[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.''.

                                  
