[b] 
provides in part that no legislative report filed by the 
Committee on any measure or matter reported by the Committee 
shall contain language which has the effect of specifying the 
use of Federal resources more explicitly, inclusively or 
exclusively, than that specified in the measure or matter as 
ordered reported.
    The staff chart goes far beyond anything we've reported in 
the bill itself. In particular, it calls for reductions in the 
wet side of NOAA that are not in the bill and on which we have 
had absolutely no discussion.
    For example, I'd like to call my colleague's attention to 
page 15 of the staff chart, which you all have before you, 
where the Committee assumes a cut of $58 million from last 
year's funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which 
is not even under this Committee's jurisdiction, but which 
apparently counted toward the Committee's 602[b] cap, so-
called, that's in quotes.
    Committee Rule 21[b] was adopted to protect members. It was 
intended to assure that members are accountable for making the 
decisions that the Committee report implies, have in fact been 
made by members.
    My position and the position of our rules is that there 
should be no policies or program guidance in the report that 
have not been specifically approved by the members, whereas 
here, the staff chart goes beyond what the Members have 
approved. I intend to object to any unanimous consent request 
and to call for a roll call vote.
    If the Members desire to delegate their policymaking 
authority to the staff, I invite them then to vote for the 
Chairman's motion to include the staff table in the Committee 
report.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman--
    Mr. Brown. I object to the request.
    The Chairman. The gentleman objects, and the Chair would 
simply note that the Committee is taking the action pursuant to 
the rule by having the Committee act. There is nothing being 
done that goes beyond the rules. This Committee is simply 
acting.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
adopt, as a part of the legislative report on HR 1815, the 
summary chart which the Members have before them.
    The Chairman. You've heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
    That concludes our markup on the measure HR 1815, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act of 1995.
    We will now suspend momentarily to allow the Reporter to 
change to a new tape and move to a new page in the transcript.
    Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, while you're doing that, can I 
do a unanimous consent request?
    The Chairman. The Reporter can't take it down, so we'll 
just suspend and allow the Reporter to--
    The Court Reporter. I'm ready.
    The Chairman. You're ready.
    I recognize the gentleman from Florida for a unanimous 
consent request.
    Mr. Hastings. I thank the Chair.
    I ask unanimous consent that my vote be recorded as yes on 
the Lofgren amendment. I was unavoidably detained, Mr. 
Chairman, and I heard that that will make it come to a grand 
total of nine, so I--
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. His statement will be 
noted.
    The gentleman from Kentucky.
    Mr. Ward. Mr. Chairman, I also have a unanimous consent 
request.
    Due to the fact the base reduction, the Base Closure 
Commission was meeting last Thursday, I missed two roll call 
votes on HR 1861.
    On the Roemer Amendment to reduce the number of DOE 
employees by one-third, I would have voted aye.
    And on the Lofgren Amendment to authorize $25 million for 
fusion energy, I would have voted aye.
    And today on the Cramer Amendment, I would have voted aye.
    Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's statement will be noted.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. I have a parliamentary inquiry relating to HR 
1175.
    The Chairman. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that we had a limited 
amount of time in which to consider this legislation after it 
was referred to us from the Resources Committee, nevertheless, 
we have seen fit to cut $20 million from both the 
Administration's request and the Resources Committee's 
recommendations for the Sea Grant program.
    I would like to inquire if there was a hearing record no 
which this funding recommendation was based, and if so, what 
witnesses testified on these programs before the Committee, 
either in this Congress or in prior Congresses?
    The Chairman. Would Staff reply to the parliamentary 
inquiry?
    Mr. Russell. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    We did indeed hold hearings over the course of a week on 
all the individual authorizations under the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment's jurisdiction, including of NOAA's 
budget, which includes Sea Grant.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of the transcript 
before me, and at no place in the transcript does it mention 
the Sea Grant program.
    Mr. Russell. I believe the Administration testified, Dr. 
Baker actually testified to the request for the 
Administration's FY 1996 budget for NOAA. As such, he 
highlighted all the priority programs before our Committee, 
which our Committee has jurisdiction over.
    If he neglected to mention Sea Grant as one of the priority 
programs, that was his discretion.
    Mr. Brown. Then you're agreeing with me that there's 
nothing in the hearing record in support of or opposition to 
the Sea Grant program?
    The Chairman. Well, the Staff has indicated that in fact 
hearings were held on the topic. If the Administration or the 
members did not desire to discuss the issue during those 
hearings, it was in fact a subject matter that was open for 
consideration by the Committee during that particular hearing 
process.
    And that, you know, we often have hearings where there are 
several topics that would be under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee that would be eligible for conversation that are not 
taken up at that time.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I very strongly resent a situation 
in which we do not have a hearing record on a subject, it is 
not mentioned in the hearing record that purports to deal with 
it, and we're told that this constitutes the hearing record on 
the subject.
    The fact that there was an option to present something or 
somebody could have asked is irrelevant actually. There's no 
hearing record on this subject.
    The Chairman. Well, the gentleman, I think the staff has 
told the gentleman that the gentleman is wrong in that 
understanding.
    The fact is that there was a hearing on the topics that 
include the Sea Grant, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
simply saying to the gentleman from California that during that 
time, it was not a high priority, either for the Administration 
or for members of the Committee evidently.
    But there was certainly an opportunity to discuss the 
topics relating to that program during the hearing that was 
done in this topical area.
    Mr. Doggett. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry 
then.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for his 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Mr. Doggett. You have just explained the procedure when a 
more detailed chart is put in place for our doing unanimous 
consent request or a vote in order to essentially suspend our 
rule on that point.
    And there is another rule of this--
    The Chairman. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. We did not 
explain that there's any suspension of the rule. The rule 
states that the Committee will act on such measures. We in fact 
had a Committee action on the matter. We did not suspend the 
rule, we complied with the rule.
    Mr. Doggett. I appreciate your clarification.
    And I'm seeking clarification with reference to Rule 44, 
which was added at your suggestion at the beginning of the 
Committee's operation. Since we're doing all these 
authorization bills, Rule 44, as you know, provides that no 
later than May 15th of each year, the Chairman will report to 
the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, any of the 
programs or departments that are under our jurisdiction for 
which no authorization exists for the next fiscal year.
    Is that something that is being done with reference to 
programs or has been done with reference to programs that we 
will not have any authorization legislation on?
    And it not, what is the proper manner for bringing that 
matter to the attention of the Committee?
    The Chairman. Well, that has also been complied with. We 
have been in a process of consultative reports throughout the 
process, something that I have been surprised to hear the 
minority complaining about during the period of time.
    We have in fact informed each of the Committee chairmen, 
the subcommittee cardinals, of the bills that are not 
authorized at the present time. That has been an on-going 
process. It's part of the consultations that has led to we hope 
some cooperation so that programs that we regard as vital can 
be on-going despite the lack of authorization.
    Mr. Doggett. Is there something in writing on that in the 
way of a report?
    The Chairman. There is not a written report on it, no.
    Mr. Doggett. So there'd be no way for any member of the 
Committee, not privy to those consultations, to know whether 
Rule 44 had been complied with or not?
    The Chairman. Well, Rule 44 requires the Chairman to inform 
the appropriators about those items which are not authorized at 
the present time. That has been done.
    Mr. Doggett. I appreciate your courtesy in responding.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Okay, I'm told that, Mr. Hastings, when you 
made your unanimous consent request, you asked that it be 
recorded, and so on that we cannot do.
    The saying that I should have made is that it will be noted 
in the record, the gentleman's position on the issue.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman is recognized.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to have noted 
in the record that had I been present and voting on the Cramer 
Amendment and Lofgren Amendment, I would have voted aye.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's statement will be noted.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.

    [Additional material follows:]
    
    
