    [House Report 111-553]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    111th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     2d Session                                                     111-553

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

     OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
                                      2010

                                    _______

     July 21, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

    Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology,
                            submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

                                 together with

                                ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                            [To accompany H.R. 2693]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

      The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was referred
    the bill (H.R. 2693) to amend title VII of the Oil Pollution
    Act of 1990, 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. Bill............................................................2
      II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................8
     III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................8
      IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................9
       V. Committee Actions..............................................10
      VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................16
     VII. Section-by-Section Analysis....................................18
    VIII. Committee Views................................................22
      IX. Cost Estimate..................................................26
       X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................26
      XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4...............................27
     XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............27
    XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........27
     XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................27
      XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................27
     XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................28
    XVII. Earmark Identification.........................................28
    XVIII.Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........28

     XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........28
      XX. Committee Recommendations......................................40
     XXI. Exchange of Committee Correspondence...........................41
    XXII. Additional Views...............................................46
    XXIII.Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................49

    XXIV. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................91

                                    I. Bill

      The amendment is as follows:
      Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
    following:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Pollution Research and Development
    Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.

    SEC. 2. FEDERAL OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH COMMITTEE.

      (a) Purposes.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
    (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``State'' and inserting
    ``State and tribal''.
      (b) Membership.--Section 7001(a)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(3) Structure.--
                      ``(A) Members.--The Interagency Committee shall
                    consist of representatives from the following:
                              ``(i) The Coast Guard.
                              ``(ii) The Department of Commerce, including
                            the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                            Administration.
                              ``(iii) The Department of the Interior.
                              ``(iv) The Environmental Protection Agency.
                      ``(B) Collaborating agencies.--The Interagency
                    Committee shall collaborate with the following:
                              ``(i) The National Institute of Standards and
                            Technology.
                              ``(ii) The Department of Energy.
                              ``(iii) The Department of Transportation,
                            including the Maritime Administration and the
                            Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
                            Administration.
                              ``(iv) The Department of Defense, including
                            the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy.
                              ``(v) The Department of Homeland Security,
                            including the United States Fire Administration
                            in the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
                              ``(vi) The National Aeronautics and Space
                            Administration.
                              ``(vii) The National Science Foundation.
                              ``(viii) Other Federal agencies, as
                            appropriate.''.
      (c) Role of the Chair.--Section 7001(a)(4) of such Act (33. U.S.C.
    2761(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(4) Chair.--
                      ``(A) In general.--A representative of the Coast
                    Guard shall serve as Chair.
                      ``(B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the Chair
                    shall be to ensure that--
                              ``(i) the activities of the Interagency
                            Committee and the agencies listed in paragraph
                            (3)(B) are coordinated;
                              ``(ii) the implementation plans required
                            under subsection (b)(1) are completed and
                            submitted;
                              ``(iii) the annual reports required under
                            subsection (e) are completed and submitted;
                              ``(iv) the Interagency Committee meets in
                            accordance with the requirements of paragraph
                            (5); and
                              ``(v) the Oil Pollution Research Advisory
                            Committee under subsection (f) is established
                            and utilized.''.
      (d) Activities.--Section 7001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)) is
    amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(5) Activities.--
                      ``(A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The Interagency
                    Committee shall ensure that the research, development,
                    and demonstration efforts authorized by this section
                    are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
                      ``(B) Meetings.--
                              ``(i) In general.--The Interagency Committee
                            shall meet, or otherwise communicate, as
                            appropriate, to--
                                      ``(I) plan program-related
                                    activities; and
                                      ``(II) determine whether the program
                                    is resulting in the development of new
                                    or improved methods and technologies to
                                    prevent, detect, respond to, contain,
                                    and mitigate oil discharge.
                              ``(ii) Frequency.--In no event shall the
                            Interagency Committee meet less than once per
                            year.
                      ``(C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
                    Committee, acting through the Administrator of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall
                    develop a national information clearinghouse on oil
                    discharge that--
                              ``(i) includes scientific information and
                            research on preparedness, response, and
                            restoration; and
                              ``(ii) serves as a single electronic access
                            and input point for Federal agencies, emergency
                            responders, the research community, and other
                            interested parties for such information.''.

    SEC. 3. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.

      (a) Implementation Plan.--Section 7001(b)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(b)(1)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``180 days after the date of enactment of
            this Act'' and inserting ``180 days after the date of enactment
            of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
            Reauthorization Act of 2010 and periodically thereafter, as
            appropriate, but not less than once every 5 years'';
              (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
                      ``(A) identify the roles and responsibilities of each
                    member agency of the Interagency Committee under
                    subsection (a)(3)(A) and each of the collaborating
                    agencies under subsection (a)(3)(B);'';
              (3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``containment,'' after
            ``response,'';
              (4) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``containment,'' after
            ``response,'';
              (5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
              (6) in subparagraph (F)--
                      (A) by striking ``the States'' through ``research
                    needs'' and inserting ``State and tribal governments,
                    regional oil pollution research needs, including
                    natural seeps and pollution resulting from importing
                    oil from overseas,''; and
                      (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
                    semicolon; and
              (7) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
                      ``(G) identify the information needed to conduct risk
                    assessment and risk analysis research to effectively
                    prevent oil discharges, including information on human
                    factors and decisionmaking, and to protect the
                    environment; and
                      ``(H) identify a methodology that--
                              ``(i) provides for the solicitation,
                            evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
                            utilization of technologies and research
                            projects developed by the public and private
                            sector in advance of future oil discharges; and
                              ``(ii) where appropriate, ensures that such
                            technologies are readily available for rapid
                            testing and potential deployment and that
                            research projects can be implemented during an
                            incident response.''.
      (b) Advice and Guidance.--Section 7001(b)(2) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(2) Advice and guidance.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit advice and
                    guidance in the development of the research plan under
                    paragraph (1) from--
                              ``(i) the Oil Pollution Research Advisory
                            Committee established under subsection (f);
                              ``(ii) the National Institute of Standards
                            and Technology on issues relating to quality
                            assurance and standards measurements;
                              ``(iii) third party standard-setting
                            organizations on issues relating to voluntary
                            consensus standards; and
                              ``(iv) the public in accordance with
                            subparagraph (B).
                      ``(B) Public comment.--Prior to the submission of the
                    research plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the
                    research plan shall be published in the Federal
                    Register and subject to a public comment period of 30
                    days. The Chair shall review the public comments
                    received and incorporate those comments into the plan,
                    as appropriate.''.
      (c) Review.--Section 7001(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(b)) is
    amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(3) Review.--After the submission of each research plan to
            Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall contract with the
            National Academy of Sciences--
                      ``(A) to review the research plan;
                      ``(B) to assess the adequacy of the research plan;
                    and
                      ``(C) to submit a report to Congress on the
                    conclusions of the assessment.
              ``(4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair shall
            address any recommendations in the review conducted under
            paragraph (3) and shall incorporate such recommendations into
            the research plan, as appropriate.''.

    SEC. 4. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

      (a) Establishment.--Section 7001(c)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``research and development, as
    provided in this subsection'' and inserting ``research, development,
    and demonstration, as provided in this subsection and subsection
    (a)(2)''.
      (b) Innovative Oil Pollution Technology.--Section 7001(c)(2) of such
    Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(2)) is amended--
              (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking
            ``preventing or mitigating'' and inserting ``preventing,
            detecting, containing, recovering, or mitigating'';
              (2) by striking subparagraph (I);
              (3) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph (I);
              (4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (I) (as
            so redesignated) and by inserting at the end a semicolon; and
              (5) by adding at the end the following:
                      ``(J) technologies and methods to address oil
                    discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal areas,
                    offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-deepwater
                    areas, and polar and other icy areas;
                      ``(K) modeling and simulation capabilities, including
                    tools and technologies, that can be used to facilitate
                    effective recovery and containment of oil discharge
                    during incident response; and
                      ``(L) research conducted by the Environmental
                    Protection Agency on the development and approval of
                    technologies with maximum effectiveness, including
                    application and delivery mechanisms, and minimum
                    toxicity to natural resources, the public, and the
                    environment in both the near and long-term.''.
      (c) Oil Pollution Technology Evaluation.--Section 7001(c)(3) of such
    Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The program
            established under this subsection shall provide for the
            evaluation of oil pollution prevention, containment, and
            mitigation technologies, including--
                      ``(A) the evaluation of the performance and
                    effectiveness of such technologies in preventing,
                    detecting, containing, recovering, and mitigating oil
                    discharges;
                      ``(B) the evaluation of the environmental effects of
                    the use of such technologies;
                      ``(C) the evaluation and testing of technologies
                    developed independently of the research and development
                    program established under this subsection, including
                    technologies developed by small businesses;
                      ``(D) the establishment, with the advice and guidance
                    of the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
                    of standards and testing protocols traceable to
                    national standards to measure the performance of oil
                    pollution prevention, containment, or mitigation
                    technologies;
                      ``(E) an evaluation of the environmental effects and
                    utility of controlled field testing;
                      ``(F) the use, where appropriate, of controlled field
                    testing to evaluate real-world application of new or
                    improved oil discharge prevention, response,
                    containment, recovery, or mitigation technologies; and
                      ``(G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of oil
                    pollution prevention technologies based on
                    probabilistic risk analyses of the system.''.
      (d) Oil Pollution Effects Research.--Section 7001(c)(4) of such Act
    (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(4)) is amended--
              (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
                      ``(A) In general.--
                              ``(i) Establishment.--The Interagency
                            Committee, acting through the Administrator of
                            the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                            Administration, shall establish a research
                            program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
                            the environmental effects, including long-term
                            effects, of oil discharge.
                              ``(ii) Specifications.--Such program shall
                            include the following elements:
                                      ``(I) Research on and the development
                                    of effective tools to detect, measure,
                                    observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
                                    forecast the presence, transport, fate,
                                    and effect of an oil discharge
                                    throughout the environment, including
                                    tools and models to accurately measure
                                    and predict the flow of oil discharged.
                                      ``(II) The development of methods,
                                    including economic methods, to assess
                                    and predict damages to natural
                                    resources, including air quality,
                                    resulting from oil discharges,
                                    including in economically disadvantaged
                                    communities and areas.
                                      ``(III) The identification of types
                                    of ecologically sensitive areas at
                                    particular risk from oil discharges,
                                    such as inland waters, coastal areas,
                                    offshore areas, including deepwater and
                                    ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and
                                    other icy areas.
                                      ``(IV) The preparation of scientific
                                    monitoring and evaluation plans for the
                                    areas identified under subclause (III)
                                    to be implemented in the event of major
                                    oil discharges in such areas.
                                      ``(V) The collection of environmental
                                    baseline data in the areas identified
                                    under subclause (III) if such data are
                                    insufficient.
                                      ``(VI) The use of both onshore and
                                    offshore air quality monitoring to
                                    study the effects of oil pollution and
                                    oil pollution cleanup technologies on
                                    air quality; and making the results,
                                    health, and safety warnings readily
                                    available to the public, including
                                    emergency responders, the research
                                    community, local residents, and other
                                    interested parties.
                                      ``(VII) Research on technologies,
                                    methods, and standards for protecting
                                    removal personnel and for volunteers
                                    that may participate in incident
                                    responses, including training, adequate
                                    supervision, protective equipment,
                                    maximum exposure limits, and
                                    decontamination procedures.'';
              (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                      (A) by striking ``(B) The Department of Commerce''
                    and all that follows through ``future oil discharges.''
                    and inserting the following:
                      ``(B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee, acting
                    through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
                    Atmospheric Administration, shall conduct research
                    activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in which--
                              ``(i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
                            250,000 gallons; and
                              ``(ii) a study of the long-term environmental
                            effects of the discharge would be of
                            significant scientific value, especially for
                            preventing or responding to future oil
                            discharges.'';
                      (B) by striking ``ATHOS I, and'' and inserting
                    ``ATHOS I;''; and
                      (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting
                    ``; Prince William Sound, where oil was discharged by
                    the EXXON VALDEZ; and the Gulf of Mexico, where oil was
                    discharged by the DEEPWATER HORIZON.''; and
              (3) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``Research'' and
            inserting ``Coordination.--Research''.
      (e) Demonstration Projects.--Section 7001(c)(6) of such Act (33
    U.S.C. 2761(c)(6)) is amended--
              (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
            following: ``The United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with
            such agencies as the President may designate, shall conduct a
            total of 2 port oil pollution minimization demonstration
            projects, 1 with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
            California, and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the
            purpose of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
            pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize the
            information and implement the improved practices and
            technologies developed from the research, development, and
            demonstration program established in this section.''; and
              (2) in the second sentence by striking ``oil spill'' and
            inserting ``oil discharge''.
      (f) Simulated Environmental Testing.--Section 7001(c)(7) of such Act
    (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(7)) is amended by inserting ``Oil pollution
    technology testing and evaluations shall be given priority over all
    other activities performed at such Research Center.'' after
    ``evaluations.''.
      (g) Regional Research Program.--
              (1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(8) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
            2761(c)(8)) is amended--
                      (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                              (i) by striking ``program of competitive
                            grants'' and inserting ``program of peer-
                            reviewed, competitive grants''; and
                              (ii) by striking ``(1989)'' and inserting
                            ``(2009)'';
                      (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the entity or
                    entities which'' and inserting ``at least one entity
                    that''; and
                      (C) by adding at the end the following new
                    subparagraph:
                      ``(H) In carrying out this paragraph, the Interagency
                    Committee shall coordinate the program of peer-
                    reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
                    research institutions, including Minority Serving
                    Institutions as defined under section 371(a) of the
                    Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
                    provide consideration to such institutions in the
                    recommendations for awarding grants.''.
              (2) Funding.--Section 7001(c)(9) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
            2741(c)(9)) is amended by striking ``1991'' and all that
            follows through ``shall be available'' and inserting ``2011,
            2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, there are authorized to be
            appropriated from amounts in the Fund $12,000,000''.

    SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

      Section 7001(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(d)) is amended to read as
    follows:
      ``(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the research
    plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency Committee shall
    engage in international cooperation by harnessing global expertise
    through collaborative partnerships with foreign governments and
    research entities, and domestic and foreign private actors, including
    nongovernmental organizations and private sector companies, and by
    leveraging public and private capital, technology, expertise, and
    services towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
    collaborative oil pollution research, development, and demonstration
    activities, including controlled field tests of oil discharges, oil
    recovery, and cleanup standards.''.

    SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS.

      Section 7001(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended to read as
    follows:
      ``(e) Annual Report.--
              ``(1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the
            President's annual budget request in each year after the date
            of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development
            Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Chair of the
            Interagency Committee shall submit to Congress a report
            describing the--
                      ``(A) activities carried out under this section in
                    the preceding fiscal year, including--
                              ``(i) a description of major research
                            conducted on oil discharge prevention,
                            detection, containment, recovery, and
                            mitigation techniques in all environments by
                            each agency described in subsection (a)(3)(A)
                            and (B); and
                              ``(ii) a summary of--
                                      ``(I) projects in which the agency
                                    contributed funding or other resources;
                                      ``(II) major projects undertaken by
                                    State and tribal governments, and
                                    foreign governments; and
                                      ``(III) major projects undertaken by
                                    the private sector and educational
                                    institutions;
                      ``(B) activities being carried out under this section
                    in the current fiscal year, including a description of
                    major research and development activities on oil
                    discharge prevention, detection, containment, recovery,
                    and mitigation technologies and techniques in all
                    environments that each agency will conduct or
                    contribute to; and
                      ``(C) activities proposed to be carried out under
                    this section in the subsequent fiscal year, including
                    an analysis of how these activities will further the
                    purposes of the program authorized by this section.
              ``(2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
            recommendations on the research plan under section 7001(b)(3),
            the Chair shall include, in the first annual report under
            paragraph (1) of this subsection, a description of those
            recommendations incorporated into the research plan, and a
            description of, and explanation for, any recommendations that
            are not included in such plan.''.

    SEC. 7. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

      Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is further amended--
              (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
              (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
      ``(f) Advisory Committee.--
              ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
            of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development
            Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Chair of the
            Interagency Committee shall establish an advisory committee to
            be known as the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee (in
            this subsection referred to as the `advisory committee').
              ``(2) Membership.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The advisory committee shall be
                    composed of members appointed by the Chair, in
                    consultation with the each member agency described in
                    subsection (a)(3), including--
                              ``(i) individuals with extensive knowledge
                            and research experience or operational
                            knowledge of prevention, detection, response,
                            containment, and mitigation of oil discharges;
                              ``(ii) individuals broadly representative of
                            stakeholders affected by oil discharges; and
                              ``(iii) other individuals, as determined by
                            the Chair.
                      ``(B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
                              ``(i) appoint no more than 25 members that
                            shall not include representatives of the
                            Federal Government, but may include
                            representatives from State, tribal, and local
                            governments; and
                              ``(ii) ensure that no class of individuals
                            described in clause (ii) or (iii) of
                            subparagraph (A) comprises more than \1/3\ of
                            the membership of the advisory committee.
                      ``(C) Terms of service.--
                              ``(i) In general.--Members shall be appointed
                            for a 3-year term and may serve for not more
                            than 2 terms, except as provided in clause
                            (iii).
                              ``(ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy appointments shall
                            be for the remainder of the unexpired term of
                            the vacancy.
                              ``(iii) Special rule.--If a member is
                            appointed to fill a vacancy and the remainder
                            of the unexpired term is less than 1 year, the
                            member may subsequently be appointed for 2 full
                            terms.
                      ``(D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of the
                    advisory committee shall not be compensated for service
                    on the advisory committee, but may be allowed travel
                    expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
                    accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
                    United States Code.
              ``(3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review, advise,
            and comment on Interagency Committee activities, including the
            following:
                      ``(A) Management and functioning of the Interagency
                    Committee.
                      ``(B) Collaboration of the Interagency Committee and
                    the agencies listed in subsection (a)(3)(B).
                      ``(C) The research and technology development of new
                    or improved response capabilities.
                      ``(D) The use of cost-effective research mechanisms.
                      ``(E) Research, computation, and modeling needs and
                    other resources needed to develop a comprehensive
                    program of oil pollution research.
              ``(4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may establish
            subcommittees of its members.
              ``(5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at least
            once per year and at other times at the call of the
            chairperson.
              ``(6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit biennial
            reports to the Interagency Committee and Congress on the
            function, activities, and progress of the Interagency Committee
            and the programs established under this section.
              ``(7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
            Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the advisory
            committee.''.

    SEC. 8. FUNDING.

      (a) In General.--Section 7001(g) of such Act, as redesignated by
    section 7 of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
      ``(g) Funding.--
              ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
            from amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to
            carry out this section, except for subsection (c)(8).
              ``(2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in paragraph
            (1), there are authorized to be appropriated--
                      ``(A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    annually to carry out this section; and
                      ``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012,
                    2013, and 2014 to carry out the activities in
                    subsection (c)(6).''.
      (b) Authorization.--Section 1012(a)(5)(C) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2712(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
                      ``(C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal year
                    shall be available to carry out title VII of this Act;
                    and''.

    SEC. 9. ACCESS TO RESEARCH DURING AN EMERGENCY.

      Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is amended by adding at the
    end the following new subsection:
      ``(h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity that
    receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies or results of
    which may be useful for response activities in the event of an oil
    discharge incident described in sections 300.300-334 of title 40 of the
    Code of Federal Regulations, shall, upon request, make the
    methodologies or results of such research available to the Interagency
    Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section
    311(a)(21) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
    1321(a)(21)), except to the extent that the information is protected
    from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
    Such information shall be for use in response activities in the event
    of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in information made
    publicly available pursuant to this Act.''.

                            II. Purpose of the Bill

        The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
    Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and
    reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761)
    (Title VII (Section 7001) and Title I (Section 1012)). The bill
    authorizes the establishment of the Interagency Coordinating
    Committee on Oil Pollution Research and coordination of a
    comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
    development, and demonstration.

                  III. Background and Need for the Legislation

        Oil spills are reported every day in the United States. Few
    spills are environmental disasters of national or global
    significance; most of the three million gallons of oil and
    refined petroleum product spilled into U.S. waters each year
    goes unnoticed by the public. Regardless of the level of public
    awareness in each case, natural resources such as fish, corals,
    marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, beaches, coastal habitats,
    and water quality are often negatively affected, as are the
    businesses and industries which depend on the immediate and
    long-term health of these resources.
        The United States has incorporated lessons learned from
    past spills into Federal law and relevant response readiness
    practices. We now have response tools and trained personnel at
    ports and aboard vessels across the nation. However, oil
    recovery and clean up techniques, including in situ burns,
    chemical dispersants, skimmers, and booms have changed little
    since the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989.
        The Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90), P.L. 101-380 (8-18-1990),
    was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to
    rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The
    intent of OPA 90 was to improve the nation's ability to prevent
    and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that
    expand the Federal government's ability to respond to oil
    spills, and provide the funding and resources necessary for an
    adequate response.
        Title VII of OPA 90 establishes an Interagency Coordinating
    Committee on Oil Pollution Research to coordinate a
    comprehensive program of oil pollution research, technology
    development, and demonstration among the Federal agencies, in
    cooperation and coordination with industry, universities,
    research institutions, state governments, and other nations, as
    appropriate, and to foster cost-effective research mechanisms,
    including the joint funding of research. Fourteen Federal
    partners are named as members of the Interagency Committee, and
    a representative of the Coast Guard serves as Chairman.
        This program provides for research, development, and
    demonstration of new or improved technologies which are
    effective in preventing or mitigating oil discharges and which
    protect the environment, including oil pollution technology
    evaluation, oil pollution effects research, marine simulation
    research, demonstration projects, simulated environmental
    testing, and regional research programs.
        Few legislative modifications to OPA 90's research and
    development program have been made since its enactment, and
    appropriations for these provisions have been small in
    comparison to the need. The response to the Deepwater Horizon
    disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has exposed the need for an
    effective and coordinated research program for oil spill
    response.
        H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development
    Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 modifies the research,
    development, and demonstration program authorized under OPA 90
    to ensure the ongoing development of methods and technologies
    to prevent, detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges.

                            IV. Summary of Hearings

        On Thursday, June 4, 2009 the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Environment held a hearing entitled ``A New Direction for
    Federal Oil Spill Research and Development'' to examine the
    Federal research and development efforts to prevent, detect, or
    mitigate oil discharges and to receive testimony on H.R. 2693,
    the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
        The following witnesses provided testimony:
         Mr. Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator,
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
    of Response and Restoration (OR&R).
         Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
    Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
    Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
    Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
         Rear Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention
    Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United
    States Coast Guard (USCG).
         Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the Office of
    Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Department of
    Fish and Game.
        The hearing highlighted current Federal oil pollution
    research and development efforts at the U.S. Coast Guard
    (USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
    National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Witnesses
    described a number of emerging challenges that require new
    research and development. The panel shared a variety of ways
    that the current program could be improved. This included
    research to address new challenges, improved response
    technologies, requirements for new blends of biofuels, and
    increased transportation.
        On Wednesday, June 9, 2010 the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Environment held a hearing entitled ``Deluge of Oil Highlights
    Research and Technology Needs for Oil Recovery and Effective
    Cleanup of Oil Spills'' with the purpose of exploring the
    research, development, and technology needs for the recovery of
    oil and effective cleanup of oil spills. The following
    witnesses provided testimony:

    Panel I

         Mr. Douglas R. Helton, Incident Operations
    Coordinator, Office of Response and Restoration, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department
    of Commerce.
         Captain Anthony Lloyd, Chief, Office of Incident
    Management and Preparedness, United States Coast Guard.
         Ms. Sharon Buffington, Chief, Engineering and
    Research Branch, Offshore Energy and Minerals Management,
    Minerals Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the
    Interior.
         Dr. Albert Venosa, Director, Land Remediation and
    Pollution Control Division, National Risk Management Research
    Laboratory, Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Panel II

         Dr. Jeffrey Short, Pacific Science Director for
    Oceana.
         Dr. Samantha Joye, Professor of Marine Sciences,
    University of Georgia.
         Dr. Richard Haut, Senior Research Scientist,
    Houston Advanced Research Center.
         Dr. Nancy Kinner, Professor of Civil and
    Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire and Co-
    Director of the Coastal Response Research Center (CRRC).
         Mr. Kevin Costner, Partner, Ocean Therapy
    Solutions (OTS).
        Members and witnesses examined Federal agency roles in oil
    spill response research; the activities and programs Federal
    agencies have pursued since the passage of the Oil Pollution
    Act of 1990; the gaps in spill response research and technology
    development; ways to improve the coordinated Federal response
    going forward; and lessons learned from the Exxon Valdez oil
    spill of 1989. Additionally, an important topic of discussion
    was the interaction of oil with the natural environment, and
    how the structure and function of marine ecosystems, including
    food webs, are directly impacted by spilled oil or spill
    response efforts, such as dispersants. Finally, witnesses
    expressed concern about the effectiveness of currently deployed
    technologies such as booms, skimmers, and in situ burns.
    Members also consulted witnesses about the barriers to the
    development and use of transformational technologies for oil
    spill cleanup.

                              V. Committee Actions

        On June 3, 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey, for herself
    and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird,
    introduced H.R. 2693--the Federal Oil Spill Research Program
    Act of 2009.
        On June 16, 2009, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee
    met to consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research
    Program Act of 2009. The Committee considered the following
    amendments:
        1. Ms. Woolsey offered a manager's amendment. The amendment
    proposed replacing the term ``Oil Spill'' with ``Oil
    Pollution'' to better explain the scope of the program, which
    includes research into oil discharges both on water and on
    land. Section 2 of the bill is amended to provide for more
    effective notification to the public about the activities of
    the program, including information on existing volunteer
    training opportunities in incident response. Section 3 of the
    bill is amended to clarify some of the elements of the
    Interagency Research Program. It also adds additional program
    elements, including research into: (1) the mechanical,
    chemical, and biological methods for the recovery, removal, and
    disposal of oil; (2) technologies, methods, and standards for
    protecting removal personnel and volunteers that may
    participate in incident response; (3) improved information
    systems to assist Federal response efforts; and (4) methods to
    restore and rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil
    discharges. A new Section 4 of the bill is inserted to allow
    for the continuation of an existing technology evaluation
    program that will be supplemented with guidance from the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology. The manager's
    amendment also modifies the contents of the Interagency
    Coordinating Committee's research assessment. It specifically
    adds a new requirement to identify emerging technologies and
    the barriers to the utilization of those technologies by
    Federal response teams. In addition, the manager's amendment
    clarifies that the assessment will include an analysis of the
    effectiveness of current technologies to address oil pollution
    and an assessment and comparison of regional differences in
    response capabilities. Section 5 of the bill is amended to
    clarify the required contents of the Federal oil pollution
    research and development plan. Specifically, the amendment
    clarifies that the plan is to include research to improve: the
    rates of oil recovery, the effectiveness of the response to oil
    discharges, and the accessibility and utility of the
    information available to mariners, researchers, and responders.
    Section 6 of the bill is amended to clarify that each of the
    agencies in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may award
    grants or utilize other funding mechanisms to address the
    research priorities set forth in the research plan. Section 7
    of the bill simplifies the reporting required by the National
    Academy of Sciences. Under the Manager's Amendment, the
    National Academy will be responsible for submitting to Congress
    and the Interagency Committee a report evaluating the oil
    pollution research and development program and identifying
    priority areas of research and technology development. Finally,
    the amendment includes a direct authorization for NOAA and EPA,
    each in the amount of $2 million dollars a year for Fiscal Year
    2010 through Fiscal Year 2014. The amendment was agreed to by
    voice vote.
        2. Mr. Inglis offered a second degree amendment to the
    manager's amendment. The amendment proposed amending the text
    to reinstate the Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency
    Committee instead of changing the chair to NOAA as was written
    in H.R. 2693. The amendment was withdrawn.
        3. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the interagency
    program to include research related to economic incentives and
    barriers to technology development. In addition, Mr. Baird's
    amendment requires the program to conduct research to develop
    new technologies and methods to respond to oil pollution in
    artic regions. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        4. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to add new requirements
    to the program, assessment, and plan to consider and
    investigate technologies and methods to address oil discharges
    on land and in inland waters. The amendment was agreed to by
    voice vote.
        H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
        Mr. Baird moved that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R.
    2693, as amended, to the full Committee with the recommendation
    to pass the bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.
        On July 14, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology
    met to consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research
    Program Act of 2009. The Committee considered the following
    amendments:
        1. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute (ANS). The amendment proposed striking and replacing
    the language of H.R. 2693. The ANS amends Section 7001(a)(3) of
    OPA 90 to designate the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the
    Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    as the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
    Research (hereafter, the ``Interagency Committee''). The
    remaining agencies from Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as
    Collaborating Agencies. The ANS adds the National Science
    Foundation (NSF) to the list of Collaborating Agencies. The ANS
    adds a provision detailing the role of the Chair of the
    Interagency Committee, and directs the Interagency Committee to
    ensure that research, development, and demonstration efforts
    are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis. The ANS also
    requires that the Interagency Committee meet not less than once
    per year to plan program activities and to determine whether
    the program is meeting its objectives. Additionally, the ANS
    directs NOAA to develop an electronic information exchange on
    oil pollution scientific information and research.
        The ANS amends Section 7001(b) of OPA 90 to direct the
    Interagency Committee to submit an implementation plan to
    Congress within 180 days of enactment. The plan will identify
    the roles and responsibilities of each of the Interagency
    Committee and Collaborating Agencies. In developing the plan,
    the Chair is directed to solicit advice and guidance from the
    Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and through
    public comments. The Chair is further directed to contract with
    the National Academy of Sciences to review and assess the plan,
    and the National Academy of Sciences will submit a report to
    Congress on its findings.
        The ANS amends Section 7001(c) of OPA 90 to authorize
    research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
    technologies that are effective in ``preventing, detecting,
    recovering, or mitigating'' oil discharges, including:
    technologies and methods to address oil pollution on land, in
    inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-
    deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; modeling and
    simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies that
    can be used to facilitate effective recovery and containment of
    oil pollution during an incident response; and research
    conducted by the EPA on the development and approval of
    technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum toxicity to
    natural resources, the public, and the environment in both the
    near and long-term.
        The ANS authorizes an oil pollution technology evaluation
    as part of the research program. Research elements include: the
    evaluation of the environmental effects of oil pollution
    prevention and mitigation technologies; the evaluation and
    testing of technologies developed independently of the
    authorized research program; the establishment of standards and
    protocols to measure the performance of prevention or
    mitigation technologies; and research activities related to
    controlled field testing. The ANS directs the Interagency
    Committee to conduct a research program to monitor and
    scientifically evaluate the environmental effects, including
    long-term effects, of oil pollution. The research program
    includes the following elements: (1) research and development
    of effective tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze,
    monitor, model, and forecast the presence, transport, fate, and
    effect of oil throughout the environment; (2) the development
    of methods, including economic methods, to assess and predict
    damages to natural resources, including air quality, resulting
    from oil discharges; (3) the identification of types of
    ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk to oil
    discharges, such as in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore
    areas, including deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar
    and other icy areas; (4) the preparation of scientific
    monitoring and evaluation plans to be implemented in the event
    of major oil discharges in such areas; and (5) the collection
    of environmental baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas
    at particular risk to oil discharges where there are
    insufficient data. Additionally, the ANS directs that the
    Interagency Committee, acting through NOAA, conduct research
    activities for cases where the amount of oil discharged exceeds
    250,000 gallons and it is determined that a study of the long-
    term environmental effects of the discharge would be of
    significant scientific value, especially for preventing or
    responding to future oil discharges.
        The ANS amends Section 7001(c)(8)(A) of OPA 90 by striking
    completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority of New
    York and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana. The
    Interagency Committee is directed to coordinate a program of
    peer reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
    research institutions or to groups of universities or research
    institutions, for the purposes of conducting a coordinated
    research program related to the regional aspects of oil
    pollution, such as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the
    effects of discharged oil in regional environments. At least
    one entity from a group application must be located in the
    region for which the project is proposed.
        The ANS authorizes appropriations from the Oil Spill
    Liability Trust Fund (hereafter, ``the Fund'') in the amount of
    $12,000,000 for each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 for this
    Regional research program. The ANS directs the Interagency
    Committee, in accordance with the research plan, to coordinate
    and cooperate with other nations and foreign research entities
    in conducting oil pollution research, development, and
    demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
    oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards. The ANS
    requires the Interagency Committee Chair to annually submit to
    Congress a report describing the Interagency Committee
    activities, along with an analysis of how these activities
    further the purposes of the research program.
        The ANS establishes an Oil Pollution Research Advisory
    Committee that consists of at least 25 representatives from
    non-governmental entities. The Advisory Committee is directed
    to review, advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
    activities. The Advisory Committee will meet at least once per
    year and submit biennial reports on the function, activities,
    and progress of the Interagency Committee to both Congress and
    the Interagency Committee.
        The ANS authorizes to be appropriated from amounts in the
    Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually. From this amount,
    $16,000,000 annually are authorized to be appropriated to the
    Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and $2,000,000 annually for each of fiscal years
    2011 through 2014 for the demonstration projects described in
    subsection (c)(6). Lastly, the ANS amends 1012(a)(5)(c) of OPA
    90 to increase the authorization of appropriations to carry out
    Section 7001 to $48,000,000.
        2. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to make a conforming
    change in several places to replace the word ``pollution'' with
    ``discharge.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        3. Mr. Hall offered an amendment to add the word
    ``containment'' in several places to the list of activities at
    which oil pollution research is directed. The amendment was
    agreed to by voice vote.
        4. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to direct that the
    Research Plan ``identify the information needed to conduct risk
    assessment and risk analysis research to effectively prevent
    oil discharges, including information on human factors and
    decisionmaking, and to protect the environment.'' The amendment
    was agreed to by voice vote.
        5. Mr. Tonko and Mr. Baird offered an amendment to direct
    that the research plan ``identify a methodology that--(i)
    provides for the solicitation, evaluation, preapproval,
    funding, and utilization of technologies and research projects
    developed by the public and private sector in advance of future
    oil discharges; and (ii) where appropriate, ensures that such
    technologies are readily available for rapid testing and
    potential deployment and that research projects can be
    implemented during an incident response. The amendment was
    agreed to by voice vote.
        6. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to direct that the
    research plan identify, in consultation with State and tribal
    governments, regional oil pollution research needs, ``including
    seeps and pollution resulting from importing oil from
    overseas.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        7. Mr. Lamar Smith offered an amendment to require that the
    Chair solicit advice in the development of the research plan
    from ``third party standard-setting organizations on issues
    relating to voluntary consensus standards'' in addition to the
    other entities. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        8. Mr. Rohrabacher offered an amendment to change the
    paragraph on the Environmental Protection Agency research in
    the innovative oil pollution technology research elements by
    striking the EPA. The amendment was defeated by voice vote.
        9. Mr. Diaz-Balart offered an amendment to add the
    evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of oil
    pollution prevention and mitigation technologies in preventing,
    detecting, containing, recovering, and mitigating oil
    discharges to the oil pollution technology evaluation. The
    amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        10. Mr. Tonko offered an amendment to add technologies
    developed by small businesses to the oil Pollution technology
    evaluation. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        11. Mr. Lipinski offered an amendment to add an evaluation
    of the effectiveness of oil pollution prevention technologies
    based on probabilistic risk analyses of the system to the oil
    pollution technology evaluation. The amendment was agreed to by
    voice vote.
        12. Mr. Garamendi offered an amendment to add tools and
    models to accurately measure and predict the flow of oil
    discharged. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        13. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to add ``economically
    disadvantaged communities and areas'' to the oil pollution
    effects research elements on assessing and predicting damages
    to natural resources resulting from oil discharges. The
    amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        14. Mrs. Dahlkemper and Mr. Grayson offered an amendment to
    add to the oil pollution effects research elements to include
    the ``use of both onshore and offshore air quality monitoring
    to study the effects of oil pollution and oil pollution cleanup
    technologies on air quality; and making the results, health,
    and safety warnings readily available to the public, including
    emergency responders, the research community, local residents,
    and other interested parties.'' The amendment was agreed to by
    voice vote.
        15. Mr. Grayson offered an amendment to add to the oil
    pollution effects research elements to include ``research on
    technologies, methods, and standards for protecting removal
    personnel and for volunteers that may participate in incident
    responses, including training, adequate supervision, protective
    equipment, maximum exposure limits, and decontamination
    procedures.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        16. Mr. Hall offered an amendment to state that ``Oil
    pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be given
    priority over all other activities performed at the Oil and
    Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT)
    Research Center.'' The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        17. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to direct the
    Interagency Committee to include Minority Serving Institutions
    in the coordination of the Regional Research Program and
    provide consideration to such institutions in the
    recommendations for awarding grants. The amendment was agreed
    to by voice vote.
        18. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the
    international cooperation requirement to include harnessing
    global expertise through collaborative partnerships to conduct
    collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
    demonstration activities, including controlled field testing,
    oil recovery, and cleanup standards. The amendment was agreed
    to by voice vote.
        19. Ms. Biggert offered an amendment to expand the annual
    reporting requirements. The amendment was agreed to by voice
    vote.
        20. Mr. Broun offered an amendment to expand the membership
    requirements of the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
    The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        21. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to add a new section to
    make federally-funded research accessible during an oil spill
    incident. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.
        H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
        Mr. Baird moved that the Committee favorably report H.R.
    2693, as amended, to the House with the recommendation to pass
    the bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.

                  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

        H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001 of the Oil Pollution Act of
    1990 to designate the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the
    Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the
    Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution research
    (hereafter, the ``Interagency Committee''). The remaining
    agencies from Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as
    Collaborating Agencies. H.R. 2693 also adds the National
    Science Foundation (NSF) to the list of Collaborating Agencies.
        H.R. 2693 adds a provision to Section 7001(a) detailing the
    role of the Chair of the Interagency Committee, and directs the
    Interagency Committee to ensure that research, development, and
    demonstration efforts are coordinated and conducted on an
    ongoing basis. The bill also requires that the Interagency
    Committee meet no less than once per year to plan program
    activities and to determine whether the program is meeting its
    objectives. Additionally, H.R. 2693 directs NOAA to develop an
    electronic information exchange on oil pollution scientific
    information and research.
        H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(b) of OPA 90 to direct the
    Interagency Committee to submit an implementation plan to
    Congress within 180 days of enactment. The plan will: (1)
    identify the roles and responsibilities of each of the
    Interagency Committee and Collaborating Agencies; (2) identify
    regional research needs, including natural seeps and pollution
    from importing oil from overseas; (3) identify information
    needed to conduct risk assessments and analyses, including
    information on human factors and decision-making, to prevent
    oil discharges; and (4) identify a methodology to solicit,
    evaluate, pre-approve, fund, make readily available, and
    utilize technologies and research in advance of a future oil
    discharge. In developing the plan, the Chair is directed to
    solicit advice and guidance from the Oil Pollution Research
    Advisory Committee (established in Section 7 of H.R. 2693), the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), third-
    party standard setting organizations, and public comment. The
    Chair is further directed to contract with the National Academy
    of Sciences to review and assess the plan, and the National
    Academy will submit a report to Congress on its findings.
        H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(c) of OPA 90 to authorize
    research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
    technologies effective in ``preventing, detecting, containing,
    recovering, or mitigating'' oil discharges, including: (1)
    technologies and methods to address oil pollution on land, in
    inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater and ultra-
    deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; (2) modeling
    and simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies
    that can be used to facilitate effective recovery and
    containment of oil pollution during incident response; and (3)
    research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on
    the development and approval of technologies with maximum
    effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural resources, the
    public, and the environment in both the near and long-term.
        H.R. 2693 also authorizes an oil pollution technology
    evaluation as part of the research program for prevention,
    containment, and mitigation of oil pollution. Research elements
    include: (1) the evaluation of the performance and
    effectiveness of technologies; (2) the evaluation of the
    environmental effects of oil pollution technologies; (3) the
    evaluation and testing of technologies developed independently
    of the authorized research program; (4) the establishment of
    standards and protocols to measure the performance of
    prevention or mitigation technologies; (5) the evaluation and
    use of controlled field testing; and (6) the evaluation of
    technology effectiveness based on probabilistic risk analyses.
        H.R. 2693 directs the Interagency Committee to act through
    NOAA to conduct a research program to monitor and
    scientifically evaluate the environmental effects, including
    long-term effects, of oil pollution, that includes the
    following elements: (1) research and development of effective
    tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
    forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect of oil
    throughout the environment, including tools to measure flow of
    oil discharged; (2) the development of methods, including
    economic methods, to assess and predict damages to natural
    resources, including air quality, resulting from oil
    discharges; including in economically disadvantaged
    communities; (3) the identification of types of ecologically
    sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges, such as
    in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
    deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
    areas; (4) the preparation of scientific monitoring and
    evaluation plans to be implemented in the event of major oil
    discharges in such areas; (5) the collection of environmental
    baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas at particular
    risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient data; (6)
    the use of onshore and offshore air quality monitoring; and (7)
    research on technologies and standards, including training,
    supervision, protective equipment, maximum exposure limits, and
    decontamination procedures for protecting removal personnel and
    volunteers. Additionally, the Interagency Committee, acting
    through NOAA, shall conduct research activities for cases where
    the amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000 gallons and it is
    determined that a study of the long-term environmental effects
    of the discharge would be of significant scientific value,
    especially for preventing or responding to future oil
    discharges. H.R. 2693 also adds Prince William Sound and the
    Gulf of Mexico to the areas to be studied where oil discharges
    have occurred by Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon,
    respectively.
        H.R. 2693 amends Section 7001(c)(8)(A) of OPA 90 by
    striking completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority
    of New York and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans,
    Louisiana. H.R. 2693 also amends Section 7001(c)(7) to ensure
    the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
    Tank (OHMSETT) Research Center gives priority to oil pollution
    technology testing and evaluations.
        The Interagency Committee is also directed in H.R. 2693 to
    coordinate a program of peer reviewed, competitive grants to
    universities or other research institutions, or groups of
    universities or research institutions, including Minority
    Serving Institutions, for the purposes of conducting a
    coordinated research program related to the regional aspects of
    oil pollution, such as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the
    effects of discharged oil in regional environments. At least
    one entity from a group application must be located in the
    region for which the project is proposed. The Interagency is
    also directed to give consideration to Minority Serving
    Institutions in their recommendations for awarding grants. H.R.
    2693 authorizes appropriations from the Oil Spill Liability
    Trust Fund (hereafter, the Fund) in the amount of $12,000,000
    for each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 for this regional
    research program.
        H.R. 2693 directs the Interagency Committee, in accordance
    with the research plan, to engage in international cooperation
    through collaborative partnerships with foreign governments,
    research entities, non-governmental organizations, and the
    private sector by harnessing global expertise and leveraging
    public and private capital, technology and services to conduct
    oil pollution research, development, and demonstration
    activities, including controlled field tests of oil discharges,
    oil recovery, and cleanup standards.
        H.R. 2693 requires the Interagency Committee Chair to
    annually submit to Congress a report describing the Interagency
    Committee activities, along with an analysis of how these
    activities further the purposes of the research program.
        H.R. 2693 also establishes an Oil Pollution Research
    Advisory Committee consisting of no more than 25
    representatives that do not include representatives of the
    Federal government, but may include representatives from State,
    tribal, and local governments and individuals with extensive
    knowledge and expertise in the prevention and mitigation of oil
    discharges. The Advisory Committee is directed to review,
    advise, and comment on Interagency Committee activities. The
    Advisory Committee will meet at least once per year and submit
    biennial reports on the function, activities, and progress of
    the Interagency Committee to both Congress and the Interagency
    Committee.
        H.R. 2693 authorizes to be to be appropriated from amounts
    in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually. From this
    amount, $16,000,000 annually are authorized to be appropriated
    to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and $2,000,000 annually for each of fiscal years
    2011 through 2014 for the demonstration projects described in
    subsection (c)(6). H.R. 2693 also amends Section 1012(a)(5)(c)
    of OPA 90 to increase the authorization of appropriations to
    carry out Section 7001 to $48,000,000.
        Lastly, H.R. 2693 includes a provision for the Interagency
    Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to be able to
    have access to federally-funded research data and methodologies
    that may be useful for response activities in the event of an
    oil discharge incident.

                        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

        The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
    Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and
    reauthorize the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (33 U.S.C.
    2761) (Title VII (Section 7001) and Title I (Section 1012).

    Section 1. Short title

        Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
    Reauthorization Act of 2010.

    Section 2. Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee

        PURPOSES.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of
    1990 is amended to add tribal governments to the list of
    entities with which the Interagency Committee shall cooperate
    and coordinate.
        MEMBERSHIP.--Section 7001(a)(3) is amended to designate the
    U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior (DOI),
    and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the
    Interagency Committee; the remaining Federal agencies from
    Section 7001(a)(3) are designated as Collaborating Agencies;
    and the National Science Foundation (NSF) is added to the list
    of Collaborating Agencies.
        ROLE OF THE CHAIR.--Section 7001(a)(4) is amended to
    include a paragraph on the roles of the Chair of the
    Interagency Committee.
        ACTIVITIES.-- Section 7001(a) is amended to insert a
    section of activities which directs the Interagency Committee:
    to ensure that research, development, and demonstration efforts
    are coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis, to meet no
    less than once per year to plan the program's activities, and
    to determine whether the program is producing new or improved
    methods and technologies; and for the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration to develop an electronic information
    exchange on oil pollution scientific information and research.

    Section 3. Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan

        IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.--Section 7001(b)(1) is amended to
    direct the Interagency Committee to submit a plan to Congress,
    as directed in OPA 90, within 180 days after the date of
    enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
    Reauthorization Act of 2010 and periodically thereafter but not
    less than once every 5 years.
        The plan will: (1) identify the roles and responsibilities
    of each of the Interagency Committee and Collaborating
    Agencies; (2) identify regional research needs, including
    natural seeps and pollution from importing oil from overseas;
    (3) identify information needed to conduct risk assessments and
    analysis, including information on human factors and decision-
    making, to prevent oil discharges; and (4) identify a
    methodology to solicit, evaluate, pre-approve, fund, make
    readily available, and utilize technologies and research in
    advance of a future oil discharge.
        ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.--Section 7001(b)(2) is amended to
    direct the Chair of the Interagency Committee to solicit advice
    and guidance in the preparation and development of the plan
    from: the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, third-party
    standard setting organizations, and through public comment
    prior to the submission of the research plan.
        REVIEW.--Section 7001(b) is also amended to direct the
    Chair of the Interagency Committee to contract with the
    National Academy of Sciences to review and assess the adequacy
    of the Plan and to submit a report to Congress.

    Section 4. Oil Pollution Research and Development Program

        INNOVATIVE OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY.--Section 7001(c)(2) is
    amended to include research, development, and demonstration of
    new or improved technologies that are effective in preventing,
    detecting, containing, recovering, or mitigating oil
    discharges; technologies and methods to address oil pollution
    on land, in inland waters, offshore areas, including deepwater
    and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas;
    modeling and simulation capabilities, including tools and
    technologies that can be used to facilitate effective recovery
    and containment of oil pollution during incident response; and
    research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on
    the development and approval of technologies with maximum
    effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural resources, the
    public, and the environment in both the near and long-term.
        OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION.--Section 7001(c)(3) is
    amended to provide for: an oil pollution prevention,
    containment, and mitigation technology evaluation, with an
    evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of
    technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects,
    including: the evaluation and testing of technologies developed
    independently of the research and development program; the
    establishment, with the advice and guidance of the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology, of standards and testing
    protocols traceable to national standards to measure the
    performance of oil pollution prevention or mitigation
    technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects and
    utility of controlled field testing; the use, where
    appropriate, of controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
    application of oil discharge prevention or mitigation
    technologies; and the evaluation of technology effectiveness
    based on probabilistic risk analyses.
        OIL POLLUTION EFFECTS RESEARCH.--Sections 7001(c)(4)(A) and
    (B) are amended to direct the Interagency Committee, acting
    through the Administrator of NOAA, to establish a research
    program to monitor and scientifically evaluate the
    environmental effects, including long-term effects, of oil
    pollution. The program includes: research and development of
    effective tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor,
    model, and forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect
    of oil throughout the environment, including tools to measure
    flow of oil discharged; the development of methods, including
    economic methods, to assess and predict damages to natural
    resources, including air quality, resulting from oil
    discharges, including in economically disadvantaged
    communities; the identification of types of ecologically
    sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges, such as
    in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
    deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
    areas; and the preparation of scientific monitoring and
    evaluation plans to be implemented in the event of major oil
    discharges in such areas; the collection of environmental
    baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas at particular
    risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient data; and
    the use of onshore and offshore air quality monitoring; and
    research on technologies and standards, including training,
    supervision, protective equipment, maximum exposure limits, and
    decontamination procedures for protecting removal personnel and
    volunteers. In addition, the Interagency Committee, through the
    NOAA shall conduct research activities for cases where the
    amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000 gallons and it is
    determined that a study of the long-term environmental effects
    of the discharge would be of significant scientific value,
    especially for preventing or responding to future oil
    discharges.
        DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.--Section 7001(c)(6) is amended to
    strike the completed demonstration projects in the Port
    Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port of New
    Orleans, Louisiana.
        SIMULATED ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING.--Section 7001(c)(7) is
    amended by providing language to ensure that the Oil and
    Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank (OHMSETT)
    Research Center gives priority to oil pollution technology
    testing and evaluations.
        REGIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.--Section 7001(c)(8)(A) is
    amended to direct the Interagency Committee to coordinate a
    program of peer reviewed, competitive grants to universities or
    other research institutions, or groups of universities or
    research institutions, including Minority Serving Institutions,
    for the purposes of conducting a coordinated research program
    related to the regional aspects of oil pollution, such as
    prevention, removal, containment, mitigation, and the effects
    of discharged oil on regional environments. Section
    7001(c)(8)(C) is also amended to specify that at least one
    entity from each group application must be affiliated with a
    university or research institution from the region for which
    the research project is proposed.
        Section 7001(c)(9) is amended to authorize to be
    appropriated from amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 for fiscal
    years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015

    Section 5. International cooperation

        Section 7001(d) is amended to direct the Interagency
    Committee, in accordance with the research plan, to engage in
    international cooperation through collaborative partnerships
    with foreign governments, research entities, non-governmental
    organizations, and the private sector by harnessing global
    expertise and leveraging public and private capital, technology
    and services to conduct oil pollution research, development,
    and demonstration activities, including controlled field tests
    of oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.

    Section 6. Annual reports

        Section 7001(e) is amended to direct the Chair of the
    Interagency Committee to submit to Congress, concurrent with
    the President's annual budget request, a report describing the
    activities: carried out under this section in the preceding
    fiscal year with a description of major projects undertaken;
    being carried out under this section in the current fiscal year
    with a description of the research and development activities;
    and proposed to be carried out under this section in the
    subsequent fiscal year, including an analysis of how these
    activities will further the purposes of the program authorized
    by this section. Additionally, any recommendations for the Plan
    from the National Academy of Sciences must be included in the
    first annual report.

    Section 7. Federal Advisory Committee

        Section 7001 is further amended to direct the Interagency
    Chair to establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee
    consisting of no more than 25 representatives that do not
    include representatives of the Federal government, but may
    include representatives from State, tribal, and local
    governments and individuals with extensive knowledge and
    expertise in the prevention and mitigation of oil discharges.
    The Chair of the Interagency Committee shall designate a
    chairperson from among the members of the Advisory Committee.
    Members shall be appointed for 3-year terms, renewable once.
    The Advisory Committee is directed to review, advise, and
    comment on Interagency Committee activities, including:
    management and functioning of the Interagency Committee;
    collaboration of the Interagency Committee and the
    Collaborating Agencies; the research and technology development
    of new or improved response capabilities; the use of cost-
    effective research mechanisms; and research, computation, and
    modeling needs and other resources needed to develop a
    comprehensive program of oil pollution research. The Advisory
    Committee is directed to review, advise, and comment on
    Interagency Committee activities. The Advisory Committee will
    meet at least once per year and submit biennial reports on the
    function, activities, and progress of the Interagency Committee
    to both Congress and the Interagency Committee.

    Section 8. Funding

        Section 7001(f) is amended to authorize to be appropriated
    from amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to
    carry out this section. From this amount there are authorized
    to be appropriated to the Administrator of NOAA $16,000,000
    annually to carry out this section and $2,000,000 for carrying
    out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for fiscal years 2011,
    2012, 2013, and 2014.
        In addition, Section 1012 (a)(5)(C) of OPA 90 is amended to
    read as follows: (C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal
    year shall be available to carry out title VII of this Act.

    Section 9. Access to research during an emergency

        H.R. 2693 includes a provision for the Interagency
    Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator to be able to
    have access to federally-funded research data and methodologies
    that may be useful for response activities in the event of an
    oil discharge incident.

                             VIII. Committee Views

        The purpose of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and
    Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, is to protect
    the public and the environment from future oil spills through
    targeted and coordinated research, development and
    demonstration. The United States needs such a program to
    effectively enhance our preparedness and response for future
    oil spills. It is the intent of the Committee that the new
    structure of the Interagency Committee along with the
    authorized research activities, the extramural grant program,
    and the other provisions of this bill will better prioritize
    research needed for effective cleanup technologies and
    methodologies.
        The streamlined structure of the Interagency Committee is
    key to providing better oversight, accountability, and
    effective research--across the Federal government and the
    extramural community. It is the intent of the Committee that
    the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), the Department of Interior (DOI), and
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be the primary
    agencies responsible for coordinating a comprehensive program
    of oil pollution research, development and demonstration of
    new, improved, or innovative technologies to prevent, detect,
    contain, recover, and mitigate oil discharges. The Committee
    intends for the four agencies of the Interagency Committee to
    create and actively maintain research programs and to
    collaborate on research with one another and with the
    Collaborating Agencies, which include the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the
    Department of Transportation, including the Maritime
    Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration, the Department of Defense, including the Army
    Corp of Engineers and the Navy, the Department of Homeland
    Security, including the United States Fire Administration in
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science
    Foundation, and other appropriate Federal agencies.
        The intent of the Committee is that each of the Federal
    agencies, both the members of the Interagency Committee and the
    Collaborating Agencies, should conduct research to provide for
    new, improved, and innovative technologies for an effective
    cleanup response to oil discharges and to protect the
    environment. Each Federal agency and department named in the
    bill should actively participate in defining their roles and
    responsibilities to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts
    and to better align research efforts for an effective research
    program.
        It is the intent of the Committee that the streamlined
    Interagency Committee does not allow the research and
    development efforts to wane during times when the United States
    is not experiencing a significant oil discharge incident.
    Therefore, the Committee intends for the Interagency Committee
    to meet in person at least once a year and continually
    communicate via other methods to move this research agenda
    forward. The Committee intends for the Interagency Committee to
    meet in order to develop the research plan and to plan all of
    the research program's activities so that the United States is
    positioned to respond effectively to the next oil discharge
    incident. The Interagency Committee should periodically
    evaluate whether the program is resulting in new or improved
    methods and technologies to prevent, detect, respond to,
    contain, and mitigate oil discharge, and if not, find ways to
    improve upon these methods and technologies.
        The Committee intends for the Chair of the Interagency
    Committee, the U.S. Coast Guard, to be responsible for several
    administrative functions which include the following: (1)
    administering the coordination of research activities of the
    Interagency Committee and the Collaborating Agencies so that
    the Interagency Committee functions properly and to avoid
    unnecessary duplication of activities among the Federal
    agencies; (2) implementing, completing, and submitting the
    research plans and annual reports to Congress as required; (3)
    ensuring that the Interagency Committee meets as required; and
    (4) establishing, maintaining, and utilizing the Research
    Advisory Committee according to the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act (FACA). Additionally, the intent of the Committee is that
    the U.S. Coast Guard carry out research as a member of the
    Interagency Committee. It is not the intent of the Committee
    that the U.S. Coast Guard, as Chair, bears the burden of the
    entire research program; however, it is the intent that the
    U.S. Coast Guard leverage and strengthen the roles and research
    activities of NOAA, DOI, and EPA. In addition, the Chair should
    have appropriate expertise and position within the U.S. Coast
    Guard to chair the Interagency Committee.
        The Committee intends for NOAA to be responsible for the
    development of the national information clearinghouse. The
    Committee intends for the clearinghouse to be an open portal
    for all scientific information and data, including raw data
    that are useful for preparedness, response or restoration. The
    national information clearinghouse is intended to not only be a
    point of access to retrieve information but an exchange for
    input from Federal agencies, emergency responders, the research
    community, and other interested parties. The Committee
    envisions the clearinghouse to be a shared virtual resource
    that serves as an open, virtual repository for vital scientific
    data and information, and would provide a cyber-infrastructure
    fostering innovation, improved scientific understanding, and
    encourage participation in research, education, planning and
    management for all aspects of oil discharge response and
    restoration. Therefore, the clearinghouse should also include
    baseline scientific information and data, data identifying
    important ecological areas, and other data related to the
    environmental effects of oil discharges and cleanup
    technologies.
        It is the intent of the Committee that the additional
    research elements added to the Oil Pollution Research and
    Development Program were added to ensure that these new areas
    become a research priority in addition to the areas of research
    included in the underlying law (OPA 90). It is the intent of
    the Committee that the Interagency Committee ensures that these
    research activities are carried out by the appropriate
    agencies. The Committee intends that modeling and simulation
    capabilities be utilized to study various magnitudes of oil
    discharges to achieve effective recovery and containment tools
    and technologies at multiple scales, as needed. Without the
    ability to evaluate and test tools and technologies in various
    magnitudes of oil discharges in a real-world scenario, the
    Committee finds that the use of computer modeling and
    simulation technologies can be useful in testing and evaluating
    the effectiveness of technologies at various scales.
    Additionally, the Committee believes that research to evaluate
    the relative effectiveness of bioremediation technologies has
    shown their beneficial utility in mitigating oil discharges. As
    such, the Interagency Committee should consider these
    technologies on par with other technologies in the Research and
    Development Program.
        The Committee's intent is that NOAA be responsible for the
    oil pollution effects research. The Committee also intends for
    NOAA to work with other appropriate agencies, as necessary, to
    ensure an effective and comprehensive program to scientifically
    evaluate the long and short-term environmental effects of oil
    discharges. The Committee finds that the collection of
    environmental data is needed to form an adequate baseline of
    information on important ecosystem attributes to allow for the
    quantitative measurement of oil spill impacts. The Committee
    intends for the Interagency Committee to collect environmental
    baseline data for areas that are critical for the health of the
    ecosystem; sensitive and at high risk to oil discharges; and
    where knowledge gaps exist. It is the intent of the Committee
    that the effect of oildischarges be studied throughout the
    environment, including sediments, throughout the water column, on land,
    and in the air.
        It is the intent of the Committee that the U.S Coast Guard
    completes the final two port oil pollution minimization
    demonstration projects with the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
    Beach, California, and with a port on the Great Lakes. The
    Committee intended to remove the two port demonstration
    projects that were completed with the Ports of New York and New
    Jersey and the port of New Orleans, Louisiana. The Committee
    finds that the remaining port demonstration projects will serve
    as invaluable sites to test real-world applications of recovery
    and cleanup technologies. Such exercises are essential to
    maintaining the nation's readiness to respond to oil discharges
    by providing practical experience for real world response.
        The intent of the Committee is that the Interagency
    Committee coordinates a peer-reviewed, competitive regional
    research grants program for universities, Minority Serving
    Institutions, and other research institutions. At least one
    entity from each group application must be affiliated with a
    university or research institution from the region for which
    the research project is proposed. The Committee intends for
    this Regional Research Program to function as the extramural
    research arm of the Interagency Committee to ensure that the
    unique needs of each region are studied to ensure an effective
    response to an oil discharge. It is also the intent of the
    Committee that the regional research program is funded from the
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
        The Committee intends for the Interagency Committee to go
    beyond coordination and cooperation with other nations to make
    use of global expertise by engaging in collaborative
    partnerships with foreign governments and research entities.
    The Committee finds that the United States should conduct world
    class research on oil pollution research, development, and
    demonstration, and learn from the successes and failures of
    these activities in other countries. The Committee finds that
    the Interagency Committee should engage internationally with
    foreign governments, research entities, and the private sector
    through partnerships to conduct collaborative oil pollution
    research, development, and demonstration activities. It is also
    the intent of the Committee that these international
    partnerships also include other activities designed to improve
    U.S. technologies and methods to improve oil recovery and
    cleanup such as the use of controlled field testing. It is the
    intent of the Committee that the United States engage in these
    international partnerships in an effort to advance global
    expertise and develop innovative models to address oil
    discharges.
        During a Committee hearing on oil spills, it was expressed
    that greater access to research could be helpful during a
    response to an oil discharge. The Committee recognizes the
    proprietary nature of research data. The Committee intends for
    the Interagency Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator
    to have access, upon their request, to federally-funded
    research data and methodologies that are relevant and may be
    useful for response activities during an incident response. It
    is not the intent of the Committee that this information be
    made public, but would be exclusively used for oil spill
    response activities.
        The Committee intends for the provisions of H.R. 2693 to
    build upon Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The
    Committee finds that the provisions of H.R. 2693 will better
    prepare the U.S. for future responses to oil discharges, no
    matter the size, through increased funding and strengthening of
    research, development, and demonstration of innovative tools,
    methods, and technologies.

                               IX. Cost Estimate

        A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of
    the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to
    the Committee on Science and Technology prior to the filing of
    this report and is included in Section X of this report
    pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
        H.R. 2693 does not contain new budget authority, credit
    authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
    that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
    2693 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
    described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
    bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.

                  X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    H.R. 2693--Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
            Reauthorization Act of 2010

        Summary: H.R. 2693 would authorize appropriations totaling
    $240 million through 2015 for an interagency program to
    research and develop technologies to prevent, mitigate, and
    clean up oil spills. Of that amount, $136 million is already
    authorized under existing law.
        Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
    estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $93
    million over the 2011-2015 period and $11 million after 2015.
    (Those amounts are in addition to the sums authorized to be
    appropriated under current law.) Enacting H.R. 2693 would not
    affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go
    procedures do not apply.
        H.R. 2693 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
    mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
    governments.
        Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
    budgetary impact of H.R. 2693 is shown in the following table.
    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
    (natural resources and environment).

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              2011-
                                                            2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2015
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

    Spending Under Current Law:
        Authorization Level.............................        27        27        27        27        27       136
        Estimated Outlays...............................        16        25        27        27        27       123
    Proposed Changes:
        Authorization Level.............................        21        21        21        21        21       104
        Estimated Outlays...............................        12        19        21        21        21        93
    Spending Under H.R. 2693:
        Authorization Level.............................        48        48        48        48        48       240
        Estimated Outlays...............................        29        43        48        48        48      216
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: Amounts may not sum to totals because of rounding.

        Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
    legislation will be enacted in 2010 and that the amounts
    authorized by the bill will be appropriated each year.
    Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for
    similar programs.
        Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
        Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2693
    contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
    defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State, local, or
    tribal governments.
        Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Jeff LaFave; Impact on
    State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact on
    the Private Sector: Amy Petz.
        Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
    Director for Budget Analysis.

                      XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

        H.R. 2693 contains no unfunded mandates.

             XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

        The Committee on Science and Technology's oversight
    findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this
    report.

          XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

        Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House Rule XIII, the goal of
    H.R. 2693 is to authorize the establishment of the Interagency
    Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research and
    coordination of a comprehensive program of oil pollution
    research, technology development, and demonstration.

                    XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

        Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
    States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 2693.

                    XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

        The functions of the advisory committee authorized in H.R.
    2693 are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
    or more agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another
    existing advisory committee.

                     XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

        The Committee finds that H.R. 2693 does not relate to the
    terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
    or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
    the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                          XVII. Earmark Identification

        H.R. 2693 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
    limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
    House Rule XXI, clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f).

         XVIII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

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

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

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

    OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    TITLE I--OIL POLLUTION LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    SEC. 1012. USES OF THE FUND.

      (a) Uses Generally.--The Fund shall be available to the
    President for--
              (1) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (5) the payment of Federal administrative,
            operational, and personnel costs and expenses
            reasonably necessary for and incidental to the
            implementation, administration, and enforcement of this
            Act (including, but not limited to, sections
            1004(d)(2), 1006(e), 4107, 4110, 4111, 4112, 4117,
            5006, 8103, and title VII) and subsections (b), (c),
            (d), (j), and (l) of section 311 of the Federal Water
            Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as amended by
            this Act, with respect to prevention, removal, and
            enforcement related to oil discharges, provided that--
                      (A) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      [(C) not more than $27,250,000 in each fiscal
                    year shall be available to carry out title VII
                    of this Act; and]
                      (C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal
                    year shall be available to carry out title VII
                    of this Act; and

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           TITLE VII--OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

    SEC. 7001. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

      (a) Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution
    Research.--
              (1) * * *
              (2) Purposes.--The Interagency Committee shall
            coordinate a comprehensive program of oil pollution
            research, technology development, and demonstration
            among the Federal agencies, in cooperation and
            coordination with industry, universities, research
            institutions, [State] State and tribal governments, and
            other nations, as appropriate, and shall foster cost-
            effective research mechanisms, including the joint
            funding of research.
              [(3) Membership.--The Interagency Committee shall
            include representatives from the Coast Guard, the
            Department of Commerce (including the National Oceanic
            and Atmospheric Administration and the National
            Institute of Standards and Technology), the Department
            of Energy, the Department of the Interior (including
            the Minerals Management Service and the United States
            Fish and Wildlife Service), the Department of
            Transportation (including the Maritime Administration
            and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
            Administration), the Department of Defense (including
            the Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy), the
            Department of Homeland Security (including the United
            States Fire Administration in the Federal Emergency
            Management Agency), the Environmental Protection
            Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
            Administration, and such other Federal agencies the
            President may designate.
              [(4) Chairman.--A representative of the Coast Guard
            shall serve as Chairman.]
              (3) Structure.--
                      (A) Members.--The Interagency Committee shall
                    consist of representatives from the following:
                              (i) The Coast Guard.
                              (ii) The Department of Commerce,
                            including the National Oceanic and
                            Atmospheric Administration.
                              (iii) The Department of the Interior.
                              (iv) The Environmental Protection
                            Agency.
                      (B) Collaborating agencies.--The Interagency
                    Committee shall collaborate with the following:
                              (i) The National Institute of
                            Standards and Technology.
                              (ii) The Department of Energy.
                              (iii) The Department of
                            Transportation, including the Maritime
                            Administration and the Pipeline and
                            Hazardous Materials Safety
                            Administration.
                              (iv) The Department of Defense,
                            including the Army Corps of Engineers
                            and the Navy.
                              (v) The Department of Homeland
                            Security, including the United States
                            Fire Administration in the Federal
                            Emergency Management Agency.
                              (vi) The National Aeronautics and
                            Space Administration.
                              (vii) The National Science
                            Foundation.
                              (viii) Other Federal agencies, as
                            appropriate.
              (4) Chair.--
                      (A) In general.--A representative of the
                    Coast Guard shall serve as Chair.
                      (B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the
                    Chair shall be to ensure that--
                              (i) the activities of the Interagency
                            Committee and the agencies listed in
                            paragraph (3)(B) are coordinated;
                              (ii) the implementation plans
                            required under subsection (b)(1) are
                            completed and submitted;
                              (iii) the annual reports required
                            under subsection (e) are completed and
                            submitted;
                              (iv) the Interagency Committee meets
                            in accordance with the requirements of
                            paragraph (5); and
                              (v) the Oil Pollution Research
                            Advisory Committee under subsection (f)
                            is established and utilized.
              (5) Activities.--
                      (A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The
                    Interagency Committee shall ensure that the
                    research, development, and demonstration
                    efforts authorized by this section are
                    coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
                      (B) Meetings.--
                              (i) In general.--The Interagency
                            Committee shall meet, or otherwise
                            communicate, as appropriate, to--
                                      (I) plan program-related
                                    activities; and
                                      (II) determine whether the
                                    program is resulting in the
                                    development of new or improved
                                    methods and technologies to
                                    prevent, detect, respond to,
                                    contain, and mitigate oil
                                    discharge.
                              (ii) Frequency.--In no event shall
                            the Interagency Committee meet less
                            than once per year.
                      (C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
                    Committee, acting through the Administrator of
                    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration, shall develop a national
                    information clearinghouse on oil discharge
                    that--
                              (i) includes scientific information
                            and research on preparedness, response,
                            and restoration; and
                              (ii) serves as a single electronic
                            access and input point for Federal
                            agencies, emergency responders, the
                            research community, and other
                            interested parties for such
                            information.
      (b) Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan.--
              (1) Implementation plan.--Within [180 days after the
            date of enactment of this Act] 180 days after the date
            of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
            Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
            periodically thereafter, as appropriate, but not less
            than once every 5 years, the Interagency Committee
            shall submit to Congress a plan for the implementation
            of the oil pollution research, development, and
            demonstration program established pursuant to
            subsection (c). The research plan shall--
                      [(A) identify agency roles and
                    responsibilities;]
                      (A) identify the roles and responsibilities
                    of each member agency of the Interagency
                    Committee under subsection (a)(3)(A) and each
                    of the collaborating agencies under subsection
                    (a)(3)(B);
                      (B) assess the current status of knowledge on
                    oil pollution prevention, response,
                    containment, and mitigation technologies and
                    effects of oil pollution on the environment;

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      (D) establish research priorities and goals
                    for oil pollution technology development
                    related to prevention, response, containment,
                    mitigation, and environmental effects;
                      (E) estimate the resources needed to conduct
                    the oil pollution research and development
                    program established pursuant to subsection (c),
                    and timetables for completing research tasks;
                    [and]
                      (F) identify, in consultation with [the
                    States, regional oil pollution research needs]
                    State and tribal governments, regional oil
                    pollution research needs, including natural
                    seeps and pollution resulting from importing
                    oil from overseas, and priorities for a
                    coordinated, multidisciplinary program of
                    research at the regional level[.];
                      (G) identify the information needed to
                    conduct risk assessment and risk analysis
                    research to effectively prevent oil discharges,
                    including information on human factors and
                    decisionmaking, and to protect the environment;
                    and
                      (H) identify a methodology that--
                              (i) provides for the solicitation,
                            evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
                            utilization of technologies and
                            research projects developed by the
                            public and private sector in advance of
                            future oil discharges; and
                              (ii) where appropriate, ensures that
                            such technologies are readily available
                            for rapid testing and potential
                            deployment and that research projects
                            can be implemented during an incident
                            response.
              [(2) Advice and guidance.--The Chairman, through the
            Department of Transportation, shall contract with the
            National Academy of Sciences to--
                      [(A) provide advice and guidance in the
                    preparation and development of the research
                    plan; and
                      [(B) assess the adequacy of the plan as
                    submitted, and submit a report to Congress on
                    the conclusions of such assessment.
            The National Institute of Standards and Technology
            shall provide the Interagency Committee with advice and
            guidance on issues relating to quality assurance and
            standards measurements relating to its activities under
            this section.]
              (2) Advice and guidance.--
                      (A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit
                    advice and guidance in the development of the
                    research plan under paragraph (1) from--
                              (i) the Oil Pollution Research
                            Advisory Committee established under
                            subsection (f);
                              (ii) the National Institute of
                            Standards and Technology on issues
                            relating to quality assurance and
                            standards measurements;
                              (iii) third party standard-setting
                            organizations on issues relating to
                            voluntary consensus standards; and
                              (iv) the public in accordance with
                            subparagraph (B).
                      (B) Public comment.--Prior to the submission
                    of the research plan to Congress under
                    paragraph (1), the research plan shall be
                    published in the Federal Register and subject
                    to a public comment period of 30 days. The
                    Chair shall review the public comments received
                    and incorporate those comments into the plan,
                    as appropriate.
              (3) Review.--After the submission of each research
            plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall
            contract with the National Academy of Sciences--
                      (A) to review the research plan;
                      (B) to assess the adequacy of the research
                    plan; and
                      (C) to submit a report to Congress on the
                    conclusions of the assessment.
              (4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair
            shall address any recommendations in the review
            conducted under paragraph (3) and shall incorporate
            such recommendations into the research plan, as
            appropriate.
      (c) Oil Pollution Research and Development Program.--
              (1) Establishment.--The Interagency Committee shall
            coordinate the establishment, by the agencies
            represented on the Interagency Committee, of a program
            for conducting oil pollution [research and development,
            as provided in this subsection] research, development,
            and demonstration, as provided in this subsection and
            subsection (a)(2).
              (2) Innovative oil pollution technology.--The program
            established under this subsection shall provide for
            research, development, and demonstration of new or
            improved technologies which are effective in
            [preventing or mitigating] preventing, detecting,
            containing, recovering, or mitigating oil discharges
            and which protect the environment, including--
                      (A) * * *

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                      [(I) research to evaluate the relative
                    effectiveness and environmental impacts of
                    bioremediation technologies; and]
                      [(J)] (I) the demonstration of a satellite-
                    based, dependent surveillance vessel traffic
                    system in Narragansett Bay to evaluate the
                    utility of such system in reducing the risk of
                    oil discharges from vessel collisions and
                    groundings in confined waters[.];
                      (J) technologies and methods to address oil
                    discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal
                    areas, offshore areas, including deepwater and
                    ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
                    areas;
                      (K) modeling and simulation capabilities,
                    including tools and technologies, that can be
                    used to facilitate effective recovery and
                    containment of oil discharge during incident
                    response; and
                      (L) research conducted by the Environmental
                    Protection Agency on the development and
                    approval of technologies with maximum
                    effectiveness, including application and
                    delivery mechanisms, and minimum toxicity to
                    natural resources, the public, and the
                    environment in both the near and long-term.
              [(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The
            program established under this subsection shall provide
            for oil pollution prevention and mitigation technology
            evaluation including--
                      [(A) the evaluation and testing of
                    technologies developed independently of the
                    research and development program established
                    under this subsection;
                      [(B) the establishment, where appropriate, of
                    standards and testing protocols traceable to
                    national standards to measure the performance
                    of oil pollution prevention or mitigation
                    technologies; and
                      [(C) the use, where appropriate, of
                    controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
                    application of oil discharge prevention or
                    mitigation technologies.]
              (3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The program
            established under this subsection shall provide for the
            evaluation of oil pollution prevention, containment,
            and mitigation technologies, including--
                      (A) the evaluation of the performance and
                    effectiveness of such technologies in
                    preventing, detecting, containing, recovering,
                    and mitigating oil discharges;
                      (B) the evaluation of the environmental
                    effects of the use of such technologies;
                      (C) the evaluation and testing of
                    technologies developed independently of the
                    research and development program established
                    under this subsection, including technologies
                    developed by small businesses;
                      (D) the establishment, with the advice and
                    guidance of the National Institute of Standards
                    and Technology, of standards and testing
                    protocols traceable to national standards to
                    measure the performance of oil pollution
                    prevention, containment, or mitigation
                    technologies;
                      (E) an evaluation of the environmental
                    effects and utility of controlled field
                    testing;
                      (F) the use, where appropriate, of controlled
                    field testing to evaluate real-world
                    application of new or improved oil discharge
                    prevention, response, containment, recovery, or
                    mitigation technologies; and
                      (G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of oil
                    pollution prevention technologies based on
                    probabilistic risk analyses of the system.
              (4) Oil pollution effects research.--[(A) The
            Committee shall establish a research program to monitor
            and evaluate the environmental effects of oil
            discharges. Such program shall include the following
            elements:
                      [(i) The development of improved models and
                    capabilities for predicting the environmental
                    fate, transport, and effects of oil discharges.
                      [(ii) The development of methods, including
                    economic methods, to assess damages to natural
                    resources resulting from oil discharges.
                      [(iii) The identification of types of
                    ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk
                    to oil discharges and the preparation of
                    scientific monitoring and evaluation plans, one
                    for each of several types of ecological
                    conditions, to be implemented in the event of
                    major oil discharges in such areas.
                      [(iv) The collection of environmental
                    baseline data in ecologically sensitive areas
                    at particular risk to oil discharges where such
                    data are insufficient.]
              (A) In general.--
                      (i) Establishment.--The Interagency
                    Committee, acting through the Administrator of
                    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration, shall establish a research
                    program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
                    the environmental effects, including long-term
                    effects, of oil discharge.
                      (ii) Specifications.--Such program shall
                    include the following elements:
                              (I) Research on and the development
                            of effective tools to detect, measure,
                            observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
                            forecast the presence, transport, fate,
                            and effect of an oil discharge
                            throughout the environment, including
                            tools and models to accurately measure
                            and predict the flow of oil discharged.
                              (II) The development of methods,
                            including economic methods, to assess
                            and predict damages to natural
                            resources, including air quality,
                            resulting from oil discharges,
                            including in economically disadvantaged
                            communities and areas.
                              (III) The identification of types of
                            ecologically sensitive areas at
                            particular risk from oil discharges,
                            such as inland waters, coastal areas,
                            offshore areas, including deepwater and
                            ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and
                            other icy areas.
                              (IV) The preparation of scientific
                            monitoring and evaluation plans for the
                            areas identified under subclause (III)
                            to be implemented in the event of major
                            oil discharges in such areas.
                              (V) The collection of environmental
                            baseline data in the areas identified
                            under subclause (III) if such data are
                            insufficient.
                              (VI) The use of both onshore and
                            offshore air quality monitoring to
                            study the effects of oil pollution and
                            oil pollution cleanup technologies on
                            air quality; and making the results,
                            health, and safety warnings readily
                            available to the public, including
                            emergency responders, the research
                            community, local residents, and other
                            interested parties.
                              (VII) Research on technologies,
                            methods, and standards for protecting
                            removal personnel and for volunteers
                            that may participate in incident
                            responses, including training, adequate
                            supervision, protective equipment,
                            maximum exposure limits, and
                            decontamination procedures.
              [(B) The Department of Commerce in consultation with
            the Environmental Protection Agency shall monitor and
            scientifically evaluate the long-term environmental
            effects of oil discharges if--
                      [(i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
                    250,000 gallons;
                      [(ii) the oil discharge has occurred on or
                    after January 1, 1989; and
                      [(iii) the Interagency Committee determines
                    that a study of the long-term environmental
                    effects of the discharge would be of
                    significant scientific value, especially for
                    preventing or responding to future oil
                    discharges.]
              (B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee, acting
            through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration, shall conduct research
            activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in which--
                      (i) the amount of oil discharged exceeds
                    250,000 gallons; and
                      (ii) a study of the long-term environmental
                    effects of the discharge would be of
                    significant scientific value, especially for
                    preventing or responding to future oil
                    discharges.
            Areas for study may include the following sites where
            oil discharges have occurred: the New York/New Jersey
            Harbor area, where oil was discharged by an Exxon
            underwater pipeline, the T/B CIBRO SAVANNAH, and the M/
            V BT NAUTILUS; Narragansett Bay where oil was
            discharged by the WORLD PRODIGY; the Houston Ship
            Channel where oil was discharged by the RACHEL B; the
            Delaware River, where oil was discharged by the
            PRESIDENTE RIVERA and the T/V [ATHOS I, and] ATHOS I;
            Huntington Beach, California, where oil was discharged
            by the AMERICAN TRADER[.]; Prince William Sound, where
            oil was discharged by the EXXON VALDEZ; and the Gulf of
            Mexico, where oil was discharged by the DEEPWATER
            HORIZON.
              (C) [Research] Coordination._Research conducted under
            this paragraph by, or through, the United States Fish
            and Wildlife Service shall be directed and coordinated
            by the National Wetland Research Center.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (6) Demonstration projects.--[The United States Coast
            Guard, in conjunction with such agencies as the
            President may designate, shall conduct 4 port oil
            pollution minimization demonstration projects, one each
            with (A) the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
            (B) the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
            California, (C) the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana, and
            (D) a port on the Great Lakes for the purpose of
            developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
            pollution prevention and cleanup systems which utilize
            the information and implement the improved practices
            and technologies developed from the research,
            development, and demonstration program established in
            this section.] The United States Coast Guard, in
            conjunction with such agencies as the President may
            designate, shall conduct a total of 2 port oil
            pollution minimization demonstration projects, 1 with
            the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California,
            and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the purpose
            of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
            pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize
            the information and implement the improved practices
            and technologies developed from the research,
            development, and demonstration program established in
            this section. Such systems shall utilize improved
            technologies and management practices for reducing the
            risk of oil discharges, including, as appropriate,
            improved data access, computerized tracking of oil
            shipments, improved vessel tracking and navigation
            systems, advanced technology to monitor pipeline and
            tank conditions, improved [oil spill] oil discharge
            response capability, improved capability to predict the
            flow and effects of oil discharges in both the inner
            and outer harbor areas for the purposes of making
            infrastructure decisions, and such other activities
            necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
              (7) Simulated environmental testing.--Agencies
            represented on the Interagency Committee shall ensure
            the long-term use and operation of the Oil and
            Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test Tank
            (OHMSETT) Research Center in New Jersey for oil
            pollution technology testing and evaluations. Oil
            pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be
            given priority over all other activities performed at
            such Research Center.
              (8) Regional research program.--(A) Consistent with
            the research plan in subsection (b), the Interagency
            Committee shall coordinate a [program of competitive
            grants] program of peer-reviewed, competitive grants to
            universities or other research institutions, or groups
            of universities or research institutions, for the
            purposes of conducting a coordinated research program
            related to the regional aspects of oil pollution, such
            as prevention, removal, mitigation, and the effects of
            discharged oil on regional environments. For the
            purposes of this paragraph, a region means a Coast
            Guard district as set out in part 3 of title 33, Code
            of Federal Regulations [(1989)] (2009).

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (C) Any university or other research institution, or
            group of universities or research institutions, may
            apply for a grant for the regional research program
            established by this paragraph. The applicant must be
            located in the region, or in a State a part of which is
            in the region, for which the project is proposed as
            part of the regional research program. With respect to
            a group application, [the entity or entities which] at
            least one entity that will carry out the substantial
            portion of the proposed research must be located in the
            region, or in a State a part of which is in the region,
            for which the project is proposed as part of the
            regional research program.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              (H) In carrying out this paragraph, the Interagency
            Committee shall coordinate the program of peer-
            reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other
            research institutions, including Minority Serving
            Institutions as defined under section 371(a) of the
            Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
            provide consideration to such institutions in the
            recommendations for awarding grants.
              (9) Funding.--For each of the fiscal years [1991,
            1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995, $6,000,000 of amounts in
            the Fund shall be available] 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
            and 2015, there are authorized to be appropriated from
            amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 to carry out the
            regional research program in paragraph (8), such
            amounts to be available in equal amounts for the
            regional research program in each region; except that
            if the agencies represented on the Interagency
            Committee determine that regional research needs exist
            which cannot be addressed within such funding limits,
            such agencies may use their authority under paragraph
            (10) to make additional grants to meet such needs. For
            the purposes of this paragraph, the research program
            carried out by the Prince William Sound Oil Spill
            Recovery Institute established under section 5001,
            shall not be eligible to receive grants under this
            paragraph until the authorization for funding under
            section 5006(b) expires.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

      [(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
    research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
    Committee shall coordinate and cooperate with other nations and
    foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution research,
    development, and demonstration activities, including controlled
    field tests of oil discharges.
      [(e) Biennial Reports.--The Chairman of the Interagency
    Committee shall submit to Congress every 2 years on October 30
    a report on the activities carried out under this section in
    the preceding 2 fiscal years, and on activities proposed to be
    carried out under this section in the current 2 fiscal year
    period.]
      (d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
    research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
    Committee shall engage in international cooperation by
    harnessing global expertise through collaborative partnerships
    with foreign governments and research entities, and domestic
    and foreign private actors, including nongovernmental
    organizations and private sector companies, and by leveraging
    public and private capital, technology, expertise, and services
    towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
    collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
    demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
    oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.
      (e) Annual Report.--
              (1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the
            President's annual budget request in each year after
            the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
            Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
            Chair of the Interagency Committee shall submit to
            Congress a report describing the--
                      (A) activities carried out under this section
                    in the preceding fiscal year, including--
                              (i) a description of major research
                            conducted on oil discharge prevention,
                            detection, containment, recovery, and
                            mitigation techniques in all
                            environments by each agency described
                            in subsection (a)(3)(A) and (B); and
                              (ii) a summary of--
                                      (I) projects in which the
                                    agency contributed funding or
                                    other resources;
                                      (II) major projects
                                    undertaken by State and tribal
                                    governments, and foreign
                                    governments; and
                                      (III) major projects
                                    undertaken by the private
                                    sector and educational
                                    institutions;
                      (B) activities being carried out under this
                    section in the current fiscal year, including a
                    description of major research and development
                    activities on oil discharge prevention,
                    detection, containment, recovery, and
                    mitigation technologies and techniques in all
                    environments that each agency will conduct or
                    contribute to; and
                      (C) activities proposed to be carried out
                    under this section in the subsequent fiscal
                    year, including an analysis of how these
                    activities will further the purposes of the
                    program authorized by this section.
              (2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
            recommendations on the research plan under section
            7001(b)(3), the Chair shall include, in the first
            annual report under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a
            description of those recommendations incorporated into
            the research plan, and a description of, and
            explanation for, any recommendations that are not
            included in such plan.
      (f) Advisory Committee.--
              (1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the
            date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
            Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
            Chair of the Interagency Committee shall establish an
            advisory committee to be known as the Oil Pollution
            Research Advisory Committee (in this subsection
            referred to as the ``advisory committee'').
              (2) Membership.--
                      (A) In general.--The advisory committee shall
                    be composed of members appointed by the Chair,
                    in consultation with the each member agency
                    described in subsection (a)(3), including--
                              (i) individuals with extensive
                            knowledge and research experience or
                            operational knowledge of prevention,
                            detection, response, containment, and
                            mitigation of oil discharges;
                              (ii) individuals broadly
                            representative of stakeholders affected
                            by oil discharges; and
                              (iii) other individuals, as
                            determined by the Chair.
                      (B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
                              (i) appoint no more than 25 members
                            that shall not include representatives
                            of the Federal Government, but may
                            include representatives from State,
                            tribal, and local governments; and
                              (ii) ensure that no class of
                            individuals described in clause (ii) or
                            (iii) of subparagraph (A) comprises
                            more than \1/3\ of the membership of
                            the advisory committee.
                      (C) Terms of service.--
                              (i) In general.--Members shall be
                            appointed for a 3-year term and may
                            serve for not more than 2 terms, except
                            as provided in clause (iii).
                              (ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy appointments
                            shall be for the remainder of the
                            unexpired term of the vacancy.
                              (iii) Special rule.--If a member is
                            appointed to fill a vacancy and the
                            remainder of the unexpired term is less
                            than 1 year, the member may
                            subsequently be appointed for 2 full
                            terms.
                      (D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of
                    the advisory committee shall not be compensated
                    for service on the advisory committee, but may
                    be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
                    in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
                    subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
                    States Code.
              (3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review,
            advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
            activities, including the following:
                      (A) Management and functioning of the
                    Interagency Committee.
                      (B) Collaboration of the Interagency
                    Committee and the agencies listed in subsection
                    (a)(3)(B).
                      (C) The research and technology development
                    of new or improved response capabilities.
                      (D) The use of cost-effective research
                    mechanisms.
                      (E) Research, computation, and modeling needs
                    and other resources needed to develop a
                    comprehensive program of oil pollution
                    research.
              (4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may
            establish subcommittees of its members.
              (5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at
            least once per year and at other times at the call of
            the chairperson.
              (6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit
            biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and
            Congress on the function, activities, and progress of
            the Interagency Committee and the programs established
            under this section.
              (7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
            Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
            advisory committee.
      [(f) Funding.--Not to exceed $22,000,000 of amounts in the
    Fund shall be available annually to carry out this section
    except for subsection (c)(8). Of such sums--
              [(1) funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out
            the activities under subsection (c)(4) shall not exceed
            $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1991 or $3,500,000 for any
            subsequent fiscal year; and
              [(2) not less than $3,000,000 shall be available for
            carrying out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for
            fiscal years 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
    All activities authorized in this section, including subsection
    (c)(8), are subject to appropriations.]
      (g) Funding.--
              (1) In general.--There are authorized to be
            appropriated from amounts in the Fund not more than
            $48,000,000 annually to carry out this section, except
            for subsection (c)(8).
              (2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in
            paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
            appropriated--
                      (A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    annually to carry out this section; and
                      (B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011,
                    2012, 2013, and 2014 to carry out the
                    activities in subsection (c)(6).
      (h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity that
    receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies or
    results of which may be useful for response activities in the
    event of an oil discharge incident described in sections
    300.300-334 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
    shall, upon request, make the methodologies or results of such
    research available to the Interagency Committee and the Federal
    On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section 311(a)(21) of the
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(21)),
    except to the extent that the information is protected from
    disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
    Such information shall be for use in response activities in the
    event of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in
    information made publicly available pursuant to this Act.

               *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                         XX. Committee Recommendations

        On July 14, 2010, the Committee on Science and Technology
    favorably reported the Oil Pollution Research and Development
    Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 by voice vote, and
    recommended its enactment.

                             XXII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

        In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the Committee
    has taken a renewed interest in H.R. 2693, a bill to
    reauthorize and amend Title VII, the research and development
    program, of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Amendment in the
    Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that was offered at the Full
    Committee markup was a good effort to address many of the
    reservations that Members on both sides had previously
    expressed; however, we continue to have some concerns with the
    bill as reported.
        Although we understand that the apparent lack of progress
    of the Interagency Committee in research was the motivation
    behind streamlining the Committee to include only the Coast
    Guard, the Department of Interior, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection
    Agency, we are concerned that the removal of the other agencies
    from direct involvement in the research program will be a
    signal to these agencies to no longer make this research a
    priority and we will lose the benefit of the cross-cutting
    expertise of different federal agencies.
        The ANS to H.R. 2693 shifts the focus of the underlying
    statute to concentrate much more on the environmental effects
    of the cleanup technologies rather than the effectiveness of
    the technologies themselves. While we support the research and
    understanding of the environmental effects of technology use as
    part of the program, we are alarmed that the development and
    performance of these technologies is now a secondary mission
    instead of the primary one. We seek additional balance between
    the goals of technology effectiveness and performance and
    environmental effects of the utilized technology. The
    environmental effects of these technologies are meaningless
    unless we are first assured of their effectiveness in
    preventing, containing, responding to, and mitigating oil
    discharges.
        We are also concerned about the inclusion of an amendment
    that substantially modifies current law regarding International
    Cooperation on oil pollution research, development and
    demonstration activities. The Interagency Committee's primary
    task is to conduct a research and development program for
    technology development and effects of discharges on the
    environment. H.R. 2693 as reported would alter this program by
    requiring a greater amount of diplomacy and international
    interaction in the research and development program. While the
    intent of this expansion is laudable, it could easily utilize
    much of the program's resources.
        While we believe expanded international interaction in the
    area of research and development of oil pollution prevention,
    response, and mitigation technologies is a good thing, the
    inclusion of the concept of laying the foundation for cleanup
    ``standards'' shifts the focus in a direction not necessarily
    suitable to this program. Additionally, the inclusion of the
    development of cleanup ``standards'' may prove to be a futile
    exercise if the technology does not exist to reach such goals.
    Delegating to the Interagency Committee a substantial
    international outreach role will distract them from the very
    research and development activities H.R. 2693 attempts to
    strengthen.
        Finally, we are concerned with language included in the
    reported version that would require any entity receiving
    federal research funds to divulge the results of such research.
    While we support greater transparency with the use of
    taxpayers' dollars, we are concerned that this provision is
    overly broad and, as currently drafted, may not provide enough
    statutory protections to alleviate concerns regarding release
    of confidential work product to the general public.
        We are committed to oil pollution research, technology
    development, and demonstration and remain hopeful that the
    concerns expressed here and during the full committee markup
    will be addressed as we move forward in the legislative
    process.

                                       Ralph M. Hall.
                                       Paul C. Broun.
                                       Vernon J. Ehlers.
                                       W. Todd Akin.
                                       Michael T. McCaul.
                                       Adrian Smith.
                                       Pete Olson.
                                       Randy Neugebauer.
                                       Judy Biggert.
                                       Dana Rohrabacher.
                                       Lamar Smith.

      XXIII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARKUP BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
      ENVIRONMENT ON H.R. 2693, THE FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
                Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                                          Committee on Science,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
    Baird [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Chair Baird. Good morning to everyone. Our committee will
    now come to order.
        Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Environment meets to consider the following measures: H.R.
    2693, the Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act; H.R.
    2729, To authorize the designation of National Environment
    Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy and for other
    purposes; and H.R. 1622, To provide for a program of research,
    development and demonstration on natural gas vehicles. We will
    now proceed with the markup.
        This morning the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets
    to consider, as mentioned, three pieces of legislation: the
    Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act, which is H.R. 2693;
    also H.R. 2729, the bill to authorize the Department of
    Energy's National Environment Research Parks; and H.R. 1622, a
    bill to provide for a program of research and development of
    vehicles that operate using natural gas as a fuel.
        First, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 2693 authorized
    by Ms. Woolsey from California, which amends the federal
    interagency research and development program created in the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990. This bill would improve the Federal
    Government's research and development efforts to prevent,
    detect or mitigate oil discharges. Through this
    reauthorization, federal agencies will be better equipped to
    respond to oil discharges wherever they occur.
        We will also mark up H.R. 2729, the bill introduced by Mr.
    Lujan from New Mexico to authorize the Department of Energy's
    seven National Environmental Research Parks. These parks are
    truly a national treasure, providing large tracts of land that
    represent nearly all of the major eco-regions in the United
    States and are a valuable resource for examining the transport
    of DOE-related contaminants, the long-term impacts of climate
    change and the various ways carbon is captured and released
    within the ecosystem. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of both
    H.R. 2693 and H.R. 2729, and I encourage colleagues on both
    sides of the aisle to join in supporting those important bills.
        Finally, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 1622, a bill
    introduced by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma and co-sponsored by Full
    Committee Ranking Member Mr. Hall. This bill reauthorizes the
    Department of Energy's research, development and demonstration
    program in natural gas-powered vehicles and related
    infrastructure. To transform our nation's energy sector, we
    must explore a diverse range of fuels and vehicle technologies.
    While only a piece in a very complex puzzle, natural gas can
    potentially provide us with an option that is both cleaner than
    petroleum and more domestically available. I look forward to
    the discussion on the bill and moving it towards a Full
    Committee markup.
        I thank the Members for their participation this morning
    and look forward to a productive markup.
        I now recognize Mr. Inglis to present opening remarks.
        [The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
        This morning the Energy and Environment Subcommittee meets to
    consider three pieces of legislation: H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil
    Pollution Research Program Act; H.R. 2729, A bill to authorize the
    Department of Energy's National Environmental Research Parks; and H.R.
    1622, A bill to provide for a program of research and development of
    vehicles that operate using natural gas as a fuel.
        First, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 2693, authored by Ms.
    Woolsey, which amends the federal interagency research and development
    program created in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This bill would
    improve the Federal Government's research and development efforts to
    prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. Through this
    reauthorization, federal agencies will be better equipped to respond to
    oil discharges wherever they occur.
        We will also be marking up H.R. 2729, a bill introduced by Mr.
    Lujan to authorize the Department of Energy's seven National
    Environmental Research Parks. These parks are truly a national
    treasure, providing large tracts of land that represent nearly all of
    the major eco-regions in the United States. They are a valuable
    resource for examining the transport of DOE-related contaminants, long-
    term impacts of climate change, and the various ways carbon is captured
    and released within ecosystems.
        I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of both H.R. 2693 and H.R. 2729,
    and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
    supporting these important bills.
        Finally, the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 1622, a bill
    introduced by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma and co-sponsored by the Full
    Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Hall. This bill reauthorizes the
    Department of Energy's research, development, and demonstration program
    in natural gas powered vehicles and related infrastructure.
        To transform our nation's energy sector we must explore a diverse
    range of fuels and vehicle technologies. While only a piece in very
    complex puzzle, natural gas can potentially provide us with an option
    that is both cleaner than petroleum and domestically available. I look
    forward to the discussion on the bill and moving it towards a Full
    Committee markup.
        I thank the Members for their participation this morning, and I
    look forward to a productive markup.

        Mr. Inglis. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for
    this hearing today. We will address several pieces of
    legislation that highlight the diversity of federal research
    initiatives into pressing environmental and energy-related
    problems. It is an opportunity to reflect on our broad
    jurisdiction and to ensure that federal research dollars are
    focused and well spent.
        The first bill before us, the Federal Oil Spill Research
    Program Act, will revitalize the federal research efforts
    focused on the prevention, detection and mitigation of oil
    spills. While this is critical research and I commend Ms.
    Woolsey's dedication to this important issue, I am not
    confident that H.R. 2693 is necessary to improve the
    interagency commitment to oil spill research. The testimony we
    heard on this topic two weeks ago indicated that the
    interagency process seems to be working. The witnesses
    indicated that the most significant problems were related to
    limited funding and poor communication with the states.
    Further, this bill makes NOAA the Chair of the interagency
    research committee though other federal agencies seem better
    geared toward leading this particular research effort.
        The second bill is H.R. 2729, a bill to permanently
    authorize the National Environmental Research Parks. I
    appreciate Mr. Lujan's leadership in this area. These
    facilities are a unique environmental research asset. The
    Environmental Research Park at the Savannah River site, for
    example, has provided South Carolina and Georgia students with
    the opportunity to engage in research in our local ecologies.
    Especially as we develop new energy alternatives, our
    Environmental Research Parks will help us understand how our
    energy choices impact our distinct ecosystems.
        I would also like to speak in support of H.R. 1622 and
    commend Mr. Sullivan for his leadership in promoting the
    development of natural gas vehicles. As long as we rely on oil
    to power our transportation sector, the U.S. will be dependent
    on hostile foreign nations and will continue to fund both sides
    of the War on Terror. H.R. 1622 will utilize American ingenuity
    to increase competition and fuel choices in the transportation
    sector and spur innovation economy and increasing our national
    security.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I look forward to developing
    legislation that truly improves our diverse federal research
    efforts.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
        Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
        Today we will address several pieces of legislation that highlight
    the diversity of federal research initiatives into pressing
    environmental and energy related problems. It's an opportunity to
    reflect on our broad jurisdiction and to ensure that federal research
    dollars are focused and well spent.
        The first bill before us, the Federal Oil Spill Research Program
    Act will revitalize the federal research effort focused on the
    prevention, detection, and mitigation of oil spills. While this is
    critical research and I commend Ms. Woolsey's dedication to this
    important issue, I am not confident that H.R. 2693 is necessary to
    improve the interagency commitment to oil spill research. The testimony
    we heard on this topic two weeks ago indicated that the interagency
    process seems to be working. The witnesses indicated that the most
    significant problems were related to limited funding and poor
    communication with the states. Further, this bill makes NOAA the Chair
    of the interagency research committee, though other federal agencies
    are better geared toward leading this particular research effort.
        The second bill is H.R. 2729, a bill to permanently authorize
    National Environmental Research Parks. I appreciate Mr. Lujan's
    leadership in this area. These facilities are a unique environmental
    research asset. The environmental research park at the Savannah River
    Site has provided South Carolina's research universities and students
    with the unique opportunity to engage in research on our local ecology.
    Especially as we develop new energy alternatives, our National
    Environmental Research Parks will help us understand how our energy
    choices impact our distinct ecosystems.
        I'd also like to speak in support of H.R. 1622 and commend Mr.
    Sullivan for his leadership in promoting the development of natural gas
    vehicles. So long as we rely on oil to power our transportation sector,
    the U.S. will be dependent on hostile foreign nations and we will
    continue to fund both sides of the war on terror. H.R. 1622 will
    utilize American ingenuity to increase competition and fuel choice in
    the transportation sector, spurring our innovation economy and
    increasing our national security.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to developing
    legislation that truly improves our diverse federal research efforts.

        Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Members may place any
    statements for the record at this point.
        We will now consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill
    Research Program Act, and I am pleased to recognize Ms. Woolsey
    to prevent--present any additional remarks on her legislation.
        Ms. Woolsey. To prevent?
        Chair Baird. Present.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you
    for holding this markup today.
        As some of you remember on November 7, 2007, the container
    ship Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge and
    released 58,000 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay.
    Although this was considered a minor spill by comparison, the
    impact to my District was widespread. The pristine beaches of
    Marin County were soiled, waters off our federal parklands were
    sullied and important restoration projects in Richardson and
    San Pablo Bay were threatened. All in all, about 200 miles of
    coastline were affected. In addition, the spill killed
    thousands of birds, maimed marine mammals, and no one knows how
    many fish.
        That is why I have introduced H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil
    Spill Research Program Act. This bill reorganizes the agencies
    responsible for federal research and development of oil spill
    prevention, detection, recovery and mitigation to ensure that
    the three agencies with the most expertise in this area are
    working together for common solutions in the most effective and
    efficient way possible. Although under current law there are 14
    separate agencies tasked with oil spill research, when the
    Committee held a hearing on this bill it became clear that the
    Coast Guard, the EPA and NOAA are in fact the most engaged. As
    a result, H.R. 2693 creates the Federal Oil Spill Research
    Committee to give these three agencies the primary
    responsibility for our federal oil spill prevention activities.
        In the aftermath of the Cosco Busan spill, one thing that I
    heard again and again from the people who are tasked with
    cleaning up our mess was that the technology they were using
    wasn't adequate to get the job done, and the Committee heard
    similar testimonies from experts who testified on H.R. 2693.
    That is why this bill also provides grants to institutions of
    higher learning and research centers to improve technologies
    used to prevent, combat and clean up oil spills. It is clear
    that current technology is inadequate to prevent and protect us
    from oil spills, as the average recovery is only between 10 and
    15 percent, and I know with a lot of focus and the effort that
    we need, we can do much, much better.
        H.R. 2693 will help to ensure that the Federal Government
    is taking an active role to prevent oil spills, and that when
    they do occur, we have the best possible technology to minimize
    negative impacts to ourselves and to our environment.
        Mr. Chair, again, I thank you for holding this markup. I
    urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2693.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn Woolsey
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this markup today.
        As some of you remember, on November 7, 2007, the container ship
    Cosco Busan collided with the San Francisco Bay Bridge, and released
    58,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay.
        Although this was considered a minor spill by comparison, the
    impact to my District was widespread. The pristine beaches of Marin
    County were soiled, waters off of our federal parklands were sullied,
    and important restoration projects in Richardson and San Pablo Bay were
    threatened. All in all, about 200 miles of coastline were affected.
        In addition, the spill killed thousands of birds, many marine
    mammals, and no one knows how many fish.
        That's why I have introduced the H.R. 2693, the ``Federal Oil Spill
    Research Program Act.'' This bill reorganizes the agencies responsible
    for federal research and development of oil spill prevention,
    detection, recovery, and mitigation to ensure that the three agencies
    with the most expertise in this area are all working together for
    common solutions, in the most effective and efficient way possible.
        Although under current law there are 14 separate agencies tasked
    with oil spill research, when the Committee held a hearing on this
    bill, we heard from the Coast Guard, EPA, and NOAA that they are in
    fact the ones that are most engaged in this field. As a result, H.R.
    2693 creates the federal oil spill research committee to give these
    three agencies the primary responsibility for our federal oil spill
    prevention activities.
        In the aftermath of the Cosco Busan spill, one thing that I heard
    again and again from the people who were tasked with cleaning up our
    mess was that the technology they were using just wasn't adequate to
    get the job done . . . and, the Committee heard similar testimony from
    the experts who testified on H.R. 2693.
        That's why this bill also provides grants to institutes of higher
    learning and research centers to improve technologies used to prevent,
    combat, and clean up oil spills.
        It's clear that current technology is inadequate to prevent and
    protect us from oils spills . . . as the average recovery is only
    between 10-15 percent. and, I know with the right focus and effort, we
    can do much, much better.
        H.R. 2693 will help to ensure that the Federal Government is taking
    an active role to prevent oil spills, and that when they do occur, we
    have the best possible technology to minimize negative impacts to
    ourselves and the environment.
        Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for holding this markup, and I
    urge my colleagues to support this bill.

        Chair Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. I commend you for your
    passion and clearly you have such dedication, you always have
    for many years in the Congress and I applaud you for that and
    for addressing it so vigorously with this legislation. Thank
    you for your work on this.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Inglis for opening remarks on
    the bill.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we will have several
    questions about this bill and in fact have got an amendment I
    will offer. The main question really has to do with why are we
    choosing NOAA as the Chair for the interagency committee.
    Currently it is the Coast Guard. NOAA receives no funding from
    the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. They do not act as an on-
    scene coordinator for either land-based or marine-based oil
    discharges. Their research and development is heavily focused
    on restoration and habitat recovery for the long-term instead
    of prevention and response in oil recovery immediately after a
    spill. And so as we proceed here, that will be a question I
    will be asking, in the form of an amendment really, to ask
    whether really the Coast Guard is better equipped to handle
    these functions than NOAA. But in the interest of time, why
    don't we proceed on to the amendments and I will be happy to
    yield back.
        Chair Baird. I thank the gentleman. Is there anyone else
    wishing to be recognized on this legislation? I would ask
    unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read and open
    to amendment at any point and that Members proceed with the
    amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        The first amendment on the roster is a manager's amendment
    offered by the gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. Are you
    ready to proceed, Ms. Woolsey?
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair, I am. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 141,
    offered by Ms. Woolsey of California.
        Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
    reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
    gentlelady for five minutes to explain the amendment.
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair, I offer this manager's amendment to
    make a series of changes throughout H.R. 2693 to clarify the
    intent of the legislation and to incorporate recommendations
    from the legislative hearing held on June 4.
        To start, this amendment replaces the term ``oil spill''
    with ``oil pollution'' to better explain the scope of the
    program which includes research into oil discharges both on
    water and on land. Section 2 of the bill is amended to provide
    for more effective notification to the public about the
    activities of the program, including information on existing
    volunteer training opportunities in incident response.
        Section 3 of the bill is the amended to clarify some of the
    elements of the interagency research program. It also adds
    additional program elements, including research into the
    mechanical, chemical and biological methods for the recovery,
    removal and disposal of oil, technologies, methods and
    standards for protecting removal personnel and volunteers that
    participate in incident response, improved information systems
    to assist federal response efforts and methods to restore and
    rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil discharges.
        A new section 4 of the bill is inserted to allow for the
    continuation of an existing technology evaluation program that
    will be supplemented with guidance from the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology, NIST. The manager's amendment also
    modifies the contents of the interagency committee's research
    assessment. It specifically adds a new requirement to identify
    emerging technologies and the barriers to the utilization of
    those technologies by federal response teams. In addition, the
    manager's amendment clarifies that the assessment will include
    an analysis of the effectiveness of current technologies to
    address oil pollution and an assessment and comparison of
    regional differences in response capabilities.
        Section 5 of the bill is amended to clarify the required
    contents of the Federal Oil Pollution Research and Development
    Plan. Specifically, the amendment clarifies that the plan is to
    include research to improve the rates of oil recovery, the
    effectiveness of the response to oil discharges and the
    accessibility and utility of the information available to
    mariners, researchers and responders.
        Section 6 of the bill is amended to make clear that each of
    the agencies in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may
    award grants to utilize other funding mechanisms to address
    research priorities set forth in the research plan.
        Section 7 of the bill is modified to simplify the reporting
    requirement of the National Academy of Sciences. Under the
    manager's amendment, the National Academy will be responsible
    for submitting to Congress and the interagency committee a
    report evaluating the oil pollution research and development
    program and identifying priority areas of needed research and
    technology development.
        Finally, the amendment includes a direct authorization for
    NOAA and EPA, each in the amount of $2 million a year for
    fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2014. Mr. Chair, this amendment
    is based on witness recommendations from the hearing and
    follow-up conversations with related federal agencies.
        I ask my colleagues to please support the manager's
    amendment. I yield back.
        Chair Baird. I thank the gentlelady. In a moment Mr. Inglis
    will have a second-degree amendment to offer, but before we
    turn to him, does anyone else have comments they wish to offer
    on Ms. Woolsey's amendment? If not, then we will turn to Mr.
    Inglis to offer his second-degree amendment. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment, Mr. Inglis?
        Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment offered by Mr. Inglis of South
    Carolina. This is a second-degree amendment to the amendment
    offered by Ms. Woolsey to H.R. 2693. This is amendment number
    007.
        Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
    reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
    gentleman for five minutes to explain his amendment.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This manager's amendment
    makes substantial improvements to the underlying bill. There
    are many aspects of the amendment that I agree with and think
    are worthy. However, as I mentioned earlier, I have significant
    concern with NOAA being named as the Chair of the interagency
    committee. Since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed
    almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Coast Guard has led the
    interagency committee for research and development. The Coast
    Guard has a proven record of being Chair of this committee,
    encouraging coordination and cooperation, and still continues
    today with annual conferences and monthly conference calls with
    other participating agencies. All three federal witnesses at
    our hearing two weeks ago stated that the current structure
    works. While there is always room for improvement, it should
    not require tossing the existing structure that works in favor
    of something new. NOAA provides strategic and important
    information to the on-scene coordinator, either the Coast Guard
    or EPA, as a science coordinator. They provide information to
    help track where the oil is moving to. They are in charge of
    restoration efforts after cleanup has occurred. However, NOAA's
    focus is not on the response in oil recovery but on restoration
    and habitat recovery. NOAA does not even receive R&D funding
    from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I believe the R&D
    program originally envisioned by Congress after the terrible
    Valdez spill was to provide better technologies to prevent the
    oil from causing so much devastation. That means being able to
    collect it, burn it or disperse it. The Coast Guard and the
    Mineral Management Service are the two agencies that conduct
    the most research in these areas. Although NOAA's scientific
    contribution to clean-up after oil discharges is world class, I
    do not believe being Chair of this interagency committee is an
    appropriate role for them. So I urge the Committee to consider
    the amendment, changing NOAA to Coast Guard, and I would be
    happy to yield to the gentlelady for any response to those
    observations. I would be interested in what she----
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes vast improvements to
    the underlying bill. There are many aspects of the amendment I agree
    with and I think are worthy. However, I have a significant concern with
    NOAA being named as Chair of the interagency committee. Since the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990 was passed almost 20 years ago, the U.S. Coast
    Guard has led the interagency committee for research and development.
    The Coast Guard has a proven record for being Chair of this committee,
    encouraging coordination and cooperation that still continues today
    with annual conferences and monthly conference phone calls with other
    participating agencies. All three federal witnesses at our hearing two
    weeks ago stated that the current structure works. While there is
    always room for improvement, it should not require tossing the existing
    structure that works in favor of something new.
        NOAA provides strategic and important information to the on-scene
    coordinator, either the Coast Guard or EPA, as the Science Coordinator.
    They provide information to help track where the oil is moving to. They
    are in charge of restoration efforts after spill clean up has occurred.
    However, NOAA's focus is not on response and oil recovery, but on
    restoration and habitat recovery. NOAA does not even receive R&D
    funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
        I believe the R&D program originally envisioned by Congress after
    that awful Valdez spill was to provide better technologies to prevent
    the oil from causing so much devastation. That means being able to
    collect it, burn it or disperse it. The Coast Guard and the Mineral
    Management Service are the two agencies that conduct the most research
    in these areas. Although NOAA's scientific contribution to clean-up
    after oil discharges is world-class, I do not believe being Chair of
    this interagency committee is an appropriate role for them.
        I urge this committee to support passage of this amendment.

        Chair Baird. The gentlelady is recognized.
        Ms. Woolsey. Do I have time or should I take my own time?
    Are you going to give us----
        Mr. Inglis. Well, actually----
        Chair Baird. You will have five minutes if you seek it
    after Mr. Inglis is done.
        Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
        Mr. Inglis. Well, let me reclaim my time then and ask
    another question so that you can think about this. So the
    question number one is NOAA as the Chair as opposed to Coast
    Guard. The second one is that there is an interesting provision
    you have got about field testing. It sounds like it may be a
    good idea. It is different than what we have done before. As I
    understand it, U.S. agencies have had to participate with other
    countries in field testing because it is so difficult for us to
    get field-testing permits. So it may be a good idea to do some
    field tests, which, as I understand it, means dumping some oil
    in the ocean and seeing what happens, and so it may be a good
    idea. I am sort of curious about the process by which you came
    to that conclusion. Like I say, I am not necessarily doubting
    that concept. It is just a fairly new approach for the United
    States.
        So with those two questions, I yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Baird. Does anyone else wish to be recognized on the
    amendment?
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair.
        Chair Baird. The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
        In response to field testing, that language is in the 1990
    Act, so I don't think we changed anything in that. It was just
    brought forward. Maybe they haven't been doing enough with it
    and maybe we should be doing more, but at least we want to
    recognize that it is part of what was, and we thought it was a
    good idea then.
        Mr. Inglis. If the gentlelady would yield, it is just
    interesting that apparently the permitting for such a field
    test is very difficult to accomplish because you really are--
    you are dumping oil in the ocean. But if there is a way to
    streamline it, it sounds like it may be worth pursuing, you
    know, try it out.
        Ms. Woolsey. And possibly using computer models instead of
    our oceans to show what could happen.
        Now, I would like to go on. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
    My concern, Mr. Inglis, and certainly Mr. Chair, with the
    Inglis amendment is that it preserves the status quo. Now,
    there is nobody that respects and supports the United States
    Coast Guard more than I. I serve two Coast Guard bases--well, I
    serve one Coast Guard base twice in my district, the Two Rock
    Coast Guard facility. They are the best partners any community
    could have. But their focus now is homeland security, and
    because of that, I believe we should be looking elsewhere. I
    want them to be part of the triad that is going to be running
    this show but I believe that NOAA is the answer to be the Chair
    of it.
        Part of what we are trying to do in this bill is to
    restructure our federal oil spill research and prevention and
    frankly breathe some new life into this area. Unfortunately, as
    it stands, the Coast Guard, who are currently in charge of
    these efforts under the interagency coordinating committee on
    oil pollution research, seems to be focused more on homeland
    security. So under the leadership of the Coast Guard, the
    coordinating committee hasn't produced an oil pollution
    research and technology plan since 1997. That was 12 years ago,
    and the plan has been in place for 20 years and they have only
    put that plan together once. They really--this really is not
    their focus, and we need them desperately but we don't need
    them to be doing the nitty gritty, and NOAA is a nitty-gritty
    kind of agency as far as I can tell when they work with me.
        That is why I put NOAA at the head of the Committee in H.R.
    2693 because their science and their expertise is absolutely
    world class and I have--as I said, I not only don't have
    anything against the Coast Guard, I actually absolutely support
    them and think they are wonderful but I believe NOAA is better
    suited to lead this effort at this time.
        So Mr. Chair, because of this, I oppose the Inglis
    amendment.
        Chair Baird. I thank the gentlelady. I appreciate the
    question raised by the gentleman from South Carolina and I
    appreciate the response from the sponsor of the legislation,
    and this is an issue that I think merits perhaps further
    discussion between now and final markup and I would be happy to
    recognize the gentleman from South Carolina.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to withdraw
    the amendment at this point and hope that we can continue the
    discussion as we move toward the Full Committee with just this
    thought, that, you know, it seems to me that when you have got
    a spill, the thing you need is boats and booms and containment
    devices and pumps, and my experience is, that is what the Coast
    Guard knows how to do. They do boats, they do pumps, they do
    booms, they do collection things, and that is what they are
    good at. NOAA seems to be good at other things and so they
    don't really have the resources, a little bit like the
    situation we have had. The opposite argument I guess has been
    in Antarctica about who pays for the boats down there and who
    does the boats, and NOAA is not so great at boats, it seems to
    me. NSF in that case is not so great at boats.
        Ms. Woolsey. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Inglis. Sure, I would be happy to.
        Ms. Woolsey. With the Cosco Busan spill, the Coast Guard
    was there doing exactly what they were supposed to do. What was
    missing was the equipment and the strategies for what NOAA
    knows what the tides will be doing, where the oil will be going
    and that is--and I don't think--I am sure that the Coast Guard
    will continue to do what the Coast Guard does with its big
    equipment, but we need new clean-up equipment. We need new ways
    of training volunteers, for one thing also. The Coast Guard is
    not going to do that, I am sure. But when we watched it, we
    were absolutely proud of our Coast Guard but we weren't proud
    that a lot of what they needed to be working with wasn't even
    available and hadn't even been thought about. And we wouldn't
    expect them to be doing that when they are so focused on
    homeland security. And certainly their boats are always
    available but we think the committee could be led by more
    scientific leadership.
        Mr. Inglis. Reclaiming my time. I think the gentlelady
    makes two important points. One is with training volunteers.
    You are trying to clean up a spill or contain a spill. It is
    sort of how to hard to see how volunteers exactly do that.
        Ms. Woolsey. Well, it wouldn't be all volunteers. May I--
    will you yield back? I am sorry.
        Mr. Inglis. I will just make sure I am getting the point
    across, is that when you are getting out there to try to
    contain a spill and get around it with containment vessels,
    there may be a role for people in speedboats helping out, but
    on the other hand, it is probably a matter of really heavy
    equipment getting out there to get in place. Now, once the
    spill has happened and there is some remediation and we need
    birds cleaned up and things like that, certainly there is an
    opportunity for volunteers. But again, I am not real sure
    that--the Coast Guard is a place that has big boats and they
    are moving in with a lot of power and heavy metal. They don't
    exactly have time for volunteers to be jumping in with their
    johnboats.
        Chair Baird. If the gentleman----
        Ms. Woolsey. Would you yield?
        Mr. Inglis. Sure, I would be happy to yield.
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair?
        Chair Baird. Go ahead.
        Ms. Woolsey. It wasn't--yes, the birds of course and the
    beaches, but the fisherman, they weren't speedboats. These are
    our big trawling, you know, fishing vessels that were out there
    with the booms on each, you know. They weren't adequate. They
    had no way to--they could have been much more helpful and
    useful had there been a way to do it.
        Mr. Inglis. Reclaiming my time. I would just point out that
    in that moment, what I would be looking for is somebody who
    really knows how to operate a boat, which seems to me the Coast
    Guard. I am not sure that NOAA scientists really know how to
    operate a boat.
        Chair Baird. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Inglis. Yes.
        Chair Baird. I think your point is well taken about the on-
    scene response. Remember that this bill has to do with the
    research side of it, and I think what we can do is--I
    appreciate the gentleman's offer to withdraw the amendment. I
    think what happens in a positive sense is, both of you are
    making very good points but I think they are a bit orthogonal
    in terms of what the issue before us is, and so what we can try
    to do in discussion before final markup is find a way to
    address your concern about the on-the-scene jurisdiction
    management of the hardware, et cetera, and Ms. Woolsey's
    concern about the need for ongoing research and the apparent
    limited application of that kind of research, and that is what
    I would hope we could discuss before the next markup.
        Mr. Inglis. Yes. So Mr. Chair, I am happy to withdraw the
    amendment at this point and to continue the discussion as we go
    to markup.
        Chair Baird. I appreciate that, and we will work together,
    the three of us, and anyone else who is interested to do that.
    I appreciate that very much.
        With the second-degree amendment having been withdrawn, the
    vote occurs on the manager's amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey.
    All in favor, say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and
    the amendment is agreed to.
        The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the Chair. The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693 offered by Mr. Baird of
    Washington, amendment number 017.
        Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
    reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize myself for
    five minutes to explain the amendment.
        This amendment is intended to expand the current
    interagency program and related assessments in two ways. First,
    the amendment ensures the program will involve research and
    development into new technologies and methods to respond to oil
    pollution in arctic regions. As polar ice continues to melt,
    the new channels are emerging that allow for increased vessel
    traffic and also expanded oil exploration in the region. As
    arctic transportation increases, we need to have technologies
    in place to deal with oil spills in these unique environments.
        Second, this amendment inserts a new requirement into the
    assessment section of the bill. The assessment should include
    an investigation into the economic incentives and barriers to
    the development of new technologies for oil pollution response.
    Because large oil spills happen infrequently but carry the
    possibility of an environmental disaster, it is important that
    we are creating the correct incentive structure for the
    development of technologies to mitigate and prevent such an
    accident. This is a commonsense amendment. I urge its adoption.
        [The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
        My amendment is intended to expand the current Interagency Program
    and related Assessment in two ways. First, the amendment ensures that
    the Program will involve research and development in to new
    technologies and methods to respond to oil pollution in arctic regions.
    As the polar ice continues to melt, new channels are emerging that
    allow for increased vessel travel. As arctic transportation increases,
    we need to have technologies in place to deal with oil spills in these
    unique environments.
        Second, my amendment inserts a new requirement into the Assessment
    section of the bill. The Assessment should include an investigation
    into the economic incentives and barriers to the development of new
    technologies for oil pollution response. Since large oil spills happen
    infrequently but carry the possibility of an environmental disaster, it
    is important that we are creating the correct incentive structure for
    the development of technologies to mitigate such an accident.
        This is a commonsense amendment, and I urge its adoption.

        Chair Baird. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    If no, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye.
    Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed
    to.
        The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Lujan. Mr. Lujan, are you
    ready to proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Lujan. Yes, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 018,
    offered by Mr. Lujan of New Mexico.
        Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
    reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
    gentleman from New Mexico for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
    Congresswoman Woolsey, for your work on the bill. It is
    important that the federal oil pollution research and
    development efforts consider incidents that occur in locations
    across the country, coastal waters, inland waters and on land.
    Since the original interagency program focused primarily on
    coastal oil spills, my amendment adds new requirements to the
    program assessment and plan to consider and investigate
    technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
    inland waters. This amendment is based on comments from
    witnesses at the June 4th Energy and Environment hearing and
    conversations with related federal agencies involved in the
    interagency program.
        I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I thank
    you for your consideration. I yield back my time.
        Chair Baird. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chair.
        Chair Baird. Yes, Ms. Woolsey is recognized.
        Ms. Woolsey. I would just like to thank Congressman Lujan
    for his addition to this legislation.
        Chair Baird. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey. I concur with that. I
    think it is an important addition and I appreciate his insights
    and contribution.
        Any further comments on the amendment? If no, the vote
    occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Those opposed,
    no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis. Are you ready
    to proceed with your amendment, Mr. Inglis?
        Mr. Inglis. Yes, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Baird. The Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2693, amendment number 157,
    offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
        Chair Baird. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
    reading. Without objection, so ordered. I recognize the
    gentleman from South Carolina for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment will
    ensure that the technologies and techniques that emerge from
    the oil spill research program are helpful to non-federal oil
    pollution response agencies. At our hearing two weeks ago, we
    learned that the California Office of Spill Prevention and
    Response felt that there were several deficiencies in oil spill
    research. We also learned that there was work at the federal
    level that could meet those deficiencies. This amendment will
    push federal agencies to communicate significant research
    advancements to State and local oil spill teams and improve
    their ability to respond to spills. So I would urge the
    adoption of the amendment.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
        Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        This amendment will ensure that the technologies and techniques
    that emerge from the oil spill research program are helpful to non-
    federal oil pollution response agencies. At our hearing two weeks ago,
    we learned that the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
    felt there were several deficiencies in oil spill research. We also
    learned that there was work at the federal level that could meet those
    deficiencies. This amendment will push federal agencies to communicate
    significant research advancements to State and local oil spill teams
    and improve their ability to respond to spills.

        Chair Baird. I commend the gentleman for his amendment. I
    think it is very constructive.
        Any other comments from additional Members of the panel on
    this amendment? I would urge support myself with no additional
    comments. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. The
    ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. I thank the
    gentleman for his amendment.
        Are there any other amendments? If no, the vote is on the
    bill, H.R. 2693, as amended. All those in favor will say aye.
    All those opposed will say no. In the opinion of the Chair, the
    ayes have it.
        I recognize myself to offer a motion. I move that the
    Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 2693 as amended to the Full
    Committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to
    prepare the necessary Committee report and make any technical
    changes and conforming--technical and conforming changes to the
    bill in accordance with the recommendation of the Subcommittee.
        The question is on the motion to report the bill favorably.
    Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
    Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably
    reported. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid
    upon the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days
    in which to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on
    the measure.
        I want to thank Members for their attendance. This
    concludes our Subcommittee markup.
        [Whereupon, at 10:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

            H.R. 2693, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster

                         Section-by-Section Analysis of
             H.R. 2693: THE FEDERAL OIL SPILL RESEARCH PROGRAM ACT

    Title: Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act

    Purpose: To amend Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and for
    other purposes.

    Section 1: Short Title

        Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act

    Section 2: Federal Oil Spill Research Committee

        Section 2 directs the President to establish an interagency
    committee to be known as the Federal Oil Spill Research Committee
    (`Committee'). The President shall designate a representative of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to serve as Chairperson
    of the Committee, and the members of the Committee shall include
    representatives from NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, and such other federal agencies as the
    President may designate.
        Section 2 requires the Committee to: 1) coordinate a federal oil
    spill research program (`Program') to coordinate oil pollution
    research, technology development, and demonstration among the federal
    agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, institutions
    of higher education, research institutions, State and tribal
    governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 2) complete a research
    assessment (`Assessment') on the status of oil spill prevention and
    response capabilities; and 3) develop a federal oil spill research plan
    (`Plan'). The Assessment will provide the Committee with the
    information necessary to create the Plan.

    Section 3: Federal Oil Spill Research Program

        Section 3 requires the Committee to establish a Program for
    conducting oil pollution research, development, and demonstration. The
    Program shall focus on new technologies, practices, and procedures that
    provide for effective and direct response to prevent, detect, recover,
    or mitigate oil discharges.

    Section 4: Federal Research Assessment

        Section 4 instructs the Committee to submit to Congress an
    Assessment of the status of oil spill prevention and response
    capabilities that identifies current oil pollution research and
    development programs, identifies regional oil pollution research needs
    and priorities, assesses the status of knowledge of oil pollution
    prevention, response, and mitigation technologies, and assesses the
    status of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
    responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
    period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
    is required submit the Assessment to Congress no later than one year
    after the enactment of Section 4.

    Section 5: Federal Research Interagency Plan

        Section 5 directs the Committee to develop a Plan to establish
    federal oil spill research and development priorities. In developing
    the Plan, the Committee shall consider and utilize recommendations from
    the National Academy of Sciences, as well as State, local, and tribal
    governments. The Plan will make recommendations for improving oil spill
    recovery, mitigation, technologies, practices, procedures, and the
    quality of real-time data available to mariners, researchers, and
    responders. The Assessment shall be subject to a 90-day public comment
    period and shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
    is required to submit the Plan to Congress no later than one year after
    the submission of the Assessment.

    Section 6: Extramural Grants

        Section 6 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
    Administrator of NOAA, to award competitive grants to institutions of
    higher education and other research institutions to advance research,
    development, and demonstration of technologies for preventing,
    detecting, or mitigating oil discharges in accordance with the goals
    and priorities of the Plan. The Secretary shall incorporate a
    competitive, merit-based process for awarding grants under Section 6.

    Section 7: Annual Report

        Section 7 requires the Committee to submit an annual report to
    Congress, concurrent with the annual submission of the President's
    budget, describing the activities and results of the Program during the
    previous fiscal year and outlining objectives for the next fiscal year.

    Section 8: National Academy of Science Participation

        Section 8 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
    Administrator of NOAA, to contract with the National Academy of
    Sciences to assess and evaluate the status of federal oil spill
    research and development prior to the enactment of the Federal Oil
    Spill Research Program Act and to submit: 1) an assessment of the
    program prior to enactment of the legislation; 2) a report to the
    Committee evaluating the conclusions and recommendations from the
    Assessment to be utilized in the creation of the Plan; and 3) a report
    to Congress evaluating the Committee's Plan, no later than one year
    after the Committee submits the Plan.

    Section 9: Technical and Conforming Changes

        Section 9 makes technical and conforming changes to the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990.

     XXIV. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 2693, THE OIL
     POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2010

                              House of Representatives,
                           Committee on Science and Technology,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Chairman Gordon. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order.
        Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science and Technology
    meets to consider the following measures: H.R. 2693, the Oil
    Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
    of 2010, and H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling
    Technology Research and Development Act. We will now proceed
    with the markup.
        Today the Committee will consider two bills that address
    oil spill cleanup technologies and response coordination, as
    well as research and development of safe drilling technologies.
        First, we will consider H.R. 2693, authored by Ms. Woolsey
    of California. This bill was introduced and marked up in the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment last summer. Ms.
    Woolsey's foresight in introducing this legislation last year
    put us one step closer to advancing a robust Federal research
    and development program on oil spill response, and I thank Ms.
    Woolsey for her foresight.
        At the time, Ms. Woolsey was responding to a spill in her
    district. But the Deepwater Horizon accident and the subsequent
    response effort have made the intent of this bill all the more
    relevant today. In light of that, the amendment in the nature
    of a substitute to be marked up today sets up a more efficient
    Federal management structure, reprioritizes the research and
    development activities, and provides for more robust oversight
    and accountability of the interagency R&D program.
        Second, we will consider H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and
    Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.
    This bill amends Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
    which authorized the Secretary of Energy to establish an Ultra-
    Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other
    Petroleum Resources Research and Development program. As a
    long-time champion of this program, Mr. Hall recognized its
    potential for developing technologies to prevent and mitigate
    oil spills, and worked closely with us in drafting this bill.
        The bill makes a series of changes to the 999 program,
    including a shift in the focus and funding of the program to
    research and development of technologies for safety and
    accident prevention and mitigation. This bill will also
    streamline the operations of the program.
        It is our hope that with passage of this bill, activities
    conducted under Section 999 will better serve the Nation's
    needs for the development of advanced and improved
    environmental and worker safety technologies and practices,
    while also providing a Federal resource for technical expertise
    in this field.
        This bill is the product of significant bipartisan
    collaboration, and I want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff for
    their continued good work as we move this legislation out of
    Committee and to the Floor.
        The two bills before us today help to ensure that all
    stakeholders, including the Federal Government, industry, and
    academia, are better equipped to prevent and respond to such
    accidents in the future.
        Let me also bring up another point. As I think everyone on
    this Committee knows, it has been a long tradition of the
    Committee to request that amendments be presented by 10:00 the
    day before the bill is brought up. There is a good reason for
    this, and that is, particularly when we are at a Full Committee
    markup, that we want to send a bill to the Floor that doesn't
    have unintended consequences by a late amendment, and that is
    the reason that they need to be vetted. That doesn't mean that
    we are not going to hear an amendment that might be brought
    late. It just makes it a higher burden on the person who brings
    it. Our Committee staff--I mean our Members have been very good
    in that. We had a couple of amendments both Democrat and
    Republican this time that were a little late, although we did
    have notice on some of those. So again, let me--and I know part
    of the problem is just getting legislative counsel to get
    things through. So let me just say once again, everybody, to
    try to get those up on time.
        Let me also give a quick overview of what our intentions
    are for the rest of this month. We have a nuclear energy
    research bill that we think is important and good that will
    move forward research in the fourth-generation design that
    could make nuclear energy safer and less expensive, also, less
    likely to proliferate and hopefully less waste to have to
    store. So that is in the works in a bipartisan way.
        We also have a NASA reauthorization that we are struggling
    with and we hope that the first of next week that we can have a
    good discussion about where we think we are going on that. As I
    had mentioned to someone earlier, when you try to put two tons
    of canaries in a one-ton box, it makes it tough, but we are
    still trying to stuff them in there.
        And finally, we hope to have a rare earth minerals bill. As
    you might remember from our testimony, 90 to 95 percent of the
    rare earth mineral production in the world is in the hands of
    the Chinese. There were some hints from them earlier that they
    might try to restrict those to the rest of the world. The
    reason that is important is that those rare earth minerals in
    small amounts can significantly increase the efficiency of
    alternative energy and telecommunication, as well as a lot of
    other products. I just returned from a very quick, jet-lagged
    trip to Brussels to testify before our equivalent in the EU
    Parliament, and requested that they also take up rare earth
    minerals. I think we are going to see them do that so that
    hopefully there can be some joint research, as we are both in
    the same boat and can help each other in terms of that basic
    research where there really isn't a first-to-market advantage.
        So I thank you all for your attendance and participation
    this morning. I look forward to a productive markup.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
        Good morning, and welcome. Today the Committee will consider two
    bills that address oil spill cleanup technologies and response
    coordination, as well as research and development of safe drilling
    technologies.
        First, we will consider H.R. 2693 authored by Ms. Woolsey of
    California. This bill was introduced and marked up in the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Environment last summer.
        Ms. Woolsey's foresight in introducing this legislation last year
    put us one step closer to advancing a more robust Federal research and
    development program on oil spill response.
        At the time, Ms. Woolsey was responding to the spill in her
    district. But the Deepwater Horizon accident and the subsequent
    response effort have made the intent of this bill all the more relevant
    today. In light of that, the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
    be marked up today sets up a more efficient Federal management
    structure, reprioritizes the research and development activities, and
    provides for more robust oversight and accountability of the
    interagency R&D program.
        Next, we will consider H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas
    Drilling Technology Research and Development Act. This bill amends
    Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which authorized the
    Secretary of Energy to establish an Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional
    Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources research and
    development program. As the long-time champion for this program, Mr.
    Hall recognized its potential for developing technologies to prevent
    and mitigate oil spills, and worked closely with us in drafting this
    bill.
        The bill makes a series of changes to the 999 program, including a
    shift in the focus and funding of the program to research and
    development of technologies for safety and accident prevention and
    mitigation. This bill will also streamline the operations of the
    program.
        It is our hope that with passage of this bill, activities conducted
    under Section 999 will better serve the nation's needs for development
    of advanced and improved environmental and worker safety technologies
    and practices, while also providing a Federal resource for technical
    expertise in this field.
        H.R. 5716 is the product of significant bipartisan collaboration,
    and I want to thank Mr. Hall and his staff for their continued good
    work as we move this legislation out of Committee and to the floor.
        The two bills before us today help to ensure that all
    stakeholders--including the Federal Government, industry, and
    academia--are better equipped to prevent and respond to such accidents
    in the future.
        I thank you all for your attendance and participation this morning,
    and I look forward to a productive markup.

        Chairman Gordon. I now recognize Mr. Hall to present his
    opening remarks.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As the disaster in the Gulf nears now, what, about three
    months and we await the results of the latest attempt to cap
    the well and stop the leak, our understanding of the precise
    causes of the accident and the missteps in the days that
    followed remain unclear even now. These unanswered questions
    really should serve to advise against temptations to overreact,
    especially given the importance of the offshore oil and gas
    industry to the Gulf Coast economy and America's energy
    independence goals. Regardless of the ultimate causes of and
    best responses to the disaster, it makes sense to continue
    pursuing improvements to safe and environmentally responsible
    drilling operations as well as effective spill response
    systems.
        The first bill we consider, H.R. 2693, amends the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990. This bill was introduced last year and
    had gone through a subcommittee markup. The current bill
    illustrates the need to update certain aspects of the research
    and development title of the Oil Pollution Act since its
    passage 20 years ago. Further, it will be important for us to
    continue to exercise our Congressional duties and perform the
    necessary oversight to ensure that the laws we pass are being
    implemented and certainly carried out.
        Today we mark up an amendment in the nature of a substitute
    that changes the bill in ways that seek to address members'
    concerns as well as concerns expressed by expert witnesses. I
    applaud the author's willingness to move her bill in a
    direction that alleviates these concerns, and while there are
    still some unresolved issues, the approach of the ANS in
    correcting the problem of insecure law is more in the line with
    what we heard from scientists, industry and we heard from
    stakeholders that it should be.
        The second bill we consider amends the drilling
    technologies R&D program established by section 999 of the
    Energy Policy Act of 2005. I led and helped work with the
    creation of this program in 2005 and I believe it has
    contributed significantly to recent technological advances that
    are enabling recovery of energy supplies that we know existed
    but we were unable to access. The program relies on established
    program structure and network of worldwide private and public
    sector experts. The funding for the program is drawn from the
    taxes paid by the industry on oil leases, and that money is
    paid back with eventual royalties on oil and natural gas that
    is discovered and used as a result of the program. I have
    always said that this program is a win-win for taxpayers. Not
    only do Americans move in the direction of energy independence
    but the program pays for itself. Further, this is the only R&D
    program in the Federal Government capable of addressing
    drilling safety and accident prevention-related technology
    needs in a timely and effective manner.
        As the present spill in the Gulf illustrates, we should
    encourage further research into this vital area so that we are
    best able to amend needed resources safety and effectively.
    Unfortunately, despite its clear growing in importance, this
    program along with most other fossil fuel R&D activities,
    remains targeted by the Administration and others in Congress
    for termination. I think this represents a clear
    misprioritization and I am glad that Chairman Gordon agrees and
    has worked very closely with us on the vehicle before us today.
    I may quibble with some of the details but I believe this
    vehicle represents a reasonable compromise that will preserve
    and strengthen this successful program.
        Before I close, I do want to say a word about the process,
    as the chairman has. Many amendments including one of my own
    were filed well after the 10:00 a.m. deadline. However, the
    majority of the Republican colleagues worked hard and met or
    came very close to meeting the submission deadline. I may have
    more to say about this as we move forward today but I do want
    to mention amendments introducing significant policy shift or
    additions should be, we wish they would be, filed earlier
    rather than later so members and staff might thoroughly review
    and prepare for their consideration. I know the chairman agrees
    with this as he stated in the past and stated today.
        Again, I thank the chairman and the majority for working
    with Republicans on both bills and I look forward to continuing
    this result and find a good result, continue our effort as
    these vehicles move through the legislative process.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        As the disaster in the Gulf nears three full months and we await
    the results of the latest attempt to cap the well and stop the leak,
    our understanding of the precise causes of the accident--and the
    missteps in the days that followed--remain unclear. These unanswered
    questions should serve to advise against temptations to overreact to
    the disaster, especially given the importance of the offshore oil and
    gas industry to the Gulf Coast economy and America's energy
    independence goals.
        Regardless of the ultimate causes of and best rest responses to the
    disaster it makes sense to continue pursuing improvements to safe and
    environmentally responsible drilling operations, as well as effective
    spill response systems. This Committee will play a key role in this
    effort, and the legislation before us today will have a significant
    impact on future drilling and environmental response mitigation
    efforts.
        The first bill we will consider, H.R. 2693, amends the Federal Oil
    Spill Research Program Act. This legislation was introduced last year
    and had gone through a subcommittee markup, demonstrating once again
    this Committee's foresight of the research and development needs of the
    nation. Today, we markup an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
    that changes the bill in ways that reflect the concerns of members on
    both sides of the aisle and testimony we received both last year and
    last month. . . .
        The second bill we will consider amends the drilling technologies
    R&D program established by Section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005. I led creation of this program in 2005, and I believe it has
    contributed significantly to recent technological advances that are
    enabling recovery of energy supplies that we knew existed but were
    unable to access. Further, with its established program structure and
    network of worldwide private and public sector experts, it is the only
    R&D program in the Federal Government capable of addressing priority
    drilling safety and accident prevention-related technology needs in a
    timely and effective manner.
        Unfortunately, despite its clear and growing importance, the
    program remains targeted by the Administration and others in Congress
    for termination. I think this represents a clear mis-prioritization,
    and I am glad that Chairman Gordon agrees and worked closely with me on
    the bill before us today. I may quibble with some of the details, but I
    believe the committee print represents a reasonable compromise that
    will preserve and strengthen this successful program.
        Again, I thank the Chairman and the majority for working with
    Republicans on both of these bills, and I look forward to continuing
    this effort as these vehicles move through the legislative process.
        I yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Members may place
    statements in the record at this point.
        Chairman Gordon. We will now consider H.R. 2693, the Oil
    Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
    of 2010. As I mentioned earlier, this is Ms. Woolsey's bill,
    but I understand that she is going to wait to talk more about
    it until her amendment. So I will now recognize Mr. Hall to
    present any remarks on the bill.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In the wake of the Exxon Valdez accident, Congress enacted
    the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This law addressed deficiencies
    in response activities, adjusted natural resource damage
    assessments, clarified issues related to liability concerns and
    encouraged a research and development program to help prepare
    us for any future spills. Twenty years later, Congress is
    responding to a major oil spill that will be the catalyst for
    major change in exploring and producing oil and natural gas.
    Members have asked many questions regarding the success of the
    research and development program spelled out in the Oil
    Pollution Act.
        Last month the Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a
    hearing to discuss the state of cleanup technologies and what
    is actually needed moving forward to provide the necessary
    tools to those who respond to disasters. It was clear from this
    hearing that our Nation has made little progress in these
    cleanup technologies over the last 20 years.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute is a good
    effort to address the many concerns that members on both sides
    of the aisle had with the introduced version. The ANS maintains
    the Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency Committee but
    whittles down the participants on the Committee to Coast Guard,
    NOAA, EPA and the Department of Interior. While I understand
    the concern that the Interagency Committee was too wieldy, we
    heard testimony that the current structure works. So I am left
    wondering if this is a case of a solution in search of a
    problem given that these agencies did not express a problem
    with the current structure. I am pleased to see that they are
    increasing reporting requirements and duties of the chair to
    ensure greater accountability and information for Congress. We
    must also do our due diligence and perform the necessary
    oversight so the lapses of the last 20 years are not repeated.
        I am also a bit concerned that the direction of the ANS has
    shifted the focus of the underlying statute to concentrate much
    more on the environmental effects of the cleanup technologies
    rather than the effectiveness of the technologies themselves.
    While researching and understanding the environmental effects
    of technology use is important and should definitely be a part
    of this program, it should not be to the detriment of the
    overreaching focus of the law which reads ``research,
    technology, development and demonstration.'' I understand that
    there will be an amendment offered today that will alleviate
    these concerns, so hopefully the bill that is reported out is
    more balanced between the two.
        A provision in the ANS that amends the section of
    international cooperation has given me pause. Coordination and
    collaboration with other nations and foreign research entities
    on cleanup standards is a highly contentious issue, and all we
    need to do to see this is to read the reports of the last three
    months where foreign aid was offered in the cleanup of the
    Deepwater Horizon. Offers were made to the U.S. government, to
    BP and sometimes to both. There has been a lot of confusion as
    to who has the authority to accept the assistance, and there
    have been suggestions that assistance was rebuffed solely due
    to the cost of the equipment. Some international assistance
    could not be accepted because the technologies were not
    compatible with our own. It would be more helpful for the
    international research coordination and collaboration to focus
    on developing ways to make these technologies work together
    before focusing on what cleanup standards should really be
    used.
        I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider
    each amendment carefully. When the country is in the midst of a
    crisis and Congress decides to act, it is possible for us to go
    too far to fix things and end up causing unintended
    consequences. Acting deliberatively and in a much more focused
    manner will help the current situation and ultimately prevent
    the necessity of having to go back and fix things that resulted
    unexpectedly.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
        I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read
    and open to amendment at any point and that the Members proceed
    with amendments in order of the roster. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
        Chairman Gordon. Certainly. Do you want to address those
    questions now so we can----
        Mr. Hall. I will.
        Chairman Gordon. OK. Sure.
        Mr. Hall. Sure. I would ask the Chairman to confirm for the
    Members a few matters in regard to the Full Committee markup
    process for H.R. 2693 and the accompanying amendment in the
    nature of a substitute.
        First, Mr. Chairman, you are not asking unanimous consent
    that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered
    base text for the purposes of amendment?
        Chairman Gordon. No, we are not.
        Mr. Hall. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Historically, when
    considering an ANS, this Committee after unanimous consent
    request by the Chairman treated the ANS as base text for
    purposes of amendment, allowing for two degrees of amendment.
        Mr. Chairman, at our last Full Committee markup in April,
    we discussed a matter of concern to both sides of the aisle and
    that is the policy that Members try their best to file
    amendments by 10 a.m. the day prior to a markup. Mr. Chairman,
    during the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee markup, you
    stated that the responsibility for getting things in on time
    was on the Democratic Members as well as on the Republican
    Members. For this markup, several amendments were not filed nor
    shared with the minority until quite some time past the
    deadline. I acknowledge that even one of my amendments was a
    bit tardy. It is my understanding for the purposes of this
    markup, Mr. Chairman, you are not going to be disinclined to
    support those amendments that were substituted or shared in a
    tardy fashion.
        Chairman Gordon. As I stated in my earlier remarks, no,
    they will not automatically be blocked but there will be a
    higher burden placed on the person who has that amendment since
    they need to be fully vetted.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your comments on
    these issues and I thank you for the other many conferences
    that we have held that you have been kind and free with your
    time, and I thank you for that, and I withdraw my reservation.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Chairman Gordon. Oh, Mr. Sensenbrenner is recognized.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Yes, I noticed that most of the
    amendments are drafted as amendments to the amendment in the
    nature of a substitute. Wouldn't it be proper that the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute be offered first so
    that we have something to amend?
        Chairman Gordon. You are correct, and that is what we are
    trying to do.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. Well, thank you, Mr. Hall, and Mr.
    Sensenbrenner, I think it is good to get those things
    clarified. Now without objection, so ordered.
        The first amendment on the roster is an amendment in the
    nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Woolsey? Are you ready to proceed with your
    amendment?
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 296, amendment in the nature of
    a substitute to H.R. 2693 offered by Ms. Woolsey of California.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just before I
    explain the amendment, I would like just to briefly say how we
    got to this amendment.
        I think we all remember that a little over a year--well,
    two years ago there was an oil spill in the San Francisco Bay,
    and it was because of that experience that it became very clear
    to this Member of Congress that there is a big question of who
    is in charge of the prevention and the cleanup and taking care
    of the lasting impacts to our environment. So I introduced H.R.
    2693. That was a good idea then but it is an even better idea
    now, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is a much
    better fit since we have learned so much more since the Gulf
    oil and the BP spill. So that was my introduction to how we got
    here, and now I would like to explain the amendment.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute strikes and
    replaces the language of H.R. 2693 to amend Title VII of the
    Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Section 2 of the amendment in the
    nature of a substitute amends the membership structure of the
    Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to
    better align and streamline the Coordinating Committee to
    ensure that the research program is actually effective. This
    Interagency Coordinating Committee includes representatives
    from the Coast Guard, NOAA, the Department of the Interior and
    EPA. The Interagency Committee is also required to collaborate
    with the other Federal agencies listed in the Oil Pollution Act
    of 1990, with the inclusion of the National Science Foundation.
        Section 2 also includes roles for the chair of the
    Interagency Committee, activities for the Committee to ensure
    an ongoing, sustained and coordinated research effort, and an
    information exchange to improve the accessibility and utility
    of information among the Federal agencies, the research
    community and emergency responders.
        Section 3 includes a research and implementation plan to be
    submitted to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment,
    which shall be periodically updated. And the Interagency
    Committee shall solicit the advice and guidance on the plan
    from the Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, and a 30-day
    public comment period. The plan shall also be reviewed by the
    National Academy of Sciences to assess its adequacy.
        Section 4 of the bill includes several changes to the Oil
    Pollution Research and Development Program. The amendment in
    the nature of a substitute adds research elements such as
    research, development and demonstration for new or improved
    response capabilities and modeling for the recovery, removal
    and disposal of oil. This includes mechanical capabilities for
    the recovery of oil and chemical and biological methods such as
    the use of dispersants, solvents and bioremediation
    technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
    in inland waters. And the EPA must focus on the development and
    approval of technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum
    toxicity to the environment in both the near and long term.
    Section 4, Mr. Chairman, also bolsters the research role of
    NOAA by including language requiring NOAA to monitor and
    evaluate the environmental effects of oil discharges throughout
    the environment, including air quality and in sensitive and
    high-risk areas.
        Section 5 provides a simple provision for the Interagency
    Committee to coordinate and cooperate with other nations and
    foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution research,
    development and demonstration activities including activities
    related to oil recovery and cleanup standards.
        Section 6 adds another layer of accountability to ensure
    research and development activities by requiring the
    Interagency Committee to submit an annual report to Congress
    concurrent with the President's annual budget request.
        Section 7 directs the chair of the Interagency Committee to
    establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, in part
    to provide an additional layer of oversight. The Advisory
    Committee complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
    FACA, with the exception that it will not expire. This
    exception has been invoked so that the Advisory Committee may
    provide advice and comment on an ongoing basis to ensure the
    program and activities are sustained.
        Section 7 also requires that the Advisory Committee be
    compromised of representatives from non-governmental entities
    to review, advise and comment on the Interagency Committee's
    activities, including the management and functioning of the
    Interagency Committee and the collaborating agencies, the
    development of new or improved response capabilities and other
    research and resources needed to develop a comprehensive oil
    pollution research program.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute alters the funding levels to carry out this section.
    It increases the authorized levels from $22 million to $30
    million, with an additional $16 million carved out for NOAA and
    $2 million for the demonstration projects which totals $48
    million. This amendment is the product of a cooperative effort
    between both majority and minority Committee staff. They have
    worked really hard on this, and I so appreciate it. The
    amendment improves the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and ensures
    that we are moving the country toward a more effective and
    streamlined research program.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
    this very necessary amendment, and I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
        I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute strikes and replaces
    the language of H.R. 2693 to amend Title 7 of the Oil Pollution Act of
    1990.
        Section 2 of the ANS amends the membership structure of the
    Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research to better
    align and streamline the coordinating committee to ensure that the
    research program is effective. This Interagency Coordinating Committee
    includes representatives from the Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Interior and the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Interagency Committee is
    also required to collaborate with the other Federal agencies listed in
    the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 with the inclusion of the National
    Science Foundation.
        Section 2 also includes roles for the Chair of the Interagency
    Committee; activities for the Committee to ensure an ongoing,
    sustained, and coordinated research effort; and an information exchange
    to improve the accessibility and utility of information among the
    Federal agencies, the research community, and emergency responders.
        Section 3 includes a research and implementation plan to be
    submitted to Congress 180 days after the date of enactment, which shall
    be periodically updated. And the Interagency Committee shall solicit
    the advice and guidance on the plan from the Oil Pollution Research
    Advisory Committee, the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    and a 30 day Public Comment period. The Plan shall also be reviewed by
    the National Academy of Sciences to assess the adequacy of the plan.
        Section 4 of the bill includes several changes to the Oil Pollution
    Research and Development Program. The ANS adds research elements such
    as research, development and demonstration for new or improved response
    capabilities and modeling for the recovery, removal, and disposal of
    oil--this includes mechanical capabilities for the recovery of oil and
    chemical and biological methods such as the use of dispersants,
    solvents, and bioremediation; technologies and methods to address oil
    discharges on land and in inland waters; and the EPA must focus on the
    development and approval of technologies with maximum effectiveness and
    minimum toxicity to the environment in both near- and long-term.
    Section 4 also bolsters the research role of NOAA by including language
    requiring NOAA to monitor and evaluate the environmental effects of oil
    discharges throughout the environment, including air quality; and in
    sensitive and high risk areas.
        Section 5 provides a simple provision for the Interagency Committee
    to coordinate and cooperate with other nations and foreign research
    entities in conducting oil pollution research, development and
    demonstration activities, including activities related to oil recovery
    and cleanup standards.
        Section 6 adds another layer of accountability to ensure ongoing
    research and development activities by requiring the Interagency
    Committee to submit an annual report to Congress concurrent with the
    President's annual budget request.
        Section 7 directs the Chair of the Interagency Committee to
    establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee, in part, to
    provide an additional layer of oversight. The Advisory Committee
    complies with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with the
    exception that it will not expire. This exception has been invoked so
    that the Advisory Committee may provide advice and comment on an
    ongoing basis to ensure the program and activities are sustained.
        Section 7 also requires that the Advisory Committee be comprised of
    representatives from non-governmental entities to review, advise, and
    comment on the Interagency Committee's activities, including the
    management and functioning of the Interagency Committee and the
    collaborating agencies; the development of new or improved response
    capabilities; and other research and resources needed to develop a
    comprehensive oil pollution research program.
        Finally the ANS alters the funding levels to carry out this
    section. It increases the authorized levels from $22 million to $30
    million, with an additional $16 million carved out for NOAA and $2
    million for the demonstration projects. This is a total of $48 million
    dollars.
        This amendment is the product of a cooperative effort between both
    majority and minority Committee staff. The amendment improves the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990 and ensures we are moving the country towards a
    more effective and streamlined research program. I urge my colleagues
    to support the amendment.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for your
    leadership and good explanation.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, the
    second amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by the
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Ms. Woolsey. I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment 162, amendment offered by Ms. Woolsey
    of California to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment makes a
    conforming correction to the word ``pollution'' and changes it
    to ``discharge.'' The word ``discharge'' is defined in the
    underlying law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. I want to ensure
    that we align the amendment in the nature of a substitute with
    the use of the word ``discharge.''
        With that, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative Lynn C. Woolsey
        I have an amendment at the desk.
        This simple amendment makes a conforming correction to the word
    ``pollution'' and changes it to ``discharge.''
        The word ``discharge'' is defined in the underlying law, the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990. I want to ensure that we align the Amendment in
    the Nature of a Substitute with the use of the word ``discharge.''
        I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you. We support the amendment offered by
    the author of the bill. The changes the amendment makes to the
    ANS are simply consistent with the underlying Act and improves
    the clarity of the Congressional intent. I urge passage of this
    amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
        All in favor of the amendment, say aye. Opposed, no. The
    ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The third amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed
    with your amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 004, amendment offered by Mr.
    Hall of Texas to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would insert the word
    ``containment'' into the bill in various places to elevate
    containing oil as a concept on par with prevention, detection,
    responding to and mitigating oil damages and discharges.
        One of the major flaws in many government and industry
    response plans seems to be the lack of focus on containment.
    Once an oil discharge occurs, the fastest way to minimize the
    impact is to contain the oil in as small a geographic area as
    possible so while people work to stop a leak from happening,
    others are making sure the oil doesn't spread so far within the
    environment that cleanup becomes a much larger task.
    Containment would allow the oil to be scooped up more easily
    and would also allow for removal by burning the oil when it is
    on the surface of the water. However, the oil has to be a
    certain thickness before it will ignite. Containment is a
    technique that could be applied at any time in the period from
    the immediate aftermath of a spill until the cleanup is done.
    By amending the ANS and the underlying statute to include the
    idea as part of the research and development program, it will
    help emphasize the utility of containment when industry submits
    incident response plans to the Federal Government and when
    government agencies accept those plans.
        I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would insert the word
    ``containment into the bill in various places to elevate containing oil
    as a concept on par with prevention, detection, responding to and
    mitigating oil discharges.
        One of the major flaws in many government and industry response
    plans seems to be the lack of focus on containment. Once an oil
    discharge occurs, the fastest way to minimize the impact is to contain
    the oil in as small a geographic area as possible. So while people work
    to stop a leak from happening, others are making sure the oil doesn't
    spread so far within the environment that clean up becomes a much
    larger task. Containment would allow the oil to be scooped up more
    easily and would also allow for removal by burning the oil when it's on
    the surface of the water. However, the oil has to be a certain
    thickness before it will ignite.
        Containment is a technique that could be applied at any time in the
    period from the immediate aftermath of a spill until the clean up is
    done. By amending the ANS and the underlying statute to include this
    idea as part of the research and development program, it will help
    emphasize the utility of containment when industry submits incident
    response plans to the Federal Government and when government agencies
    accept those plans.
        I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for that timely
    amendment.
        If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on
    the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
    have it.
        The fourth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Baird. I am indeed. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment 047, amendment offered by Mr. Baird of
    Washington to the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief on
    this.
        Analysis of the factors that led to the disaster in the
    Gulf have indicated that decision-making and communication and
    prioritization of responsibility all probably contributed to
    this tragedy, with the loss of 11 lives and all the pollution
    that has resulted. This amendment basically urges that we look
    at human factors, communication, decision-making, et cetera as
    part of the research agenda and it is a commonsense amendment.
    This kind of measure is engaged in with the FAA, nuclear power
    industry, defense department, et cetera. I think we ought to
    apply it to this industry as well.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Baird.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Unfortunately, I am unable to support this type of
    amendment. The underlying Act outlines the focus area the
    research plan absolutely must address. The Interagency
    Committee is tasked with assessing the current state of
    knowledge, identifying significant gaps in research,
    establishing research priorities, estimating the resources
    needed to conduct this research and identifying in coordination
    with states the research needed for the regional research
    program. Within all these focus areas and with the individual
    research elements already laid out in the Act and in the ANS, I
    think it is safe to presume that risk assessment and risk
    analysis will be conducted on a continuous basis.
        How would the identification of information needed to
    conduct risk assessment and risk analysis not be included in
    the main focus area that I just mentioned? What do we gain by
    identifying information in the research plan? If this was truly
    a research necessity, wouldn't it be covered by the Interagency
    Committee assessing the current status of knowledge and
    identifying the significant research gaps? I see no reason to
    include such a specific provision in a section of the bill that
    talks of generalities and I am concerned that such a provision
    would heavily shift the focus of the research from the purpose
    of the bill, which is ``research, technology development and
    demonstration'' to assessing the risk of human factors and
    decision-making of causing oil spills.
        I yield back my time, sir.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Dr. Baird is recognized.
        Mr. Baird. I want to clarify. It is certainly not the
    intent of this to shift the major focus of this enterprise to
    human factors. However, I think it is absolutely evident that
    the lack of attention to human factors in this industry very
    likely contributed to this spill, and I am very respectful of
    the gentleman's desire to support this industry but spills like
    this are very likely the biggest threat to the viability of the
    industry, let alone to the lives of the people who have been
    lost and to the environmental impacts, and if we are going to
    make this industry more safe, we absolutely have to attend to
    human factors, and the history of enterprises like this is that
    they tend not to address human factors until after a disaster.
    That was the case with Three Mile Island. It was the case with
    the airline that crashed in the Potomac River. And all those
    other entities have made human factors a central part, and I
    think it is the responsibility of this Congress to direct the
    agencies and entities to focus on this measure for the safety
    of the public.
        Chairman Gordon. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
        Chairman Gordon. Did I understand you correctly in your
    opening statement that this was not a novel approach but rather
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulatory agencies
    already take this into consideration?
        Mr. Baird. Absolutely. The postmortem on Three Mile Island
    revealed that one of the reasons for that accident was human
    factors and the inadequacy of attending to human factors in the
    design of the plant and in the training of the staff
    technicians there. When that airplane crashed into the Potomac
    River some years ago, it had ice on the wings. The analysis of
    the cockpit communications revealed that the copilot had grave
    concerns about the ice on the wings. The pilot basically
    overrode the copilot's concerns with the result of the loss of
    multiple lives. FAA now has dramatically increased its
    attention to human factors and changed the cockpit
    communication rules.
        We know the decisions along the line that led up to this
    disaster in the Gulf had to do with communication, with
    decision-making about a host of factors. We have scientific
    analysis that tells us how to do that better and it has
    apparently been largely neglected in this industry, and I think
    we have again, not just a right as Congress but a
    responsibility to direct the Committee at least to give some
    attention to this and best practices.
        Finally, our witnesses in the hearing in our subcommittee
    repeatedly said, in fact, the minority's chosen witness, the
    minority's witness said that the technology is in place to
    prevent these spills, and it was human error that contributed
    to the failure. Well, if human error contributed to this
    failure and the minority witness so claimed, then it would seem
    to be in the minority's interest to prevent that human error.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird

              It was clear from our witnesses in our hearings that
            there is insufficient research available on the human factors
            involved in effectively preventing oil spills.

              The Interagency Committee and all collaborating
            agencies need to consider human components, like decision
            making, when developing plans to protect the environment from
            oil spills.

              My amendment would require the Oil Pollution Research
            and Technology Plan to identify information, including human
            factors and decision making, necessary for conducting risk
            assessment research to prevent oil spills.

        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I am not opposed to research, just where this
    amendment puts it in the bill. This info would already be
    collected in the underlying Act. The Interagency Committee
    assesses the current status of knowledge and identifies the
    significant research gaps. This isn't a breaker of the bill or
    cause anyone to vote for or against the bill. I just thought I
    would want to get a question in the record, and I thank the
    gentleman for his answers.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am unable to support this
    type of amendment. The underlying Act outlines the focus area the
    research plan must address. The Interagency Committee is tasked with
    assessing the current status of knowledge, identifying significant gaps
    in the research, establishing research priorities, estimating the
    resources needed to conduct this research and identifying, in
    coordination with States, the research needs for the regional research
    program.
        Within all these focus areas, and with the individual research
    elements already laid out in the Act and in the ANS, I think it is safe
    to presume that risk assessment and risk analysis will be conducted on
    a continuous basis. How would the identification of information needed
    to conduct risk assessment and risk analysis not be included in the
    main focus areas I just mentioned? What do we gain by identifying this
    information in the research plan? If this was truly a research
    necessity, wouldn't it be covered by the Interagency Committee
    assessing the current status of knowledge and identifying the
    significant research gaps?
        I see no reason to include such a specific provision in a section
    of the bill that talks of generalities, and I am concerned that such a
    provision would heavily shift the focus of the research from the
    purpose of the bill which is ``research, technology development, and
    demonstration,'' to assessing the risks of human factors and decision
    making of causing oil spills.

        Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
        Chairman Gordon. All right. I think that we now have a
    record on this, so if there further discussion? If no, those in
    favor of the amendment say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have
    it and the amendment is agreed to.
        The fifth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Tonko. Yes, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Gordon. I assume you have an amendment at the
    desk?
        Mr. Tonko. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 012, amendment offered by Mr.
    Tonko of New York and Mr. Baird of Washington.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Only hours after the news hit about the terrible disaster
    that was unfolding in the Gulf, the first thought of millions
    of Americans was to try and help. For some, that meant offering
    up technologies and ideas with which they are familiar on the
    best way to recover and clean up the oil spill. In response to
    this interest, a website and telephone number were set up to
    take information on the public's suggestions. However, after
    thousands of calls and submissions to the website, no one
    seemed to know what happened to those ideas. As we watched
    millions of gallons of oil continue to spill into the open
    ocean, many ideas were still being evaluated. This kind of
    backup cannot happen again, Mr. Chair. We must take the
    opportunity through this legislation to correct the problem at
    hand.
        The Tonko-Baird amendment will make certain that this
    doesn't happen again. Our amendment would make the research
    plan as it exists include a methodology that provides for the
    solicitation, the evaluation, pre-approval, the funding and
    utilization of technologies and research projects developed by
    the public and private sector in advance of future oil
    discharges so that such technologies can be implemented if such
    an incident for response is required again. It is my firm
    belief that the innovation spirit of the American people can
    solve any problem, but it is up to us in Congress to make
    certain that that spirit can be developed in a way that
    provides real outcomes. This channels that talent in a very
    fundamental sort of way. I believe this amendment can do that
    sort of improvement.
        I want to thank Chairman Baird and his staff for working
    with me on this amendment, and I urge our colleagues to support
    the amendment and yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair,
    to Mr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. I thank Mr. Tonko and commend him for his
    leadership on this.
        We certainly heard during our testimony from people who had
    products or innovative ideas that they wanted to deploy should
    there be a spill, and they had found it very, very difficult to
    do so. That really is an opportunity lost, and the same applies
    to researchers. Researchers often feel that they need to
    understand certain aspects of what happens when oil is in the
    water, but they don't have a mechanism to pre-stage that
    research so it is ready in the event an incident occurs. Having
    that pre-staged, ready to go, pre-approved and a mechanism by
    which it can be deployed can immeasurably help us gather
    information about real-world incidents, not just incidents in
    the lab. So that is what Mr. Tonko is trying to do with the
    technology element, and the research element that I have added
    is related to that. Certainly I have heard from a number of
    researchers and from incident commanders in the field who have
    said, we wish we had a mechanism to gather this data ready to
    go at our disposal but we just don't and there is just not time
    once the incident has happened to develop that in an
    expeditious manner. So that is the purpose of----
        Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
        Chairman Gordon. Would this apply to Mr. Costner, the
    product that he put forth in his testimony before the
    Committee?
        Mr. Baird. I think that is precisely what we are looking at
    on the technology side. But there are also research studies
    that have the same kind of implication, and I think that is
    where Mr. Tonko is coming from. But I will yield back to Mr.
    Tonko to respond to that.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird

              During the Deepwater Horizon disaster, we have seen
            rapid response research through the NSF and real world testing
            of new oil recovery technologies. However, during the years
            since the Exxon Valdez spill, the amount of research on the
            effects oil and dispersants in the marine environment declined.

              We have learned from our hearings that we aren't
            prepared with field research to conduct in the event of an oil
            spill.

              We need a mechanism by which the appropriate agency
            can fund and pre-approve research and technologies to be
            implemented and tested in the field in the event of a sizable
            oil spill.

              Our amendment would direct the Interagency Committee
            to find the best mechanism by which to pre-approve and fund
            public and private sector research and technology projects
            related in order to expedite their implementation in the field
            during an oil spill event.

        Mr. Tonko. I agree with Mr. Baird's comments. I think that
    there is a universe of talent that needs to have a better, more
    formal connection to a process that can certainly help us in
    response for incidents in the future.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Hall is
    recognized.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and although I am not
    necessarily opposed to the amendment, I am hoping the authors
    of the bill could explain how this language would work and how
    it differs from the National Contingency Plan, or the NCP. And
    I apologize to Mr. Tonko, who tried to get in touch with me
    earlier today. I didn't get a chance to call him back because I
    am sure he would have cleared up some of the problems that we
    had with it.
        I have a question as to how this amendment would make the
    current system any better. That is not a killer either, but how
    does the language ensure that technologies that really do work
    will be deployed when needed and not held up by some
    bureaucratic red tape?
        I will be offering an amendment later on that would ensure
    that the one oil pollution technology testing facility our
    Nation stays focused on its primary goal and not stray into
    other areas that have resources at their disposal. If adopted,
    would the language in this amendment strengthen the principle
    of the amendment that I will be offering? Would either Mr.
    Baird or Mr. Tonko answer that?
        Mr. Tonko. I think what we are trying to accomplish with
    the amendment is to have yet another gateway that allows for
    product development or research opportunities to be exchanged
    with the people who will be governing the response to these
    situations. I think it just opens up the connection and the
    possibilities for areas of involvement that people believe just
    fit as a solution for the given situation. There were those who
    thought they could help tremendously with the oil spill and
    they need to have, I think, the sort of clustering opportunity,
    the gathering of information that proves very useful.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Hall, if----
        Mr. Hall. I yield back my time. I intend to vote for the
    amendment.
        Chairman Gordon. Since there is no further discussion, the
    vote occurs on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
        The sixth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman California. Comrade Rohrabacher, are you ready
    to proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say
    something non-controversial first, and that is, I would like to
    thank the serious approach that Mr. Baird has taken to this
    issue. My understanding of the challenges we face has been
    enhanced by his leadership on this, and I appreciate that very
    much.
        But again, now to the controversial aspect of what I have
    to say----
        Chairman Gordon. And you do have an amendment at the desk?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I do. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. And the clerk will report that amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 005, amendment offered by Mr.
    Rohrabacher of California to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So first let me preface my
    remarks on the amendment by saying once again that we are
    spending billions of dollars every year on global warming
    research and very little on oil and natural gas drilling and
    cleanup technology. In fact, the Department of Energy has
    funneled all of their research funds for fossil fuels, critical
    areas that account for a huge proportion of our Nation's annual
    energy needs. All of that money has been funneled instead of
    into making it safer to achieve the oil and gas we need and
    that we depend upon, instead we channeled all of it into carbon
    capture and sequestration. I am not sure there is any money
    that is spent by the United States government that is more
    foolish than that.
        And what happens is, that leaves people in the private
    sector to pick up the load. Kevin Costner is an example of, he
    stepped up and put his own money into it, and then to add
    insult to injury, we are spending taxpayer dollars on
    foolishness, then we couldn't even get some sort of a stamp of
    approval to use that technology so it stood there on the shelf
    all of these years instead of being ready for a crisis moment
    that we are in today.
        Likewise, British Petroleum, who has limited resources,
    channeled their resources into the politically correct
    considerations of alternative energy sources while their
    primary job was oil and gas development and they didn't spend
    their money developing the technologies that would have made
    that safer. So we need to make sure that that type of nonsense
    doesn't put us in a situation ten years from now that is
    similar to the one we are in.
        So let me describe this amendment, which I believe will
    correct certain oversights of the bill. This amendment that I
    am proposing adds both natural seepage and pollution resulting
    from the importation of oil from overseas to the list of
    possible focus areas for research that needs to be looked at
    among the list of priorities for research at the regional
    level. In California, natural seepage is a major problem, a
    major problem, and we need to have research into that to see
    what can be done, what we should be doing to confront that
    problem, as well as we need to make sure that we are fully
    aware of the risks when we don't develop our offshore oil and
    natural gas, which we haven't been. If we import more natural
    gas and oil from overseas, there are risks that come with that,
    and tankers are much more liable to have an accident than an
    offshore oil rig.
        One of the first things I voted for and I am proud to say
    that I did vote for this, was requiring the double hulling of
    oil tankers. That was 20 years ago. And there was a big debate
    on that. It was a controversial issue, and I will have to
    admit, some people in my own party were putting pressure on me
    not to vote for double hulling, but that made sense.
        So our research when it comes to trying to look at oil
    spills and such, we should be taking in seepage and
    transportation risks, and that is what my amendment provides
    that we look at that as well. Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. I thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Despite your
    effort to try to make a bad argument for your amendment, it is
    a good amendment, and if there is no further discussion, all in
    favor, say aye.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Opposed, no. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Hall?
        Mr. Hall. I don't think I can improve on it nor do any
    damage to it. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Gordon. So once again, all in favor, say aye.
    Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The next amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. Are you ready to proceed
    with your amendment?
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
    at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 006, amendment offered by Mr.
    Lamar Smith of Texas to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Smith of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires
    the chairman of the interagency coordinating committee to
    solicit advice and guidance in the development of the research
    plan from third-party standard-setting organizations on issues
    related to voluntary consensus standards. This is a commonsense
    way of facilitating more industry involvement in the process
    above and beyond any input from the Oil Pollution Research
    Advisory Committee.
        Industry is responsible for buying and commercializing the
    equipment being developed under this program. Furthermore,
    industry leaders have real-world operating experience and
    understand the effectiveness of different types of
    technologies. Accordingly, it makes sense to give industry some
    input during the development of the research plan.
        This amendment helps accomplish that goal, and I urge my
    colleagues to support it and I will yield back the balance of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative Lamar S. Smith
        This amendment requires the Chairman of the Inter-agency
    Coordinating Committee to solicit advice and guidance in the
    development of the research plan from ``third party standard-setting
    organizations on issues related to voluntary consensus standards.''
        This is a common sense way of facilitating more industry
    involvement in the process, above and beyond any input from the Oil
    Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
        Industry is responsible for buying and commercializing the
    equipment being developed under this program.
        Furthermore, industry leaders have real-world operating experience
    and understand the effectiveness of different types of technologies.
        Accordingly, it makes sense to give industry some input during the
    development of the research plan.
        This amendment helps accomplish that goal. I urge my colleagues to
    support it.

        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Smith, thank your for that excellent
    amendment. It makes a good bill better.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mr. Hall is
    recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you.
        I support this amendment because it requires the
    Interagency Committee to seek advice from some of the outside
    experts who have been working for years in the field and have
    probably the best sense of what the best practices for industry
    have been and what they should be. Ultimately, industry is
    going to be responsible for commercializing and purchasing of
    the prevention and response technologies that will result from
    this research and development program. Their exclusion from the
    process in the underlying Act has allowed for a huge disconnect
    to occur in the research to operations transition, and while
    there is no way to tell if this contributed to the lack of
    progress in technology and development and commercialization
    for so long, I think it is prudent to ensure that the folks
    that have the practical experience in dealing with these issues
    to weigh in on the development of the research and develop the
    plan. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you. I support this amendment because it requires the
    Interagency Committee to seek advice from some of the outside experts
    who have been working for years in the field and have the best sense of
    what the best practices for industry have been and should be.
        Ultimately, industry will be responsible for commercializing and
    purchasing of the prevention and response technologies that result from
    this research and development program. Their exclusion from the process
    in the underlying act has allowed for a huge disconnect to occur in the
    research to operations transition.
        While there is no way to tell if this contributed to the lack of
    progress in technology development and commercialization for so long,
    it is prudent to ensure that folks that have the practical experiences
    in dealing with these issues to weigh in on the development of the
    research and development plan. I urge my colleagues to adopt this
    amendment.

        Chairman Gordon. If there is no further comments on the
    amendment, all in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it.
    The amendment is agreed to.
        The eighth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from California. Again, Mr. Rohrabacher, are
    you ready to proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I am. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 008, amendment offered by Mr.
    Rohrabacher of California to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        As I had previously mentioned, it is our responsibility in
    the Science Committee and the responsibility of each of us
    individually to do everything we can to make certain that
    technologies are developed, tested and implemented to protect
    people and the environment from real harm that is posed by oil
    discharges. This amendment does that by removing the specific
    directive that the EPA must perform the research rather than
    all the members of the Interagency Committee. It clarifies the
    language to direct the research to focus on the effects to
    human health and the environment rather than simply toxicity of
    the technologies developed.
        Let me just note that there is no reason that I think that
    just the EPA should be doing research and giving us their
    benefit of their work. The Department of Interior, the Coast
    Guard, NOAA, all of them have something to contribute as well
    as the EPA.
        Yield back.
        Chairman Gordon. And is there further discussion on the
    amendment? Dr. Baird is recognized.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Rohrabacher, I think there are a number of
    points that are worthwhile in the amendment. I just want to
    understand something and I may need to confer with counsel. The
    way I understand the way it is worded, EPA is taken out, but
    you are not saying--is it your intent to say EPA cannot do this
    research?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. No, that is not my intention. My intention
    is to have other agencies and their capabilities brought into
    play rather than just excluding all of them and making it just
    the EPA.
        Mr. Baird. So in other words, if NOAA wanted to look at the
    toxicity or--I think your expansion of the definition is
    meritorious.
        If I may, Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of counsel if that is
    the actual effect of this? In other words, I don't want to
    inadvertently exclude EPA. I also see Dr. Bartlett has a
    comment he may want to offer. But let me ask counsel, we are
    not excluding EPA from this by this language, we are just
    saying other agencies could do it as well versus exclusively
    EPA?
        Counsel. Yes, and the underlying ANS is not ``rather than''
    the Interagency Coordinating Committee but it does do a
    specific callout for EPA under the auspices of the Interagency
    Committee that has jurisdiction over this entire program.
        Mr. Baird. When it gives a callout, does that de facto
    exclude--does the existing language exclude other entities or
    does it merely focus on EPA because of its known expertise in
    this?
        Counsel. That is correct. It does not exclude the other
    agencies.
        Mr. Baird. The existing language does not?
        Counsel. Exactly.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Basically what we are doing is clarifying
    the language to make sure that they know that these other
    agencies should be included in the research efforts rather than
    the possibility that they would think that it is just EPA.
        Mr. Baird. I see the point. I support the intent,
    absolutely. I just----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Let us just note that in the current law,
    none of them are specifically called out to do the research.
    This certainly makes it clear that we would think that they
    would be participating.
        Mr. Baird. So you don't have opposition to EPA doing it,
    you just want to make sure the other entities----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
        Mr. Baird. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Bartlett is recognized.
        Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the
    suggestion that we ought to be looking at the effects on human
    health rather than toxicity.
        Everything which is toxic does not have a negative effect
    on human health. The classic research of Hans Selier of a half
    a century ago in Montreal, Canada, indicated that we are better
    off with low levels of stimulation, and I think it is very
    appropriate that you look at the effects on human health rather
    than toxicity. Almost everything in our environment is toxic if
    you elevate it to an appropriate level. So looking at toxicity
    is not the appropriate way to look at the effects on human
    health, and very few people understand, EPA among them, that
    low levels of stimulation are advantageous because they
    exercise your immune system and make you better capable of
    resisting real levels of threat.
        So I think it is very appropriate that we look at effects
    on human health rather than toxicity. Everything is toxic in
    enough concentration. So if you are simply looking at toxicity,
    you are going to put yourself in a little cocoon somewhere. Let
    us look at the effects on human health. Thank you.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, it does
    focus on human health but it also does include the
    environmental effects, so we are not just focusing on human
    health. It would also be the effects on the environment. And I
    agree, and as usual, Dr. Bartlett has been very stimulative in
    his comments. But too much of a good thing, of course, could
    overwhelm us.
        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment? Mr. Lujan.
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Just a little clarification, Mr. Chairman. The amendment
    changes the language to development and testing from
    development and approval, and I was just curious as to what the
    impact of the change from testing and approval would result?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, approval has different standards
    than testing, so we would like the Interagency Committee to
    make sure that it can be involved with approving and testing of
    this type of research.
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, does the net effect have--does it
    lower standards or does it increase standards?
        Chairman Gordon. And you yield to Mr. Rohrabacher to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Excuse me. Could you repeat the question?
        Mr. Lujan. If the impact of changing the level of standards
    from testing and approval, does the net effect of the amendment
    increase standards or lower standards?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I don't think it has an impact on that.
        Mr. Lujan. Then Mr. Chairman, what is the need for the
    change from approval to testing?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. We are making this basically aimed at
    research rather than regulation, and this emphasizes that we
    are talking about research rather than regulation.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. I don't think we have authority for any
    regulation here anyway. Ms. Woolsey.
        Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think everybody remembers during the Committee hearings
    that we heard from witnesses on the need to develop new
    responses and technologies that have minimum impact on the
    environment and human health and maximum effectiveness in
    responding to oil spills. That is clearly the basis for this
    legislation. So you have to know, I oppose this amendment
    because the EPA is clearly the best agency equipped to analyze,
    monitor and conduct research on the health and environmental
    effects of oil pollution technologies and specifically chemical
    dispersants. It is their mandate as an agency. That doesn't
    mean that other research universities or other agencies won't
    also be working on it. There is nothing in this legislation
    that says only EPA can do this. But they have kind of--they
    need, pardon the expression, a focus. I was going to say a kick
    in the butt, but they need a focus. We need to tell them that
    again they have to focus on this.
        So I really urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment,
    and I yield back the--well, I would yield to Dr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Thank you.
        The spirit of allowing--of encouraging broad-spectrum
    research by the agencies makes a lot of sense. The fear I have,
    and I think one of the historical trends seems to be from our
    understanding is that if sort of everybody is in charge, then
    nobody may be in charge, and traditionally EPA has the most
    horsepower at its disposal and the most regulatory authority,
    though that is not our bailiwick, but it has the research
    horsepower to look at toxicity studies probably more than most
    of the other agencies involved. And the fear is, if we don't
    specifically call out EPA to do that, do we then sort of
    absolve them of the responsibility by so doing. So my question
    is, I think the gentleman's intent is right but I don't want to
    have an unintended consequence. I am wondering--I don't know. I
    am wondering if there is a way----
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, I think the
    bottom line is this, that this is clearly not a mischievous or
    sort of a poison pill kind of amendment. It is an effort to try
    to move closer. I think that we would have to oppose the
    amendment as it is now, but if the gentleman would want to
    withdraw it, I think there is good faith on all sides to
    continue to work to move forward with that. And so I yield to
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, let me just note, I think that you
    can sort of nitpick things to death sometimes, and it is clear
    that what we are trying to put forward here is a team effort by
    mobilizing the various research capabilities of the Federal
    Government, which are not just incorporated in the EPA,
    although we have at the same time made sure that the EPA is
    still considered the lead sled dog in the whole effort. So I
    don't see what the problem is here. I would be happy to--let me
    consult with my leader here, my Ranking Member.
        Mr. Hall. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Hall. I think while I admire Mrs. Woolsey for upgrading
    the legislation that she launched some time ago on behalf of
    her own district, I differ with her on some of her statements
    just a few moments ago. I think EPA is the very worst entity to
    give any rights to, any additional rights, because I have gone
    through about 30 years here with them when they wouldn't give a
    decision, and when you don't give a decision, there is no
    appeal from it. It has caused us on a lot of bills where the
    EPA is involved in to place a provision in there that if they
    don't approve something within 30 days, that it is approved.
    Otherwise they wouldn't approve it, so the person asking for it
    may be a small businessman that wants some consideration for
    something that he is trying to bring to his district and has to
    wait until they decide to give him a no. You can't appeal from
    no action, and they rode that horse to the front line many,
    many times.
        I think any time you can set out and really relay what EPA
    has to say about it, you ought to do it, and I think that is
    what this bill does.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Rohrabacher still has time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And I will----
        Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman like to call for a
    vote?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I will call for a vote.
        Chairman Gordon. Then if there is no further discussion,
    the vote is on the amendment. All in favor of the amendment,
    say aye. Opposed, no. The no's have it. The amendment is not
    agreed to, but let me say that Mr. Rohrabacher in no way waives
    his right to continue to discuss this. It was a good-faith
    amendment.
        The ninth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Diaz-Balart, are you ready
    to proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 010, amendment offered by Mr.
    Diaz-Balart of Florida, to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The amendment in the nature of a substitute before us
    contains standards for the evaluation of oil pollution
    prevention technology. Now, this technology can also include
    dispersants, skimmers, booms, et cetera. Currently, the bill
    includes the evaluation of the environmental effects of these
    technologies as it well needs to, as it well should. My
    amendment would just add a new standard to the evaluation. It
    states that this program should also evaluate the performance
    and effectiveness of oil pollution prevention technologies in
    detecting, you know, containing, recovering, et cetera,
    mitigating for the discharges. In other words, my amendment
    just says that we should evaluate the effectiveness of those
    technologies that are developed to get the oil out of the water
    or off the land or off the ice, et cetera. So I think it is a
    commonsense amendment.
        I do want to, Mr. Chairman, also while I still have the
    floor also want to add to what Mr. Rohrabacher said. Mr. Baird
    has been exceedingly good to work with. He is one of those
    people that is serious, he is thoughtful, so it has been a
    pleasure to work for him and I just wanted to add those words
    as well.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. You have also been serious and thoughtful,
    and I guess sensitive by virtue of being from Florida, and so
    if there is no further discussion, the vote occurs on the
    amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have
    it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The tenth amendment on the roster is an amendment offered
    by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Tonko, are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Tonko. Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 032, amendment offered by Mr.
    Tonko of New York to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        We all know the very important role that small business
    plays in our economy. There are thousands of businesses which
    have developed or are developing technologies to solve various
    problems and societal challenges. Most of these technologies
    will be created outside of the research and development program
    area that is set up by this legislation. So therefore, it is
    important, I believe, that when we set up standards and
    protocols for oil technology evaluation, that we consider these
    small businesses that are outside the program as a part of the
    response.
        This amendment is a straightforward amendment that will
    make sure that small businesses are considered in the
    technology evaluation program. Including small businesses in
    the equation will not only help us find solutions to possible
    oil discharges but will also give those businesses more
    opportunities, which will create then a stronger economic
    recovery for our small business community.
        I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and Mr.
    Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. We all know that
    small business is a major generator of jobs in this country,
    and we thank you for that amendment.
        Is there further discussion? If no, the vote occurs on the
    amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have
    it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The 11th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski--Dr. Lipinski. Are
    you ready to proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Lipinski. Yes, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 072, amendment offered by Mr.
    Lipinski of Illinois to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Chairman Gordon. I won't take 5
    minutes.
        I am very appreciative of the leadership that you have
    shown in response to the disaster in the Gulf, and I would also
    like to commend the work of Ms. Woolsey and Dr. Baird in
    crafting this bill.
        Now, section 4 of the bill requires that the oil pollution
    research programs provide for the evaluation of prevention
    technologies. My amendment would simply add probabilistic
    research analysis to the list of techniques that can be used in
    these evaluations. From the perspective of a systems engineer,
    which I am trained in, this is common sense.
        For those who are unfamiliar with the term ``probabilistic
    risk analysis'', or PRA, this is systematic and comprehensive
    methodology used to evaluate the risks associated with a
    complex engineered technological entity. To put it more simply,
    it looks at what can go wrong, what the consequences can be and
    how likely they are to occur. This approach was first used in
    the aerospace industry during the Apollo program and it has
    since spread to other industries, notably the nuclear power
    industry. The pollution prevention control systems on oil rigs
    are a complex technological system, and this is the right tool
    for evaluating their potential problems.
        I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative Daniel Lipinski
        Thank you Chairman Gordon. I am very appreciative of your
    leadership in response to the disaster in the Gulf. I would also like
    to commend the work of Ms. Woolsey and Dr. Baird in crafting H.R. 2693.
        Section 4 of this bill requires that the oil pollution research
    programs provide for the evaluation of prevention technologies. My
    amendment would add probabilistic risk analyses to the list of
    techniques that can be used in these evaluations. From the perspective
    of a systems engineer, this is simply common sense.
        For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a probabilistic risk
    analysis, or PRA, is a systematic and comprehensive methodology used to
    evaluate the risks associated with a complex engineered technological
    entity. Simply put, it looks at what can go wrong, what the
    consequences can be, and how likely they are to occur. It's an approach
    that was first used in the aerospace industry during the Apollo
    program, and it's since spread to other industries, notably the nuclear
    power industry.
        The pollution prevention control systems on an oil rig are a
    complex technological system, and this is the right tool to for
    evaluating potential problems. I urge my colleagues to support this
    amendment and yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski, for your good
    amendment.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment? If not, those
    in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment
    is agreed to.
        The 12th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from California. Mr. Garamendi, are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Garamendi. I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 011, amendment offered by Mr.
    Garamendi of California to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the authors
    of the bill, thank you for your good work.
        This would simply add a little piece to the research about
    where the oil is and what it is doing and where it is going. I
    would add a half a sentence that says maybe we ought to
    understand how much there is. And so the specific language does
    just that. It says including tools and models to accurately
    measure and predict the flow of oil that is discharged. We know
    that from the issue that arose in San Francisco Bay, the
    genesis of this bill. There was not good information at the
    outset on how much oil would be there and therefore the
    response was initially insufficient. We know from the Gulf oil
    spill that how much oil is being discharged has been an ongoing
    issue from day one and continues to this day.
        This would add to the research program a modeling program
    to understand and to be able to predict exactly how much is
    being discharged. I would ask for support.
        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment? Mr. Grayson is recognized.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say
    how important I think this particular amendment is because we
    are in a situation now where oil companies have a built-in
    incentive to hide their spills because of the $4,000-a-barrel
    fine for oil spills, and we have seen the effect of that
    recently with the BP oil spill. When there has been somewhere
    between 5,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf
    each day, we don't know how much by a factor of 20. So this is
    research that is definitely much needed, and we will have to
    make sure that in the future we have a better idea of what the
    extent of these spills really is.
        So I support this amendment.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi. This clearly is
    an amendment that makes a good bill better.
        If there is no further discussion, then the vote occurs on
    the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
    have it and the amendment is agreed to.
        Now, the 13th amendment on the roster is an amendment
    offered by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Are you
    ready to proceed with your amendment?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 122, amendment offered by Ms.
    Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the nature
    of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member, for considering my amendment.
        My amendment provides language to ensure economically
    disadvantaged communities are a strong focus in this
    legislation. My amendment is a simple reminder that groups that
    historically are hit the hardest by environmental disasters are
    not forgotten. I feel strongly that the immediate concerns must
    be the livelihoods of families who have lost their income due
    to this spill. A number of these families are having trouble
    putting food on their tables. The disproportionate burden from
    the environmental disasters on communities of color, low-income
    people and indigenous communities also need to be reduced as
    well. These communities are experiencing the highest rates of
    morbidity and/or death from asthma, cancer, learning
    disabilities, lead poisoning, lupus and several other diseases.
    It is my hope that my amendment will bring attention to the
    disproportionate burden of pollution on the most vulnerable
    members of our society.
        Those along the coast who are elderly, children or have
    existing health conditions, especially respiratory diseases,
    are at the highest risk for adverse health impacts from this
    spill. A clear understanding, however, is missing about what
    the short- and long-term health impacts will be. When
    considering research on the effects of the spill, we must not
    forget those who are hurting the most. This is the intent of my
    amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I appreciate your
    consideration of this straightforward amendment and yield back
    the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for that good
    amendment.
        Is there further discussion? If note, the vote occurs on
    the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes
    have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The 14th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Ms. Dahlkemper, are you ready
    to proceed with your amendment?
        Ms. Dahlkemper. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an
    amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 045, amendment offered by Mrs.
    Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania and Mr. Grayson of Florida to the
    amendment in the nature of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her
    amendment.
        Ms. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ranking Member Hall. I am speaking today in support of my
    amendment along with Mr. Grayson.
        As you know, we have only begun to assess the damage of the
    BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast, damage to the environment, to
    the economy and to our people. As we meet here today, hundreds
    of brave men and women, including my daughter, who is in the
    Coast Guard, are on the Gulf Coast working to save our waters,
    beaches and the Gulf economy. Most of them have no idea what
    chemicals and pollutants they are being exposed to in the air
    while they work to clean the beaches and the water.
        My amendment would direct research programs to monitor both
    the onshore and offshore air quality in these spill areas and
    ensure that this information is readily available to our
    emergency responders, to scientists, and most significantly, to
    the local residents. I urge all to support my amendment to
    protect these dedicated to cleaning up oil spills like the one
    in the Gulf Coast.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dahlkemper follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Kathleen Dahlkemper
        I am speaking today in support of my amendment, along with Mr.
    Grayson, to the Oil Pollution Research Act. We have only begun to
    assess the damage of BP's oil spill in the Gulf Coast--damage to the
    environment, to the economy and to our people. Unimaginable harm has
    been done to an area of great natural beauty and national pride. As we
    speak, hundreds of brave men and women, including my daughter, who is
    in the Coast Guard, are in the Gulf Coast to save our waters, beaches
    and the Gulf economy. Many of them have no idea what chemicals and
    pollutants they are being exposed to in the air while they work to
    clean the beaches and the water. My amendment would direct research
    programs to monitor both the onshore and offshore air quality in these
    spill areas and ensure that this information is readily available to
    our emergency responders, like my daughter, to scientists, and
    significantly, to local residents. I urge you all to support my
    amendment to protect those dedicating to cleaning up oil spills like
    the one in the Gulf Coast.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, and many thanks to your
    daughter for the good work that she is doing.
        Ms. Dahlkemper. I am very proud of her.
        Chairman Gordon. You should be.
        Is there further discussion on the amendment? If no, the
    vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed,
    no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The 15th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Grayson. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Grayson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 078, amendment offered by Mr.
    Grayson of Florida to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Grayson. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental purpose of this
    amendment is to extend and expand research on the effects of
    these spills on the human beings who are assigned to clean them
    up. It is interesting that after a century of exposure to
    hydrocarbons and intensive use of hydrocarbons throughout our
    economy to generate energy, to provide transportation and so
    on, we still don't know what is the effect of exposure of
    hydrocarbons to human beings in the context of a cleanup like
    this. Recently, some people who are involved in the cleanup of
    the spill in the Gulf were instructed not to wear respirators
    because that might imply that they needed them, and it is odd
    that at this point there is some doubt or even an open question
    about whether that is the case or not. We have many, many
    anecdotal reports at this point of people who are doing this
    kind of work who have been exposed to these fumes and to these
    toxic elements, and as a result of that have already gotten
    sick. We need to know with some specificity what the actual
    effect of the spill is on the people who are assigned to clean
    it up, and that is exactly what this amendment proposes to
    determine.
        Therefore, I offer the amendment and I urge my colleagues
    to support it. Thank you. I yield the rest of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment? If not, the vote is called on the amendment. All in
    favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The
    amendment is agreed to.
        The 16th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall. Are you ready to proceed
    with your amendment?
        Mr. Hall. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized the operation of
    the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated Environmental Test
    Tank, pronounced OHMSETT, as the official facility to test and
    evaluate all oil pollution technologies. Since it has been
    impossible for government agencies to conduct controlled field
    testing due to a complex maze of bureaucratic red tape, OHMSETT
    is the only facility the United States has to evaluate the
    performance of cleanup technology. The only other options are
    to test them in other nations but their testing procedures are
    different from ours.
        During the Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on
    oil spill research and development, the witness from the
    Minerals Management Service stated that ``OHMSETT is critical
    to oil spill response technology development in the United
    States. It plays an essential role in developing the most
    effective response technology as well as preparing responders
    with the most realistic training available before an actual
    spill.'' Despite being so critical to U.S. development of oil
    spill response technology, this facility has been redesignated
    as the National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test
    Facility.
        This committee has been supportive of a wide range of
    renewable energy technologies and has authorized an enormous
    amount of resources for them. OHMSETT is the only place where
    oil spill technologies can be tested and then approved by
    Interior to be used during response incidences. It is vital
    that this single resource preserves its primary focus, which is
    the testing and evaluation of technologies that clean up oil
    discharges. These technologies should not have to compete for
    resources with renewable technologies.
        My amendment would in no uncertain terms state that oil
    pollution technology testing and evaluation should be given
    priority over all over activities this facility is now used
    for. Diverting resources to test renewables will not help us
    clean up oil spills more effectively and could even become a
    detrimental practice if the approval of cleanup technologies is
    delayed in favor of renewable testing.
        I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized
    the operation of the Oil and Hazardous Materials Simulated
    Environmental Test Tank, or OHMSETT as the official facility to test
    and evaluate all oil pollution technologies. Since it has been
    impossible for government agencies to conduct controlled field testing
    due to a complex maze of bureaucratic red tape, OHMSETT is the only
    facility the U.S. has to evaluate the performance of cleanup
    technologies. The only other options are to test them in other nations,
    but their testing procedures are different then ours.
        During the Energy and Environment subcommittee hearing on oil spill
    research and development, the witness from the Mineral Management
    Service stated that the OHMSETT is ``critical to oil spill response
    technology development in the U.S. . . . it plays an essential role in
    developing the most effective response technologies, as well as
    preparing responders with the most realistic training available before
    an actual spill.'' Despite being so critical to U.S. development of oil
    spill response technology, this facility has been redesignated as the
    National Oil Spill Response and Renewable Energy Test Facility.
        This Committee has been supportive of a wide range of renewable
    energy technologies and has authorized an enormous amount of resources
    for them. OHMSETT is the only place where oil spill technologies can be
    tested and then approved by Interior to be used during response
    incidences. It is vital that this single resource preserves its primary
    focus, which is the testing and, evaluation of technologies that
    cleanup oil discharges. These technologies should not have to compete
    for resources with renewable technologies.
        My amendment would, in no uncertain terms, state that oil pollution
    technology testing and evaluation should be given priority over all
    other activities this facility is now used for. Diverting resources to
    test renewables will not help us cleanup oil spills more effectively,
    and could even become a detrimental practice if the approval of cleanup
    technologies is delayed in favor of renewable testing.
        I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for the good
    amendment.
        Is there further discussion? If not, the vote occurs on the
    amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have
    it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The 20th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun. At the risk of making a
    dangerous motion, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we--
    oh, OK. I appreciate being corrected. We are now on the 17th
    amendment, and with Dr. Broun being noticed that he is 20.
        The 17th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentlelady from Texas. Ms. Johnson, are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Ms. Johnson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the
    desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 121, amendment offered by Ms.
    Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas to the amendment in the nature
    of a substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
    for considering this amendment.
        My amendment is pretty straightforward. It clarifies that
    competitive grants awarded through the regional research
    program shall award grants competitively to universities or
    other research institutions including minority-serving
    institutions. This language is basic. As you know, the bill
    authorizes grants to institutions of higher education and
    research centers to improve technologies used to prevent,
    combat and clean up oil pollution. Research at these centers
    will indeed advance the Nation's ability to prevent future oil
    spills and create groundbreaking technology to mitigate future
    disasters. These institutional grants will authorize research,
    development and technology transfer activities.
        My amendment encourages partnerships with minority-serving
    institutions. We want to be sure to award grants to the best
    institutions of higher education and research centers to
    improve partnerships so Federal agencies can do their work even
    better. At the same time, we want to give the minority-serving
    institutions a realistic change to participate in the research.
        As you know, the majority of students at the minority-
    serving institutions study at small two-year institutions.
    These students can come to the larger universities to engage in
    research and gain some important career experience.
    Undergraduate research experience is key to gaining admission
    to a graduate-degree program, so the more we encourage
    partnerships with the minority-serving institutions in these
    activities, the more diverse the workforce we cultivate for oil
    spill research. To me, this creates a win-win situation.
        I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the structure of this
    amendment, the intent was for it to be handled with regional
    institutions and not nationwide, and I think there might be
    some confusion in the language, and if that is the case, I
    certainly would like to make sure it is corrected so it is
    clearly understood.
        I appreciate you considering this amendment and I encourage
    the support of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for your good
    amendment.
        Is there further discussion?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I certainly support this amendment offered by Ms.
    Johnson. I urge the passage of the amendment and yield back my
    very valuable time.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and also I want to
    thank all the Members that are here. I know this is--we had a
    lot of good ideas that came in toward the last and we are
    making that good bill better, and I thank you for hanging in
    there as we try to proceed with this.
        If there is no further discussion, then all in favor say
    aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        The 18th amendment on the roster is an amendment offered by
    the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to
    proceed with your amendment?
        Mr. Baird. I am. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 048, amendment offered by Mr.
    Baird of Washington to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment.
    Insofar as oil spills transcend national and international
    borders, and the expertise and knowledge for dealing with oil
    spills does as well, that expertise is also not limited to
    governmental entities. Basically what this amendment does is
    strengthen and expand the emphasis on international
    collaboration in two ways. It encourages domestic and foreign
    private actors, not just governmental and research entities,
    and it also encourages the leveraging of private and public
    capital because as we have discussed today and in our hearings,
    there is a lot of private expertise and knowledge and funding
    to conduct the research and develop the technologies we need,
    and that is the focus of the amendment and urge passage.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird

              As a Member of this Committee, I have traveled around
            the world and seen the real value in international
            collaboration on science.

              While we conduct world class research on oil
            pollution research, development, and demonstration, we can
            learn from the successes and failures of these activities in
            other countries.

              My amendment would strengthen the international
            cooperation language in OPA 90. The amendment directs the
            Interagency Committee to go beyond coordination and cooperation
            with other nations to make use of global expertise by creating
            collaborative partnerships with foreign governments and
            research entities. These partnerships would have the
            opportunity to collaborate on oil pollution research,
            development, and demonstration activities.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Baird, for the good
    amendment.
        Is there further discussion? Ms. Biggert is recognized.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
    question about this. I certainly agree that we need to work
    with foreign countries, but does this go too far when we start
    talking about cleanup standards with foreign governments? And
    does that mean that, you know, those standards might be adopted
    and then the United States is not setting its own standards but
    really having an international standard? You know, we have had
    this problem with the financial services. We have had other
    areas where the adoption of standards might not be in our best
    interest.
        Chairman Gordon. And I assume you yield to Dr. Baird?
        Ms. Biggert. Dr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. It is an interesting question. I mean, the shoe
    can easily be on the other foot. You know, if there are spills
    in other national waters, they could say well, we are cleaning
    it up. I respect the gentlelady's point. The goal is certainly
    not to tie us--there is no treaty ratification function here
    but if there are international standards to be proposed, we
    ought to have a voice in that, I would think. I think it is in
    our best interest to have a voice in that, and that is the
    intent here. It is not in any way to say we are going to get
    ourselves--this amendment certainly has no authority to tie us
    nor does this Committee have the jurisdiction that would do
    that.
        Ms. Biggert. Well, I guess just because it requires, it is
    almost like their function is going to get together and these
    standards, are we going to try and impose our standards on
    them, you know, when we have--getting towards a treaty I think
    would be a problem. Maybe just the way it is stated but----
        Mr. Baird. Well, you know, it is funny. I respect the
    gentlelady's concern. I am trying to see where the language
    evokes that, so I want to be respectful of that and understand
    it.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman----
        Mr. Baird. We are talking controlled field tests of oil
    discharges. Go ahead.
        Chairman Gordon. Is the gentleman saying very explicitly
    that he is not trying to set up any kind of international
    standards?
        Mr. Baird. Exactly.
        Chairman Gordon. Or require our country to be a part of any
    kind of international standards?
        Mr. Baird. That is certainly not the intent. The intent
    would be, though, however, let us suppose some international
    body were to say you set a standard at one part per trillion or
    something. Well, if you don't have technologies that--you may
    need to test the applicability of that standard, would be the
    point. In other words, it is a research activity related to
    potential standards but not in any way to try to promulgate
    standards. This is not designated to promulgate standards.
        Chairman Gordon. So would it be fair to say that if someone
    tried to create a standard, that this would give the United
    States the opportunity to test it and say that is not a good
    standard, it won't even work?
        Mr. Baird. That is the premise, yes, if standards become an
    issue.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Biggert. Reclaiming my time.
        Chairman Gordon. Ms. Biggert.
        Ms. Biggert. Well, there are a couple of things. You know,
    ``shall engage'' which means you have to engage in
    international cooperation by harnessing global expertise, et
    cetera, and you have to--and you are going to leverage public
    and private capital and then you are going to--just the cleanup
    standards, maybe just taking that out, take out cleanup
    standards?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield----
        Ms. Biggert. Or just standards----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --for a suggestion?
        Ms. Biggert. You can have cleanup but not standards.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentlelady yield for a
    suggestion?
        Ms. Biggert. Yes, I yield to you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Whereas I used to have lots of discussions
    about specific words that go in places, having been a
    speechwriter for President Reagan for seven years, might I
    suggest instead of ``standards'' that you say ``procedures''?
    Yield back.
        Mr. Bilbray. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Chairman Gordon. Well, I think the----
        Mr. Baird. Pardon me. I am trying to evaluate the impacts
    of that in terms of the underlying base bill, so that is where
    it has taken me.
        Ms. Biggert. OK. Then I----
        Chairman Gordon. Why don't we----
        Ms. Biggert. I yield to the gentleman from California.
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from California, Mr.
    Bilbray, is recognized.
        Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. I strongly support the amendment. I
    think that the proposed wording change kind of fits into it.
    Let me point out, I think one of the things that we can point
    at the United States not cooperating in international
    strategies on one item, we didn't cooperate in the development
    of technologies and techniques and research in cleanup. A good
    example was, it was a great opportunity and continues to be a
    great opportunity in the Niger Delta. The largest oil spills in
    the world have not even been talked about. We talk about it
    because it is in our backyard but because it is out of sight
    and out of mind, we have got major oil problems in west Africa
    that have basically not been addressed by the western countries
    very much. That would be a perfect test platform to go in there
    and try those technologies, try everything from remediation,
    biological remediation, or if you wanted to talk about the
    centrifuge system that Kevin Costner brought up. All of those
    technologies and all those techniques could have been
    developed, could have been refined, could have been proven in
    an area that basically has been ignored for too long, and I
    think this motion fits into that capability of cooperation
    around the world will help us develop technologies and
    techniques and procedures that can defend our own shorelines,
    and I think this is being proactive and I strongly support it.
        I think the gentleman's recommendation is compatible with
    that goal of not so much setting standards but actually setting
    procedures and minimum standards for operation rather than
    regulatory control. I think we want to find answers, not blame
    here. Even though the gentleman from California did throw in
    that evil empire every once in a while, I think that overall he
    is pretty good with words.
        Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    discussion?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Biggert. I was just wondering if Mr. Baird is ready
    to----
        Chairman Gordon. Well, I think he will let us know when he
    is ready.
        Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. Let me just note that, well, first of
    all it seems a little bit of a disconnect here that we were
    kind of opposing my effort to promote cooperation among
    government agencies in our own government, and now we have an
    amendment that is proposing that we have cooperation on a
    global scale with other governments, so there is a little bit
    of a disconnect between what I had proposed earlier and the
    opposition to that and now a proposal that is going way beyond
    that scope and going internationally. I support international
    cooperation. I support international cooperation to develop new
    technologies and I think we all should with procedures. What
    are the procedures that are used that permit companies and
    other entities to do the very best job? What are those things
    that work? Yes, we should be doing it. We should not be,
    however, cooperating on trying to develop our standards here,
    our legal regulatory standards so that we will in some way be
    harmonizing with China, which may have no standards or very low
    standards or some other country that may have higher standards
    which would negate any type of development.
        So that word actually opens up a Pandora's box here and
    again I would suggest that you look at just that one word
    change would alleviate these problems, and I yield back my
    time.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. I think Mr. Baird is recognized now.
        Mr. Baird. I think the points are well taken. It is
    certainly not the intent to get us into the kind of dilemmas
    that you have described, but I can see the concern about that,
    and that is the last thing we would want to do, that I would
    want to do. It is certainly not the intent here.
        But I do want to at some point, and this may not be the
    best place to do it, I think there is a need for some
    international standard-setting, not the least common
    denominator kind of standard setting but--and so my question
    is, I don't want to remove this. Remember, what I am trying to
    get at is, is there a way to clarify? We have no authority in
    this committee to mandate the nature of standards or the
    approval of a treaty or anything of that sort. We just don't
    have that authority. But it makes sense to me that our research
    entities would participate if there is direct research relevant
    to those standards, and I am not opposed to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Baird. Please.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do you really want to direct our various
    government agencies and people on these task forces that we are
    setting up to get together with foreign entities and discuss
    the standards or do you want them to discuss the technologies
    that we can work together and develop and the methodologies
    that can be used to prevent oil spills and to help in cleanup
    operations or do you want them to be discussing legalities
    and----
        Mr. Baird. My intent would be the former, but I need to
    concur with----
        Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. Surely.
        Ms. Biggert. I think there is one other issue by the use of
    the word ``standards'' and I am afraid that this might put the
    jurisdiction of this bill into Energy and Commerce.
        Chairman Gordon. If I might interject here, since it
    appears that most folks are on the same page in terms of the
    objective and that Mr. Baird has said that is it not an effort
    to set standards, that we would accept that amendment and get
    the thesaurus out between now and the Floor and see if we can
    come up with a better word.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if it would be in
    order possibly while we confer on this to move to the next
    amendment, table this for one moment while I can discuss with
    counsel the implications of making this change and then resume
    this in just a moment? I don't know if that is in order or not,
    and I don't know if the subsequent amendment would affect this.
        Chairman Gordon. Well, then, by unanimous consent, I will
    suggest that we move on to amendment #19.
        Ms. Biggert. I object.
        Chairman Gordon. Ms. Biggert objects, so I guess we will
    just wait a while.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. Strike the last word.
        I support Mrs. Biggert's change and I am concerned that the
    word ``standards'' is going to create a number of problems. You
    know, for weeks it has been mentioned that the use of the word
    ``standards'' in the section dealing with international
    cooperation was not something many of us could support. We have
    talked about that before. Language was offered that would have
    tamped down the language in the ANS while at the same
    preserving the original intent of the law, but this amendment
    really moves in the complete opposite direction and has only
    served to magnify the concerns that a lot of us on this side
    have. It expands the focus of the research program from
    coordinate and cooperate in conducting this research in the
    existing law to engaging in international cooperation by
    harassing--harnessing global expertise. Remember, I have had an
    operation on my eyes.
        This requirement, though, to continuously interact with
    these international entities named in the amendment and could
    divert attention away from the purpose of the bill. The
    development of standards is a very lengthy and highly technical
    process and it is also a process that each nation does for
    itself, and we have joined many international treaties to
    attempt to align some of these standards. Sometimes these
    treaty negotiations take decades. Again, the direction of the
    program would be diverted from the main purpose of the existing
    law. The focus of international cooperation should remain on
    the research, development and demonstration activities
    including those addressing oil containment, recovery and
    control of field tests of oil discharges.
        So I think this amendment presents a pretty significant
    challenge.
        Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hall. I think Dr. Baird is correct in suggesting a
    timeout and see what they can work out.
        Chairman Gordon. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hall. I do yield.
        Chairman Gordon. I would like to just read the language,
    and this is how it concludes: ``Oil pollution research,
    development and demonstration activities including controlled
    field tests of oil discharges, oil recovery and cleanup
    standards.'' What this sounds to me like is saying if there are
    some standards, if there are oil recovery, that we need to have
    the equipment here in this country to test them.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, if I have your permission?
        Chairman Gordon. OK. Sure.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I think----
        Chairman Gordon. Well, Mr. Hall controls the time.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Would Mr. Hall yield?
        Mr. Hall. I yield to Mr. Rohrabacher.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just note that you started a
    little bit too late in your analysis of what that sentence
    really meant or what--or how to determine what it will mean if
    we leave it the same language. You have to start up towards
    innovative models, innovative models that can be instituted to
    conduct cleanup standards. I mean, that is very clear what you
    are looking for then. There are other things in between there
    but you are talking about people getting together and
    discussing innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
    cleanup standards, and we just asked Mr. Baird whether his
    intent was to have people coming together to talk about
    standards or talk about technologies and procedures, and he
    made it very clear his intent is international cooperation for
    that and not to come up with innovative models for standards,
    so----
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, I think it
    is not to come up with models for standards, come up with
    models to test if there are standards, but I yield to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Innovative models that can be instituted
    to conduct, not----
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall has the time now, and Mr. Hall,
    do you want to yield to Mr. Baird?
        Mr. Hall. I believe you want me to. I do yield to Dr.
    Baird, and I am pleased to.
        Mr. Baird. I appreciate that.
        My original intent was much more in line with the
    Chairman's description was that the research could look at the
    standards. If standards were proposed, the research would look
    at how those standards functioned. My focus was not to say let
    us all get together and promulgate standards. That was not my
    intent with the underlying text, and so personally, I am
    amenable to changing ``standards'' to ``methodologies'' so we
    can move forward.
        Now, Mr. Bilbray had a good suggestion, but I don't know, I
    am going to ask counsel on this. One of the things our
    witnesses pointed out was, if you are going to--so everybody
    descends on the Gulf or whatever the location of the spill is
    and says, I am going to clean up this material. Well, by what
    criteria do we evaluate, and Mr. Bilbray came up with the word
    ``criteria.'' By what criteria do we evaluate efficacy of
    cleanup? Now, what I don't know is, does ``criteria'' carry
    with it the legalese baggage that ``standards'' may? If it
    doesn't, ``criteria'' may be a happy resolution to this.
        Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
        Ms. Biggert. I would prefer ``procedures'' rather than
    ``criteria'' but----
        Mr. Baird. Here is question.
        Chairman Gordon. Or ``methodology.''
        Ms. Biggert. Or ``methodology.''
        Mr. Baird. Yeah, the only question is, some of our
    witnesses had suggested that a methodology might be skimming as
    a generic methodology. But what criteria do we use to evaluate
    the efficacy of the skimming? And so the point was, we may need
    to come up with some ways to look at--and that is a research
    question, how do we evaluate the efficacy of a methodology and
    hence that was the purpose here, was not a legalese.
        Chairman Gordon. Let me make a suggestion. Since we are on
    the 18th amendment and we have a few more to go, I think where
    we are is that we can do one of two things. If Dr. Baird has a
    word that he is comfortable with, we will take unanimous
    consent and see whether we get that to change that word.
    Otherwise we will vote on the underlying amendment and, you
    know, as I say, get the thesaurus out at a later date.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if Dr.
    Baird would considering putting the change of the word in so
    that we can move this through, and if he wants to try to change
    it later on----
        Chairman Baird. What if we do this? What if we add--and I
    think the suggestion that has been most helpful, what if we say
    ``methodologies and criteria for evaluation''?
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent that the language
    just spoken by Mr. Baird is used to replace the existing
    language. Does Ms. Biggert object? Ms. Biggest objects. The
    unanimous consent is not granted.
        Without further discussion, the motion is on Mr. Baird's
    amendment. All in favor of Mr. Baird's amendment say aye.
    Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is passed but the
    discussion does not stop.
        Ms. Biggert. I would hope that that would happen. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. The 19th amendment on the roster is an
    amendment offered coincidentally by Ms. Biggert. Are you ready
    to proceed with your amendment?
        Ms. Biggert. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I should
    have done that first. I have an amendment at the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 002, amendment offered by Mrs.
    Biggert of Illinois to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentlelady for five minutes to explain her
    amendment.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Chairman
    Baird for all the work that he has done on this, and I did have
    the opportunity to go down to the Gulf and was there this past
    Friday and toured by helicopter and the Coast Guard to Grand
    Isle, and it was a very interesting trip. This is, I think, day
    87, I think, that we are looking at now and there certainly are
    so many things that are not resolved.
        Going out there and meeting with the locals, the mayor and
    all of the other locals in that area was very revealing, and
    what bothered me the most was the Federal Government and the
    slowness of the cleanup and--well, of course BP is working on
    actually the actual rig but the slowness. For example, one of
    the gentlemen said that I guess it takes a celebrity to get the
    skimmers out there rather than, you know, just allowing it to
    happen and EPA working very hard with the studies that they are
    making but, you know, the whaler was delayed and they
    wouldn't--I guess it actually didn't work after that but the
    slowness, particularly of the EPA and the frustrations of the
    locals because they had a lot of solutions. I mean, they live
    there. For example, trying to close off the inlets in the Grand
    Isle, they want to put in rocks which they think will really
    hold back the oil from the estuaries and from the wetlands, and
    this has been delayed, and as I said, this is now day 87 and
    the oil is moving into so many of these places, and it seems
    like there is no--I don't want to use the word ``czar'' but
    there is nobody really in charge, I think, that is really
    moving this forward and so I think this is a really good bill.
    We have the interagency council.
        My amendment then is really to amend the annual report
    section of the underlying bill to require more detailed
    information from the Interagency Committee and require the
    Interagency Committee to report to Congress on proposed
    research changes which would come from the National Academies
    of Science. You know, we want to make sure--we are the Science
    Committee--that this really is science based and have them have
    the opportunity to look at research too. So I believe it is
    important to focus our research efforts and show progress in
    areas where new solutions are most needed. We obviously were
    caught without having the ability to bring in so many research.
    I had somebody in my district call me, and they have a fabric
    that soaks up oil to try and get anybody to listen, you know,
    and you put your name in and then you don't hear from anybody.
    I mean, there is so much innovation that we really have that
    hasn't been used.
        So I think with more detailed information disclosed to
    Congress, we can hold our agencies accountable and expedite
    possible solutions for mitigation or containment, and I think
    we need to work to prevent the future unknown scenarios like
    those encountered in the wake of this recent oil spill, and so
    my amendment I think will help us do just that, and I would
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Biggert follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Judy Biggert
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would amend the annual report
    section of the underlying bill to require more detailed information
    from the Interagency Committee and require the Interagency Committee to
    report to Congress on proposed research changes from the National
    Academies of Science.
        I believe it is important to focus our research efforts and show
    progress in areas where new solutions are most needed. With more
    detailed information disclosed to Congress, we can hold our agencies
    accountable and expedite possible solutions for mitigation or
    containment. We need to work to prevent future ``unknown'' scenarios
    like those encountered in the wake of the recent oil spill. My
    amendment will help us do just that.
        I yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, any time you can work on annual
    reporting requirements and make them better I think is
    something good that this Committee ought to consider. This
    amendment would ensure more detailed information about projects
    that agencies are funding, what technological advancements have
    resulted and what is planned for the coming year. The amendment
    also includes a mechanism to ensure that any recommendation
    made by the National Academies of Science after their review of
    the research and development plan and reporting to Congress
    with reasons why they were or were not incorporated into the
    Interagency Committee's plan. I think these changes will help
    this Committee conduct our oversight responsibility over the
    program in the future. I urge support of this language.
        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall, and Ms. Biggert,
    despite your other comments, this is a good amendment, and I
    suggest that we take it.
        All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. The amendment
    passes, and, again, I thank the committee for their patience,
    and to let you know we are down to our last two amendments, and
    Dr. Broun, you are recognized for amendment number 20.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at
    the desk.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 009, amendment offered by Mr.
    Broun of Georgia to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his
    amendment.
        Mr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple
    and straightforward. It simply establishes a criteria to be
    used in the selection of the appointments to the Oil Pollution
    Research Advisory Committee.
        It states that the Advisory Committee shall be composed of
    ``individuals with extensive knowledge and research experience
    or operational knowledge of prevention detection, response,
    containment, and mitigation of oil discharges.''
        It adds that, ``Individuals broadly representative of
    stakeholders affected by oil, oil discharges,'' be included on
    the Advisory Committee. The Oil Pollution Research Advisory
    Committee will play an important role and needs to be comprised
    of individuals who have the technical experience and the
    knowledge in this area.
        We have all witnessed numerous commissions and committees
    in the past that has been effective and those that have been a
    waste of time and resources. Those committees that have been
    most effective and most credible are those that have utilized
    the experience, talent, knowledge from experts in those
    particular areas.
        I hope that my colleagues will support this non-
    controversial amendment, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Paul C. Broun
        Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        My amendment is simple and straightforward. It simply establishes
    criteria to be used in the selection of appointments to the Oil
    Pollution Research Advisory Committee.
        It states that the advisory committee shalt be composed of
    ``individuals with extensive knowledge and research experience or
    operational knowledge of prevention, detection, response, containment,
    and mitigation of oil discharges.''
        It adds that ``individuals broadly representative of stakeholders
    affected by oil discharges'' be included on the advisory committee.
        The Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee will play an
    important role and needs to be comprised of individuals who have the
    technical experience and knowledge of this area.
        We have all witnessed numerous commissions and committees in the
    past that have been effective and those that have been a waste of time
    and resources.
        Those committees that have been effective and the most credible are
    those that utilized the experience, talent and knowledge from experts
    of those particular areas.
        I hope my colleagues will support this non-controversial amendment.
        I yield back.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr.--Dr. Broun, and it is our
    pleasure to support a Broun amendment, and is there further
    discussion on the amendment.
        Mr. Broun. Wonder of wonders.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman. I am sorry.
        Mr. Baird. I just would echo. I think it is a good
    amendment, and I think it is a needed piece, and we certainly
    heard from our testimony that the collaboration is needed and
    support.
        Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion, the
    vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed,
    no. The ayes have it, and we will see if Dr. Broun can do two
    for two here as he brings up the 21st amendment. Oh, Dr. Baird
    is closing. OK. Dr. Baird. Excuse me. I got----
        Mr. Broun. Mr. Chairman, I will loan you my glasses.
        Chairman Gordon. All right. Now we are on the 21st
    amendment of the roster and offered by the gentleman from
    Washington, Dr. Baird. Are you ready to proceed?
        Mr. Baird. I have an amendment at the desk. I am ready to
    proceed.
        Chairman Gordon. The clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment number 049, amendment offered by Mr.
    Baird of Washington to the amendment in the nature of a
    substitute.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain the
    amendment.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman, during our visit to the Gulf we
    met with a number of people and on several occasions asked
    questions about what was happening down there, and in a couple
    of instances were apprised that there were research activities
    ongoing, but that the incident commander was unable, or that
    people along the chain of command were unable, to access
    information from that research.
        And to me it seems that if you got a national disaster of
    this magnitude, it needs to be an all-hands-on-deck kind of
    situation, and if you have got someone receiving Federal money
    to conduct research in the region of a disaster, and their
    research methodologies or findings could be relevant to how you
    respond to that disaster, we ought to have a mechanism whereby
    the incident commander can get access to that information so
    they can use it in making the most effective response.
        As an academic and researcher I recognize that one wants to
    be mindful of respecting proprietary interests for publication,
    et cetera, et cetera, but this bill does that. This amendment
    does that. It provides that the mechanism whereby information
    would be accessible but proprietary and not yet public
    information would be preserved, and certainly the people we
    spoke to in the region seemed to think this would be a very
    useful mechanism because they had found instances where they
    knew of data that would be helpful to them, but they were
    unable to get that data in a timely manner. And it seems to me
    if you are a researcher getting taxpayer dollars to conduct
    your research and the information you are obtaining is needed
    to help respond to a disaster like this, you ought to
    voluntarily try to provide it, but if you are reluctant to do
    that, we ought to have a mechanism whereby it can--there can be
    some insistence that that be provided.
        And with that I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Brian Baird

              During our June 9 oil spill hearing, we discussed the
            difficulty in accessing research that could be helpful in
            response to the spill.

              As a scientist, I certainly recognize the proprietary
            nature of research data. However, in the event of a national
            emergency, like an oil spill, where scientific research can
            provide great value to Federal response, the agency responding
            should be able to access relevant data.

              My amendment would require recipients of Federal
            research funding, with methodologies and results that are
            relevant to the oil spill emergency, to provide their data to
            the Interagency Committee and the Federal On-Scene Coordinator
            upon request. This information would not be made public, but
            would be exclusively used for oil spill response activities.

        Chairman Gordon. Is there further discussion on the
    amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly support
    the concept this bill is based on, but I have a concern. The
    amendment is drafted in such a way it would make the scope of
    its reach what I would contend as enormous. It would apply to
    every single entity that receives Federal funding for research,
    public or private, to make their research available to the
    Interagency Committee and on-scene coordinator upon request.
        This would require the Interagency Committee or the on-
    scene coordinator to know that such research exists. At one
    time there was something called the RaDiUS database, research
    and development in the United States. This database contained
    the description and funding of levels of every research project
    funded by the Federal Government and gave access to interested
    users.
        Ironically, the largest set of these users was from other
    countries. The funding for the database has lapsed, and it no
    longer exists. Without such a tool how would the Interagency
    Committee or on-scene coordinator know what usable research was
    out there?
        I may have missed something in it. I don't want to do that.
    I like the intent of it. The intent of the amendment is a good
    one to get the available research to the people that need it
    the most, no matter where it originates. I am just not so sure
    how it is going to be implemented.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the concept this bill is based
    on. But I have a concern. The amendment is drafted in such a way that
    it would make the scope of its reach enormous. It would apply to every
    single entity that receives Federal funding for research, public or
    private, to make their research available to the Interagency Committee
    and On Scene Coordinator upon request. This would require the
    Interagency Committee or the On Scene Coordinator to know that such
    research exists.
        At one time, there was something called the Radius database,
    Research and Development in the U.S. This database contained the
    description and funding levels of every research project funded by the
    Federal Government and gave access to interested users. Ironically, the
    largest set of users was from other countries. The funding for this
    database has lapsed, and it no longer exists.. Without such a tool, how
    would the Interagency Committee or On Scene Coordinator know what
    useable research was out there?
        The intent of the amendment is a good one--get the available
    research to the people that need it the most, no matter where it
    originates. I'm just not so sure how it would be implemented.

        Mr. Baird. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hall. Yeah. I sure do.
        Mr. Baird. And maybe I am missing something. I don't
    believe there is anything in the bill that mandates that the
    incident coordinator have such a database of everything that is
    going on. If it is there, I missed it and certainly didn't
    intend to put it there.
        But what we became aware of is incident commanders or
    someone up at a fairly high level being aware that research was
    being conducted.
        Let me give you an example. Let us suppose there is a
    researcher conducting a study of oxygen levels in the water
    system, and they have got gliders or some other mechanism
    gathering data, and the incident commander says, well, what is
    the effect of the dispersants or the oil or something else on
    oxygenation levels?
        Now, that is an important question because it might relate
    to whether or not you open fisheries or not, et cetera. There
    are consequential decisions to be made. Someone says, well, we
    have got a researcher in the field doing that study right now.
    Why don't we call him and ask him what they are finding? And
    that researcher says, I am not going to share my findings with
    you. And they are stymied.
        So there is no mandate here in this section in my amendment
    that the incident commander know of all these kind of things. I
    am not sure where that concern is being derived. So maybe the
    gentleman can enlighten me about that.
        Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. Yeah. It is your time. I would be happy to.
    Yeah.
        Mr. Hall. On line nine of the amendment here it says,
    ``shall, upon request, make the methodologies or research,
    results of such research available.'' How would they know? How
    could they possibly know if there is not some implementation or
    some way that it is implemented where they would have--they
    have access to it, but what is available to let them know that
    they would even make such a request?
        Mr. Baird. Well, it sounds to me like you are adding
    something to my amendment that doesn't exist and then proposing
    to defeat the amendment on grounds of something that is not
    there to begin with.
        Mr. Hall. No, I am not trying to do that. I am trying to
    help you.
        Mr. Baird. Well, there is nothing in there that does it,
    though.
        Chairman Gordon. If Mr. Hall would--I think--would yield, I
    think what--the question is how would they know. Well, someone
    might have gotten a National Science Foundation grant, somebody
    might have gotten a research grant through some university, you
    know, that was public knowledge that they knew that there was a
    grant given to someone to research a particular area.
        So as Mr. Hall said, I mean, Mr. Baird, Dr. Baird said, he
    is not advocating that there be an inventory, but if there is,
    again, a common knowledge, public knowledge that research is
    going on somewhere that they should have access to.
        Mr. Baird. Yeah. I am not----
        Chairman Gordon. Would that be fair?
        Mr. Baird. Indeed, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing in here
    mandating that the incident commander or anyone else know this
    is being done. It is simply saying if you are aware that it is
    being done, you can access it. It is a fairly small community
    of researchers, first of all, that does this kind of research.
    The incident commander has got to have the broad sweep of the
    field of play at his or her disposal so they know if there is a
    ship out there doing something, they know it is there, if there
    is a glider out there under the water, they get to know that is
    in the terrain.
        So if they do find out about that, they ought to be able to
    say to folks, hey, what are you finding?
        Ms. Biggert. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. I would be happy to.
        Chairman Gordon. I think it is Mr. Hall's time, and I am
    sure he will yield to you.
        Mr. Hall. I will yield to Ms. Biggert.
        Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Does--is what you are saying, let
    us say the researcher does not want to give the information,
    you know, it is proprietary, he is working on it, doesn't want
    somebody, you know, to put all the pieces together. Would he
    have to disclose how it works?
        Mr. Baird. To the incident commander and there is--if you
    look, it is a very good question, and if--the last line, Ms.
    Biggert, in response to activity in the event of an oil
    discharge----
        Ms. Biggert. What page are you on?
        Mr. Baird. I am on the second page of the proposed
    amendment. ``Shall not be included in information made publicly
    available pursuant to this act.''
        So in other words, we are not saying you have to publicize
    this. In fact, we are specifically not requiring publication,
    and from line 14, ``except to the extent that the information
    is protected from disclosure of Title IX.''
        So there are some information that can be protected, but
    what we are trying to say, we are not saying Mr. or Ms.
    Incident Commander, you can just gather all the data and put it
    up on the web and let anybody look at it that you want. But if
    you have got data that might be helpful, I want to be able to
    at least have you tell me what you are finding. Imagine the
    frustration of an incident commander who says, there is already
    a researcher in the field.
        Let me put it this way. From the perspective of the
    researcher, the paramount importance may be getting that
    publication, and I respect and understand that. From the
    perspective of the American taxpayer, their paramount interest
    is not in that researcher's publication, it is in cleaning up
    and containing these spills in the most efficacious way
    possible.
        Ms. Biggert. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Baird. Sure.
        Ms. Biggert. You already have kind of situation that
    concerns me. There is a company that has--with the dispersants
    and the EPA really wants everything, you know, what is in
    there, and it is very hard for a company then to protect
    something that is a proprietary, you know, product.
        Mr. Baird. Remember, this only applies to entities
    receiving Federal funding for research. So if the companies got
    proprietary chemical substance and they are doing their own
    research, this does not intrude upon them.
        Ms. Biggert. OK. Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Grayson is recognized.
        Mr. Grayson. I yield back. That was the point that I wanted
    to make, the fact that what we are doing here is simply
    informing the left hand what the right hand is doing. This
    amendment is limited to Federal funding and specifically the
    research results that come out of federally-funded research.
    Why would we not want to know what one Federal grantee is doing
    when another Federal grantee needs to know? That is the point
    that I wanted to make, and Dr. Baird just made it.
        Chairman Gordon. If there is no further discussion on the
    21st and last amendment, then we will----
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall is recognized.
        Mr. Hall. Doesn't this amendment contend that there might
    be unusual research that could be helpful, and isn't there some
    way that--or is this such a select group that would have access
    or interest in such that they would have something to key, to
    let them know that it was here?
        And, you know, it is not impossible maybe to fix this and
    report language. Maybe that is the answer to it, but it seems,
    you know, it would be some way that we could connect it to the
    oil cleanup, but--or what if NIH or DOD had something that
    would not necessarily be connected to the oil cleanup?
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hall. But could be helpful otherwise. And any of that--
    if we can work on report language, it might--I just don't see
    how it is implemented to where people that really need it the
    most wouldn't know--wouldn't have any information on it,
    wouldn't know it was there.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gordon. Mr. Hall yields to Mr. Baird?
        Mr. Hall. I yield. Yes. I yield to Dr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. The challenge we face and I respect what I
    think, if I understand what Mr. Hall was saying, one would
    assume as Mr. Grayson said that the left hand ought to tell the
    right hand what it is doing.
        I have personally in this Congress had the experience of
    seeking data and methodologies from a federally-funded research
    study, the purported results of which were used to influence
    policy and quoted on the floor of the House, and when I wanted
    to get access to the data and the methodologies to understand
    that, they were denied. Taxpayer-funded research. And we just
    talked a few weeks ago, staff members and I, two members, two
    people involved in the cleanup, and they frankly were reticent
    to even acknowledge it. I said, well, what is the status? What
    do you know about this data, and they said, well, someone is
    gathering data on that right now, and I said something to the
    effect of, well, what are they learning, and they said, they
    won't tell us.
        Now----
        Chairman Gordon. And Dr. Baird, this is only activated in
    an emergency situation?
        Mr. Baird. It is only activated in an emergency. Any--but
    it says in the event of an oil discharge incident described in
    sections of the bill, so it has got to be an oil discharge. It
    has got to be this emergency kind of oil discharge situation.
        The reason is it has got to be relevant to possibly be
    useful for response activity. It has got to be an oil discharge
    situation; the reason for requesting the information has to be
    relevant to the response activities. In other words, you can't
    just say we are going to just ask for everything under this.
        Chairman Gordon. And Dr. Baird, I assume that you are
    receptive to talking with Mr. Hall about report language----
        Mr. Baird. Yeah. The problem with the report language is--I
    am happy to talk about report language to clarify the intent of
    this, but I think it has to have statutory authority, and the
    reason is people will say, I appreciate your report language.
    You can't make me do nothing.
        Chairman Gordon. Oh, no. We are not trying to substitute.
        Mr. Baird. OK. Yeah. OK.
        Chairman Gordon. Rather say if there was report language.
        Mr. Baird. Yeah. Right.
        Chairman Gordon. So if there is no further discussion, then
    the motion is on the amendment. All in favor, say aye. All
    opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        And if there are no other amendments then the vote occurs
    on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2693 as
    amended. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no.
    The ayes have it. In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
        The vote is now on the bill.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is agreed to?
        Chairman Gordon. Yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we passed any time for debate on the
    general bill then? We have? OK.
        Chairman Gordon. According to our parliamentarian, Mr.
    Sensenbrenner, we are.
        The vote is now on the bill, H.R. 2693 as amended. All
    those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no. The ayes--in
    the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it.
        I now recognize Dr. Baird for a motion.
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee favorably
    report H.R. 2693 as amended to the House with the
    recommendation that the bill do pass.
        Furthermore, I move that the staff be instructed to prepare
    the legislative report and make necessary technical and
    conforming changes and that the Chairman take all necessary
    steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
        Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report
    the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify
    by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The bill is
    favorably reported.
        Without objection, the motion is reconsidered as laid upon
    the table. Members will have two subsequent calendar days in
    which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on
    the measure.
        [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

      H.R. 2693 as amended, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Markup
             Report, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

                        REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP

                                 JUNE 16, 2009

                      H.R. 2693, The Federal Oil Pollution
                          Research Program Act of 2009

        *Please note that this Subcommittee report was prepared in June
    2009 and therefore does not reflect developments that have taken place
    since that date.

    I. Purpose

        The purpose of the H.R. 2693 is to amend the current Federal
    Interagency oil spill research and development program created in the
    Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (P.L. 101-380) by providing a new
    direction in research to address emerging threats including increases
    in maritime transportation, offshore energy exploration in remote
    locations, aging infrastructure, and new fuel stocks and blends.

    II. Background and Need for Legislation

        Approximately three million gallons of oil, or refined petroleum
    product, are spilled into U.S. waters every year.\1\ When spills occur,
    the Federal Government takes primary action through the Coast Guard or
    the Environmental Protection Agency depending on the location of the
    accident. As a part of the Federal response, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) often plays a vital role in providing
    real time data and weather forecasting to assist in the recovery and
    mitigation efforts. In 2008, NOAA received requests for scientific
    assistance related to 169 environmental incidents, three-quarters of
    which were oil spills.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\National Research Council (2005) ``Oil Spill Dispersants:
    Efficacy and Effects.'' pg. 1
        \2\NOOA (2009) FY 2010 Budget Summary. May 11, 2009. pg. 2-31
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In March of 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground on Bligh
    Reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound, rupturing its hull and spilling
    nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil. The oil slick spread over
    11,000 square miles of ocean and onto over 350 miles of beaches in
    Prince William Sound. The direct result of Exxon Valdez was the passing
    of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which clarified the roles and
    research responsibilities in previous legislation. The Act addressed
    many factors in preventing, detecting, or mitigating oil spills.
        Nineteen years ago Title VII of OPA created an interagency oil
    spill research and technology program. According to the Committee on
    the Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils, which was established by the
    National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the U.S. Coast Guard,
    for most spills only about 10 to 15 percent of the oil is recovered,
    and the best recovery rates are probably about 30 percent.\3\ Given
    these low recovery percentages, additional research and development is
    necessary to reach acceptable levels of mitigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\National Research Council (1999) Spills of Non-Floating Oils.
    Committee on Marine Transportation of Heavy Oils. National Research
    Council. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. pg. v.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 (P.L. 101-380)

    Title VII--Oil Pollution Research and Development Program

        The Oil Pollution Act's Title VII created a program to conduct
    research and development on oil spill prevention and response. The
    Title established an Interagency Coordinating Committee to coordinate a
    comprehensive research and development effort among 14 Federal agencies
    and to coordinate Federal research and development activities with
    those of state and local governments, industries, universities, other
    foreign governments. The law designated the Coast Guard as the
    Committee Chair and defined membership to include:

            1.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

            2.  National Institute of Standards and Technology

            3.  The Department of Energy

            4.  The Minerals Management Service

            5.  The United States Fish and Wildlife Service

            6.  The United States Coast Guard

            7.  The Maritime Administration

            8.  The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
            Administration\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\Originally called the Research and Special Projects
    Administration this program was renamed the Pipeline and Hazardous
    Materials Safety Administration in the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
    Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426).

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            9.  The Army Corps of Engineers

            10.  The Navy

            11.  The Environmental Protection Administration

            12.  The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

            13.  The United States Fire Administration

            14.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency

        The research program was authorized at $22 million annually and $6
    million per year for fiscal years 1991-1995 for the Regional Research
    Program.
        The Committee was tasked with developing a research plan to
    investigate technologies to prevent and clean up spills, ways to
    restore damaged natural resources, and the long-term environmental
    effects of spills. In addition, the Committee was tasked with the
    management of a Regional Research Program. The Regional program
    administers competitive grants to universities or other research
    institutions to address regional oil pollution needs. OPA authorized a
    total of $6,000,000 per year over five years to each of the ten Coast
    Guard regions. Finally, the Title directed the Coast Guard to conduct
    oil pollution minimization demonstration projects, only some of which
    were carried out due to a lack of funding.
        The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
    produced the first Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan in 1992,
    and after consulting with the National Academy of Sciences, submitted a
    second plan in 1997. The plans identified and prioritized twenty
    research and development program areas. These areas focused on spill
    prevention; spill response planning, training, and management; spill
    countermeasures and cleanup; fate and transport; and effects,
    monitoring and restoration and assigned R&D focus areas to ten member
    agencies. There has been no update of the research plan since 1997.
        Despite the Interagency Committee's detailed research plan, there
    have been modest technological advances in oil spill cleanup technology
    since the enactment of the law in 1990. The Interagency Coordinating
    Committee on Oil Pollution Research reported that, as late as 1997,
    ``most of the technology and information gaps of 1990 remain,'' due to
    a failure to appropriate sufficient funds for oil pollution technology
    programs.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\Interagency Coordinating Committee on Oil Pollution Research
    (1997) Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Four agencies--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), the Mineral
    Management Services (MMS), and the Coast Guard--have conducted the
    majority of oil pollution research. Funding levels have been far lower
    than the $28 million per year originally authorized for the program.
        In November 2007, a 900-foot container ship, the Cosco Busan,
    struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge, spilling over 50,000 gallons of
    oil into the Bay. This accident brought renewed attention and focus to
    current Federal Government procedures, practices, and research. The
    cleanup costs for this relatively small spill were close to $100
    million. Following this event and other recent accidents, it is clear
    that the United States needs a more robust research and development
    strategy to reduce the environmental and economic impacts of oil
    spills. Currently, responders face a number of emerging threats arising
    from an increase in maritime transportation, potential for offshore
    energy exploration in remote locations, aging infrastructure, and new
    fuel stocks and blends.
        More than ten Federal and numerous State and local agencies are
    called upon to assist in the Federal Response Team in some manner.
    Given the high environmental and economic cost of oil spills, such as
    the Cosco Busan, and the current lack of directed research, a new
    approach to research is needed. A reinvigorated and streamlined
    research and development program would help improve the effectiveness
    of oil spill response efforts and ecosystem impact mitigation
    activities at a fraction of the environmental and economic costs of a
    single large spill.
        To address these and other concerns, Representative Lynn Woolsey
    (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2693 to amend the current Federal interagency
    research and development program created in OPA 1990. The legislation
    seeks to improve the Federal Government's research and development
    efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. The bill
    provides a new direction to the existing program by guiding research
    towards emerging threats and streamlining a cumbersome interagency
    structure. Through this reauthorization, the responsible Federal
    agencies will be better equipped to quickly and effectively respond to
    oil discharges both in inland and coastal waters.

    III. Subcommittee Actions

        On June 3, 2009, Representative Lynn Woolsey, for herself and
    Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird, introduced
    H.R. 2693--The Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.

    Energy and Environment Subcommittee Hearing--A New Direction for
            Federal Oil Spill Research and Development
        The Energy and Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on Thursday,
    June 4, 2009, to examine current Federal research and development
    efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges. The following
    witnesses provided testimony:

              Mr. Doug Helton, Incident Operations Coordinator,
            National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of
            Response and Restoration (OR&R)

              Dr. Albert D. Venosa, Director of the Land
            Remediation and Pollution Control Division at the National Risk
            Management Research Laboratory, Environmental Protection
            Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD)

              Rear Admiral James Watson, Director of Prevention
            Policy for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, United
            States Coast Guard (USCG)

              Mr. Stephen Edinger, Director of the Office of Spill
            Prevention and Response (OSPR), California Department of Fish
            and Game

        The hearing highlighted current Federal Oil Pollution research and
    development efforts at the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). Witnesses described a number of emerging
    challenges that require new research and development. The panel shared
    a variety of ways that the current program could be improved. This
    included research to address new challenges, improved response
    technologies, requirements for new blends of biofuels, and increased
    transportation.

    Energy and Environment Subcommittee Markup
        On June 16, 2009, the Energy and Environment Subcommittee met to
    consider H.R. 2693, the Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act of 2009.
    The Committee considered the following amendments:

        1. Ms. Woolsey offered a manager's amendment. The amendment
    proposed replacing the term ``Oil Spill'' with ``Oil Pollution'' to
    better explain the scope of the program, which includes research into
    oil discharges both on water and on land. Section 2 of the bill is
    amended to provide for more effective notification to the public about
    the activities of the program, including information on existing
    volunteer training opportunities in incident response. Section 3 of the
    bill is amended to clarify some of the elements of the Interagency
    Research Program. It also adds additional program elements, including
    research into: (1) the mechanical, chemical, and biological methods for
    the recovery, removal, and disposal of oil; (2) technologies, methods,
    and standards for protecting removal personnel and volunteers that may
    participate in incident response; (3) improved information systems to
    assist Federal response efforts; and (4) methods to restore and
    rehabilitate natural resources damaged by oil discharges. A new Section
    4 of the bill is inserted to allow for the continuation of an existing
    technology evaluation program that will be supplemented with guidance
    from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The manager's
    amendment also modifies the contents of the Interagency Committee's
    research assessment. It specifically adds a new requirement to identify
    emerging technologies and the barriers to the utilization of those
    technologies by Federal response teams. In addition, the manager's
    amendment clarifies that the assessment will include an analysis of the
    effectiveness of current technologies to address oil pollution and an
    assessment and comparison of regional differences in response
    capabilities. Section 5 of the bill is amended to clarify the required
    contents of the Federal oil pollution research and development plan.
    Specifically, the amendment clarifies that the plan is to include
    research to improve: the rates of oil recovery, the effectiveness of
    the response to oil discharges, and the accessibility and utility of
    the information available to mariners, researchers, and responders.
    Section 6 of the bill is amended to clarify that each of the agencies
    in the interagency program, not just NOAA, may award grants or utilize
    other funding mechanisms to address the research priorities set forth
    in the research plan. Section 7 of the bill simplifies the reporting
    required by the National Academy of Sciences. Under the Manager's
    Amendment, the National Academy will be responsible for submitting to
    Congress and the Interagency Committee a report evaluating the oil
    pollution research and development program and identifying priority
    areas of research and technology development. Finally, the amendment
    includes a direct authorization for NOAA and EPA, each in the amount of
    $2 million dollars a year for Fiscal Year 2010 through Fiscal Year
    2014. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

        2. Mr. Inglis offered a second degree amendment to the manager's
    amendment. The amendment proposed amending the text to reinstate the
    Coast Guard as the chair of the Interagency Committee instead of
    changing the chair to NOAA as was written in H.R. 2693. The amendment
    was withdrawn.

        3. Mr. Baird offered an amendment to expand the Interagency Program
    to include research related to economic incentives and barriers to
    technology development. In addition, Mr. Baird's amendment requires the
    Program to conduct research to develop new technologies and methods to
    respond to oil pollution in artic regions. The amendment was agreed to
    by voice vote.

        4. Mr. Lujan offered an amendment to add new requirements to the
    Program, Assessment, and Plan to consider and investigate technologies
    and methods to address oil discharges on land and in inland waters. The
    amendment was agreed to by voice vote.

        H.R. 2693, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote.
        Mr. Baird moved that the Subcommittee favorably report H.R. 2693,
    as amended, to the full Committee with the recommendation to pass the
    bill. The motion was agreed to by voice vote.

    IV. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

        The Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act amends Title VII of
    the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and provides a new direction to an
    existing Interagency Research and Development program. The new
    legislation guides the research agenda towards emerging challenges and
    requires research to improve rates of oil recovery. The bill also
    provides grants to institutes of higher education and research centers
    to improve technologies used to prevent, combat, and clean up oil
    pollution. H.R. 2693 will improve the Federal Government's research and
    development efforts to prevent, detect, or mitigate oil discharges.
    Through this reauthorization, the responsible Federal agencies will be
    better equipped to effectively respond to oil discharges both in inland
    and in coastal waters.
        The bill reauthorizes an Interagency Federal Oil Spill Research
    Committee and places NOAA as the chair of the Committee. H.R. 2693
    directs the Committee to coordinate a National Oil Pollution Program,
    complete an Assessment of the current status of oil spill prevention
    and response, and develop a plan to guide future research at the
    Federal level. H.R. 2693 will encourage the development of new
    technologies, practices, and procedures to allow for a more effective
    Federal response to oil spills. In addition, the legislation requires a
    National Academies review to evaluate the current Oil Spill Interagency
    Program and for the Academy to provide guidance in the creation of a
    new plan to direct future Federal research and development efforts.

    V. Section by Section Analysis of H.R. 2693, as reported by the
                        Subcommittee

    Title: Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act

    Purpose: To amend Title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and for
                        other purposes.

    Section 1: Short Title

        Federal Oil Pollution Research Program Act

    Section 2: Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee

        Section 2 directs the President to establish an Interagency
    Committee to be known as the Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee
    (`Committee'). The President shall designate a representative of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to serve as Chairperson
    of the Committee, and the members of the Committee shall include
    representatives from NOAA, the United States Coast Guard, the
    Environmental Protection Agency, and such other Federal Agencies as the
    President may designate.
        Section 2 also requires the Committee to: 1) coordinate a Federal
    oil spill research program (`Program') to coordinate oil pollution
    research, technology development, and demonstration among the Federal
    agencies, in cooperation and coordination with industry, institutions
    of higher education, research institutions, State and tribal
    governments, and other relevant stakeholders; 2) complete a research
    assessment (`Assessment') on the status of oil spill prevention and
    response capabilities; 3) develop a Federal oil spill research plan
    (`Plan'); and (4) publish web-based information for the purpose of
    notifying the public about volunteer training opportunities. The
    Assessment will provide the Committee with the information necessary to
    create the Plan.

    Section 3: Federal Oil Spill Research Program

        Section 3 requires the Committee to establish a Program for
    conducting oil pollution research, development, and demonstration. The
    Program shall focus on new technologies, practices, methods, and
    procedures that provide for effective and direct response to prevent,
    detect, recover, or mitigate oil discharges. Required elements of the
    amended Program include: (1) new technologies to detect oil discharges;
    (2) models and monitoring capabilities to predict the environmental
    fate, transport, and effects of oil discharges; (3) new technologies
    and methods to improve response capabilities and recovery rates; (4)
    research and training in coordination with the National Response Team;
    (5) decision support systems for contingency planning and response; (6)
    mechanical, chemical, and biological methods for the recovery, removal,
    and disposable of oil; (7) technologies, methods, and standards for
    protecting removal personnel and volunteers that participate in
    incident response; (8) improved information systems for decisions
    making; (9) methods to restore and rehabilitate natural resources
    damaged by oil discharges; (10) technologies and methods to prevent,
    detect, and recover, and mitigate oil discharges in polar environments;
    and (11) technologies and methods to address oil discharges on land and
    in inland waters.

    Section 4: Federal Research Assessment

        Section 4 instructs the Committee to submit to Congress an
    Assessment of the status of oil spill prevention and response
    capabilities. The Assessment shall identify emerging technologies and
    barriers to their implementation; assess the effectiveness of current
    technologies available; assess and compare response capabilities in
    different regions of the United States; assess oil pollution prevention
    and response for inland oil discharges; assess the status of real time
    information available to mariners, researchers and responders; assess
    the economic incentives and barriers to implementation of new
    technologies to address oil discharges; assess the status of the
    deployment to State and local oil pollution response agencies of
    technologies resulting from research and development; and address
    comments received during the public comment period. The Assessment
    shall be subject to a 30-day public comment period and shall
    incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee is required to
    submit the Assessment to Congress no later than one year after
    enactment.

    Section 5: Federal Research Interagency Plan

        Section 5 directs the Committee to develop a Plan to establish
    Federal oil spill research and development priorities. In developing
    the Plan, the Committee shall consider and utilize recommendations from
    the National Academy of Sciences, as well as State, local, and tribal
    governments. The Plan will include: (1) research to improve rates of
    oil recovery; (2) research, development, and demonstration to improve
    technologies, practices, and procedures for effective and direct
    response to oil discharges; (3) research, development, and
    demonstration to improve the accessibility and utility of real time
    information available to mariners, researchers, and responders; (4)
    research, development, and demonstration to address inland oil
    discharges; (5) recommendations to improve the deployment of oil
    pollution prevention, response, and mitigation technologies to State
    and local oil pollution response agencies; and (6) a summary of
    comments received during the 30-day public comment period. The
    Assessment shall incorporate public input as appropriate. The Committee
    is required to submit the Plan to Congress no later than one year after
    the submission of the Assessment.

    Section 6: Extramural Grants

        Section 6 provides direction to the Committee to enter into
    contracts and cooperative agreements and award grants to institutions
    of higher education or non-governmental research organizations. Such
    contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants shall address research,
    development, and demonstration priorities established in the Plan.

    Section 7: Annual Report

        Section 7 requires the Committee to submit an annual report to
    Congress, concurrent with the annual submission of the President's
    budget, describing the activities and results of the Program during the
    previous fiscal year and outlining objectives for the next fiscal year.

    Section 8: National Academy of Science Participation

        Section 8 instructs the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the
    Administrator of NOAA, to contract with the National Academy of
    Sciences to assess and evaluate the status of the Federal oil spill
    research and development program and to identify priority areas of
    research and technology development to improve capabilities to prevent,
    detect, recover, and mitigate oil discharges. Within one year of
    enactment, the National Academy shall submit to Congress and the
    Committee a report on the results of the evaluation and the
    recommendations of the Academy.

    Section 9: Technical and Conforming Changes

        Section 9 makes technical and conforming changes to the Oil
    Pollution Act of 1990.

    Section 10: Authorization of Appropriations

        For the purpose of carrying out this act, Section 10 authorizes $2
    million per year for fiscal years 2010-2014 for the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration and $2 million a year for fiscal years
    2010-2014 for the Environmental Protection Agency.
                       Section-by-Section Analysis of the
                   Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
           H.R. 2693, Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
                          Reauthorization Act of 2010
        The purpose of the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program
    Reauthorization Act of 2010 is to amend and reauthorize Title VII
    (Section 7001) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (33 U.S.C.
    2761).

    Section 1. Short Title

        Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act
    of 2010.

    Section 2. Federal Oil Pollution Research Committee

        PURPOSES.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is
    amended to add tribal governments to the list of entities with which
    the Interagency Committee shall cooperate and coordinate.
        MEMBERSHIP.--Section 7001(a)(3) is amended to designate the U.S.
    Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
    Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency as
    the Interagency Committee; the remaining Federal agencies from Section
    7001 (a)(3) are designated as collaborating agencies; the National
    Science Foundation is added to the list of collaborating agencies.
        ROLE OF THE CHAIR.--Section 7001(a)(4) is amended to include a
    paragraph on the roles of the Chair of the Interagency Committee.
        ACTIVITIES.--Section 7001(a) is amended to insert a section of
    activities which directs the Interagency Committee: to ensure that
    research, development, and demonstration efforts are coordinated and
    conducted on an ongoing basis, to meet no less than once per year to
    plan the program's activities, and to determine whether the program is
    producing new or improved methods and technologies; and for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to develop an
    electronic information exchange on oil pollution scientific information
    and research.

    Section 3. Oil Pollution Research and Technology Plan

        IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.--Section 7001(b)(1) is amended to direct the
    Interagency Committee to submit a plan to Congress, as directed in OPA
    90, within 180 days after the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution
    Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
    periodically thereafter but not less than once every five years.
        Section 7001(b)(1) is also amended for the Plan to identify the
    roles and responsibilities of each member agency of the Interagency
    Committee and each of the collaborating agencies.
        ADVICE AND GUIDANCE.--Section 7001(b)(2) is amended to direct the
    Chair of the Interagency Committee to solicit advice and guidance in
    the preparation and development of the plan from: the Oil Pollution
    Research Advisory Committee; the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology; and through public comment prior to the submission of the
    research plan.
        REVIEW.--Section 7001(b) is also amended to direct the Chair of the
    Interagency Committee to contract with the National Academy of Sciences
    to review and assess the adequacy of the plan and to submit a report to
    Congress.

    Section 4. Oil Pollution Research and Development Program

        INNOVATIVE OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY.--Section 7001(c)(2) is amended
    to include research, development, and demonstration of new or improved
    technologies effective in preventing, detecting, recovering, or
    mitigating oil discharges; technologies and methods to address oil
    pollution on land, in inland waters, offshore areas, including
    deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas;
    modeling and simulation capabilities, including tools and technologies
    that can be used to facilitate effective recovery and containment of
    oil pollution during incident response; and research conducted by the
    Environmental Protection Agency on the development and approval of
    technologies with maximum effectiveness and minimum toxicity to natural
    resources, the public, and the environment in both the near and long-
    term.
        OIL POLLUTION TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION.--Section 7001(c)(3) is amended
    to provide for oil pollution prevention and mitigation technology
    evaluation, with an evaluation of the environmental effects, including:
    the evaluation and testing of technologies developed independently of
    the research and development program; the establishment, with the
    advice and guidance of the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, of standards and testing protocols traceable to national
    standards to measure the performance of oil pollution prevention or
    mitigation technologies; an evaluation of the environmental effects and
    utility of controlled field testing; the use, where appropriate, of
    controlled field testing to evaluate real-world application of oil
    discharge prevention or mitigation technologies.
        OIL POLLUTION EFFECTS RESEARCH.--Section 7001(c)(4)(A) and (B) is
    amended, to direct the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, acting through the Interagency Committee,
    to establish a research program to monitor and scientifically evaluate
    the environmental effects, including long-term effects, of oil
    pollution. The program includes: research and development of effective
    tools to detect, measure, observe, analyze, monitor, model, and
    forecast the presence, transport, fate, and effect of oil throughout
    the environment; the development of methods, including economic
    methods, to assess and predict damages to natural resources, including
    air quality, resulting from oil discharges; the identification of types
    of ecologically sensitive areas at particular risk to oil discharges,
    such as in inland waters, coastal areas, offshore areas, including
    deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy areas; and
    the preparation of scientific monitoring and evaluation plans to be
    implemented in the event of major oil discharges in such areas; and the
    collection of environmental baseline data in ecologically sensitive
    areas at particular risk to oil discharges where there are insufficient
    data.
        In addition, the Interagency Committee, through the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall conduct research
    activities for cases where the amount of oil discharged exceeds 250,000
    gallons and it is determined that a study of the long-term
    environmental effects of the discharge would be of significant
    scientific value, especially for preventing or responding to future oil
    discharges.
        DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.--Section 7001(c)(6) is amended to strike
    the completed demonstration projects in the Port Authority of New York
    and New Jersey and the Port of New Orleans, Louisiana.
        REGIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM.--Section 7001(c)(8)(A) is amended to
    direct the Interagency Committee to coordinate a program of peer
    reviewed, competitive grants to universities or other research
    institutions, or groups of universities or research institutions, for
    the purposes of conducting a coordinated research program related to
    the regional aspects of oil pollution, such as prevention, removal,
    mitigation, and the effects of discharged oil on regional environments.
        Section 7001(c)(8)(C) is also amended to specify that at least on
    entity of a group application to carry out the substantial portion of
    the proposed research must be located in the region, for which the
    project is proposed as part of the regional research program.
        Section 7001(c)(9) is amended to authorize to be appropriated from
    amounts in the Fund $12,000,000 for fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
    and 2015.

    Section 5. International Cooperation

        Section 7001(d) is amended to direct the Interagency Committee, in
    accordance with the research plan, to coordinate and cooperate with
    other nations and foreign research entities in conducting oil pollution
    research, development, and demonstration activities, including
    controlled field tests of oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup
    standards.

    Section 6. Annual Reports

        Section 7001(e) is amended to direct the Chair of the Interagency
    Committee to submit to Congress, concurrent with the President's annual
    budget request, a report describing the activities: carried out under
    this section in the preceding fiscal year; being carried out under this
    section in the current fiscal year; and proposed to be carried out
    under this section in the subsequent fiscal year, including an analysis
    of how these activities will further the purposes of the program
    authorized by this section.

    Section 7. Federal Advisory Committee

        Section 7001 is further amended to direct the Interagency Chair to
    establish an Oil Pollution Research Advisory Committee consisting of at
    least 25 representatives from non-governmental entities. Each member of
    the Advisory Committee shall be qualified by education, training, and
    experience to evaluate scientific and technical information relevant to
    the research, development and demonstration under this Act. The Chair
    of the Interagency Committee shall designate a chairperson from among
    the members of the Advisory Committee. Members shall be appointed for
    three-year terms, renewable once. The Advisory Committee is directed to
    review, advise, and comment on Interagency Committee activities,
    including: management and functioning of the Interagency Committee;
    collaboration of the Interagency Committee and the Collaborating
    Agencies; the research and technology development of new or improved
    response capabilities; the use of cost-effective research mechanisms;
    and research, computation, and modeling needs and other resources
    needed to develop a comprehensive program of oil pollution research.
    The Advisory Committee is also directed to meet at least once a year
    submit biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and Congress.

    Section 8. Funding

        Section 7001(f) is amended to authorize to be appropriated from
    amounts in the Fund not more than $48,000,000 annually to carry out
    this section. From this amount there are authorized to be appropriated
    to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration $16,000,000 annually to carry out this section and
    $2,000,000 for carrying out the activities in subsection (c)(6) for
    fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.
        In addition, Section 1012 (a)(5)(C) OPA 90 is amended to read as
    follows: (C) not more than $48,000,000 in each fiscal year shall be
    available to carry out title VII of this Act.

      Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
    following:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Pollution Research and
    Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010''.

    SEC. 2. FEDERAL OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH COMMITTEE.

      (a) Purposes.--Section 7001(a)(2) of the Oil Pollution Act of
    1990 (33 U.S.C. 2761(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``State''
    and inserting ``State and tribal''.
      (b) Membership.--Section 7001(a)(3) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(3) Structure.--
                      ``(A) Members.--The Interagency Committee
                    shall consist of representatives from the
                    following:
                              ``(i) The Coast Guard.
                              ``(ii) The Department of Commerce,
                            including the National Oceanic and
                            Atmospheric Administration.
                              ``(iii) The Department of the
                            Interior.
                              ``(iv) The Environmental Protection
                            Agency.
                      ``(B) Collaborating agencies.--The
                    Interagency Committee shall collaborate with
                    the following:
                              ``(i) The National Institute of
                            Standards and Technology.
                              ``(ii) The Department of Energy.
                              ``(iii) The Department of
                            Transportation, including the Maritime
                            Administration and the Pipeline and
                            Hazardous Materials Safety
                            Administration.
                              ``(iv) The Department of Defense,
                            including the Army Corps of Engineers
                            and the Navy.
                              ``(v) The Department of Homeland
                            Security, including the United States
                            Fire Administration in the Federal
                            Emergency Management Agency.
                              ``(vi) The National Aeronautics and
                            Space Administration.
                              ``(vii) The National Science
                            Foundation.
                              ``(viii) Other Federal agencies, as
                            appropriate.''.
      (c) Role of the Chair.--Section 7001(a)(4) of such Act (33.
    U.S.C. 2761(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(4) Chair.--
                      ``(A) In general.--A representative of the
                    Coast Guard shall serve as Chair.
                      ``(B) Role of chair.--The primary role of the
                    Chair shall be to ensure that--
                              ``(i) the activities of the
                            Interagency Committee and the agencies
                            listed in paragraph (3)(B) are
                            coordinated;
                              ``(ii) the implementation plans
                            required under subsection (b)(1) are
                            completed and submitted;
                              ``(iii) the annual reports required
                            under subsection (e) are completed and
                            submitted;
                              ``(iv) the Interagency Committee
                            meets in accordance with the
                            requirements of paragraph (5); and
                              ``(v) the Oil Pollution Research
                            Advisory Committee under subsection (f)
                            is established and utilized.''.
      (d) Activities.--Section 7001(a) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(5) Activities.--
                      ``(A) Ongoing, coordinated efforts.--The
                    Interagency Committee shall ensure that the
                    research, development, and demonstration
                    efforts authorized by this section are
                    coordinated and conducted on an ongoing basis.
                      ``(B) Meetings.--
                              ``(i) In general.--The Interagency
                            Committee shall meet, or otherwise
                            communicate, as appropriate, to--
                                      ``(I) plan program-related
                                    activities; and
                                      ``(II) determine whether the
                                    program is resulting in the
                                    development of new or improved
                                    methods and technologies to
                                    prevent, detect, respond to,
                                    contain, and mitigate oil
                                    discharge.
                              ``(ii) Frequency.--In no event shall
                            the Interagency Committee meet less
                            than once per year.
                      ``(C) Information exchange.--The Interagency
                    Committee, acting through the Administrator of
                    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration, shall develop a national
                    information clearinghouse on oil discharge
                    that--
                              ``(i) includes scientific information
                            and research on preparedness, response,
                            and restoration; and
                              ``(ii) serves as a single electronic
                            access and input point for Federal
                            agencies, emergency responders, the
                            research community, and other
                            interested parties for such
                            information.''.

    SEC. 3. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PLAN.

      (a) Implementation Plan.--Section 7001(b)(1) of such Act (33
    U.S.C. 2761(b)(1)) is amended--
              (1) by striking ``180 days after the date of
            enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``180 days after
            the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
            Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010 and
            periodically thereafter, as appropriate, but not less
            than once every 5 years,'';
              (2) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
            following:
                      ``(A) identify the roles and responsibilities
                    of each member agency of the Interagency
                    Committee under subsection (a)(3)(A) and each
                    of the collaborating agencies under subsection
                    (a)(3)(B);'';
              (3) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``containment,''
            after ``response,'';
              (4) in subparagraph (D) by inserting ``containment,''
            after ``response,'';
              (5) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
            (E);
              (6) in subparagraph (F)--
                      (A) by striking ``the States'' through
                    ``research needs'' and inserting ``State and
                    tribal governments, regional oil pollution
                    research needs, including natural seeps and
                    pollution resulting from importing oil from
                    overseas,''; and
                      (B) by striking the period at the end and
                    inserting a semicolon; and
              (7) by adding at the end the following new
            subparagraphs:
                      ``(G) identify the information needed to
                    conduct risk assessment and risk analysis
                    research to effectively prevent oil discharges,
                    including information on human factors and
                    decisionmaking, and to protect the environment;
                    and
                      ``(H) identify a methodology that--
                              ``(i) provides for the solicitation,
                            evaluation, preapproval, funding, and
                            utilization of technologies and
                            research projects developed by the
                            public and private sector in advance of
                            future oil discharges; and
                              ``(ii) where appropriate, ensures
                            that such technologies are readily
                            available for rapid testing and
                            potential deployment and that research
                            projects can be implemented during an
                            incident response.''.
      (b) Advice and Guidance.--Section 7001(b)(2) of such Act (33
    U.S.C. 2761(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
              ``(2) Advice and guidance.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The Chair shall solicit
                    advice and guidance in the development of the
                    research plan under paragraph (1) from--
                              ``(i) the Oil Pollution Research
                            Advisory Committee established under
                            subsection (f);
                              ``(ii) the National Institute of
                            Standards and Technology on issues
                            relating to quality assurance and
                            standards measurements;
                              ``(iii) third party standard-setting
                            organizations on issues relating to
                            voluntary consensus standards; and
                              ``(iv) the public in accordance with
                            subparagraph (B).
                      ``(B) Public comment.--Prior to the
                    submission of the research plan to Congress
                    under paragraph (1), the research plan shall be
                    published in the Federal Register and subject
                    to a public comment period of 30 days. The
                    Chair shall review the public comments received
                    and incorporate those comments into the plan,
                    as appropriate.''.
      (c) Review.--Section 7001(b) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(b))
    is amended by adding at the end the following:
              ``(3) Review.--After the submission of each research
            plan to Congress under paragraph (1), the Chair shall
            contract with the National Academy of Sciences--
                      ``(A) to review the research plan;
                      ``(B) to assess the adequacy of the research
                    plan; and
                      ``(C) to submit a report to Congress on the
                    conclusions of the assessment.
              ``(4) Incorporation of recommendations.--The Chair
            shall address any recommendations in the review
            conducted under paragraph (3) and shall incorporate
            such recommendations into the research plan, as
            appropriate.''.

    SEC. 4. OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

      (a) Establishment.--Section 7001(c)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C.
    2761(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``research and development,
    as provided in this subsection'' and inserting ``research,
    development, and demonstration, as provided in this subsection
    and subsection (a)(2)''.
      (b) Innovative Oil Pollution Technology.--Section 7001(c)(2)
    of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(2)) is amended--
              (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by
            striking ``preventing or mitigating'' and inserting
            ``preventing, detecting, containing, recovering, or
            mitigating'';
              (2) by striking subparagraph (I);
              (3) by redesignating subparagraph (J) as subparagraph
            (I);
              (4) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph
            (I) (as so redesignated) and by inserting at the end a
            semicolon; and
              (5) by adding at the end the following:
                      ``(J) technologies and methods to address oil
                    discharge on land and in inland waters, coastal
                    areas, offshore areas, including deepwater and
                    ultra-deepwater areas, and polar and other icy
                    areas;
                      ``(K) modeling and simulation capabilities,
                    including tools and technologies, that can be
                    used to facilitate effective recovery and
                    containment of oil discharge during incident
                    response; and
                      ``(L) research conducted by the Environmental
                    Protection Agency on the development and
                    approval of technologies with maximum
                    effectiveness, including application and
                    delivery mechanisms, and minimum toxicity to
                    natural resources, the public, and the
                    environment in both the near and long-term.''.
      (c) Oil Pollution Technology Evaluation.--Section 7001(c)(3)
    of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(3)) is amended to read as
    follows:
              ``(3) Oil pollution technology evaluation.--The
            program established under this subsection shall provide
            for the evaluation of oil pollution prevention,
            containment, and mitigation technologies, including--
                      ``(A) the evaluation of the performance and
                    effectiveness of such technologies in
                    preventing, detecting, containing, recovering,
                    and mitigating oil discharges;
                      ``(B) the evaluation of the environmental
                    effects of the use of such technologies;
                      ``(C) the evaluation and testing of
                    technologies developed independently of the
                    research and development program established
                    under this subsection, including technologies
                    developed by small businesses;
                      ``(D) the establishment, with the advice and
                    guidance of the National Institute of Standards
                    and Technology, of standards and testing
                    protocols traceable to national standards to
                    measure the performance of oil pollution
                    prevention, containment, or mitigation
                    technologies;
                      ``(E) an evaluation of the environmental
                    effects and utility of controlled field
                    testing;
                      ``(F) the use, where appropriate, of
                    controlled field testing to evaluate real-world
                    application of new or improved oil discharge
                    prevention, response, containment, recovery, or
                    mitigation technologies; and
                      ``(G) an evaluation of the effectiveness of
                    oil pollution prevention technologies based on
                    probabilistic risk analyses of the system.''.
      (d) Oil Pollution Effects Research.--Section 7001(c)(4) of
    such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(4)) is amended--
              (1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
            following:
                      ``(A) In general.--
                              ``(i) Establishment.--The Interagency
                            Committee, acting through the
                            Administrator of the National Oceanic
                            and Atmospheric Administration, shall
                            establish a research program to monitor
                            and scientifically evaluate the
                            environmental effects, including long-
                            term effects, of oil discharge.
                              ``(ii) Specifications.--Such program
                            shall include the following elements:
                                      ``(I) Research on and the
                                    development of effective tools
                                    to detect, measure, observe,
                                    analyze, monitor, model, and
                                    forecast the presence,
                                    transport, fate, and effect of
                                    an oil discharge throughout the
                                    environment, including tools
                                    and models to accurately
                                    measure and predict the flow of
                                    oil discharged.
                                      ``(II) The development of
                                    methods, including economic
                                    methods, to assess and predict
                                    damages to natural resources,
                                    including air quality,
                                    resulting from oil discharges,
                                    including in economically
                                    disadvantaged communities and
                                    areas.
                                      ``(III) The identification of
                                    types of ecologically sensitive
                                    areas at particular risk from
                                    oil discharges, such as inland
                                    waters, coastal areas, offshore
                                    areas, including deepwater and
                                    ultra-deepwater areas, and
                                    polar and other icy areas.
                                      ``(IV) The preparation of
                                    scientific monitoring and
                                    evaluation plans for the areas
                                    identified under subclause
                                    (III) to be implemented in the
                                    event of major oil discharges
                                    in such areas.
                                      ``(V) The collection of
                                    environmental baseline data in
                                    the areas identified under
                                    subclause (III) if such data
                                    are insufficient.
                                      ``(VI) The use of both
                                    onshore and offshore air
                                    quality monitoring to study the
                                    effects of oil pollution and
                                    oil pollution cleanup
                                    technologies on air quality;
                                    and making the results, health,
                                    and safety warnings readily
                                    available to the public,
                                    including emergency responders,
                                    the research community, local
                                    residents, and other interested
                                    parties.
                                      ``(VII) Research on
                                    technologies, methods, and
                                    standards for protecting
                                    removal personnel and for
                                    volunteers that may participate
                                    in incident responses,
                                    including training, adequate
                                    supervision, protective
                                    equipment, maximum exposure
                                    limits, and decontamination
                                    procedures.'';
              (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                      (A) by striking ``The Department of
                    Commerce'' and all that follows through
                    ``future oil discharges.'' and inserting the
                    following:
                      ``(B) Conditions.--The Interagency Committee,
                    acting through the Administrator of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                    Administration, shall conduct research
                    activities under subparagraph (A) for areas in
                    which--
                              ``(i) the amount of oil discharged
                            exceeds 250,000 gallons; and
                              ``(ii) a study of the long-term
                            environmental effects of the discharge
                            would be of significant scientific
                            value, especially for preventing or
                            responding to future oil discharges.'';
                      (B) by striking ``ATHOS I, and'' and
                    inserting ``ATHOS I;''; and
                      (C) by striking the period at the end and
                    inserting ``; Prince William Sound, where oil
                    was discharged by the EXXON VALDEZ; and the
                    Gulf of Mexico, where oil was discharged by the
                    DEEPWATER HORIZON.''; and
              (3) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``Research'' and
            inserting ``Coordination.--Research''.
      (e) Demonstration Projects.--Section 7001(c)(6) of such Act
    (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(6)) is amended--
              (1) by striking the first sentence and inserting the
            following: ``The United States Coast Guard, in
            conjunction with such agencies as the President may
            designate, shall conduct a total of 2 port oil
            pollution minimization demonstration projects, 1 with
            the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California,
            and 1 with a port on the Great Lakes, for the purpose
            of developing and demonstrating integrated port oil
            pollution prevention and cleanup systems that utilize
            the information and implement the improved practices
            and technologies developed from the research,
            development, and demonstration program established in
            this section.''; and
              (2) in the second sentence by striking ``oil spill''
            and inserting ``oil discharge''.
      (f) Simulated Environmental Testing.--Section 7001(c)(7) of
    such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(c)(7)) is amended by inserting ``Oil
    pollution technology testing and evaluations shall be given
    priority over all other activities performed at such Research
    Center.'' after ``evaluations.''.
      (g) Regional Research Program.--
              (1) In general.--Section 7001(c)(8) of such Act (33
            U.S.C. 2761(c)(8)) is amended--
                      (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                              (i) by striking ``program of
                            competitive grants'' and inserting
                            ``program of peer-reviewed, competitive
                            grants''; and
                              (ii) by striking ``(1989)'' and
                            inserting ``(2009)'';
                      (B) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the
                    entity or entities which'' and inserting ``at
                    least one entity that''; and
                      (C) by adding at the end the following new
                    subparagraph:
                      ``(H) In carrying out this paragraph, the
                    Interagency Committee shall coordinate the
                    program of peer-reviewed, competitive grants to
                    universities or other research institutions,
                    including Minority Serving Institutions as
                    defined under section 371(a) of the Higher
                    Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067q(a)), and
                    provide consideration to such institutions in
                    the recommendations for awarding grants.''.
              (2) Funding.--Section 7001(c)(9) of such Act (33
            U.S.C. 2741(c)(9)) is amended by striking ``1991'' and
            all that follows through ``shall be available'' and
            inserting ``2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, there are
            authorized to be appropriated from amounts in the Fund
            $12,000,000''.

    SEC. 5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

      Section 7001(d) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(d)) is amended to
    read as follows:
      ``(d) International Cooperation.--In accordance with the
    research plan submitted under subsection (b), the Interagency
    Committee shall engage in international cooperation by
    harnessing global expertise through collaborative partnerships
    with foreign governments and research entities, and domestic
    and foreign private actors, including nongovernmental
    organizations and private sector companies, and by leveraging
    public and private capital, technology, expertise, and services
    towards innovative models that can be instituted to conduct
    collaborative oil pollution research, development, and
    demonstration activities, including controlled field tests of
    oil discharges, oil recovery, and cleanup standards.''.

    SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORTS.

      Section 7001(e) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended to
    read as follows:
      ``(e) Annual Report.--
              ``(1) Concurrent with the submission to Congress of
            the President's annual budget request in each year
            after the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution
            Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of
            2010, the Chair of the Interagency Committee shall
            submit to Congress a report describing the--
                      ``(A) activities carried out under this
                    section in the preceding fiscal year,
                    including--
                              ``(i) a description of major research
                            conducted on oil discharge prevention,
                            detection, containment, recovery, and
                            mitigation techniques in all
                            environments by each agency described
                            in subsection (a)(3)(A) and (B); and
                              ``(ii) a summary of--
                                      ``(I) projects in which the
                                    agency contributed funding or
                                    other resources;
                                      ``(II) major projects
                                    undertaken by State and tribal
                                    governments, and foreign
                                    governments; and
                                      ``(III) major projects
                                    undertaken by the private
                                    sector and educational
                                    institutions;
                      ``(B) activities being carried out under this
                    section in the current fiscal year, including a
                    description of major research and development
                    activities on oil discharge prevention,
                    detection, containment, recovery, and
                    mitigation technologies and techniques in all
                    environments that each agency will conduct or
                    contribute to; and
                      ``(C) activities proposed to be carried out
                    under this section in the subsequent fiscal
                    year, including an analysis of how these
                    activities will further the purposes of the
                    program authorized by this section.
              ``(2) If the National Academy of Sciences provides
            recommendations on the research plan under section
            7001(b)(3), the Chair shall include, in the first
            annual report under paragraph (1) of this subsection, a
            description of those recommendations incorporated into
            the research plan, and a description of, and
            explanation for, any recommendations that are not
            included in such plan.''.

    SEC. 7. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

      Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is further
    amended--
              (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection
            (g); and
              (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
      ``(f) Advisory Committee.--
              ``(1) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after
            the date of enactment of the Oil Pollution Research and
            Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, the
            Chair of the Interagency Committee shall establish an
            advisory committee to be known as the Oil Pollution
            Research Advisory Committee (in this subsection
            referred to as the `advisory committee').
              ``(2) Membership.--
                      ``(A) In general.--The advisory committee
                    shall be composed of members appointed by the
                    Chair, in consultation with the each member
                    agency described in subsection (a)(3),
                    including--
                              ``(i) individuals with extensive
                            knowledge and research experience or
                            operational knowledge of prevention,
                            detection, response, containment, and
                            mitigation of oil discharges;
                              ``(ii) individuals broadly
                            representative of stakeholders affected
                            by oil discharges; and
                              ``(iii) other individuals, as
                            determined by the Chair.
                      ``(B) Limitations.--The Chair shall--
                              ``(i) appoint no more than 25 members
                            that shall not include representatives
                            of the Federal Government, but may
                            include representatives from State,
                            tribal, and local governments; and
                              ``(ii) ensure that no class of
                            individuals described in clause (ii) or
                            (iii) of subparagraph (A) comprises
                            more than \1/3\ of the membership of
                            the advisory committee.
                      ``(C) Terms of service.--
                              ``(i) In general.--Members shall be
                            appointed for a 3-year term and may
                            serve for not more than 2 terms, except
                            as provided in clause (iii).
                              ``(ii) Vacancies.--Vacancy
                            appointments shall be for the remainder
                            of the unexpired term of the vacancy.
                              ``(iii) Special rule.--If a member is
                            appointed to fill a vacancy and the
                            remainder of the unexpired term is less
                            than 1 year, the member may
                            subsequently be appointed for 2 full
                            terms.
                      ``(D) Compensation and expenses.--Members of
                    the advisory committee shall not be compensated
                    for service on the advisory committee, but may
                    be allowed travel expenses, including per diem
                    in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with
                    subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
                    States Code.
              ``(3) Duties.--The advisory committee shall review,
            advise, and comment on Interagency Committee
            activities, including the following:
                      ``(A) Management and functioning of the
                    Interagency Committee.
                      ``(B) Collaboration of the Interagency
                    Committee and the agencies listed in subsection
                    (a)(3)(B).
                      ``(C) The research and technology development
                    of new or improved response capabilities.
                      ``(D) The use of cost-effective research
                    mechanisms.
                      ``(E) Research, computation, and modeling
                    needs and other resources needed to develop a
                    comprehensive program of oil pollution
                    research.
              ``(4) Subcommittees.--The advisory committee may
            establish subcommittees of its members.
              ``(5) Meetings.--The advisory committee shall meet at
            least once per year and at other times at the call of
            the chairperson.
              ``(6) Report.--The advisory committee shall submit
            biennial reports to the Interagency Committee and
            Congress on the function, activities, and progress of
            the Interagency Committee and the programs established
            under this section.
              ``(7) Expiration.--Section 14 of the Federal Advisory
            Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
            advisory committee.''.

    SEC. 8. FUNDING.

      (a) In General.--Section 7001(g) of such Act, as redesignated
    by section 7 of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
      ``(g) Funding.--
              ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be
            appropriated from amounts in the Fund not more than
            $48,000,000 annually to carry out this section, except
            for subsection (c)(8).
              ``(2) Specific allocations.--From the amounts in
            paragraph (1), there are authorized to be
            appropriated--
                      ``(A) $16,000,000 to the Administrator of the
                    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                    annually to carry out this section; and
                      ``(B) $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years
                    2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 to carry out the
                    activities in subsection (c)(6).''.
      (b) Authorization.--Section 1012(a)(5)(C) of such Act (33
    U.S.C. 2712(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
                      ``(C) not more than $48,000,000 in each
                    fiscal year shall be available to carry out
                    title VII of this Act; and''.

    SEC. 9. ACCESS TO RESEARCH DURING AN EMERGENCY.

      Section 7001 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2761) is amended by
    adding at the end the following new subsection:
      ``(h) Access to Research During an Emergency.--Any entity
    that receives Federal funding for research, the methodologies
    or results of which may be useful for response activities in
    the event of an oil discharge incident described in sections
    300.300-334 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
    shall, upon request, make the methodologies or results of such
    research available to the Interagency Committee and the Federal
    On-Scene Coordinator (as defined in section 311(a)(21) of the
    Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(a)(21)),
    except to the extent that the information is protected from
    disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
    Such information shall be for use in response activities in the
    event of an oil discharge, and shall not be included in
    information made publicly available pursuant to this Act.''.