H. Rept. 112-333 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
December 16, 2011, As Reported by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 112-333 - HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011




[House Report 112-333]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                            Rept. 112-333
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================
 
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 
                                  2011

                                _______
                                

 December  16, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Hall, from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2484]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 2484) to reauthorize the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to 
include a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address 
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, to provide for the 
development and implementation of a comprehensive research plan 
and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, 
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill 
as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose and Summary.............................................8
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................8
  IV. Hearing Summary................................................11
   V. Committee Consideration........................................11
  VI. Committee Votes................................................11
 VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................21
VIII. Committee Views................................................22
  IX. Committee Oversight Findings...................................25
   X. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........25
  XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditur25
 XII. Advisory on Earmarks...........................................25
XIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................25
 XIV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................25
  XV. Federal Mandates Statement.....................................27
 XVI. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................27
XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch............................27
XVIII.Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation.................27

 XIX. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........31
  XX. Minority Views.................................................43
 XXI. Proceedings of the Subcommittee Markup.........................46
XXII. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................82

                              I. Amendment

    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 ``Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND 
                    CONTROL ACT OF 1998.

  Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal 
of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to 
be made to a section or other provision of the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note).

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  Section 602 is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

  ``In this title:
          ``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
          ``(2) NOAA.--The term `NOAA' means the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration.
          ``(3) Plan.--The term `Plan' means the comprehensive research 
        plan and action strategy under section 605.
          ``(4) Program.--The term `Program' means the National Harmful 
        Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program under section 604(a).
          ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
        States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
        Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, 
        Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
        Islands, any other territory or possession of the United 
        States, and any Indian tribe.
          ``(6) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the Inter-
        Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia under 
        section 603(a)(1).
          ``(7) Under secretary.--The term `Under Secretary' means the 
        Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.''.

SEC. 4. INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCE.

  Section 603(a) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(a) Inter-Agency Task Force.--
          ``(1) Establishment.--The President, through the Committee on 
        Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and 
        Technology Council, shall establish an Inter-Agency Task Force 
        on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia.
          ``(2) Representation.--The Task Force shall consist of 
        representatives from the following:
                  ``(A) The Department of Commerce.
                  ``(B) The Environmental Protection Agency.
                  ``(C) The Department of Agriculture.
                  ``(D) The Department of the Interior.
                  ``(E) The Department of the Navy.
                  ``(F) The Department of Health and Human Services.
                  ``(G) The National Science Foundation.
                  ``(H) The National Aeronautics and Space 
                Administration.
                  ``(I) The Food and Drug Administration.
                  ``(J) The Office of Science and Technology Policy.
                  ``(K) The Council on Environmental Quality.
                  ``(L) Such other Federal agencies as the President 
                considers appropriate.
          ``(3) Chairperson.--The Under Secretary from the Department 
        of Commerce shall serve as the Chairperson of the Task Force.
          ``(4) Required meetings.--
                  ``(A) In general.--The Task Force shall meet, or 
                otherwise communicate, to coordinate activities within 
                each agency represented on the Task Force in order to 
                fulfill the program requirements in section 604(b).
                  ``(B) Frequency.--The Task Force shall meet at least 
                once per year.
          ``(5) Budget coordination.--The Task Force shall--
                  ``(A) coordinate in the development of individual 
                agency budgets for the activities described in section 
                604 that will ensure an appropriate balance among the 
                research and action priorities; and
                  ``(B) submit such budgets to the Director of the 
                Office of Management and Budget at the time designated 
                by the Director for agencies to submit annual 
                budgets.''.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM.

  The Act is amended--
          (1) by redesignating sections 605 and 606 as sections 608 and 
        609, respectively;
          (2) by redesignating section 604 as section 606; and
          (3) by inserting after section 603 the following:

``SEC. 604. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM.

  ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the Under 
Secretary, through the Task Force, shall maintain a National Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program in accordance with authorities under 
section 603 pursuant to this section.
  ``(b) Duties.--The Under Secretary, through the Program, shall 
coordinate the efforts of the Task Force to--
          ``(1) develop and promote a national strategy to understand, 
        detect, monitor, predict, control, mitigate, and respond to 
        marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events;
          ``(2) integrate the research of all Federal programs, 
        including ocean and Great Lakes science and management programs 
        and centers, that address the chemical, biological, and 
        physical components of marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(3) assist and coordinate, where appropriate, with State, 
        tribal, and local government agencies, programs, and regional 
        efforts that address marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms 
        and hypoxia, including the development and implementation of 
        appropriate response plans, strategies, and tools;
          ``(4) identify additional research, development, and 
        demonstration needs and priorities relating to understanding, 
        detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, 
        mitigation, and response to marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(5) ensure the development and use of methods and 
        technologies to protect the ecosystems affected by marine and 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research 
        information with other countries in order to better mitigate, 
        control, and respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms;
          ``(7) coordinate existing education programs to improve 
        public understanding and awareness of the causes, impacts, and 
        mitigation efforts for marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(8) provide resources to assist in the training of State, 
        tribal, and local water and coastal resource managers in the 
        methods and technologies for detecting, monitoring, 
        controlling, mitigating, and responding to the effects of 
        marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events;
          ``(9) oversee the development, review, and periodic updating 
        of the Plan;
          ``(10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based, competitive 
        grant funding to support--
                  ``(A) the projects maintained and established by the 
                Program; and
                  ``(B) the research and management needs and 
                priorities identified in the Plan; and
          ``(11) encourage the development of innovative concepts for 
        the beneficial utilization of--
                  ``(A) biomass from harmful algal blooms that have 
                been removed from the natural system; and
                  ``(B) the growth of certain biofuel crops that reduce 
                runoff that causes harmful algal blooms.
  ``(c) Cooperative Efforts.--The Under Secretary shall work 
cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, 
centers, and programs within NOAA and other agencies represented on the 
Task Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations concerned 
with marine and freshwater aquatic issues related to harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia.
  ``(d) Freshwater Program.--
          ``(1) In general.--With respect to the freshwater aspects of 
        the Program, the Administrator and the Under Secretary, through 
        the Task Force, shall carry out the duties otherwise assigned 
        to the Under Secretary under this section, excluding the 
        activities described in subsection (e).
          ``(2) Participation.--The Administrator's participation under 
        this subsection shall include--
                  ``(A) research on the ecology of freshwater harmful 
                algal blooms;
                  ``(B) monitoring of and event response to freshwater 
                harmful algal blooms in lakes, rivers, estuaries 
                (including their tributaries), and reservoirs; and
                  ``(C) mitigation and control of freshwater harmful 
                algal blooms.
          ``(3) Nonduplication.--The Administrator shall ensure that 
        activities carried out under this Act shall focus on new 
        approaches to addressing freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
        are not duplicative of existing research and development 
        programs authorized by this or any other Act.
          ``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
        Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Administrator shall prepare 
        and transmit to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 
        of the House of Representatives a report containing--
                  ``(A) a detailed budget explanation for all of the 
                activities conducted by the Administrator under this 
                Act; and
                  ``(B) a description of how such activities reduce the 
                effects of freshwater harmful algal blooms and improve 
                water quality.
  ``(e) NOAA Activities.--As part of the program under this section, 
the Under Secretary shall--
          ``(1) maintain existing peer-reviewed competitive grant 
        programs at NOAA relating to marine and freshwater harmful 
        algal blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(2) conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom and 
        hypoxia event response activities; and
          ``(3) ensure communication and coordination among Federal 
        agencies carrying out marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom 
        and hypoxia activities and increase the availability to 
        appropriate public and private entities of--
                  ``(A) analytical facilities and technologies;
                  ``(B) operational forecasts; and
                  ``(C) reference and research materials.
  ``(f) Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System.--All 
monitoring and observation data collected under this Act shall be 
collected in compliance with all data standards and protocols developed 
pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation 
System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), and such data shall be 
made available through the system established under that Act.
  ``(g) Technology Research, Development, and Demonstration.--
          ``(1) In general.--As part of the duties described in 
        subsection (b), the Under Secretary and the Administrator, 
        through the Task Force, shall maintain a focus on technology 
        research and development for each of the categories of marine 
        harmful algal blooms, freshwater harmful algal blooms, and 
        hypoxia in the following areas:
                  ``(A) Monitoring.
                  ``(B) Prediction.
                  ``(C) Prevention.
                  ``(D) Control.
                  ``(E) Mitigation.
                  ``(F) Response to events, including remediation.
          ``(2) Enumeration.--As part of the report required under 
        subsection (i), the Under Secretary, in coordination with the 
        Administrator, shall enumerate the technology research and 
        development conducted for each of the areas identified in 
        paragraph (1).
          ``(3) Protocol.--The Under Secretary, in coordination with 
        the Administrator, shall develop a protocol for--
                  ``(A) assessing the stage of technology development 
                that is ready to move from lab testing to field 
                testing;
                  ``(B) coordinating local, State, and Federal 
                authorities to facilitate measures necessary to conduct 
                field tests in a timely manner; and
                  ``(C) working with local and State entities, 
                programs, and interested stakeholders to conduct 
                outreach and education on technology field testing 
                projects.
  ``(h) Information Clearinghouse.--
          ``(1) Electronic information.--Using the authority under 
        section 603(i)(2)(B), the Under Secretary, in coordination with 
        the Administrator, shall expand the existing electronic 
        clearinghouse to provide information about marine and 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including--
                  ``(A) the Federal agencies involved in research and 
                development on understanding, detection, monitoring, 
                prediction, prevention, control, mitigation, and 
                response activities;
                  ``(B) tools available to predict and model events; 
                and
                  ``(C) current or developing technologies for 
                detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, control, 
                mitigation, and response, including remediation.
          ``(2) Toxin standards.--The Under Secretary, in consultation 
        with the Administrator, shall--
                  ``(A) develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and 
                cost-effective supply of toxin standards for 
                comparative research; and
                  ``(B) notify the Congress of such mechanism as part 
                of the report required under subsection (i).
  ``(i) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of the 
Plan, the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall prepare and 
transmit to the Congress a report that describes--
          ``(1) the activities carried out under the Program and the 
        Plan and the budget related to such activities; and
          ``(2) the need to revise or terminate activities or projects 
        under the Program.''.

SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY.

  The Act is amended by inserting after section 604, as added by 
section 5(3) of this Act, the following:

``SEC. 605. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY.

  ``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 
of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments 
Act of 2011, the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall 
transmit to the Congress a comprehensive research plan and action 
strategy to address marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia that identifies--
          ``(1) the specific activities to be carried out by the 
        Program and the timeline for carrying out such activities;
          ``(2) the roles and responsibilities of each Federal agency 
        in the Task Force in carrying out Program activities; and
          ``(3) appropriate regions and subregions requiring specific 
        research and activities to address local, State, and regional 
        harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
  ``(b) Regional Focus.--The regional and subregional parts of the Plan 
shall identify--
          ``(1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, and 
        social research on issues related to the impacts of harmful 
        algal blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(2) research, development, and demonstration activities 
        needed to develop and advance technologies and techniques for 
        minimizing the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 
        and improving capabilities to detect, predict, monitor, 
        control, mitigate, respond to, and remediate harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of harmful 
        algal blooms and hypoxia, including deployment of response 
        technologies in a timely manner;
          ``(4) research and methods to address human health dimensions 
        of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
          ``(5) mechanisms, including the potential costs and benefits 
        of those mechanisms, to protect ecosystems that may be or have 
        been affected by harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events;
          ``(6) mechanisms by which data, information, and products may 
        be transferred between the Program and State, tribal, and local 
        governments and relevant research entities;
          ``(7) communication and information dissemination methods 
        that State, tribal, and local governments may undertake to 
        educate and inform the public concerning harmful algal blooms 
        and hypoxia; and
          ``(8) the roles that Federal agencies may have to assist in 
        the implementation of the Plan.
  ``(c) Utilizing Available Studies and Information.--In developing the 
Plan, the Under Secretary shall utilize existing research, assessments, 
reports, and program activities, including--
          ``(1) those carried out pursuant to existing law; and
          ``(2) other relevant peer-reviewed and published sources.
  ``(d) Development of the Plan.--In developing the Plan, the Under 
Secretary shall, as appropriate--
          ``(1) coordinate with--
                  ``(A) State coastal management and planning 
                officials;
                  ``(B) tribal resource management officials; and
                  ``(C) water management and watershed officials from 
                both coastal States and noncoastal States with water 
                sources that drain into water bodies affected by 
                harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and
          ``(2) consult with--
                  ``(A) public health officials;
                  ``(B) emergency management officials;
                  ``(C) science and technology development 
                institutions;
                  ``(D) economists;
                  ``(E) industries and businesses affected by marine 
                and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
                  ``(F) scientists with expertise concerning harmful 
                algal blooms or hypoxia from academic or research 
                institutions; and
                  ``(G) other stakeholders.
  ``(e) Federal Register.--The Under Secretary shall publish the Plan 
in the Federal Register.
  ``(f) Periodic Revision.--The Under Secretary, in coordination and 
consultation with the individuals and entities identified in subsection 
(d), shall periodically review and revise the Plan prepared under this 
section, as necessary.''.

SEC. 7. NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO HYPOXIA.

  Section 606, as redesignated by section 5(2) of this Act, is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
  ``(c) Required Update.--
          ``(1) In general.--Within 2 years after the date of enactment 
        of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 
        Amendments Act of 2011, the Administrator, through the 
        Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 
        shall complete and submit to the Congress and the President an 
        updated assessment and a revised action plan based on the 
        updated assessment.
          ``(2) Requirements.--The updated assessment shall take into 
        account the following:
                  ``(A) The role of nutrient influx in the context of 
                water column stratification, seasonal flows and 
                conditions, and wind and current dynamics in the Gulf 
                of Mexico.
                  ``(B) The contribution of the topography of the Gulf 
                of Mexico in the effects of the characteristics 
                described in subparagraph (A) on the hypoxic zone.
                  ``(C) The frequency and availability of monitoring to 
                measure the size of the hypoxic zone.
                  ``(D) The potential of hypoxia hot-spot formation 
                within the Gulf of Mexico and possible causes of such 
                hot-spots.
                  ``(E) The contribution of wetland loss to hypoxia 
                events in the Gulf of Mexico.
                  ``(F) The actual effect of hypoxia on the ecosystem 
                of the Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting from a 
                reduced hypoxic zone size.
                  ``(G) A scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal 
                for the size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
          ``(3) Research strategy.--The updated plan shall include a 
        research strategy--
                  ``(A) to enhance understanding of the contribution of 
                topography, water column stratification, seasonal flows 
                and conditions, and wind and current dynamics on the 
                size of the hypoxic zone;
                  ``(B) to develop models able to--
                          ``(i) simulate different shelf regions and 
                        the fundamental processes that act in each 
                        shelf region;
                          ``(ii) differentiate between the separate 
                        effects of stratification and nutrient loading 
                        in the formation of hypoxia; and
                          ``(iii) be informed by realistic three-
                        dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical 
                        models;
                  ``(C) that determines the appropriate amount of 
                monitoring and measuring necessary to get a 
                scientifically robust accounting on the size of the 
                Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone; and
                  ``(D) that examines several potential solutions based 
                on information provided by the updated assessment in 
                paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 8. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE.

  (a) In General.--The Act is amended by inserting after section 606, 
as redesignated by section 5(2) of this Act, the following:

``SEC. 607. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE.

  ``(a) Assessment Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2011, the Task Force, in accordance with the 
authority under section 603, shall complete and submit to the Congress 
and the President an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake 
Bay that examines the status of and gaps within current research, 
monitoring, prevention, response, and control activities by--
          ``(1) Federal agencies;
          ``(2) State agencies;
          ``(3) regional research consortia;
          ``(4) academia;
          ``(5) private industry; and
          ``(6) nongovernmental organizations.
  ``(b) Research Plan.--
          ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
        Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Task Force shall develop 
        and submit to the Congress a plan, based on the integrated 
        assessment submitted under subsection (a), for reducing, 
        mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay.
          ``(2) Requirements.--In developing such plan, the Task Force 
        shall--
                  ``(A) consult with State and local governments and 
                representatives from academic, agricultural, industry, 
                and other stakeholder groups;
                  ``(B) ensure that the plan does not duplicate 
                activities conducted by other Federal or State 
                agencies;
                  ``(C) include incentive-based partnership approaches;
                  ``(D) include an economic cost-benefit analysis of 
                the measures for reducing, mitigating, and controlling 
                hypoxia events;
                  ``(E) utilize existing research, assessments, 
                reports, and program activities;
                  ``(F) publish a summary of the proposed plan in the 
                Federal Register 90 days prior to the submission to the 
                Congress of the completed plan; and
                  ``(G) provide progress reports every 2 years after 
                the submission to the Congress of the completed plan on 
                the activities leading toward attainment of the goals 
                set forth in the plan.
          ``(3) Contents.--The plan shall--
                  ``(A) address the monitoring needs identified in the 
                integrated assessment submitted under subsection (a) 
                and develop a timeline and budgetary requirements for 
                deployment of future assets;
                  ``(B) detail procedures for the development and 
                verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia models, 
                including making available to the public--
                          ``(i) all assumptions built into the models; 
                        and
                          ``(ii) data quality methods used to ensure 
                        the best available data is utilized; and
                  ``(C) describe efforts to improve the assessment of 
                the impacts of hypoxia by--
                          ``(i) characterizing current and past 
                        biological conditions in ecosystems affected by 
                        hypoxia; and
                          ``(ii) quantifying effects, including 
                        economic effects, at the population and 
                        community level.''.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Authorization.--Section 608, as redesignated by section 5(1) of 
this Act, is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  ``(a) Under Secretary.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Under Secretary to carry out this Act $18,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 2012 through 2015, of which, for each fiscal year--
          ``(1) $1,000,000 may be used for the development of the 
        comprehensive research plan and action strategy under section 
        605 and the assessment and reports required by sections 606 and 
        607;
          ``(2) $4,000,000 may be used for the research and assessment 
        activities related to marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms at research laboratories of NOAA;
          ``(3) $4,000,000 may be used to carry out the Ecology of 
        Harmful Algal Blooms Program (ECOHAB);
          ``(4) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out the Monitoring and 
        Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms Program (MERHAB);
          ``(5) $2,000,000 may be used to carry out research and 
        assessment for the Northern Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and 
        hypoxia activities;
          ``(6) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out coastal hypoxia 
        research activities;
          ``(7) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out prevention, 
        control, and mitigation activities;
          ``(8) $500,000 may be used to carry out event response 
        activities; and
          ``(9) $500,000 may be used to carry out infrastructure 
        activities.
  ``(b) Administrator.--
          ``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
        the Administrator $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 
        through 2015 to carry out the activities authorized under this 
        Act.
          ``(2) Nonduplication.--The Administrator shall ensure that 
        activities carried out using the amounts authorized under 
        paragraph (1) do not duplicate research and development 
        activities related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 
        conducted by Federal agencies represented on the Task Force, 
        States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations concerned 
        with marine and freshwater aquatic issues.''.
  (b) Extramural Research Activities.--The Under Secretary of Commerce 
for Oceans and Atmosphere shall ensure that a substantial portion of 
funds appropriated pursuant to section 608 of the Harmful Algal Bloom 
and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 that are used for research 
purposes are allocated to extramural research activities.

SEC. 10. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents in section 2 
of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998 is amended by striking the 
items relating to sections 602 through 606 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 602. Definitions.
``Sec. 603. Assessments.
``Sec. 604. National harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program.
``Sec. 605. Comprehensive research plan and action strategy.
``Sec. 606. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia.
``Sec. 607. Chesapeake Bay dead zone.
``Sec. 608. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 609. Protection of States' rights.''.
  (b) References.--Section 609, as redesignated by section 5(1) of this 
Act, is amended by striking ``Clean Water Act or'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the''.

                        II. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2484 is to reauthorize the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to 
include a comprehensive and integrated strategy to address 
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; to provide for the 
development and implementation of a comprehensive research plan 
and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 
and for other purposes.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is a bloom, or rapid 
overproduction of algal cells, that produces toxins, which are 
detrimental to plants and animals. These outbreaks are commonly 
referred to as ``red'' or ``brown'' tides. Blooms can kill fish 
and other aquatic life by decreasing sunlight available to the 
water and by depleting the available oxygen in the water, 
causing hypoxia. The produced toxins accumulate in shellfish, 
fish, or through the accumulation of biomass that affect other 
organisms and alter food webs. In recent years, many of the 
nation's coastlines, near shore marine waters, and freshwaters 
have experienced an increase in the number, frequency, 
duration, and type of HABs.
    Harmful algal blooms are one of the most scientifically 
complex and economically significant coastal management issues 
facing the nation. In the past, only a few regions of the 
United States were affected by HABs, but now almost all states 
have reported blooms. In severe cases, these phenomena can have 
serious environmental, economic, and human health impacts.

                              CURRENT LAW

    In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act (HABHRCA, Public Law 105-83), 
which established an Interagency Task Force to develop a 
national HABs assessment and authorized funding for existing 
and new research programs on HABs. Funding supported the 
development of a national scientific research, development, 
demonstration, and technology transfer program at the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that focused on 
HABs and included the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal 
Blooms (ECOHAB) program and the Monitoring and Event Response 
for Harmful Algal Blooms (MERHAB) program. The program at NOAA 
involves federal, state, and academic partners and supports 
interdisciplinary extramural research studies to address the 
issues of HABs in an ecosystem context.
    In 2004, HABHRCA was reauthorized in Public Law 108-456. 
The reauthorized Act required assessments of HABs in different 
coastal regions and in the Great Lakes and included plans to 
expand research to address the impacts of HABs. The law also 
authorized research, education, and monitoring activities 
related to the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia and reconstituted the Interagency Task 
Force on HABs and Hypoxia.
    The 2004 reauthorization also directed NOAA to produce 
several reports and assessments, which have since been 
completed, including:
    
 The Prediction and Response Report (September 
2007) addressed both the state of research and methods for HAB 
prediction and response, especially at the federal level.
    
 The 2008 National Scientific Research, 
Development, Demonstration, and Technology Transfer Plan for 
Reducing Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (RDDTT Plan) 
established research priorities to develop and demonstrate 
prevention, control and mitigation methods to advance current 
prediction and response capabilities.
    
 The Scientific Assessment of Marine Harmful Algal 
Blooms (December 2008) described the state of the science with 
respect to: understanding HABs causes and controls and 
developing predictive models; developing detection methods for 
cells and toxins; characterizing toxins and impacts; HAB 
impacts on food webs and fisheries; and assessing public 
health, economic and socio-cultural impacts.
    
 The 2008 Scientific Assessment of Freshwater 
Harmful Algal Blooms released in 2008 described the state of 
the knowledge of HABs in U.S inland and freshwaters and 
presented a plan to advance research and reduce the impacts on 
humans and the environment.
    
 The Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia in U.S. 
Coastal Waters (September 2010) assessed the prevalence of low-
oxygen ``dead-zones'', or hypoxic zones, in U.S. coastal waters 
and outlined a series of research steps needed to address these 
occurrences.
    Additionally, the 2004 reauthorization directed NOAA, in 
coordination with the Task Force, to conduct local and regional 
scientific assessments if requested by state, tribal, or local 
governments or for affected areas identified by NOAA. Funding 
was also authorized for ongoing and new programs and activities 
such as: competitive, peer-reviewed research through the ECOHAB 
program; freshwater harmful algal bloom research added to the 
research priorities of ECOHAB; a competitive, peer-reviewed 
research program on management measures to prevent, reduce, 
control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms supported by the 
MERHAB program, and; activities related to research and 
monitoring of hypoxia supported by the Northern Gulf of Mexico 
program and Coastal Hypoxia Research Program.
    The 2004 HABHRCA authorized funds to conduct research and 
reduce HABs and hypoxia in U.S. marine waters, estuaries and 
the Great Lakes. In its role as a task force participant, the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signed Memorandums of 
Understanding to fund competitive research into the occurrence 
of HABs in these areas. However, since the completion of the 
freshwater report in 2008, EPA has ceased participation in 
HABHRCA for freshwater HAB research and mitigation activities. 
As a result, although EPA oversees a wide array of programs 
specifically designed to protect and preserve freshwater 
sources and the coastal and marine waters of the United States, 
including watershed protection programs and an array of 
regulatory programs, the agency currently has no research and 
development effort that directly addresses freshwater harmful 
algal blooms.

                       OTHER INTERAGENCY EFFORTS

    EPA and NOAA work together to lead a Federal Workgroup of 
thirteen federal agencies committed to supporting the Gulf of 
Mexico Alliance, a partnership formed by the five Gulf State 
Governors. In addition, EPA is also the lead agency of the 
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force.
    The 2004 HABHRCA reauthorization expired in 2008, however, 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) 
provided an authorization of appropriations through FY2010. 
H.R. 2484 would reauthorize the Act with the primary goal of 
H.R. 2484 being advancing the body of knowledge of HABs and 
hypoxia to begin to enable development of solutions for 
communities affected by these events. By requiring greater 
Interagency Task Force involvement and a Comprehensive Research 
Plan and Action Strategy, H.R. 2484 seeks to coordinate efforts 
across the Federal government. Although there have been long-
term strategies in place attempting to mitigate the occurrence 
of HABs, such strategies take years, even decades, to bear 
fruit. In the meantime, States and communities are dealing with 
increasing occurrences of HABs and hypoxia, indicating a 
greater need for near-term solutions.
    Accordingly, H.R. 2484 shifts the focus of the current 
program to technological research, development, and 
demonstration, encouraging a move toward finding such near-term 
solutions through technological innovation.

                          IV. Hearing Summary

    The Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on June 1, 2011, 
entitled ``Harmful Algal Blooms: Action Plans for Scientific 
Solutions.'' The purpose of the hearing was examine harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia research and response needs to develop 
and implement action plans to monitor, prevent, mitigate and 
control both marine and freshwater bloom and hypoxia events.
    The Subcommittee received testimony from: Dr. Robert 
Magnien, Director of the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean 
Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration; Dr. Richard Greene, Chief of the Ecosystems 
Dynamics and Effects Branch of the Gulf Ecology Division at the 
Office of Research and Development within the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Donald Anderson, Senior 
Scientist and Director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the 
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Dr. Kevin Sellner, 
Executive Director of the Chesapeake Research Consortium; Dr. 
Stephanie Smith, Chief Scientist at Algaventure Systems; and 
Dr. Beth McGee, Senior Water Quality Scientist at the 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
    Witnesses discussed their work and the state of the science 
of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and what additional steps 
were needed. Witnesses also provided testimony on draft 
legislation entitled, ``The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011''.

                       V. Committee Consideration

    On July 11, 2011, H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011 was 
introduced by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-1), and co-sponsored by 
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD-6), Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL-11), 
Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-7), 
Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL-14), Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME-2), and 
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee 
on Natural Resources.
    On July 14, 2011 the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
met to consider H.R. 2484 and ordered it favorably reported to 
the Full Committee, as amended, by voice vote.
    On July 28, 2011 the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology met in open markup session and adopted H.R. 2484, as 
amended, by a record vote of 20 yeas and 15 nays. Further, the 
Committee ordered H.R. 2484, favorably reported to the House, 
as amended, by voice vote.

                          VI. Committee Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
Committee adopted H.R. 2484, as amended by a record vote of 20 
yeas and 15 nays. A motion to order H.R. 2484, favorably 
reported to the House, as amended, was agreed to by a voice 
vote.
    During Subcommittee on Energy and Environment consideration 
of H.R. 2484 the following amendments were considered:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

              VII. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill


Coordinated budget

    The Task Force is to develop a coordinated budget to be 
submitted by each agency to the Director of OMB at the time 
designated for agencies to submit annual budgets. (Sec. 4)

Overarching program direction

    The bill directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
and Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Task Force to 
maintain the National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. 
The bill directs the Under Secretary, through the Program, to 
develop a national strategy, coordinate all Federal programs, 
work with State, tribal, and local government agencies and 
identify additional research needs and priorities. In addition, 
the bill directs the Under Secretary to work cooperatively and 
avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, centers, and 
programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented 
on the Task Force. The bill directs the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a freshwater 
harmful algal bloom research program. (Sec. 5)

Technology research and development focus

    The bill requires that the existing research programs 
maintain a focus on research, development, and demonstration of 
technology to monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and 
respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia. It also requires the Under Secretary and the 
Administrator to develop a protocol to assess technology 
development timelines, coordinate local State and Federal 
authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with State 
and local entities to conduct outreach and education on 
technology field testing projects. (Sec. 5)

Information clearinghouse

    The bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with 
the Administrator, to expand the existing electronic 
information clearinghouse to provide information about marine 
and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, 
the bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with the 
Administrator, to develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and 
cost-effective supply of toxin standards for comparative 
research and notify Congress of such in the report required 
under this section. (Sec. 5)

Comprehensive research plan and action strategy

    The bill requires that the Under Secretary, through the 
Task Force, oversee the development of a Comprehensive Research 
and Action Strategy by generating a national plan that 
identifies regional issues and includes a strategy to address 
them. (Sec. 6)

Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia

    The bill amends the underlying statute to require the 
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force 
to update its scientific assessment and revise the Action plan 
issued in 2008. (Sec. 7)

Chesapeake Bay dead zone

    The bill directs the Task Force to complete an integrated 
assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay that examines the 
current status of and gaps in current research efforts, and 
develop a corresponding research plan. (Sec. 8)

Authorization of appropriations

    Section 9 provides an authorization for the activities of 
the Under Secretary of Commerce of $18,000,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 2012 through 2015 and an authorization for the 
activities of the Administrator of the EPA of $2,700,000 for 
each of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015.

                         VIII. Committee Views

    H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Amendments Act of 2011, will support efforts to 
better understand, detect, predict, control, mitigate, and 
respond to both marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms 
(HABs) and hypoxia events. It is the intent of the Committee 
that the research and activities required under the Act seek 
ways to reduce the duration and intensity of blooms that many 
U.S. waterways currently experience. This is particularly 
important to minimize beach and tourism activity closures, 
cancellations, and evacuations as well as the issuance of 
health and food warnings.
    The Committee regards this legislation as the next 
necessary step in formulating the national and regional action 
strategies, building upon the findings and results of various 
reports and assessments required under the previous Harmful 
Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Acts (1998 and 
2004). Addressing the many dimensions of HABs requires a 
coordinated multi-agency approach, and there are presently a 
number of programs and agencies that address the various 
aspects of HABs.
    It is in the opinion of the Committee that the federal 
agencies participating in the Interagency Task Force, 
established by the 1998 HABHRCA Act, should strengthen 
collaboration and coordination to address both marine and 
freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. H.R. 2484 aims to 
enhance this effort by requiring participating agencies to 
develop and submit program budgets annually to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).
    While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) has been a lead agency in the country's HABs and hypoxia 
research activities, it is the intent of the Committee that in 
this role, NOAA does not bear the burden of the entire Program. 
H.R. 2484 intends for NOAA to lead the National Harmful Algal 
Bloom and Hypoxia Program in its role as the chair of the 
Interagency Task Force. The Committee believes that NOAA had 
been given such authority with the Harmful Algal Blooms and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 2004, and strongly urges 
NOAA to utilize such authority to maintain an interagency 
program. Accordingly, the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere (Administrator of NOAA) should work with 
the Task Force to outline the roles and responsibilities of 
each participating Federal agency to ensure all contribute to 
the Program activities, including the development of the 
comprehensive research plan and action strategy. It is also the 
intent of the Committee that the Under Secretary ensures the 
coordination of the Task Force and works cooperatively with all 
Federal, State, and local programs, including NOAA internal 
programs and activities that address marine and freshwater HABs 
and hypoxia.
    Despite the fact that HABs and hypoxia are not limited to 
marine waters, in recent years, research and related activities 
have focused on marine waters at the expense of freshwater 
issues. The Committee does not intend to establish a separate 
freshwater HABs and hypoxia program, but rather expects NOAA 
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work together 
to expand the national HABs program to address freshwater HABs 
and hypoxia issues, while maintaining NOAA's current role in 
the Great Lakes as well as in the Gulf of Mexico.
    As the lead agency with oversight over freshwater quality, 
EPA is in the best position to ensure the management of aquatic 
ecosystems to protect human health, and promote freshwater 
economic and recreational activities through both internal and 
extramural research to understand, detect, predict, control and 
mitigate freshwater HABs and hypoxia. The Committee expects EPA 
to not only continue its extensive hypoxia work in the Gulf of 
Mexico, but also to participate in the Program with respect to 
the inland and freshwater needs around the country. The 
Committee also intends for EPA to work with NOAA in individual 
extramural research programs including the Ecology and 
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program (ECOHAB); the 
Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms Program 
(MERHAB); the Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia 
Assessment Program (NGOMEX); the Coastal Hypoxia Research 
Program (CHRP); and, the Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of 
Harmful Algal Blooms Program (PCM).
    As directed in H.R. 2484, the Committee expects EPA to 
conduct monitoring and event response activities as well as 
mitigation and control activities for outbreaks in lakes, 
rivers, estuaries (including their tributaries and the 
watersheds), and reservoirs. The Committee is not supportive of 
EPA utilizing resources provided by H.R. 2484 to increase 
funding of research activities within existing programs.
    EPA already devotes substantial resources towards nutrient 
management research; the resources provided by this bill are 
not intended to supplement that research. Instead, the 
Committee directs EPA in H.R. 2484 to focus on monitoring of, 
and event response to, freshwater outbreaks and mitigation and 
control of such outbreaks. The Committee intends for EPA to 
focus its effort on mitigation and control technologies and 
techniques that could offer immediate relief to communities 
stricken with freshwater harmful algal bloom outbreaks.
    Advances in the basic knowledge of the causes of marine and 
freshwater harmful algal blooms have provided sufficient 
information to develop technologies to respond to HABs and 
hypoxia. Although improvements have been made in the past 
couple of years, the Committee has found there is less focus on 
technological research to respond to HABs and hypoxia than on 
the ecological or basic research into the causes of these 
phenomena. The Committee intends that resources provided by 
H.R. 2484 to the Under Secretary and the Administrator of EPA 
increase efforts to develop HABs and hypoxia mitigation 
solutions through an increased focus on technology research, 
development, and demonstration. Furthermore, the Committee 
directs NOAA and EPA to develop a protocol for assessing the 
progression of technology development to determine appropriate 
readiness to move from lab testing to field testing. In order 
to promote field testing in an expedient manner, the Committee 
intends for this protocol to include a process for coordinating 
with local, State, and Federal authorities to facilitate field 
testing. In addition, it is the Committee's intent that this 
protocol includes a process for working with local and State 
entities and stakeholders to conduct outreach and education 
about technology field testing.
    H.R. 2484 instructs NOAA and EPA to expand its existing 
electronic information database to develop a comprehensive 
information clearinghouse. The Committee intends that this 
clearinghouse will provide detailed information on the 
following: HABs and Hypoxia activities of each of the agencies 
on the Interagency Task Force; tools currently available to 
predict and model events; and t current or developing 
technologies that exist to detect, monitor, predict, prevent, 
control, mitigate, and respond to HABs and Hypoxia events.
    In the development of the comprehensive research plan and 
action strategy mandated by H.R. 2484, it is the Committee's 
intention for the Undersecretary to coordinate and collaborate 
with the State, local, and tribal governments that are directly 
affected by HABs and hypoxia, and to formulate a plan that will 
not cause financial burdens on these governments. It is also 
the intent of the Committee for all participating agencies of 
the Interagency Task Force to participate in the development of 
the Plan. The regional and subregional focus outlined in H.R. 
2484 is intended to increase public awareness of those that 
live in and around the communities affected by HABs and 
Hypoxia.
    To date, EPA efforts to address the hypoxic zone in the 
Gulf of Mexico have centered on the Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 
2008, which focuses on upstream water quality in an attempt to 
affect the size and severity of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf. 
Although the legislation does not prevent the continuation of 
EPA's efforts, it instructs EPA to update this plan to provide 
a more comprehensive analysis of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf 
of Mexico. Accordingly, the Committee expects EPA to conduct an 
assessment to determine different physical, chemical, 
biological and topographical impacts on, and effects of, the 
hypoxic zone. The Committee intends that the updated research 
plan will be based on the information acquired by the 
assessment included in H.R. 2484.
    In recognition of the Chesapeake Bay's status as a national 
treasure, the Committee included in H.R. 2484 a section 
specifically to address hypoxia in the Bay. Given its 
importance to the identity of the States and region that 
comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed, there are many entities 
involved in conducting research to improve the ecological 
health of the Bay. The Committee intends for the Interagency 
Task Force to conduct an assessment of the current research 
efforts of Federal and State agencies, regional research 
consortia, academia, private industry, and nongovernmental 
organizations. The assessment is intended to help avoid 
duplicative efforts and to assist in the strategic deployment 
of resources. As such, the Task Force is to develop a research 
plan based on the integrated assessment. It is the Committee's 
intent that this research plan will be developed based on 
information acquired by the assessment to fill any research 
gaps, address the identified monitoring needs, and describe 
efforts to improve the assessment of impacts of hypoxia in the 
Bay. It is the Committee's intent that any modeling of hypoxia 
in the Chesapeake Bay be transparent. As such, H.R. 2484 
requires that the Chesapeake Bay research plan include detailed 
procedures for the development and verification of Chesapeake 
Bay hypoxia models, establish a method to make public all model 
assumptions, and detail data quality protocols used to ensure 
best available science.

                    IX. Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight 
hearing and made findings that are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report.

        X. Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the performance goals and 
objectives of the Committee are reflected in the descriptive 
portions of this report, including the goal to reauthorize the 
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 
1998 to provide direction and specificity to the nation's 
harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research program efforts.

 XI. New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its 
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement 
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the 
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.

                       XII. Advisory on Earmarks

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI, 
the Committee finds that H.R. 2484, the ``Harmful Algal Bloom 
and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011'' 
contains no earmarks.

                     XIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

               XIV. Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate 
provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 19, 2011.
Hon. Ralph M. Hall,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2484, the Harmful 
Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 
2011.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave.
            Sincerely,
                                              Douglas W. Elmendorf.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2484--Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control 
        Amendments Act of 2011

    Summary: H.R. 2484 would reauthorize and modify the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. The 
bill would authorize the appropriation of $20.7 million 
annually over the 2012-2015 period for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to mitigate the effects of harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia (reduced oxygen level) in certain 
bodies of water.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $79 
million over the 2012-2016 period and $4 million after 2016. 
Enacting H.R. 2484 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2484 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2484 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--
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2012     2013     2014     2015     2016   2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level.....................................       21       21       21       21        0        83
Estimated Outlays.......................................       13       18       20       20        7       79
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Amounts do not sum to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
legislation will be enacted near the end of 2011 and that the 
authorized amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year. 
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for 
similar NOAA and EPA activities.
    H.R. 2484 would authorize the appropriation of $18 million 
a year over the 2012-2015 period for certain NOAA activities 
related to mitigating the effects of harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia in coastal waters and the Great Lakes. Those activities 
include providing grants, conducting research, preparing 
reports, and overseeing an interagency task force.
    The bill also would authorize the appropriation of $2.7 
million a year over the 2012-2015 period for EPA to assist NOAA 
in conducting related activities, including expanding an 
existing electronic clearinghouse and developing protocols for 
coordinating intergovernmental efforts related to harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $79 
million over the 2012-2016 period and $4 million after 2016.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2484 
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: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                     XV. Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                   XVI. Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

               XVII. Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation 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.

                   XVIII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1. Short title

    The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2011.

Sec. 2. Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
        Control Act of 1998

    This section explains that the text the bill modifies is 
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 
1998, unless otherwise expressly stated.

Sec. 3. Definitions

    Section 4 provides definitions, including: Administrator, 
the Program under Section 604(a), the Task Force under section 
603(a)(1) and Under Secretary.

Sec. 4. Interagency task force

    This section restates the President's establishment of an 
interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The 
bill reiterates representation and designation of the 
representative from the Department of Commerce to serve as the 
Chairperson of the Task Force. The bill directs the Task Force 
to meet at least once per year and to develop a coordinated 
budget to be submitted to the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget at the time designated for agencies to 
submit annual budgets.

Sec. 5. National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program

    This section directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere to utilize the resources of the Task 
Force to maintain a National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Program. The bill requires the Under Secretary to: 1) develop a 
national strategy to address both marine and freshwater harmful 
algal bloom and hypoxia events; 2) coordinate all Federal 
programs related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) work with State, 
tribal, and local government agencies; 4) identify additional 
research needs and priorities; 5) ensure the development and 
implementation of methods and technologies to protect 
ecosystems damaged by HABs; 6) encourage the appropriate 
exchange of research information with other countries; 7) 
coordinate existing education programs to improve public 
understanding; 8) provide resources for training of State, 
tribal and local water and coastal resource managers for 
detecting, monitoring, controlling, mitigating, and responding 
to the effects of harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events; 9) 
oversee the development of the Plan; 10) administer peer-
reviewed, merit-based competitive grant funding; and 11) 
encourage the development of innovative concepts for the 
beneficial use of biomass from harmful algal blooms and the 
growth of certain biofuel crops. In addition, the legislation 
directs the Under Secretary to work cooperatively and avoid 
duplication of efforts with other offices, centers, and 
programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented 
on the Task Force.
    Section 5 directs the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to work with the Under Secretary to utilize 
the resources of the task force to carry out freshwater 
activities. It also instructs the Administrator to ensure that 
such activities do not duplicate existing research and 
development programs authorized under this or any other Act.
    Furthermore, the bill requires the Administrator to submit 
a report to Congress detailing the budget explanation for all 
the activities conducted by the Administrator under the 
authority of this Act.
    This section also specifies duties for the Under Secretary 
to maintain existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine 
and freshwater harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response 
activities, ensure communication among Federal agencies, and 
increase availability of resources. The bill stipulates that 
all monitoring and observation data collected shall conform to 
standards and protocols developed pursuant to the National 
Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009.
    Section 5 requires that the existing research programs 
maintain a focus on research, development, and demonstration of 
technology to monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and 
respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxias. It also requires the Under Secretary and the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop 
a protocol to assess technology development timelines, 
coordinate local State and Federal authorities to facilitate 
field testing, and work with State and local entities to 
conduct outreach and education on technology field testing 
projects.
    This section also directs the Under Secretary, in 
consultation with the Administrator, to expand on the existing 
electronic information clearinghouse to provide information 
about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 
Furthermore, the bill directs the Under Secretary, in 
consultation with the Administrator, to develop a mechanism to 
provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin standards 
for comparative research and notify Congress of such in the 
report required under this section. The bill also directs the 
Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to report to Congress 
describing the activities carried out under the Program and the 
Plan.

Sec. 6. Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy

    This section directs the Under Secretary, through the Task 
Force, to oversee the development of a Comprehensive Research 
Plan and Action Strategy by identifying the appropriate regions 
and sub-regions to be addressed by the Plan and requires that 
the Plan include the following: 1) regional priorities for 
ecological, economic, and social research related to the 
impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and 
demonstration activities to advance technologies and techniques 
for minimizing the occurrence and addressing the impacts of 
HABs and hypoxia; 3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity 
of HABs events; 4) research and methods to address the impacts 
of HABs on human health; 5) mechanisms and the potential costs 
of these mechanisms to protect vulnerable ecosystems that could 
be or have been affected by harmful algal bloom and hypoxia 
events; 6) mechanisms for data transfer between the Program and 
State, tribal, and local governments and relevant research 
entities; 7) communication, outreach, and dissemination methods 
used to educate and inform the public; and 8) the roles of 
Federal agencies in implementation of the Plan.
    Section 6 also explicitly directs the utilization of 
existing peer-reviewed research, assessments, and reports in 
the development of the Plan. This section provides a list of 
individuals and entities that the Under Secretary shall 
coordinate with in developing the Plan. Section 6 directs that 
the Plan be completed and approved within 2 years after the 
date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as 
necessary.

Sec. 7. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia

    This section amends the underlying statute to require the 
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force 
to update its scientific assessment to include the following 
information: (1) the role of nutrient influx in the context of 
water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and 
wind and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; (2) the 
contribution of the topography of the Gulf of Mexico to water 
column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind 
and current dynamics; (3) the frequency and availability of 
monitoring to measure the size of the hypoxic zone; (4) the 
potential for hypoxia hot-spot formation with the Gulf of 
Mexico and possible causes; (5) the contribution of wetland 
loss to the nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; (6) the 
actual effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of 
Mexico and the benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone; 
and (7) a scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for an 
appropriate size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that 
will protect ecosystem functions.
    Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf 
Hypoxia Action Plan 2008 within 2 years of the enactment of the 
bill to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance the 
understanding of the contribution of topography, water column 
stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and 
current dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; (2) the 
development of models to simulate the different shelf regions 
and the fundamental processes that act in each shelf region, 
differentiate between the separate effects of stratification 
and nutrient loading in the formation of hypoxia, and informed 
by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and biogeochemical 
models; (3) a strategy to determine the appropriate amount of 
monitoring needed to develop a scientifically robust accounting 
on the size of the hypoxic zone; and (4) an examination of 
several potential solutions based on the information provided 
by the updated assessment.

Sec. 8. Chesapeake Bay dead zone

    Section 8 directs the Task Force to complete and submit to 
Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake 
Bay that examines the current status of and gaps in research. 
The bill requires the Task Force to develop a research plan 
based on the integrated assessment for reducing, mitigating, 
and controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the 
Task Force to consult with State and local governments and 
representatives from academic, agricultural, industry, and 
other stakeholder groups. The bill also directs the Task Force 
to ensure that the plan does not duplicate activities conducted 
by other Federal or State agencies. It further directs the Plan 
to include incentive-based partnership approaches and an 
economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for reducing, 
mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. This section 
requires publication of the plan in the Federal Register and 
progress reports every 2 years on the activities leading toward 
attainment of the goals set forth in the plan. The bill states 
that the plan contents shall address the monitoring needs 
identified in the assessment; detail procedures for the 
development and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, 
including making all assumptions built into the model publicly 
available; and describe the efforts to improve the assessment 
of the impacts of hypoxia.

Sec. 9. Authorization of appropriations

    Section 9 provides an authorization of $18,000,000 for each 
of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to the Under Secretary of 
Commerce to carry out the Program. In addition, this section 
provides $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized in 
the bill. Furthermore, section 9 provides that the 
Administrator ensure that activities carried out using 
authorized appropriations do not duplicate research and 
development activities related to harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia conducted by Federal agency represented on the Task 
Force, States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations 
concerned with marine and freshwater aquatic issues.

Sec. 10. Clerical amendments

    Amends section 2 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 
1998 to include an updated table of contents, and replaces any 
instance of ``Clean Water Act or'' with ``Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act or the'' in section 609 of the Act.

         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):

                 COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1998




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

     * * * * * * *

               TITLE VI--HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA

     * * * * * * *
[Sec. 602. Findings.
[Sec. 603. Assessments.
[Sec. 604. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia.
[Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
[Sec. 606. Protection of States' rights.]
Sec. 602. Definitions.
Sec. 603. Assessments.
Sec. 604. National harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program.
Sec. 605. Comprehensive research plan and action strategy.
Sec. 606. Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia.
Sec. 607. Chesapeake Bay dead zone.
Sec. 608. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 609. Protection of States' rights.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               TITLE VI--HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``Harmful Algal Bloom and 
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998''.

[SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

     [The Congress finds that--
            [(1) the recent outbreak of the harmful microbe 
        Pfiesteria piscicida in the coastal waters of the 
        United States is one example of potentially harmful 
        algal blooms composed of naturally occurring species 
        that reproduce explosively and that are increasing in 
        frequency and intensity in the Nation's coastal waters;
            [(2) other recent occurrences of harmful algal 
        blooms include red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and the 
        Southeast; brown tides in New York and Texas; ciguatera 
        fish poisoning in Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the 
        United States Virgin Islands; and shellfish poisonings 
        in the Gulf of Maine, the Pacific Northwest, and the 
        Gulf of Alaska;
            [(3) in certain cases, harmful algal blooms have 
        resulted in fish kills, the deaths of numerous 
        endangered West Indian manatees, beach and shellfish 
        bed closures, threats to public health and safety, and 
        concern among the public about the safety of seafood;
            [(4) according to some scientists, the factors 
        causing or contributing to harmful algal blooms may 
        include excessive nutrients in coastal waters, other 
        forms of pollution, the transfer of harmful species 
        through ship ballast water, and ocean currents;
            [(5) harmful algal blooms may have been responsible 
        for an estimated $1,000,000,000 in economic losses 
        during the past decade;
            [(6) harmful algal blooms and blooms of non-toxic 
        algal species may lead to other damaging marine 
        conditions such as hypoxia (reduced oxygen 
        concentrations), which are harmful or fatal to fish, 
        shellfish, and benthic organisms;
            [(7) according to the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration in the Department of 
        Commerce, 53 percent of United States estuaries 
        experience hypoxia for at least part of the year and a 
        7,000 square mile area in the Gulf of Mexico off 
        Louisiana and Texas suffers from hypoxia;
            [(8) according to some scientists, a factor 
        believed to cause hypoxia is excessive nutrient loading 
        into coastal waters;
            [(9) there is a need to identify more workable and 
        effective actions to reduce nutrient loadings to 
        coastal waters;
            [(10) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration, through its ongoing research, 
        education, grant, and coastal resource management 
        programs, possesses a full range of capabilities 
        necessary to support a near and long-term comprehensive 
        effort to prevent, reduce, and control harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia;
            [(11) funding for the research and related programs 
        of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
        will aid in improving the Nation's understanding and 
        capabilities for addressing the human and environmental 
        costs associated with harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 
        and
            [(12) other Federal agencies such as the 
        Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of 
        Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation, along 
        with the States, Indian tribes, and local governments, 
        conduct important work related to the prevention, 
        reduction, and control of harmful algal blooms and 
        hypoxia.]

SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

    In this title:
            (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' 
        means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency.
            (2) Noaa.--The term ``NOAA'' means the National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
            (3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the 
        comprehensive research plan and action strategy under 
        section 605.
            (4) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the 
        National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program under 
        section 604(a).
            (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 
        several States of the United States, the District of 
        Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United 
        States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any other 
        territory or possession of the United States, and any 
        Indian tribe.
            (6) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the 
        Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and 
        Hypoxia under section 603(a)(1).
            (7) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' 
        means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
        Atmosphere.

SEC. 603. ASSESSMENTS.

    [(a) Establishment of Inter-Agency Task Force.--The 
President, through the Committee on Environment and Natural 
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council, shall 
establish an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms 
and Hypoxia (hereinafter referred to as the ``Task Force''). 
The Task Force shall consist of the following representatives 
from--
            [(1) the Department of Commerce (who shall serve as 
        Chairman of the Task Force);
            [(2) the Environmental Protection Agency;
            [(3) the Department of Agriculture;
            [(4) the Department of the Interior;
            [(5) the Department of the Navy;
            [(6) the Department of Health and Human Services;
            [(7) the National Science Foundation;
            [(8) the National Aeronautics and Space 
        Administration;
            [(9) the Food and Drug Administration;
            [(10) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
            [(11) the Council on Environmental Quality; and
            [(12) such other Federal agencies as the President 
        considers appropriate.]
    (a) Inter-Agency Task Force.--
            (1) Establishment.--The President, through the 
        Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the 
        National Science and Technology Council, shall 
        establish an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal 
        Blooms and Hypoxia.
            (2) Representation.--The Task Force shall consist 
        of representatives from the following:
                    (A) The Department of Commerce.
                    (B) The Environmental Protection Agency.
                    (C) The Department of Agriculture.
                    (D) The Department of the Interior.
                    (E) The Department of the Navy.
                    (F) The Department of Health and Human 
                Services.
                    (G) The National Science Foundation.
                    (H) The National Aeronautics and Space 
                Administration.
                    (I) The Food and Drug Administration.
                    (J) The Office of Science and Technology 
                Policy.
                    (K) The Council on Environmental Quality.
                    (L) Such other Federal agencies as the 
                President considers appropriate.
            (3) Chairperson.--The Under Secretary from the 
        Department of Commerce shall serve as the Chairperson 
        of the Task Force.
            (4) Required meetings.--
                    (A) In general.--The Task Force shall meet, 
                or otherwise communicate, to coordinate 
                activities within each agency represented on 
                the Task Force in order to fulfill the program 
                requirements in section 604(b).
                    (B) Frequency.--The Task Force shall meet 
                at least once per year.
            (5) Budget coordination.--The Task Force shall--
                    (A) coordinate in the development of 
                individual agency budgets for the activities 
                described in section 604 that will ensure an 
                appropriate balance among the research and 
                action priorities; and
                    (B) submit such budgets to the Director of 
                the Office of Management and Budget at the time 
                designated by the Director for agencies to 
                submit annual budgets.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 604. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (d), the 
Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall maintain a 
National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program in accordance 
with authorities under section 603 pursuant to this section.
    (b) Duties.--The Under Secretary, through the Program, 
shall coordinate the efforts of the Task Force to--
            (1) develop and promote a national strategy to 
        understand, detect, monitor, predict, control, 
        mitigate, and respond to marine and freshwater harmful 
        algal bloom and hypoxia events;
            (2) integrate the research of all Federal programs, 
        including ocean and Great Lakes science and management 
        programs and centers, that address the chemical, 
        biological, and physical components of marine and 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (3) assist and coordinate, where appropriate, with 
        State, tribal, and local government agencies, programs, 
        and regional efforts that address marine and freshwater 
        harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including the 
        development and implementation of appropriate response 
        plans, strategies, and tools;
            (4) identify additional research, development, and 
        demonstration needs and priorities relating to 
        understanding, detection, monitoring, prediction, 
        prevention, control, mitigation, and response to marine 
        and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (5) ensure the development and use of methods and 
        technologies to protect the ecosystems affected by 
        marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (6) encourage the appropriate exchange of research 
        information with other countries in order to better 
        mitigate, control, and respond to marine and freshwater 
        harmful algal blooms;
            (7) coordinate existing education programs to 
        improve public understanding and awareness of the 
        causes, impacts, and mitigation efforts for marine and 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (8) provide resources to assist in the training of 
        State, tribal, and local water and coastal resource 
        managers in the methods and technologies for detecting, 
        monitoring, controlling, mitigating, and responding to 
        the effects of marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        bloom and hypoxia events;
            (9) oversee the development, review, and periodic 
        updating of the Plan;
            (10) administer peer-reviewed, merit-based, 
        competitive grant funding to support--
                    (A) the projects maintained and established 
                by the Program; and
                    (B) the research and management needs and 
                priorities identified in the Plan; and
            (11) encourage the development of innovative 
        concepts for the beneficial utilization of--
                    (A) biomass from harmful algal blooms that 
                have been removed from the natural system; and
                    (B) the growth of certain biofuel crops 
                that reduce runoff that causes harmful algal 
                blooms.
    (c) Cooperative Efforts.--The Under Secretary shall work 
cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other 
offices, centers, and programs within NOAA and other agencies 
represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, and 
nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine and 
freshwater aquatic issues related to harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia.
    (d) Freshwater Program.--
            (1) In general.--With respect to the freshwater 
        aspects of the Program, the Administrator and the Under 
        Secretary, through the Task Force, shall carry out the 
        duties otherwise assigned to the Under Secretary under 
        this section, excluding the activities described in 
        subsection (e).
            (2) Participation.--The Administrator's 
        participation under this subsection shall include--
                    (A) research on the ecology of freshwater 
                harmful algal blooms;
                    (B) monitoring of and event response to 
                freshwater harmful algal blooms in lakes, 
                rivers, estuaries (including their 
                tributaries), and reservoirs; and
                    (C) mitigation and control of freshwater 
                harmful algal blooms.
            (3) Nonduplication.--The Administrator shall ensure 
        that activities carried out under this Act shall focus 
        on new approaches to addressing freshwater harmful 
        algal blooms and are not duplicative of existing 
        research and development programs authorized by this or 
        any other Act.
            (4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
        Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the 
        Administrator shall prepare and transmit to the 
        Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the 
        House of Representatives a report containing--
                    (A) a detailed budget explanation for all 
                of the activities conducted by the 
                Administrator under this Act; and
                    (B) a description of how such activities 
                reduce the effects of freshwater harmful algal 
                blooms and improve water quality.
    (e) NOAA Activities.--As part of the program under this 
section, the Under Secretary shall--
            (1) maintain existing peer-reviewed competitive 
        grant programs at NOAA relating to marine and 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (2) conduct marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        bloom and hypoxia event response activities; and
            (3) ensure communication and coordination among 
        Federal agencies carrying out marine and freshwater 
        harmful algal bloom and hypoxia activities and increase 
        the availability to appropriate public and private 
        entities of--
                    (A) analytical facilities and technologies;
                    (B) operational forecasts; and
                    (C) reference and research materials.
    (f) Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System.--All 
monitoring and observation data collected under this Act shall 
be collected in compliance with all data standards and 
protocols developed pursuant to the National Integrated Coastal 
and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3601 et 
seq.), and such data shall be made available through the system 
established under that Act.
    (g) Technology Research, Development, and Demonstration.--
            (1) In general.--As part of the duties described in 
        subsection (b), the Under Secretary and the 
        Administrator, through the Task Force, shall maintain a 
        focus on technology research and development for each 
        of the categories of marine harmful algal blooms, 
        freshwater harmful algal blooms, and hypoxia in the 
        following areas:
                    (A) Monitoring.
                    (B) Prediction.
                    (C) Prevention.
                    (D) Control.
                    (E) Mitigation.
                    (F) Response to events, including 
                remediation.
            (2) Enumeration.--As part of the report required 
        under subsection (i), the Under Secretary, in 
        coordination with the Administrator, shall enumerate 
        the technology research and development conducted for 
        each of the areas identified in paragraph (1).
            (3) Protocol.--The Under Secretary, in coordination 
        with the Administrator, shall develop a protocol for--
                    (A) assessing the stage of technology 
                development that is ready to move from lab 
                testing to field testing;
                    (B) coordinating local, State, and Federal 
                authorities to facilitate measures necessary to 
                conduct field tests in a timely manner; and
                    (C) working with local and State entities, 
                programs, and interested stakeholders to 
                conduct outreach and education on technology 
                field testing projects.
    (h) Information Clearinghouse.--
            (1) Electronic information.--Using the authority 
        under section 603(i)(2)(B), the Under Secretary, in 
        coordination with the Administrator, shall expand the 
        existing electronic clearinghouse to provide 
        information about marine and freshwater harmful algal 
        blooms and hypoxia, including--
                    (A) the Federal agencies involved in 
                research and development on understanding, 
                detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, 
                control, mitigation, and response activities;
                    (B) tools available to predict and model 
                events; and
                    (C) current or developing technologies for 
                detection, monitoring, prediction, prevention, 
                control, mitigation, and response, including 
                remediation.
            (2) Toxin standards.--The Under Secretary, in 
        consultation with the Administrator, shall--
                    (A) develop a mechanism to provide a 
                reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin 
                standards for comparative research; and
                    (B) notify the Congress of such mechanism 
                as part of the report required under subsection 
                (i).
    (i) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the submission of 
the Plan, the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, shall 
prepare and transmit to the Congress a report that describes--
            (1) the activities carried out under the Program 
        and the Plan and the budget related to such activities; 
        and
            (2) the need to revise or terminate activities or 
        projects under the Program.

SEC. 605. COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN AND ACTION STRATEGY.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Under Secretary, through 
the Task Force, shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive 
research plan and action strategy to address marine and 
freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia that identifies--
            (1) the specific activities to be carried out by 
        the Program and the timeline for carrying out such 
        activities;
            (2) the roles and responsibilities of each Federal 
        agency in the Task Force in carrying out Program 
        activities; and
            (3) appropriate regions and subregions requiring 
        specific research and activities to address local, 
        State, and regional harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
    (b) Regional Focus.--The regional and subregional parts of 
the Plan shall identify--
            (1) regional priorities for ecological, economic, 
        and social research on issues related to the impacts of 
        harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (2) research, development, and demonstration 
        activities needed to develop and advance technologies 
        and techniques for minimizing the occurrence of harmful 
        algal blooms and hypoxia and improving capabilities to 
        detect, predict, monitor, control, mitigate, respond 
        to, and remediate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of 
        harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, including deployment 
        of response technologies in a timely manner;
            (4) research and methods to address human health 
        dimensions of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
            (5) mechanisms, including the potential costs and 
        benefits of those mechanisms, to protect ecosystems 
        that may be or have been affected by harmful algal 
        bloom and hypoxia events;
            (6) mechanisms by which data, information, and 
        products may be transferred between the Program and 
        State, tribal, and local governments and relevant 
        research entities;
            (7) communication and information dissemination 
        methods that State, tribal, and local governments may 
        undertake to educate and inform the public concerning 
        harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and
            (8) the roles that Federal agencies may have to 
        assist in the implementation of the Plan.
    (c) Utilizing Available Studies and Information.--In 
developing the Plan, the Under Secretary shall utilize existing 
research, assessments, reports, and program activities, 
including--
            (1) those carried out pursuant to existing law; and
            (2) other relevant peer-reviewed and published 
        sources.
    (d) Development of the Plan.--In developing the Plan, the 
Under Secretary shall, as appropriate--
            (1) coordinate with--
                    (A) State coastal management and planning 
                officials;
                    (B) tribal resource management officials; 
                and
                    (C) water management and watershed 
                officials from both coastal States and 
                noncoastal States with water sources that drain 
                into water bodies affected by harmful algal 
                blooms and hypoxia; and
            (2) consult with--
                    (A) public health officials;
                    (B) emergency management officials;
                    (C) science and technology development 
                institutions;
                    (D) economists;
                    (E) industries and businesses affected by 
                marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
                hypoxia;
                    (F) scientists with expertise concerning 
                harmful algal blooms or hypoxia from academic 
                or research institutions; and
                    (G) other stakeholders.
    (e) Federal Register.--The Under Secretary shall publish 
the Plan in the Federal Register.
    (f) Periodic Revision.--The Under Secretary, in 
coordination and consultation with the individuals and entities 
identified in subsection (d), shall periodically review and 
revise the Plan prepared under this section, as necessary.

SEC. [604.]  606. NORTHERN GULF OF MEXICO HYPOXIA.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Required Update.--
            (1) In general.--Within 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
        Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the 
        Administrator, through the Mississippi River/Gulf of 
        Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, shall complete 
        and submit to the Congress and the President an updated 
        assessment and a revised action plan based on the 
        updated assessment.
            (2) Requirements.--The updated assessment shall 
        take into account the following:
                    (A) The role of nutrient influx in the 
                context of water column stratification, 
                seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and 
                current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico.
                    (B) The contribution of the topography of 
                the Gulf of Mexico in the effects of the 
                characteristics described in subparagraph (A) 
                on the hypoxic zone.
                    (C) The frequency and availability of 
                monitoring to measure the size of the hypoxic 
                zone.
                    (D) The potential of hypoxia hot-spot 
                formation within the Gulf of Mexico and 
                possible causes of such hot-spots.
                    (E) The contribution of wetland loss to 
                hypoxia events in the Gulf of Mexico.
                    (F) The actual effect of hypoxia on the 
                ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the 
                benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone 
                size.
                    (G) A scientifically generated, peer-
                reviewed goal for the size of the hypoxic zone 
                in the Gulf of Mexico.
            (3) Research strategy.--The updated plan shall 
        include a research strategy--
                    (A) to enhance understanding of the 
                contribution of topography, water column 
                stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, 
                and wind and current dynamics on the size of 
                the hypoxic zone;
                    (B) to develop models able to--
                            (i) simulate different shelf 
                        regions and the fundamental processes 
                        that act in each shelf region;
                            (ii) differentiate between the 
                        separate effects of stratification and 
                        nutrient loading in the formation of 
                        hypoxia; and
                            (iii) be informed by realistic 
                        three-dimensional hydrodynamic and 
                        biogeochemical models;
                    (C) that determines the appropriate amount 
                of monitoring and measuring necessary to get a 
                scientifically robust accounting on the size of 
                the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone; and
                    (D) that examines several potential 
                solutions based on information provided by the 
                updated assessment in paragraph (1).

SEC. 607. CHESAPEAKE BAY DEAD ZONE.

    (a) Assessment Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the 
date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, the Task Force, in 
accordance with the authority under section 603, shall complete 
and submit to the Congress and the President an integrated 
assessment of hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay that examines the 
status of and gaps within current research, monitoring, 
prevention, response, and control activities by--
            (1) Federal agencies;
            (2) State agencies;
            (3) regional research consortia;
            (4) academia;
            (5) private industry; and
            (6) nongovernmental organizations.
    (b) Research Plan.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the 
        date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
        Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, 
        the Task Force shall develop and submit to the Congress 
        a plan, based on the integrated assessment submitted 
        under subsection (a), for reducing, mitigating, and 
        controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay.
            (2) Requirements.--In developing such plan, the 
        Task Force shall--
                    (A) consult with State and local 
                governments and representatives from academic, 
                agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder 
                groups;
                    (B) ensure that the plan does not duplicate 
                activities conducted by other Federal or State 
                agencies;
                    (C) include incentive-based partnership 
                approaches;
                    (D) include an economic cost-benefit 
                analysis of the measures for reducing, 
                mitigating, and controlling hypoxia events;
                    (E) utilize existing research, assessments, 
                reports, and program activities;
                    (F) publish a summary of the proposed plan 
                in the Federal Register 90 days prior to the 
                submission to the Congress of the completed 
                plan; and
                    (G) provide progress reports every 2 years 
                after the submission to the Congress of the 
                completed plan on the activities leading toward 
                attainment of the goals set forth in the plan.
            (3) Contents.--The plan shall--
                    (A) address the monitoring needs identified 
                in the integrated assessment submitted under 
                subsection (a) and develop a timeline and 
                budgetary requirements for deployment of future 
                assets;
                    (B) detail procedures for the development 
                and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia 
                models, including making available to the 
                public--
                            (i) all assumptions built into the 
                        models; and
                            (ii) data quality methods used to 
                        ensure the best available data is 
                        utilized; and
                    (C) describe efforts to improve the 
                assessment of the impacts of hypoxia by--
                            (i) characterizing current and past 
                        biological conditions in ecosystems 
                        affected by hypoxia; and
                            (ii) quantifying effects, including 
                        economic effects, at the population and 
                        community level.

[SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

     [There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
of Commerce for research, education, and monitoring activities 
related to the prevention, reduction, and control of harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, 
$18,250,000 for fiscal year 2000, $19,000,000 for fiscal year 
2001, $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2005, $24,500,000 for fiscal 
year 2006, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $30,000,000 
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, to remain available 
until expended. The Secretary shall consult with the States on 
a regular basis regarding the development and implementation of 
the activities authorized under this section. Of such amounts 
for each fiscal year--
            [(1) $1,500,000 for fiscal year 1999, $1,500,000 
        for fiscal year 2000, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
        and $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
        2010 may be used to enable the National Oceanic and 
        Atmospheric Administration to carry out research and 
        assessment activities, including procurement of 
        necessary research equipment, at research laboratories 
        of the National Ocean Service and the National Marine 
        Fisheries Service;
            [(2) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $5,500,000 
        for fiscal year 2000, $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
        and $6,500,000, of which $1,000,000 shall be used for 
        the research program described in section 603(f)(2)(B), 
        for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2010 may be used 
        to carry out the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful 
        Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) project under the Coastal Ocean 
        Program established under section 201(c) of Public Law 
        102-567;
            [(3) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $2,000,000 
        for fiscal year 2000, $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
        and $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
        2010 may be used by the National Ocean Service of the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to 
        carry out a peer-reviewed research project on 
        management measures that can be taken to prevent, 
        reduce, control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms and 
        to carry out section 603(d);
            [(4) $5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999, 
        2000, 2001, and $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
        2005 through 2010 may be used to carry out Federal and 
        State annual monitoring and analysis activities for 
        harmful algal blooms administered by the National Ocean 
        Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
        Administration;
            [(5) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $3,750,000 
        for fiscal year 2000, $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, 
        $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $5,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 2006, $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, and 
        $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010 
        may be used for activities related to research and 
        monitoring on hypoxia by the National Ocean Service and 
        the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research of the 
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
            [(6) $1,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
        through 2010 to carry out section 603(e).]

SEC. 608. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) Under Secretary.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Under Secretary to carry out this Act 
$18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2015, of 
which, for each fiscal year--
            (1) $1,000,000 may be used for the development of 
        the comprehensive research plan and action strategy 
        under section 605 and the assessment and reports 
        required by sections 606 and 607;
            (2) $4,000,000 may be used for the research and 
        assessment activities related to marine and freshwater 
        harmful algal blooms at research laboratories of NOAA;
            (3) $4,000,000 may be used to carry out the Ecology 
        of Harmful Algal Blooms Program (ECOHAB);
            (4) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out the 
        Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal Blooms 
        Program (MERHAB);
            (5) $2,000,000 may be used to carry out research 
        and assessment for the Northern Gulf of Mexico 
        ecosystem and hypoxia activities;
            (6) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out coastal 
        hypoxia research activities;
            (7) $1,500,000 may be used to carry out prevention, 
        control, and mitigation activities;
            (8) $500,000 may be used to carry out event 
        response activities; and
            (9) $500,000 may be used to carry out 
        infrastructure activities.
    (b) Administrator.--
            (1) In general.--There are authorized to be 
        appropriated to the Administrator $2,700,000 for each 
        of the fiscal years 2012 through 2015 to carry out the 
        activities authorized under this Act.
            (2) Nonduplication.--The Administrator shall ensure 
        that activities carried out using the amounts 
        authorized under paragraph (1) do not duplicate 
        research and development activities related to harmful 
        algal blooms and hypoxia conducted by Federal agencies 
        represented on the Task Force, States, tribes, and 
        nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine and 
        freshwater aquatic issues.

SEC. [606.]  609. PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.

    (a) Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to adversely 
affect existing State regulatory or enforcement power which has 
been granted to any State through the [Clean Water Act or] 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 1972.
    (b) Nothing in this title shall be interpreted to expand 
the regulatory or enforcement power of the Federal Government 
which has been delegated to any State through the [Clean Water 
Act or] Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the Coastal Zone 
Management Act of 1972.

                           XX. MINORITY VIEWS

    H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Amendments Act of 2011, as amended by the Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology, is intended to reauthorize 
research needed to address both marine and freshwater harmful 
algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia events. The Committee Democrats 
recognize that the increasing frequency and severity of these 
events warrant a renewed focus on the relevant programs and 
activities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), and a reauthorization of the original Act is crucial. 
However. H.R. 2484 reduces the authorizations for HABs research 
at NOAA to below the FY 2008 spending levels, while, at the 
same time, the bill mandates a focus on additional duties for 
the agencies, imposing unfunded mandates on these agencies. It 
is the view of the Committee Democratic Members that the 
activities being authorized should be supported with 
commensurate levels of funding, or, at minimum, current funding 
levels should be sustained. It is the view of Committee 
Democrats that, contrary to the stated intent of supporting 
these activities, H.R. 2484 actually hinders the agencies' 
ability to protect our nation's waterways, marine life, and 
public health from the effects of HABs. For this reason, 
Committee Democrats unanimously opposed the final passage of 
the bill in Committee.
    Committee Democrats regard the following additional 
provisions required for the Under Secretary of NOAA and the 
Administrator of EPA as new unfunded mandates: (1) maintaining 
a focus on research, development, and demonstration of 
technology to monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and 
respond to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia; (2) develop a protocol to assess technology 
development timelines, coordinate local State and Federal 
authorities to facilitate field testing, and work with State 
and local entities to conduct outreach and education on 
technology field testing projects; (3) expand on the existing 
electronic information clearinghouse to provide information 
about marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; 
(4) develop a mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-
effective supply of toxin standards for comparative research; 
and (5) all of the EPA's Freshwater HABs research activities. 
The Democratic amendments accepted for H.R. 2484 will allow 
some of the research, specifically in the Northern Gulf of 
Mexico hypoxic zone, to progress without the hindrance of 
additional requirements set by the Act.
    Committee Democratic Members do not object to the substance 
of these additional provisions, and, in fact, agree with the 
Majority and stakeholders that they can be valuable additions 
to the existing activities. However, we believe that the 
current research activities are already underfunded, without 
the imposition of new requirements. The table below shows the 
current spending levels of HABs activities at NOAA to be 
roughly $21 million, assuming that the projected FY 2011 
spending levels will fall within the same range as the 2009 and 
2010 levels. H.R. 2484 is set to reauthorize the NOAA HABs 
activities at $18 million, which is just below the FY 2008 
spending levels and below the $25.5 million authorized in the 
2004 Reauthorization Act. It is the opinion of the Committee 
Minority that this reduced level of funding will make it 
extremely difficult for the agencies to carry out the 
currently-mandated activities, let alone focus on the 
additional activities required by H.R. 2484.
    Similarly, the Committee Democrats believe in order for EPA 
to fully participate in the research activities proposed in 
H.R. 2484, the EPA will require additional authority and 
funding above current operating levels. However, we strongly 
oppose robbing NOAA to pay for these activities, which is what 
the Majority has done in their bill.

                       NOAAHAB AND HYPOXIA EXPENDITURES,\1\ FY 2007-FY 2010--JULY 7, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Expenditures
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
                                                             FY 2007       FY 2008       FY 2009       FY 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCCOS:..................................................
    Regional Research and Action Plans\2\...............      $0.02M        $0.02M        $0.1M         $0.0M
    Intramural Research and Assessment Activities\3\....      $3.8M         $4.4M         $3.8M         $3.3M
    ECOHAB..............................................      $2.8M         $3.0M         $5.1M         $4.7M
    MERHAB..............................................      $1.9M         $1.6M         $1.5M         $0.6M
    NGOMEX..............................................      $1.7M         $2.4M         $2.7M         $2.4M
    CHRP................................................      $0.7M         $0.9M         $1.9M         $1.3M
    PCM HAB.............................................      $0.0M         $0.0M         $O.0M         $1.0M
    Event Response......................................      $0.01M        $0.06M        $0.04M        $0.02M
    Infrastructure......................................      $0.0M         $0.0M         $0.0M         $0.0M
    Coordination and Management of HABHRCA Competitive        $2.0M         $2.1M         $1.7M         $1.7M
     Programs...........................................
    Operational HAB Forecasting\4\......................      $0.0M         $0.0M         $0.0M         $1.0M
    HABHRCA Reports\5\..................................      $0.2M         $0.0M         $0.01M        $0.0M
    Ship Costs (presently allocated to OMAO and executed      $1.8M         $1.0M         $1.8M         $1.3M
     through NCCOS).....................................
NOAA (external to NCCOS)................................      $1.3M         $2.6M         $2.1M         $3.4M
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
NCCOS Total.............................................     $14.9M        $15.5M        $18.7M        $17.3M
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
NOAA TOTAL..............................................     $16.2M        $18.1M        $20.8M        $20.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Within the NOAA Budget there is not a specific NOAA line item for HABHRCA appropriations. HABHRCA is
  primarily implemented through appropriations to the NCCOS Base and the Competitive Research lines. Both NCCOS
  budget lines and the above estimates support a suite of prog rams codified in HABHRCA, as well as, in some
  cases, HABHRCA's goals more generally.
\2\This includes research prioritization workshops and contractor support used for preparation of Regional
  Plans.
\3\Estimated expenditures include research related to HABs and hypoxia within this time frame. These numbers
  have been refined slightly since the May 2011 submission based on additional analyses regarding activities
  carried out within NCCOS.
\4\In FY07, FY08. and FY09, operational costs were incurred by NOAA external to NCCOS.
\5\Yearly HABHRCA reporting costs vary significantly based upon HABHRCA's schedule. Costs for the initial series
  of HAKIRCA-required reports were largely incurred prior to 2007 (approx. $200,000-$300,000/report).

                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Marcia L. Fudge.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Donna F. Edwards.
                                   Paul Tonko.
                                   John P. Sarbanes.
                                   Jerry Costello.
                                   Lynn Woolsey.
                                   Jerry McNerney.
                                   Hansen Clarke.
                                   Frederica S. Wilson.
                                   Ben R. Lujan.
                                   Terri Sewell.
                                   Daniel Lipinski.



 XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT MARKUP 
  ON H.R. 2484, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL 
                         AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2011

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

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:02 p.m., in 
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy 
Harris [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Chairman Harris. The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
will come to order. Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment meets today to consider the following 
measure: H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011.
    We will now proceed with the markup, beginning with opening 
statements, and I will begin.
    Harmful algal blooms affect nearly every State in the U.S., 
and the complexity in understanding and responding to these 
events has eclipsed our current research and response 
structure. As part of an effort to address this need, we are 
marking up H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. This legislation 
is based on the discussion draft that was the subject of a 
Subcommittee hearing at the beginning of June. The changes from 
the discussion draft this afternoon's bill reflect comments 
received during the hearing and through discussions with the 
agencies and other relevant stakeholders in the intervening 
weeks.
    H.R. 2484 reauthorized the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act of 1998. There are a number of 
research programs related to harmful algal blooms and hypoxia 
already in existence authorized by several existing laws. 
However, in order to administer these programs, an umbrella 
structure has evolved to manage the disparate activities. H.R. 
2484 is supportive of this umbrella program and directs the 
task force to maintain it, and instructs the Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, who is also the 
Administrator of NOAA, to carry out a series of activities 
through the program.
    Now, one thing we learned from our hearing is that people 
who are seeking assistance when they have an HAB problem have 
had serious difficulties finding useful and relevant 
information. H.R. 2484 instructs the under secretary and the 
administrator to maintain an electronic information 
clearinghouse to aid with the dissemination of information 
about freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 
Also, it requires the under secretary and the administrator to 
develop a mechanism to ensure quality and cost effective toxin 
standards for comparative research.
    Now, the Committee Print we discussed in June contained an 
additional 10 reports from what you see in the bill before you. 
I believe that this single comprehensive approach is simpler 
and more efficient. Furthermore, with each report estimating 
the cost approximately $300,000, we will be eliminating about 
$3 million worth of reporting requirements, which frees up 
significant resources for additional research and response 
activities.
    Finally, H.R. 2484 provides NOAA with an authorization of 
$18 million for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015, a level 
slightly below fiscal year 2010 levels. But it also directs the 
administrator of EPA to utilize up to $3 million of existing 
funding for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015 to carry out the 
authorized provisions in the Act.
    H.R. 2484 started out from a version of a House bill passed 
in the 111th Congress. I understand that there have been 
positive collaborations on this effort between Majority and 
Minority staff, and I thank them all for that. I hope that such 
collaboration will continue and increase as we move through the 
legislative process. I will urge the support of all the members 
of the Subcommittee for this bill, and I will leave my 
statement at that and insert the rest in the record, as we 
would like to get going before votes are called.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Chairman Harris
    Harmful algal blooms affect nearly every State in the U.S., and the 
complexity in understanding and responding to these events has eclipsed 
our current research and response structure. In my District, algal 
blooms and dead zones are an ongoing challenge in the Chesapeake Bay, 
negatively impacting the commercial fishing industry, tourism, and 
numerous Bay-related recreational activities. There is a growing need 
for collaboration between Federal agencies and between the Federal 
government and States and localities to address this important 
environmental issue.
    As part of an effort to address this need, we are marking up H.R. 
2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2011. This legislation is based on the discussion 
draft that was the subject of a Subcommittee hearing at the beginning 
of June. The changes from the discussion draft to this morning's bill 
reflect comments received during the hearing and through discussions 
with the Agencies and other relevant stakeholders in the intervening 
weeks.
    H.R. 2484 reauthorizes the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act of 1998. The bill reconstitutes the inter-agency Task 
Force already in statute and requires budget development and 
coordination for the activities enumerated in the bill. This will raise 
the visibility of the research programs within the agency members of 
the Task Force.
    There are a number of research programs related to harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia already in existence, authorized by several existing 
laws. However, in order to administer these programs, an umbrella 
structure has evolved to manage the disparate activities. H.R. 2484 is 
supportive of this umbrella Program and directs the Task Force to 
maintain it, and instructs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans 
and Atmosphere - who is also the Administrator of NOAA - to carry out a 
series of activities, through the Program. The Under Secretary is also 
required to work cooperatively with other offices, centers, and 
programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, nongovernmental 
organizations and other members of the Task Force to avoid duplication 
of efforts.
    As we heard at the hearing, there is a need for technologies to 
deal with harmful algal bloom or HAB outbreaks in addition to looking 
for solutions to prevent or minimize them in the first place. 
Accordingly, H.R. 2484 directs the Under Secretary and the 
Administrator of the EPA to maintain a focus on technology research and 
development for freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 
It also requires the development of protocols to determine when 
technologies are ready to move from lab testing to field testing, to 
coordinate local, State and Federal authorities to facilitate field 
testing, and work with local and State entities to conduct outreach and 
education about the field testing.
    Another thing we learned from our hearing is that people who are 
seeking assistance when they have a HABs problem have had serious 
difficulties in finding useful and relevant information. H.R. 2484 
instructs the Under Secretary and the Administrator to maintain an 
electronic information clearinghouse to aid with the dissemination of 
information about freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia. Also, it requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator to 
develop a mechanism to ensure quality and cost-effective toxin 
standards for comparative research.
    The bill directs the Under Secretary to oversee the development of 
a comprehensive research plan and action strategy and identify the 
appropriate regions to be highlighted by such a Plan. The action 
strategy outlines the specific activities to be carried out by the 
Program, a timeline for such activities, and the programmatic roles of 
each Federal agency on the Task Force. The research plan must also 
identify research, activities and technologies needed to detect, 
predict, monitor, prevent, control and mitigate harmful algal blooms 
and hypoxia. The Committee print discussed in June contained an 
additional 10 reports. I believe that this single, comprehensive 
approach is simpler and more efficient. Furthermore, with each report 
estimated to cost approximately $300,000, eliminating $3 million worth 
of reporting requirements frees up significant resources for additional 
research and response activities.

    Chairman Harris. I now recognize Mr. Miller for five 
minutes to present his opening remarks.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In June, this 
Subcommittee did hear expert witnesses on the rapid 
overproduction of algae, and how that can have devastating 
effects on aquatic plant and animal life, as well as human 
health. Unfortunately, despite years of research on harmful 
algal blooms, HABs, and hypoxia is on the rise; and are 
affecting more of our coastlines and in the waterways than 
ever. Just last month, the senior senator from Oklahoma, 
Senator Inhofe, a member of the other body, and a frequent 
participant in debates about environmental policy, was made 
deathly sick, he said, by swimming in a toxic algal outbreak in 
a lake in Oklahoma.
    Recognizing the growing threat, we begin work on the 
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act in the last Congress--I recall, though, there 
was a helpful acronym for that--with bill ultimately passed in 
the House but stalling in the Senate. The Senate being where 
all ideas go to die.
    In some regards, today is a continuation of that effort and 
as with that bill, this bill before us directs NOAA to 
implement research strategies and action plans so we can 
understand better and respond better to the harmful blooms and 
hypoxia events.
    NOAA and the research community have made notable strides 
in advancing our understanding of harmful algae, and under 
intense budget constraints they have managed to devise a range 
of innovative solutions. The question for us is when we will 
stop paying lip service to the problem, take it seriously, and 
put our money where our mouth is? Scientific research and 
practicable response strategies don't come free, and oyster 
farmers, swimming senators, and all the rest of us expect more 
than that.
    But given the importance of the research to the Chesapeake 
Bay in particular, I am surprised that this bill does not even 
at a minimum sustain the funding at its current level. Despite 
properly acknowledging the risk of HABs, the bill makes even 
further cuts to an already struggling program, actually 
rewinding the program funding to less than the 2008 levels.
    I look forward to the debate today--the discussion today 
about this bill, but I hope that it will not be that we give 
lip service only to the importance of research and fail to 
provide the funds necessary--or authorize the funds necessary 
to do it. The research community and the populations they serve 
have made it clear that they do need this bill, and it is 
important that we pass this legislation. That will be helpful 
to them in response to the problem. Right now, I fear with the 
funding issue this bill does not do that.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Miller
    Thank you. Mr. Harris.
    In June this Subcommittee heard expert witnesses testify on how the 
rapid overproduction of algae can have devastating impacts on aquatic 
plant and animal life, as well as human health. Unfortunately, despite 
years of research and growing public awareness, the frequency and 
duration of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia is on the rise, and 
affecting more of our coastlines and inland waters than ever before. In 
fact, just last month, the esteemed senior senator from Oklahoma and 
frequent contributor to the debate on environmental policy, Senator 
Inhofe, was made "deathly sick" by swimming in a toxic algae outbreak 
in a lake in his home state.
    Recognizing the growing threat, we began work on the 
reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Act in the last Congress, with the bill ultimately passing the 
House but stalling in the Senate. In some regards, today is a 
continuation of that effort. As with that bill, the bill before us 
today directs NOAA to implement research strategies and action plans to 
better understand and respond to these harmful blooms and hypoxic 
events.
    NOAA and the research community have made notable strides in 
advancing our understanding of harmful algae, and, under intense budget 
constraints, they have managed to devise a range of innovative 
solutions. The question for us is when will we stop paying lip service 
to this problem, take it seriously, and put our money where our mouth 
is? Scientific research and practicable response strategies don't come 
for free. From oyster farmers to swimming senators, the public expects 
more from us.
    That said, given the importance of this research to the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed - your district, Mr. Chairman - I am surprised that your 
bill does not even, at minimum, sustain funding at its current level. 
Despite acknowledging the risk of HABs, you choose to make even further 
cuts to already struggling programs, actually rewinding funding to 
lower than 2008 spending levels. By what logic does that solve the 
problem?
    I look forward to discussing the bill more when we bring it up here 
for consideration. But if we are going to say we care about this 
research, and that we care enough about the impacts of HABs of coasts 
and inland waters to take action, then we actually have to invest in a 
way that will move this research forward and advance our understanding 
of these blooms and the hypoxic events they cause. Otherwise, it might 
actually be better if we didn't care so much.
    The research community and the populations they serve have made it 
clear that they need this bill, and that it is important that we pass a 
piece of legislation that is both helpful to them and responsive to the 
problem. Right now, I cannot claim that this bill does either of those.
    Thank you Mr. Harris and I look forward to a productive markup and 
hope that we can find a way to make these programs even more, and 
certainly not less, effective.

    Mr. Miller. Mr. Harris, before we bring this bill for 
consideration, I do have a parliamentary inquiry.
    Chairman Harris. Go ahead.
    Mr. Miller. I understand that the protocols of the House, 
the rules of the House and of this committee does not allow any 
new authorization without having those authorizations offset. I 
understand that this bill offsets the appropriations or the 
authorization of--with reference to Section 9(b) and Section 
9(d), that under Section 282 of the Environmental Research 
Development and Demonstration Authority Act of 1981, the 
administrator may utilize up to $3 million to carry out the 
authorized activities under this Act. The 1981 Act was an 
authorization for 1981 only, so that authorization has now 
expired for more than 30 years.
    I assume that when the rules require that there be an 
authorizing--an offsetting authorization, that it be an 
existing authorization, not one that has existed at some point 
in the past, 30 years ago or 50 years ago. Is that the rule, 
that there just must be some offset, regardless of whether it 
is in existence now? What is the current rule that must be 
offset before we can consider a bill?
    Chairman Harris. Well, I thank the gentleman for raising 
the issue. We have used the current spending in the program, 
current appropriation in the program as the baseline from which 
to operate. But the issue you bring up is the authorization 
with regards to the Act in 1981. The language as drafted 
clarifies that funding for these activities comes from the 
amounts that are being made available for the Clean Water Act, 
science and technology activities at EPA currently.
    Despite the fact that this account has not been authorized 
since 1981, clean water research activities continue to receive 
funds through the appropriations process. For the science and 
technology research activities at EPA, which did receive $815 
million for fiscal year 2011 and $848 million in fiscal year 
2010. Clean Water research activities received--specifically, 
clean water research activities received $62 million in fiscal 
year 2010. This bill would allow EPA to use up to $3 million of 
those funds as well towards activities in this bill.
    This bill is a good faith effort to direct existing dollars 
which are being appropriated for this office to activities that 
this committee views as vital to the environment and clean 
water. Now, we have worked with the Congressional Budget Office 
and we will continue to work with the Congressional Budget 
Office to examine appropriate spending for these activities, 
based on actual agency estimates, and we will continue to work 
on this legislation as we move forward through the process to 
ensure that the funds are being allocated from the appropriate 
sources.
    Mr. Miller. Further question, Mr. Chairman. Are you then 
saying that there have been appropriations based upon an 
authorization that has not been in effect for more than 30 
years?
    Chairman Harris. That appears to be what is going on with 
the authorizations, that is right, with the appropriations.
    Mr. Miller. Okay. The rules do say match up an 
authorization to an authorization, but you were saying that--
you understand, even though there is not an effective 
authorization now and has not been for 30 years, there continue 
to be appropriations based upon a 30-year-old out of date 
ineffective authorization.
    Chairman Harris. Well, that does appear to be the way it 
works, because there are general authorities under which monies 
can be appropriated.
    Mr. Miller. That may be true, but it certainly is not----
    Chairman Harris. I hope it----
    Mr. Miller. Perhaps we can consider this point further when 
this bill comes before the full committee.
    Chairman Harris. Absolutely, and that was our intention, to 
continue working through that process and make sure we clarify 
that before it----
    Mr. Miller. All the politicals do say that a bill cannot be 
considered until there is an offsetting authorization.
    Chairman Harris. Thank you very much.
    Without objection, all member opening statements will be 
placed in the record at this point.
    We will now consider H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms 
and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. 
Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that the bill is 
considered as read and open to amendment at any point, and that 
members proceed with amendments in the order listed on the 
roster. So ordered.
    [H.R. 2484 appears in the Appendix:]

    Chairman Harris. Are there any amendments to the bill?
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Harris. The first amendment on the roster is the 
amendment offered by Mr. McNerney, and the clerk shall report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment number 367, amendment to H.R. 2484 
authored by Mr. McNerney of California.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix:]

    Chairman Harris. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Before recognizing the gentleman to explain his amendment, 
I want to let the gentleman know, we are going to accept his 
amendment and that we would be happy to include your statement 
in the record at this point. Is that acceptable to the 
gentleman?
    Mr. McNerney. Mr. Chairman, I have a fairly short 
statement, and I certainly appreciate the hard work that the 
committee has done, the Majority staff. It is a bipartisan 
issue, so with that, I guess I will forego my statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:]
             Prepared Statement of Representative McNerney
    Thank you Mr. Chairman. The amendment I am offering today is 
similar to a provision that was included in the harmful Algal Blooms 
reauthorization bill passed last Congress in this Subcommittee, this 
Committee, and in the House.
    The simple amendment adds back one of the duties to be undertaken 
by the Under Secretary of NOAA and Task Force. Specifically, the 
amendment directs them to encourage the appropriate exchange of 
information with the international research community. The U.S. 
research community has noted the importance of international 
collaboration and the successes they have had in the past because of 
the opportunity to learn from experts in other countries.
    As someone who spent a career as a mathematician and engineer, I 
have a deep appreciation for the importance of international scientific 
collaboration. This amendment will encourage U.S. researchers to tap 
into all resources of information available to them. Encouraging 
international collaboration has significant potential to help us better 
control, mitigate, and respond to bloom outbreaks and hypoxic zones in 
our own U.S. waters.
    In no way does this amendment mandate the sharing of information 
sensitive to our interests and security, but simply encourages the 
sharing of relevant research information, when appropriate.
    I urge the adoption of his amendment. Thank you, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

    Chairman Harris. Thank you very much. I want to thank the 
gentleman for his amendment, and we do accept the amendment.
    Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the question 
is on the bill, H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011, as amended. All 
those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. In the 
opinion of the Chairman, the ayes have it.
    I will now recognize myself to offer a motion. I move that 
the Subcommittee favorably report the bill H.R. 2484 as amended 
to the full committee. Furthermore, I move that staff be 
instructed to prepare the Subcommittee legislative report and 
make necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the 
Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill, H.R. 2484 
as amended, before the full committee for consideration.
    The question is on the motion to report the bill as 
amended. Those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The 
ayes have it and the bill is favorably reported. Without 
objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. I 
move that members may have 2 subsequent calendar days in which 
to submit supplemental Minority or additional views on the 
measure. Without objection, so ordered.
    This concludes our Subcommittee markup. The Chairman 
declares the Subcommittee adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                               Appendix:

                              ----------                              


  H.R. 2484, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment, Amendment Roster
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

  Section-by-Section Analysis of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
              Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011

    Purpose: To reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act of 1998 to include a comprehensive and 
integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, to 
provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive 
regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and 
for other purposes.

    Section 1: Short Title

    The Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2011

    Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act of 1998 - Explains that the text the bill modifies is 
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, 
unless otherwise expressly stated.

    Section 3: Definitions - Provides definitions, including: 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; the National 
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program; and the Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

    Section 4: Inter-Agency Task Force - Restates the President's 
establishment of an interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and 
Hypoxia through the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources of 
the National Science and Technology Council. The bill reiterates 
representation and designation of the representative from the 
Department of Commerce to serve as the Chairperson of the Task Force. 
The bill directs the Task Force to meet at least once per year and to 
develop a coordinated budget to be submitted to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget at the time designated for agencies to 
submit annual budgets.

    Section 5: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program - 
Directs the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to 
utilize the resources of the Task Force to maintain a National Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill outlines tasks for the Under 
Secretary to ensure the Program, 1) develops a national strategy to 
address both marine and freshwater HABs and hypoxia; 2) coordinates all 
Federal programs related to HABs and hypoxia; 3) works with State, 
tribal, and local government agencies; 4) identifies additional 
research needs and priorities; 5) ensures the development and 
implementation of methods and technologies to protect ecosystems 
damaged by HABs; 6) coordinates existing education programs to improve 
public understanding; 7) provides resources for training of State, 
tribal and local water and coastal resource managers; 8) oversees the 
development of the Regional Research and Action Plans; and 9) 
administers peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant funding. In 
addition, the legislation directs the Under Secretary to work 
cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, 
centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented on the 
Task Force. The bill directs the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to work with the Under Secretary to utilize the 
resources of the task force to carry out freshwater activities.
    The bill also specifies duties for the Under Secretary to maintain 
existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine and freshwater 
harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response activities, and ensure 
communication among Federal agencies and increase availability of 
resources. The bill stipulates that all monitoring and observation data 
collected shall conform to standards and protocols developed pursuant 
to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 
2009.
    The bill requires that research, development, and demonstration of 
technology to monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond 
to marine and freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are 
maintained as a focus of the existing research programs. It also 
requires the Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to develop a protocol to assess technology 
development timelines, coordinate local, State and Federal authorities 
to facilitate field testing, and work with State and local entities to 
conduct outreach and education on technology field testing projects.
    The bill directs the Under Secretary, in coordination with the 
Administrator, to expand on the existing electronic information 
clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater 
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the bill directs the 
Under Secretary, in coordination with the Administrator, to develop a 
mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin 
standards for comparative research and notify Congress of such in the 
report required under this section.

    Section 6: Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy - 
Directs the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to oversee the 
development of a Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy by 
identifying the appropriate regions and sub-regions to be addressed by 
the Plan and requires that the Plan include the following: 1) regional 
priorities for ecological, economic, and social research related to the 
impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and 
demonstration activities to advance technologies and techniques for 
minimizing the occurrence and address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 
3) ways to reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events; 4) 
research and methods to address the impacts of HABs on human health; 5) 
mechanisms and the potential costs of these mechanisms to protect 
vulnerable ecosystems that could be or have been affected by HABs; 6) 
mechanisms by which data is transferred between the Program and State, 
tribal, and local governments and relevant research entities; 7) 
communication, outreach, and dissemination methods used to educate and 
inform the public; and 8) the roles that Federal agencies can play to 
assist implementation of the Plan.
    Section 6 explicitly directs the utilization of existing peer-
reviewed research, assessments, and reports in the development of the 
Plan. The bill provides a list of individuals and entities that the 
Under Secretary shall coordinate with in developing the Plan. The bill 
directs that the Plan be completed and approved within 24 months after 
the date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as 
necessary.

    Section 7: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia - Amends the underlying 
statute to require the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed 
Nutrient Task Force to update its scientific assessment to include the 
following information: 1) the role of nutrient influx in the context of 
water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind 
and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; 2) the contribution of the 
topography of the Gulf of Mexico to water column stratification, 
seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics; 3) the 
amount of monitoring available to measure the size of the hypoxic zone; 
4) the potential for hypoxia hot-spot formation with the Gulf of Mexico 
and possible causes; 5) The contribution of wetland loss to the 
nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; 6) the actual effects of hypoxia 
on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the benefits resulting from 
a reduced hypoxic zone; and 7) a scientifically generated, peer-
reviewed goal for an appropriate size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf 
of Mexico that will protect ecosystem functions.
    Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf Hypoxia 
Action Plan 2008 to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance 
the understanding of the contribution of topography, water column 
stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current 
dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; 2) the development of models 
to simulate the different shelf regions and the fundamental processes 
that act in each shelf region, differentiate between the separate 
effects of stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of 
hypoxia, and informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and 
biogeochemical models; 3) a strategy to determine the appropriate 
amount of monitoring needed to get a scientifically robust accounting 
on the size of the hypoxic zone; and 4) an examination of several 
potential solutions based on the information provided by the updated 
assessment.

    Section 8: Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone - Directs the Task Force to 
complete and submit to Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in 
the Chesapeake Bay that examines the current status of and gaps in 
research. The bill requires the Task Force to develop a research plan 
based on the integrated assessment for reducing, mitigating, and 
controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the Task Force 
to consult with State and local governments and representatives from 
academic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups. It 
further directs the Plan to include incentive-based partnership 
approaches; and an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for 
reducing, mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. Publication of the 
plan in the Federal Register and provide progress reports every two 
years on the activities leading toward attainment of the goals set 
forth in the plan. The bill states that the plan contents shall address 
the monitoring needs identified in the assessment; detail procedures 
for the development and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, 
including making all assumptions built into the model publicly 
available; and describe the efforts to improve the assessment of the 
impacts of hypoxia.

    Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations - Provides an 
authorization of $18,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
2015 to the Under Secretary to carry out the Program. In addition, 
provides up to $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized in the 
bill.

    Section 10: Clerical Amendments - Amends section 2 of the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 1998 to include an updated table of 
contents, and replaces any instance of ``Clean Water Act or'' with 
``Federal Water Pollution Control Act or the'' in section 609 of the 
Act.
                               Amendment
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                            Amendment Roster

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>




 XXII: PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 
  MARKUP OF H.R. 2484, HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND 
                   CONTROL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2011Q18

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:38 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011

                  House of Representatives,
       Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                           Washington, D.C.

    Chairman Hall. Good morning. The Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology will come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology meets today to consider the following measures: H.R. 
2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control 
Amendments Act of 2011.
    Pursuant to Committee rules and House Rule XI 2(h)(4), the 
Chair announces that he may postpone further proceedings today 
on any question of approving any measure or matter or adopting 
an amendment on which a recorded vote of the yeas or nays are 
ordered. We will make sure that everyone has enough time to get 
here as we do not want Mr. Neugebauer involved in another 
police chase. It is the Chair's intention to provide at least 
10 minutes' notice prior to the commencement of roll votes.
    Let us proceed with the markup beginning with opening 
statements. I will begin.
    I want to welcome everyone here today for the markup of 
H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and 
Control Amendments Act of 2011. Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, 
are a significant summertime problem that affects rivers, 
lakes, and tidal areas in almost every state. In addition to 
damaging ecosystems, harmful algal negatively impacts local 
economies that depend on healthy water for fishing, recreation, 
and tourism.
    The bill before us today attacks this problem at its core 
by strengthening the science necessary to understand HABs and 
advancing technological solutions to better prevent and respond 
to outbreaks of when they occur. I want to commend the Energy 
and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Harris on his effort to 
craft focused bipartisan legislation to reauthorize this small 
but important program. The product before us is a good bill 
that incorporates input from Members on both sides of the 
aisle, as well as the administration. I urge Members to support 
it.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Chairman Ralph M. Hall
    I want to welcome everyone here today for the markup of H.R. 2484, 
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act 
of 2011.
    Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are a significant summertime problem 
that affects rivers, lakes, and tidal areas in almost every state. In 
addition to damaging ecosystems, harmful algae negatively impacts local 
economies that depend on healthy water for fishing, recreation and 
tourism.
    The bill before us today attacks this problem at its core: by 
strengthening the science necessary to understand HABs and advancing 
technological solutions to better prevent and respond to outbreaks when 
they occur.
    I want to commend Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman 
Harris on his effort to craft focused bipartisan legislation to 
reauthorize this small but important program. The product before us is 
a good bill that incorporates input from Members on both sides of the 
aisle as well as the Administration. I urge Members to support it.
    I yield back any remaining time.

    Chairman Hall. I now recognize Mrs. Johnson for five 
minutes to present her opening remarks, and as much as she is 
the leader of the Democratic faction here, we won't hold her to 
exactly five minutes, but she has been pretty good at keeping 
up with five minutes. We hope she will continue to do that. But 
we are going to try to hold all those and I will hold myself to 
five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I 
can do that.
    Today, we are marking up Mr. Harris' Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484, the Harmful Algal Bloom 
and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011. And I 
want to commend both you, Chairman Hall, and Subcommittee 
Chairman, Mr. Harris, for taking on this important issue in 
what could have been a good bipartisan bill. In fact, with the 
exception of a few new activities and an approach to funding 
that I will discuss a little bit later, it is nearly the same 
as a former E and E Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird's bill 
that passed the House last Congress.
    However, in this Congress, the Committee is supposed to be 
working within a new set of Republican protocols. Protocols, as 
based on the markups we have had to date, appear to be 
increasingly difficult for the majority to actually follow 
those protocols themselves. The outcome is more than just some 
procedural wrangling in Committee. It is also resulting in bad 
policy that in reality harms research activities that the 
sponsors profess to support.
    We have seen the same pattern play out all too often in 
this Congress. A bill is brought up that highlights the 
importance of a particular area of research and then fails to 
authorize the resources the agencies need to continue the work 
that they are already doing. And then on top of that it further 
burdens them with new unfunded mandates.
    I am afraid that today's markup is continuing that trend. 
The issue before us is an important one-the need for a 
continued research and public awareness of the increasing 
frequency and duration of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, 
which are affecting more of our coastlines and inland waters 
than ever before. NOAA and the HAB's research community have 
made great strides in advancing our understanding of harmful 
algal and hypoxia even under already severe budgetary 
constraints. They have managed to achieve scientific 
discoveries that improve many of our coastal and inland water 
management practices and have advanced our forecasting and 
early warning capabilities to minimize economic impacts and 
protect human health.
    Given that, it is beyond me why we would not at a minimum 
sustain authorizations for these research activities at their 
current levels. Despite acknowledging the risk of HABs and the 
progress this research has made, this bill makes even further 
cuts to already underfunded research activities, actually 
cutting back authorizations lower than 2008 spending levels. 
And I must ask how does this help? I cannot support such an 
approach to dealing with the problem that affects much of our 
country, including the Gulf Coast and the Florida coast and 
Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and indeed the continued 
safety of our drinking water nationwide.
    There will be constructive amendments offered today to 
correct the shortcomings of the bill before us today by giving 
Members a clear choice-either increase the funding to pay the 
new mandates in the bill or cut back on the mandates if we are 
unwilling to pay for them. That is just common sense and good 
fiscal policy. And as much as I would regret it, unless we can 
adopt some of these amendments of Mr. Miller's and others, I 
don't see how I can support it. If we are going to say that we 
care about this research and that we care enough about the 
impacts of the HABs to take action, then we actually have to 
invest in a way that will move this research forward and not 
further damage the capabilities of the agencies.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
    Thank you, Chairman Hall. Today we are marking up Mr. Harris's 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute for H.R. 2484, T3the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2011K. I 
want to commend both Chairman Hall and Subcommittee Chairman Harris for 
taking on this important issue with what could have been a good 
bipartisan bill. In fact, with the exception of a few new activities 
and an approach to funding that I will discuss in a minute, it is 
nearly the same as former E&E Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird's bill 
that passed the House last Congress.
    However, in this Congress the Committee is supposed to be working 
within a new set of Republican protocols-protocols that, based on the 
markups we have had to date, appear to be increasingly difficult for 
the Majority to actually follow themselves. The outcome is more than 
just some procedural wrangling in Committee: it's also resulting in bad 
policy that, in reality, harms research activities that the sponsors 
profess to support.
    We have seen the same pattern play out all too often this Congress-
a bill is brought up that highlights the importance of a particular 
area of research, but then fails to authorize the resources the 
agencies need to continue the good work they are already doing. And 
then, on top of that, it further burdens them with new unfunded 
mandates.
    I'm afraid that today's markup is continuing that trend. The issue 
before us is an important one-the need for continued research and 
public awareness of the increasing frequency and duration of harmful 
algal blooms and hypoxia, which are affecting more of our coastlines 
and inland waters than ever before. NOAA and the HABs research 
community have made great strides in advancing our understanding of 
harmful algae and hypoxia, even under already severe budgetary 
constraints. They have managed to achieve scientific discoveries that 
improve many of our coastal and inland water management practices, and 
have advanced our forecasting and early warning capabilities to 
minimize economic impacts and, protect human health.
    Given that, it is beyond me why we would not, at minimum, sustain 
authorizations for these research activities at their current levels. 
Despite acknowledging the risk of HABs and the progress this research 
has made, this bill makes even further cuts to already under-funded 
research activities, actually cutting back authorizations to lower than 
2008 spending levels. I must ask, how does this help?
    I cannot support such an approach to dealing with a problem that 
affects much of our country, including the Gulf Coast and the Florida 
Coast, the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and indeed the continued 
safety of our drinking water nationwide. There will be constructive 
amendments offered today to correct the shortcomings of the bill before 
us today by giving Members a clear choice-either increase the funding 
to pay for the new mandates in the bill, or cut back on the mandates if 
we are unwilling to pay for them. That is just common sense and good 
fiscal policy, and I may have to oppose the passage of this bill unless 
one of the amendments offered by Mr. Miller today is adopted.
    If we are going to say we care about this research, and that we 
care enough about the impacts of HABs to take action, then we actually 
have to invest in a way that will move this research forward and not 
further damage the capabilities of the agencies.
    Thank you Mr. Hall and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back. Without 
objection, all Members' opening statements will be placed in 
the record at this point.
    Chairman Hall. We will now consider H.R. 2484, the Harmful 
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 
2011.
    I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, to 
describe his bill.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for holding this markup today on a very important piece of 
legislation.
    Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is the season for algal 
blooms in most parts of the country. In fact, an article in the 
Washington Post just this past week outlines the difficulties 
we face with algal blooms and dead zones and the announcement 
this week that in the Chesapeake Bay the dead zone is likely to 
be larger this year than it has in past years.
    H.R. 2484, the bill we are considering today, the Harmful 
Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 
2011 is the product of an effort involving the administration, 
majority and Minority Members, and stakeholder and affected 
communities. The objective of this reauthorization bill is to 
provide greater coordination to the Federal Government's 
harmful algal and hypoxia-related research monitoring, 
prevention, and response efforts. Generally, the bill does this 
through updated program guidance that adds budget and reporting 
requirements and an enhanced focus on accelerating 
technological solutions to reduce the harmful impacts of these 
outbreaks.
    I will now briefly summarize the specific provisions of the 
bill. The version passed out of Subcommittee is almost the same 
as what was introduced in the House. One amendment was offered 
by Mr. McNerney to include international cooperation and 
information sharing and it was agreed to by unanimous consent 
by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
    H.R. 2484 reauthorizes the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act of 1998, better known as HABHRCA. The 
bill restates language in the underlying statute that created 
the interagency taskforce. However, it now requires budget 
coordination for the activities in the bill. This coordination 
will assist with budgetary planning and raise the visibility of 
the research programs within the agencies that participate in 
the taskforce.
    H.R. 2484 also directs the taskforce to maintain the 
program established by the 2004 reauthorization of HABHRCA and 
provides the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, who is also the Administrator of NOAA, with 
direction and specificity to carry out the program's 
activities. As we heard at the hearing on June 1, there is a 
need for technologies to deal with HAB outbreaks in addition to 
looking for solutions to prevent or minimize them in the first 
place.
    H.R. 2484 directs NOAA and the EPA to maintain a focus on 
technology, research, and development for fresh water and 
marine harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. It also requires NOAA 
and the EPA to develop protocols to determine when technologies 
are ready to move from lab testing to field testing, to 
maintain an electronic information clearing house to aid with 
the dissemination of information, and to develop a mechanism to 
ensure quality and cost-effective toxin standards for 
comparative research.
    H.R. 2484 directs NOAA to oversee the development of a 
comprehensive research plan and action strategy and identify 
the appropriate regions to be highlighted by such a plan. The 
action strategy outlines the specific activities to be carried 
out by the taskforce, a timeline for such activities, and the 
programmatic roles of each federal agency on the taskforce. The 
research plan must also identify research, activities, and 
technologies needed to detect, predict, monitor, prevent, 
control, and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
    H.R. 2484 further directs the Mississippi River/Gulf of 
Mexico Watershed Nutrient Taskforce headed by EPA to update the 
assessment plan and update the assessment required under the 
current statute and subsequently update the Gulf Hypoxia Action 
Plan 2008. The updated action plan must take into account 
available information and examine several potential solutions 
to reduce the hypoxic zone based on the information garnered in 
the updated assessment.
    H.R. 2484 also requires NOAA to assess and report on the 
dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay and develop a plan for 
reducing, mitigating, and controlling it.
    H.R. 2484 provides NOAA with an authorization of $18 
million for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2015, a level just 
slightly below 2010 spending levels. It also authorizes funding 
for the Administrator of EPA for each fiscal year from 2012 to 
2015 to carry out the activities in the bill.
    Lastly, I would like to note that the authorization for the 
underlying statute expired in 2010. In the current fiscal 
environment, authorizations that have lapsed will be more 
likely to lose funding. This makes it even more imperative that 
we re-pass this reauthorization as soon as possible.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hall. The author of the bill yields back his time.
    Does anyone else care to comment or be recognized on the 
bill?
    All right. Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that 
the bill is considered as read and open to amendment at any 
point and that Members proceed with amendments in the order 
listed on the rosters. And it is so ordered.
    [H.R. 2484 appears in the Appendix:]
    Chairman Hall. The bill is open for amendments. First 
amendment on the roster is an Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute offered by Dr. Harris. The clerk shall report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 371, Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute to H.R. 2484, offered by Mr. Harris of Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    I recognize the gentleman for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And of 
course, the amendment is at the desk.
    The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute includes a few 
changes to H.R. 2484. The amendment removes the word 
``established'' from the definitions of the program and the 
taskforce as both of these had already been established in the 
underlying statute. It changes the Fresh Water program to 
require that the Administrator of the EPA does not duplicate 
activities already ongoing and instead focuses on new 
approaches to addressing fresh water harmful algal blooms.
    Furthermore, the amendment includes a check on EPA by 
requiring the Administrator to submit a report on all the 
activities undertaken. The amendment changes the report that 
H.R. 2484 requires for the Undersecretary or the Administrator 
of NOAA to prepare and transmit to Congress in Section 5 of the 
bill. It now directs the Undersecretary through the taskforce 
to prepare such a report. It also removes the requirement that 
the report describe the implementation of the action strategy. 
NOAA has indicated that it feels that such an implementation, 
which would require checking on the actions of other federal 
agencies would be beyond its mission authority.
    The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute also includes 
an additional requirement in the development of the research 
plan for the Chesapeake Bay dead zone to ensures that the plan 
does not duplicate activities conducted by other federal or 
state agencies.
    Finally, the authorization of appropriations language in 
that the amendment changes H.R. 2484 to provide the 
Administrator with 2.7 million for each of the fiscal years 
2012 through 2015. This is possible due to the savings gain 
through the NOAA authorization of 18 million.
    Last but not least, the amendment includes a non-
duplication requirement that the Administrator ensure that 
activities carried out under the bill do not duplicate research 
and development activities related to harmful algal blooms or 
hypoxia conducted by other federal agencies, states, tribes, 
and nongovernmental organizations.
    I yield back the balance.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    I support the amendment. Is there further discussion on the 
amendment? If not, are there any amendments to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland?
    Second amendment on the roster is an amendment I am 
offering. It is Amendment 373 at the desk.
    Clerk, report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 373, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Hall of 
Texas.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    This amendment will simply provide clarity in the bill. 
When it says ``Undersecretary,'' it is simply referring to the 
Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere. As there 
should be no need for further discussion, we can have further 
discussion, but on this amendment the vote occurs on the 
Amendment 373 to the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. 
Those opposed say no.
    The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
    Now, for the second degree amendment offered to the Harris, 
are there any other amendments to--anyone----
    Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Yes? Who seeks recognition? Mr. Sarbanes 
seeks recognition. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate it. I have an amendment to 
Congressman Harris' Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute. It 
is at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. Clerk, report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 015, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Sarbanes of 
Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Before I recognize the gentleman, I want to let the 
gentleman know that we are going to accept the amendment so if 
he would agree to submit his statement for the record, we will 
move directly to voting on his amendment.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    Could I have just 30 seconds?
    Chairman Hall. Yes, sir. You can have 30 seconds to five 
minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that.
    Well, it is an important bill, the underlying bill, and as 
Mr. Harris indicated a moment ago, there has just recently been 
new attention to the dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay. What my 
amendment would do is ask the taskforce to consider potential 
beneficial uses--well, two things to address these algal 
blooms. On the one hand trying to deal with the issue on the 
front end by looking at what sorts of grasses like switchgrass 
and other kind of biofuel that you could plant that would 
capture some of these nutrients before they get into the bay so 
you can reduce the amount of algal bloom that results--as a 
result of the nutrients coming in. So it would ask to do 
research on that question.
    And it would also have them look at the potential to 
harvest some of these algal blooms once they occur and whether 
those can be turned into biofuel. Obviously, we don't want it 
to happen in the first place, but if it does and if those algal 
blooms exist, then we ought to be looking at potential 
technologies and other opportunities to harvest that in a way 
that can be used in a beneficial way. And I think while there 
are some issues with that, it deserves some consideration.
    So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the Committee's willingness 
to accept this amendment. I think it is a positive addition to 
the bill.
    And I yield back my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Hearing no 
further discussion, a vote occurs on the second degree 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
    All those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments to the amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. I would like to speak on the amendment for Ms. 
Edwards, who has not arrived yet.
    Chairman Hall. Without objection.
    Chairman Hall. Let the clerk call the amendment first.
    The Clerk. Amendment 015, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. All right. I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    Before I recognize the gentlelady, I want to let her know 
we are going to accept her amendment, so if she would agree to 
submit her statement for the record, we will move directly to 
voting on her amendment. Is the gentlelady agreeable?
    Ms. Johnson. I am agreeable. I accept that, and I will 
dispense with----
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady accepts it. I want to thank 
the Member for the amendment. Hearing no further discussion, a 
vote occurs on amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed 
say no.
    The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    All right. Are there any other amendments to the amendment?
    Ms. Johnson. Well, Ms. Wilson came in, but she left I 
guess. But I would like to offer her amendment up for the 
Committee.
    Chairman Hall. All right. You are offering an amendment for 
Ms. Wilson and in her stead?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Chairman Hall. Is there objection? Chair hears none and the 
Chair recognizes you for five minutes. Call up your amendment 
from the desk.
    Ms. Johnson. The amendment is at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 021, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Wilson of 
Florida.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Before I recognize the gentlelady, I want to let her know 
we are going to accept her amendment, so if she would agree to 
submit her statement or Mrs.--the Ranking Member in her stead 
if she has agreed to submit her statement for the record, we 
will move directly to voting on her amendment. Is the 
gentlelady ready?
    Ms. Johnson. I agree to just submit the language to the 
record and allow Mr. Hall to accept it. Plead with you as a 
matter of fact.
    Chairman Hall. Okay. You don't have to do that. It helps 
but you don't have to.
    Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor say aye. Those who oppose it say no.
    There are no noes; the ayes have it and the amendment is 
agreed to.
    Okay. Are there any other amendments to the amendment? And 
for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. The amendment is offered by Ms. Edwards.
    Chairman Hall. And you stand in her stead. Is there 
objection? The Chair hears none.
    Ms. Johnson. The amendment should be at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The next amendment is offered by 
the gentlelady from Maryland. Are you ready to proceed? If so, 
the clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 016, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Ms. Edwards of 
Maryland.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain 
the amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am going 
to yield to Mr. Sarbanes a minute to make his statement on it.
    Chairman Hall. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. You are recognized.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The dead zone's in the Chesapeake Bay, which we have been 
referring to and in the tributaries, of course, that flow into 
the Chesapeake Bay. It exists there and that is where the 
dissolved oxygen levels drop to levels that are too low to 
sustain marine life. These are growing at an alarming rate. The 
one that Mr. Harris referred to before is projected to be 
perhaps the biggest dead zone we have ever had. The effects of 
this can be seen in some of the statistics from the 1950s to 
the 1970s. Average annual oyster catch was about 25 million 
pounds per year and the blue crab harvest contributed nearly a 
third of the Nation's catch. Now, that has dropped 
significantly so the oyster population is two percent of the 
historic level. And the reduced amounts of underwater grass 
habitat, in addition to low summer levels of dissolved oxygen 
continue to keep the crab population below where it should be.
    Don Boesch, who is President of the Center for 
Environmental Science at the University of Maryland and an 
expert on these zones said ``this year's water flow will rank 
at least among the five largest,'' a result of heavier-than-
normal rains and snow melt mixed with high amounts of nitrogen 
phosphorus and sediment. And that--the dead zone is going to 
cover a third of the bay. That is about 83 miles when last 
measured.
    So this report underscores the effect nutrient-loading has 
on the Nation's water systems. And there have been efforts to 
address the source in terms of the agricultural sources for 
this. So while we must support, obviously, the agricultural 
sector, we want to be looking at the effect of nutrient-loading 
from these kinds of sources. The amendment that the gentlelady 
has put forward, Amendment 16, would ensure that that happens.
    And I would just add that my hope would be going forward, 
perhaps we could even further amend this perhaps on the Floor 
working with the Committee to look at all of the different 
sources that generate these algal blooms. In addition to 
agricultural sources, I am very interested in stormwater runoff 
from other sources as well. And to have a sense of the 
comparative source of these different harmful effects on the 
Chesapeake Bay I think would be a good result from the kind of 
study that the taskforce can do.
    And with that, I yield back to the gentlelady.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you. And I would like to yield the 
remainder of the time to the author who has arrived, Ms. 
Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. I thank you very much. And I want to thank my 
colleague, Mr. Sarbanes. We share a deep interest in protecting 
the Chesapeake Bay, waterways like this, particularly in the 
impact of algal blooms on the plant and sea life in the bay and 
tributaries. And I know that there is much more actually that 
we can do, and this is--I think Mr. Sarbanes has articulated--a 
very limited way in which to tackle a problem that threatens 
the very life and health of the Nation's largest bay in this 
respect. And so I thank Mr. Sarbanes for standing in my stead. 
I had a conflict.
    And I know that there are challenges even on our Eastern 
Shore with our farmers and others who we want to enjoy their 
livelihoods, but we also have the duty to protect waterways 
like the Chesapeake Bay to ensure that fertilizers and other 
sources of harmful pollutants don't impact and threaten other 
kinds of industries that are very dependent on these waterways. 
And so I think that we are trying to strike a good balance here 
between what we need in terms of our--the economic health of 
areas like our eastern short but also ensuring that waterways 
like the bay in Maryland and other waterways across the country 
and those tributaries are protected from the harmful effect of 
algal blooms.
    And with that, I yield.
    Chairman Hall. Does the gentlelady yield back or does she 
request five minutes of her own time as the author?
    Ms. Edwards. Out of respect for the Committee, it was my 
fault I was late, so I really do appreciate the time, though.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The gentlelady refuses the offer 
of five minutes.
    Ms. Edwards. She kindly thanks the gentleman.
    Chairman Hall. I was really enjoying listening to her. All 
right. We have discussed and admitted the amendment. And as you 
know, we are proceeding under the five-minute rule. I want to 
thank the Member for the amendment.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentleman request 
recognition?
    Mr. HARRIS. To discuss the amendment.
    Chairman Hall. Yields five minutes for you, Doctor.
    Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    You know, I clearly understand that nutrient flows are an 
important issue and to contribute to the growth of harmful 
algal blooms. That is fairly well accepted. However, you know, 
numerous other programs already study the impact of nutrient 
flows and utilize other sources of funding from multiple 
agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the EPA. 
This amendment would conflict with the non-duplication 
provision included in the bill under the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute.
    Duplication of federal programs is a drain on scarce 
resources that do come at the expense of the research and 
technology development needed to directly suppress or eliminate 
harmful algal blooms. We all know about the GAO report that 
looked through the government and found numerous areas where 
multiple federal agencies do what appear to be the same thing, 
and I think this amendment would just do that.
    In addition, the amendment exclusively targets one source 
of nutrients to the apparent exclusion of all the others. And I 
am pleased that the gentleman from Maryland in his comments 
suggested that perhaps at some point we could introduce an 
amendment, perhaps before this bill comes to the Floor, that 
might expand that to look at all sources. But I will say that 
we offered that during discussions of the bill and that was 
refused by the author of the amendment.
    Now, agriculture manure, which is the one item specifically 
named actually is not the largest source of nitrogen in the 
bay. It happens to be in municipal wastewater plants. In fact, 
Blue Plains, the municipal wastewater plant that drains this 
building is in fact the largest single-point source accounting 
for 6 million pounds of nitrogen. And in fact they had to be 
taken to court two years ago in order to reduce that pollution 
level. So I would urge that if the Committee at some point or 
the body considers an amendment in this nature where we begin 
to duplicate what other agencies have done, if we are going to 
go ahead and duplicate what other agencies have done, I would 
urge the action by the body to be that we include all sources, 
particularly the largest single-point source of nitrogen, which 
are municipal wastewater plants.
    So, you know, we could have had a more inclusive amendment. 
I would offer that I would be willing to support that kind of 
amendment when this comes to the Floor, but as the amendment is 
currently written, I am unable to support the amendment.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks 
recognition?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Miller of North Carolina, I recognize 
you for five minutes.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you.
    I think Ms. Edwards has reconsidered her earlier decision 
to decline time on this. I yield to Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. I thank you, Mr. Miller.
    Look, I just want to--you know, to make sure that all the 
Members of the Committee are aware that I live in the 
metropolitan Washington area. We are nowhere near the 
Chesapeake Bay. Indeed, the area closest to the Chesapeake Bay 
is in the district of my colleague Mr. Harris, and what we 
recognize in this heavily industrialized and commercialized 
metropolitan Washington area is that some--that the things that 
we do here impact on tributaries--impact on estuaries like the 
Chesapeake Bay. That is true across the country.
    And one of the things that we have attempted to do on 
numerous occasions and as well as the Environmental Protection 
Agency is to look at those nitrogen loads that the gentleman 
speaks of. And we have received tremendous opposition, frankly, 
from the other side when the Environmental Protection Agency, 
when through our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
we try to look at these issues. And so I think that what we are 
trying to accomplish here is to simply acknowledge that in this 
one respect--and there may be other things, as my other 
colleague from Maryland suggests, that we can do to look at 
other nutrients. I think it is really helpful for us to be very 
focused on something that is having a really tremendous impact 
on this major estuary, the largest estuary in this great 
Nation. And we have an obligation to do something about that.
    I would point out that in 2010, environmental activists 
filed a suit against Purdue Farms on the Eastern Shore claiming 
that the manure-laden runoff into the Chesapeake Bay led to 
further pollution of the waters. The Maryland Department of the 
Environment found high bacteria levels in ditches draining from 
the farm property into the Chesapeake tributary.
    And this isn't just about the Chesapeake Bay. We are 
talking about other waterways across the country. And so while 
I share and appreciate the gentleman's concern that we haven't 
done everything, I would urge all of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to acknowledge that where there is an 
opportunity to do something, then we have an obligation to act.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady yield for a question?
    Ms. Edwards. Sure.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Was our colleague right in saying that 
some of the research we are talking about is duplicative of 
research that is already going on?
    Ms. Edwards. I don't agree with that at all. I mean I think 
that we are not trying at all to duplicate what is going on in 
the Department of Agriculture. They sit on the taskforce and 
they can bring their expertise to the table. I think that that 
would actually be helpful to us.
    Thank you. And I will yield.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back the gentleman 
from North Carolina's time.
    Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Rigell. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Rigell. Rigell from Virginia.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from Virginia recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I certainly appreciate the gentlelady offering the 
amendment and I share her--I can see the passion and I share 
the deep concern over the Chesapeake Bay. It is truly a 
national treasure. I have the great privilege of representing 
Virginia's 2nd Congressional District, which includes all the 
Eastern Shore, Virginia Beach, and a good part of Norfolk and 
Hampton as well. So this is shoreline that well fits within and 
defines really the boundary of the Chesapeake Bay in the 
southeast portion.
    I want to associate myself with the remarks of Dr. Harris, 
and rather than go through all the rationale that he presented, 
as I carefully evaluated the bill--the amendment and the logic 
both for and against, I have come to the conclusion that it 
would indeed be a duplicative effort. And so for that reason I 
will not be supporting the amendment. But I want us to continue 
to work together as a Committee to ensure that that great 
national treasure is taken care of. And I will fully support, 
you know, efforts as they go forth to make that happen.
    And I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Is there further 
discussion on the amendment?
    The Chair hears none. Hearing no further discussion, a vote 
occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed 
say no.
    The noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. I recognize the gentlelady for what purpose?
    Ms. Edwards. I would ask for a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. A recorded vote has been requested. Under 
the Chair's prior announcements, proceedings on this motion 
will be postponed.
    Are there any other amendments to the amendment?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Miller. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The next amendment is offered 
from the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller.
    Are you ready to proceed with your amendment, sir?
    Mr. Miller. I am.
    Chairman Hall. Clerk, report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 372, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Miller of 
North Carolina.
    [The amendment appears in the Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I agree with everything that has been said today. Members 
of this Committee have said all the right things. Harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia are very serious problems affecting our 
coast, our lakes, our waterways; they are harming our economy; 
they hurt the tourist economy of Florida when there are beach 
closures; they hurt the fishing and shellfish industries in the 
Gulf of Mexico; they are obviously devastating the harvest of 
the Chesapeake Bay; and in every district, every corner of 
America they pose a deadly threat to safe drinking water 
supplies. So harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are serious 
issues that really deserve a serious response.
    But while I have agreed with what people have said, I have 
not agreed with--I do not agree with what this bill does. This 
bill actually cuts the funding to do all the things that this 
bill requires below the existing levels of funding for 2008. 
Now, that--this is not an appropriating committee; this is an 
authorizing committee, but here is how it works. If the 
appropriating committee is not going to give more than is 
authorized and if we cut back what is authorized, usually what 
is authorized by the authorizing committee, which is what we 
are for purposes of this bill, the authorizing committee will 
decide what is the amount that the agency really needs to do 
the job properly. And it is not at all unusual at all for the 
Appropriations Committee to appropriate less than that amount 
but they never give more than that amount. In fact, that is the 
ceiling on what will be available. So while saying we are going 
to require NOAA and EPA to do all these things that I think we 
all agree need to be done, we are actually cutting back their 
ability to do it.
    And so this bill--this amendment is very simple. It takes 
the authorization up to what it was in 2008 to 2010 and extends 
that authorization, that level, through 2015.
    I ask the support for this amendment.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Is there further discussion?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition? The gentleman from 
California is recognized.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let's just note that in California we have 
problems with red tide and I know all about red tide. I know I 
have gotten it all over my legs and gotten rashes and things 
from it when I am out surfing and such, so I know the 
implication on fish because I have seen dead fish due to this 
very problem that we are talking about. So no one is denying 
that there is a big problem when we discuss the amendments that 
have been suggested. If something is duplicative, we can no 
longer afford duplicative research.
    And perhaps your amendment, Mr. Miller, exemplifies what 
this fight about balancing the budget or trying to bring the 
level of deficit spending down is all about. We cannot afford 
to do everything that we used to do. The fact is, as we are 
doing it, it is a $1.5 trillion deficit. So if--yes, this does 
decrease the level and we are--down a bit, that is--if we can't 
even do that, our currency will eventually collapse because 
this exemplifies the spirit of what we got to do. They call it 
taking a haircut. We got to have a haircut across the board of 
everything the Federal Government is doing, asking our federal 
employees to do their job more efficiently and more 
effectively, eliminating it when there are duplications that 
happen, and in fact cutting down the level of spending in every 
one of the programs that we are talking about if it can be done 
without causing the program itself not to be able to accomplish 
its mission.
    Now, there is no reason for us to think that this type of 
efficiency effort can't be made in science programs as well as 
anything else. So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a 
very good--I mean this is a very good proposal that we have 
before us, but the amendment that we have to this would take 
away the benefits that we are trying to receive to the overall 
budget. And so I would oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Does the gentleman yield back his time?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks further discussion? The gentlelady 
from Maryland, recognize you for five minutes.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would like to yield as much of my time as he would 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. I think that is a fair thing to do. The 
gentleman from North Carolina----
    Mr. Miller. We have an arrangement this end of the dais.
    Let's be honest with the American people. If we really 
aren't going to do these things, the things that the bill says 
we are going to do, let us tell them that honestly. But this 
bill as it now stands--and as Mr. Rohrabacher just explained 
it--is fundamentally dishonest. We are telling the American 
people we are going to do all the things in this bill but we 
are not going to provide the agency the funds that it takes to 
do it.
    Now, I understand your argument about trying to make them 
do with less, but there has not been the first suggestion from 
the majority on how they will do that. It is just cutting the 
funding, requiring them to do more, telling the American 
people--promising the American people we are going to do all 
these things to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, we 
are going to do it, but we are not going to provide the funds 
necessary to do it. That is fundamentally dishonest. If we are 
not going to do it--and that will be my next amendment--let us 
tell the American people the truth. But as it is now, this 
amendment misleads the American people. This Amendment does not 
tell the truth to the American people.
    Mr. Harris. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Harris. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Miller. I do yield.
    Chairman Hall. To which one of them.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I will take the first shot.
    So you are suggesting there is not any efficiencies that we 
could be making in the federal budget whenever we try to reduce 
it by a small amount?
    Mr. Miller. You know, Mr. Rohrabacher, I am sure there are. 
Actually, my experience on this Committee is I spotted several 
things where the Federal Government is spending too much. A lot 
of it had to do with well-connected private contractors, many 
of whom had great friends on the Republican side of the aisle 
who protected all those appropriations.
    Now, if the gentleman from California----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That is a fairly partisan thing to say.
    Mr. Miller. --or the gentleman from Georgia knows of a 
cheaper way for them to do all these things, all that they have 
been doing and more for less money, then you should step 
forward and say how that is, but just saying we are going to 
make you--we are going to promise the American people that all 
this is going to happen but we are going to provide a funding 
level that is less than what we have provided before.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentleman agree that when 
departments and agencies come to us, they quite often add a 
little bit to their request so that they will get more money? 
Isn't this sort of a standard operating procedure with many 
departments and agencies?
    Mr. Miller. And Mr. Rohrabacher, perhaps you should seek to 
be on the Appropriations Committee. That may be but we have not 
heard anybody from the other side of the aisle--from the 
majority say how these savings can be achieved. It is just 
giving more money--less money than agencies that have had to do 
the same work--actually less work and tell them now you have 
got to do--we are promising the American people you are going 
to do all this other work. We are promising the American people 
we really are serious about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. 
And the people of Florida, we understand the disruption to your 
economy, you know, beach closures; to the people at Chesapeake 
Bay, we understand the harm to your economy from what hypoxia 
and what dead zones are doing to your harvest; we are telling 
people who have got drinking water that is being compromised by 
hypoxia and by harmful algal blooms saying we are serious about 
this. We understand it. We are going to do this stuff. But the 
truth is the agencies are getting less funding to do more, and 
not a word, not a suggestion from the majority on how that is 
going to happen. I think my----
    Mr. Sarbanes. Will the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Hall. Will the gentleman----
    Mr. Miller. I yield time to Mr. Sarbanes.
    Chairman Hall. All right.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I just want to support the amendment. I think you have to 
properly resource the function that we are giving to NOAA here. 
And on the economic argument that was raised, the fact of the 
matter is that the research that NOAA does is critical to 
policymakers at the federal level and at the state level and at 
the local level in terms of making decisions about how to 
protect and preserve these natural resources that we have. So 
if you are talking about the Chesapeake Bay where the economy 
of a region is heavily dependent on the health of that bay, 
then making sure that the resources are there so the research 
can be done so the policymakers can put in place the kinds of 
things to protect those natural resources is absolutely 
fundamental. And if you shortchange that, you are going to have 
tremendous negative economic consequences for the region at a 
time when the country is looking for economic recovery.
    And I yield back to the gentleman.
    Mr. Miller. Reclaiming my time. It is still my time.
    There was not a--there has been a hearing on this topic. 
There was not one word of witness testimony that these 
programs--the existing programs were being handled 
inefficiently and this amendment does not increase funding; it 
provides flat funding.
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman's time is up.
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let us be honest. Let us look at the actual amount spent--
because we have heard that we are reducing this funding below 
2008 levels. Now, this is just simple math. Let us add up the 
authorizations in this bill. It is 20.7 million. The total 
amount spent on harmful algal blooms in fiscal year 2008 was 
18.1. Now, I know I went to school a while ago, and I know that 
is old math, but 20.7 is more than 18.1. This actually 
authorizes at a higher level than the actual expenditures in 
fiscal year 2008 and matches the actual expenditures in fiscal 
year 2010. Matches. Not a dollar less.
    Now, let me address specifically the comment from the 
gentleman from North Carolina because I am not sure he was here 
for my statement on this amendment in the nature of substitute. 
The fact is that we cut ten reports out. I am just going to 
repeat it because the gentleman from North Carolina is not 
paying attention. We cut 10 reports out. That is how we create 
the efficiencies. Our estimate is that that saves $3 million 
freeing it up from writing a report to actually doing research.
    So to the Ranking Member rather of the Subcommittee that I 
chair, I would suggest we will spend more on actual research 
and not writing reports than we do now. But that is not all. 
The point from the gentleman in--and I am sorry--to the 
gentleman in California, I am sorry to disappoint you and he 
has left, but we actually spend more. We are actually 
increasing the amount we spent over fiscal year 2008. You are 
there.
    Chairman Hall. Don't let Dr. Broun hear you.
    Mr. Harris. We don't cut the total amount spent. Yeah, I am 
afraid the gentleman from Georgia will offer an amendment later 
to cut even that amount.
    But we don't spend less. We spend it better. We cut out 
reports, we eliminate duplication, and we do exactly what the 
American people have sent us here to do, recognize a program 
that is important, maintain the funding, and do it more 
efficiently, truly doing more with less. That is what our 
challenge is.
    Now, I have five kids. They come to me all the time wanting 
more. Believe me. Anybody who has a child knows that. And 
sometimes you have to say, you know, we can't afford it. This 
is what we can afford. Let us make do with what we have and let 
us do it more efficiently, more thoughtfully.
    Now, furthermore, there has been a suggestion that if these 
amendments don't pass, this bill shouldn't be passed. I would 
suggest that is a dangerous strategy in an environment where we 
are looking to cut trillions of dollars in spending. And 
remember, the authorization has expired on this program. I 
suspect that when push comes to shove, folks will look at what 
hasn't had a reauthorization and simply cut the funding. This 
reauthorization level funds--not only level funds totally. It 
is 3.6 million more--sorry, 2.6 million more than fiscal year 
2008 and cuts $3 million worth of reports, and furthermore, in 
the statute ends duplicative work in the Federal Government. 
That is what the majority thinks is the way you have to handle 
budgets and authorizations in this current environment we are 
in.
    This is an incredibly important program. My colleagues from 
Maryland have outlined the importance of this program. Harmful 
algal blooms are something that we need to continue studying. 
We need to know why dead zones occur and how to deal with them 
and how to minimize their effect. I would urge rejection of 
this amendment and passage of the reauthorization bill.
    And Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    Is there further discussion on the amendment?
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey. Down here, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman 
Woolsey.
    Chairman Hall. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Your girlfriend.
    Chairman Hall. I can't turn you down. The Chair recognizes 
you for five minutes and I recognize you for 10 minutes and 
five minutes is already gone.
    Ms. Woolsey. There you go.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I just would like to remind everybody 
that in order to vote for this bill, many of us want a few 
absolutes, and Mr. Miller's amendment provides this for us. So 
think about that. I mean not that it is going to make a 
difference if it is--the vote is on a--you know, right down on 
a bipartisan--down the line, but--I mean partisan. We would 
like it to be bipartisan.
    And with that I would like to yield the rest of my time to 
Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ms. Woolsey, for yielding.
    Again, my information is simply different from what Mr. 
Harris has just said. My information is that expenditures in 
this fiscal year for NOAA for this program was 20.7. To get 
around, to play games with cut-go rules that the majority 
adopted, they have cut that--the authorization for that to move 
part of the funding to EPA, but the result is that the amount 
authorized is less than what has been spent in the recent past. 
Again, we had a hearing on this. There was a word about reports 
and by eliminating a report we could save $3 million in 
funding. Not a word to support that argument. And not a word to 
suggest that--what those reports were that are duplicative or 
unnecessary or whatever else or that not doing those would save 
$3 million. This simply appears to be requiring the same 
agencies to do more work with less money and telling the 
American people that we are going to do things that we are not 
really going to allow federal agencies the resources to get 
done. It is not honest with the American people.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Hearing no 
further discussions, request the vote occurs on the amendment.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentlelady request 
recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We all recognize that we are an authorization committee and 
not an appropriations committee, but we also know that it has a 
lot of influence in what we authorize. My concern is that when 
we authorize more activity than what we are willing to 
authorize the expense to do it, we make the agencies feel that 
they have failed and then we really get on the agencies because 
they have failed if it is not done.
    My concern is that we are expecting so much more than what 
we are willing to authorize. Now, we know whatever we 
authorize, the appropriators are probably going to cut it some. 
Now, I am not suggesting that we over-authorize, but what I am 
suggesting perhaps is we look at the activities that we are 
requiring--which I believe are very important activities--and 
recognize that these are human beings that we are authorizing 
to do this work. And there is just so much you can do if you 
don't have the people to do it. And if you don't have the 
funds, you don't have the people to do the work. And so I would 
just make an appeal to the Committee that if we cannot support 
this amendment, take a look at the next one so that when it is 
impossible to do the work that they simply will report that 
they cannot do it with that amount of money and we all will be 
even. We will know that from the beginning. But I don't think 
it is fair to the agencies, nor is it fair to the public, for 
us to do all this authorization and know that it is very likely 
the work cannot be done.
    Thank you and I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    If there is no further discussion--hearing no further 
discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say 
aye. Those opposed say no.
    The noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Miller. Request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Roll call vote has been 
requested. Under the Chair's prior announcement, proceedings on 
this motion will be postponed.
    Are there any other amendments to the amendment?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. For what purpose does the gentleman seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Miller. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Hall. The next amendment is offered from the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller.
    Are you ready to proceed with your amendment?
    Mr. Miller. I am.
    Chairman Hall. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment 374, Amendment to the Amendment in the 
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2484 offered by Mr. Miller of 
North Carolina.
    [The amendment appears in Appendix]
    Chairman Hall. Ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, it is so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his 
amendment.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I hope that this amendment does not really become 
necessary. I will withdraw this amendment if the previous 
amendment passes when the time comes for a recorded vote. This 
amendment is just about being truthful to the American people 
that we are not going to tell them that we are going to do all 
these important things to address harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia when we know perfectly well we aren't giving the agency 
the resources to do it. This--I think the Ranking Member 
earlier said that this bill authorizes the agency to do more 
things. No, it requires the agency to do more things. And it 
doesn't authorize--even authorize the funds to do it.
    This amendment says that if they don't get the funding to 
do their work, they are going to be relieved of these mandates 
that they can't possibly get done. Let us be honest with the 
American people. Let us not tell them we are going to do all 
kinds of important work and it is all going to be free or next 
to it. If we really are not willing to provide the resources to 
get things done, let us tell the American people that and not 
tell the American people that oh, yes, we are really serious 
about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. We really want to 
protect the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf Coast and drinking 
water everywhere. Let us not tell people--the American people 
something that is not true. And if we have real ideas on how we 
can save money, let us--you know, fine to hear it. Let us give 
that to the Appropriations Committee with those suggestions but 
not tell the American people that we can do it, no problem. It 
is just a matter of the Federal Government agencies doing their 
work better and then when they can't get it done say, you know, 
those government employees, they just can't get it done.
    I hope this amendment does not become necessary, but I 
think in order to be truthful to the American people, we need 
to pass this amendment at the very least.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Is there further 
discussion on the amendment?
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Harris. The sponsor of the bill.
    Chairman Hall. The Chair recognizes you for five minutes, 
Mr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I won't take five minutes. 
I won't prolong this.
    But let us look mechanistically at what this amendment 
does. This amendment removes our Committee's ability to make a 
statement on how important algal blooms are and hypoxia by 
saying that if NOAA appropriations are $1 less, $1 less, then 
this entire program doesn't have to be done by NOAA. $1.
    Now, let us look at NOAA's appropriations. A big chunk of 
NOAA's appropriations for satellite program, in future years--
by this kind of amendment--let us say the decision was made the 
satellite program shouldn't be done so appropriations are 
lowered because we don't want to fund a satellite program. We 
want to change the funding of a large segment of a budget. Then 
this says they don't have to worry about algal blooms. In fact, 
the Committee tells them quite specifically don't worry about 
it. You don't have to do any of this. It completely eliminates 
everything--all the emphasis that we put on harmful algal 
blooms and hypoxia.
    So although I appreciate how important the sponsor of the 
amendment feels this program is, I actually feel this 
amendment--if you think this program is important, this is a 
harmful amendment. This tells the agency we don't really want 
to be prioritized in your budget because if your funding goes 
down $1, you don't have to study harmful algal blooms. You can 
do whatever else you want.
    It is the prerogative of this Committee to spell out in 
this kind of reauthorizations what we think those agencies 
should do, and that is why this amendment, although it sounds 
good on the surface--says, sure, you know, if fundings go down, 
we should stop mandating things. In fact, in practicality, a $1 
decrease in--and I would be willing to--you know, I will yield 
to the author of the amendment if he can attest today a $1 
decrease in appropriations completely negates the requirements 
of the bill.
    So I would urge that we do not adopt this amendment. We 
need this reauthorization. We are in a very hazardous time for 
programs here in Washington. You just have to look at the 
current discussion. Again, we are looking to cut trillions of 
dollars. We should have to give the clearest signal possible 
that this is in fact a very important program and not give the 
ability to an agency--who, in all likelihood, as other 
agencies, may have their appropriations cut below current 
levels--the ability to prioritize. That is our job to 
prioritize. That is not the job of the departments and 
agencies. So I would urge a no vote on this amendment.
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. Who seeks 
recognition?
    Ms. Edwards. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady from Maryland recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just be really 
quick and I would yield a minute to my colleague from North 
Carolina.
    I represent the headquarters of NOAA, and I think one of 
the things that happens is that we are telling the people in 
the State of Maryland and across this country that we are doing 
something that we are really not going to be able to do because 
the agency has no money. And I--you know, I thank the gentleman 
from Maryland, but I think that he ought to be honest with the 
people on the Eastern Shore of Maryland that he is not doing a 
thing here that is going to protect the Chesapeake Bay that is 
in his home district from harmful algal blooms because we 
haven't provided the resources to do it.
    And I think this is a bit of truth in advertising. We will 
go and, you know, and just flat-fund and slice off the top of 
an agency and then say to all the good workers at NOAA and the 
scientists at NOAA but we still want you to do it anyway. We 
still want it to be part of your agenda. Well, how about a 
little truth in advertising? And truth in advertising for the 
people who live in all of our Congressional districts who, on 
the one hand, because of an agency's mission, expect one thing 
out of them but know that they are going to be delivered 
something far less because this Congress refuses to provide the 
resources that are necessary for them to do the job.
    And I want NOAA--I want our agencies to have the resources 
that they need to protect the Chesapeake Bay. And I would hope 
that the gentleman from Maryland whose district is the 
Chesapeake Bay would want the agency to have those resources as 
well.
    And with that, I would yield to my colleague from North 
Carolina.
    Mr. Miller. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
    If we are truly going to cut trillions of dollars, let us 
tell the American people what that is going to mean. Let us not 
mislead the American people. Let us not claim that we are going 
to do all the same things that we have been doing before. There 
has not been any suggestion from this Committee at all about 
how the work of these agencies in addressing hypoxia, dead 
zones, harmful algal blooms, how that is going to be done more 
efficiently. We are just saying here is less money. Good luck. 
If you get the job done, we will take credit because we have 
said you had to do it. If you can't get the job done, we are 
going to blame you.
    That is pretty much how the majority appears to be working. 
I think it is pretty cynical. I hope and believe the American 
people will see through it, but that is where we are right now. 
Let us be honest with the American people. Let us say that if 
we are not going to provide the funds to the Federal Government 
agencies to get their work done, we are not going to tell you--
tell the American people that we have required all that to 
happen when it cannot possibly happen.
    And again, this amendment is flat-funding, not increase in 
funding to do more work. And it does not say they can't do it 
if they can do it with that amount of money. It just says they 
won't be required to do it. So we aren't telling the American 
people the untruth that we are going to make sure that they get 
all this stuff done, this important work done while we are not 
providing them the resources to do it.
    I yield back to Ms. Edwards, who I think probably yields 
back to the Chair.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back. For what purpose 
does the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition? To strike 
the last word?
    Mr. Hultgren. To strike the last word.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Hultgren. Thank you. I do want to yield my five minutes 
to Dr. Harris.
    Mr. Harris. Thank you very much to my colleague for 
yielding the time.
    This is pretty amazing. We have heard the phrase let us be 
honest, suggesting that there is dishonesty here. And then let 
us--I am not being truthful in some way with people in my 
district. Here is the truth. We borrow 41 cents out of every 
dollar we spend. 41 cents out of every dollar we spend. Our AAA 
rating will likely become a AA rating. We are having a nation-
dividing discussion about how bad our debt and our deficit 
issue is and we are having an argument over the amendment about 
whether level funding is adequate. Level funding is adequate. 
Wow. I hope the American people are watching. I hope they are 
watching Members asking the body to just go ahead and write the 
wish list and fund the wish list and don't worry, your next 
generation, your children and grandchildren are going to pay 
for it.
    And to my colleagues from Maryland, I suggest that before 
you offer amendments about the Chesapeake Bay, let us start 
offering amendments about Blue Plains. Let us start offering 
amendments about wastewater treatment where you could spend 
millions and millions of dollars, as we actually have improving 
the bay by some of those mechanisms.
    But I would suggest that the person representing the 
Chesapeake Bay might have a better idea about how to represent 
it and what programs are needed fitting within the context of 
our budgetary problems. Now, I haven't been down here to vote 
for those budgets. Some of you may have been down here to vote 
for those budgets that went way overboard. We were sent here 
last year--I believe the elections of 2010 were about coming 
down here, looking at what is an important thing to do in 
government and funding it. That is exactly what this bill does. 
And what this amendment says is that if there is a--now, 
imagine how unrealistic this amendment is. This amendment 
suggests that we perhaps should fund all the federal agencies 
at exactly the same level we had this year. Well, that is 
great, but let us call up China and see if they are still 
willing to float our bonds if that is what we are going to do. 
If that is what this body and this chamber and this government 
is going to do, let us just call up China and see how big our 
credit card limit is with them.
    That budget is full of programs that are important, chock 
full of programs that are important. We can't possibly increase 
the funding in all of them. This is what is called 
discretionary spending, ladies and gentleman. This isn't a 
mandatory program. And I would welcome the Members from across 
the aisle to suggest where we go into entitlement programs, the 
nondiscretionary spending in order to free up money for this. I 
haven't heard suggestions.
    So we are left with looking at discretionary spending. I 
would offer to the Committee that level funding a discretionary 
program, even that is a reach. But we need to make that reach 
because this is an important program. And that has been pointed 
out by every single Member offering an amendment to this is how 
important this program is. It is important enough that in the 
midst of a huge fiscal crisis, this Committee has decided to 
take up its time to reauthorize a program at existing levels. 
Now, I know that is not trendy in Washington to just level fund 
because actually we all know that in Washington-speak, a cut in 
funding is a decrease in the increase.
    America knows we can't play that game anymore. The game 
being played is the game of let us shame someone into agreeing 
to spend a whole lot of money and make a whole lot of promises 
we know we can't keep. The promises we know we can't keep have 
been made. They total up to $14.2 trillion. Those are the 
promises we can't keep. If we accept in the final vote the 
prior amendment of the author of this amendment, we would be 
making a promise to the American people we know we can't keep. 
We can't possibly increase the funding for necessary programs 
by over 50 percent because we are already borrowing 40 cents 
out of every dollar.
    But what I really don't like and really find objectionable 
is language like let us be honest or suggesting that a Member 
is not truthful. I am sorry. Maybe I was just raised 
differently, but I find that very intriguing.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman yields back.
    If there is no further discussion on the amendment--the 
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas----
    Ms. Johnson. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Hall. --to strike the last word. You are 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you. I would like to yield my time to 
Ms. Edwards.
    Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And I want to be very brief because 
I want to point out another truth and that is that there is an 
average of $82 million in damage each year due to the harmful 
impacts of harmful algal blooms. And we spend on the order of 
$20 to $25 million a year. I don't think that sounds like 
savings. And I would point out to all of us on the Committee 
that we are even in the process in this Congress debating an 
Interior Appropriations bill that doesn't allow us to deal with 
things like stormwater runoff and protecting our ground water 
because we have slashed and burned those budgets, too. And so I 
would point out to the gentleman and my colleague from Maryland 
and to all of us that what we are trying to do here is to make 
sure that if we are giving an agency a mission that we are 
reasonable in terms of what we indicate they require to fulfill 
that mission. Otherwise, let us not give them the mission and 
let us be truthful about the resources that it takes to do the 
job. And that is what this amendment seeks.
    And with that, I would yield.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Does the gentlelady yield back?
    Ms. Johnson. I yield back the balance of the time. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Hall. The gentlelady yields back.
    Hearing no further discussion, a vote occurs on the 
amendment. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no.
    The noes have it.
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. The Chair--who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
    Chairman Hall. Mr.--North Carolina?
    Mr. Miller. Request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. Go ahead and state your question.
    Mr. Miller. Request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Requested vote has been called 
for. Under the Chair's prior announcement, proceedings on this 
motion will be postponed.
    Pursuant to the Chair's earlier announcement and ensure 
Members have notice of the time, further proceedings on the 
postponed questions will resume within five minutes. The 
Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Hall. The Committee will come to order. And 
pursuant to the Chair's earlier announcement and ensure Members 
have notice of the time, further proceedings on the postponed 
questions will resume at 1:00 p.m. We are in recess until 1:00 
p.m.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Hall. The Committee will come to order.
    Are there any other amendments to the amendment? Hearing 
none, the unfinished business of the Committee is postponed. 
Roll call on the amendment offered by Mrs. Edwards, Edwards 
Amendment 016 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    Mr. Akin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    [No response].
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote?
    Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Lucas, Oklahoma.
    Chairman Hall. The gentleman from Oklahoma.
    Mr. Lucas. I will be recorded as a no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Chairman? Hultgren from Illinois.
    Chairman Hall. Mr. Hultgren.
    Mr. Hultgren. Yes. Hultgren votes no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others?
    Mr. Costello. Costello votes aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Are there others? Okay. All right. The clerk 
will call the roll. Excuse me. Hold up on that request of 
calling the roll. We will ask if all Members voted. Do any 
Members wish to change their vote? All right. Ask the clerk to 
call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 14 Members vote aye and 18 Members 
vote no.
    Chairman Hall. On this vote there were 18 noes, 14 ayes. 
The amendment is not agreed to.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    All right. The unfinished business of the Committee is to 
postpone roll call on the amendment offered by Mr. Miller. Mr. 
Miller is Amendment 372 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    Mr. Akin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes aye.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 
Have all Members voted? Do any Members want to change their 
vote?
    All right. The clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 14 Members vote aye and 18 Members 
vote no.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The amendment is not agreed to.
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    All right. The unfinished business of the Committee is to 
postpone roll call on the amendments offered by Mr. Miller. 
Miller Amendment 374 to the Harris Amendment in the Nature of a 
Substitute.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. No.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes no.
    Mr. Akin?
    Mr. Akin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes no.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes no.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes no.
    Mr. Quayle?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes no.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes no.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes no.
    Mr. Brooks?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes no.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes no.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes no.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes no.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes no.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes aye.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes aye.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes aye.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes aye.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes aye.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes aye.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes aye.
    Ms. Fudge?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes aye.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes aye.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes aye.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes aye.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes aye.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes aye.
    Chairman Hall. The clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 13 Members vote aye and 19 Members 
vote no.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The amendment is not agreed to.
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    All right. The questions on agreeing to the Amendment to 
the Nature of a Substitute offered by Dr. Harris as amended, 
all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it 
and the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute, as amended, is 
agreed to.
    Who seeks recognition? Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Hall. All right. Roll call vote has been 
requested. The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Akin?
    Mr. Akin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes aye.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes aye.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes aye.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 
Are there other Members who wish to change their vote? All 
right.
    The clerk will report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 20 Members vote aye and 15 Members 
vote no.
    Chairman Hall. All right. The amendment is agreed to.
    <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
    
    The question now occurs on adopting the bill, H.R. 2484 as 
amended. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the bill 
as amended is agreed to.
    Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Johnson. I do.
    Chairman Hall. Mrs. Johnson seeks recognition. For what 
purpose, Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Request a record vote.
    Chairman Hall. All right. A record vote has been requested. 
Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall?
    Chairman Hall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Chairman Hall votes aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes aye.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes aye.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes aye.
    Mr. Lucas?
    Mr. Lucas. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes aye.
    Mrs. Biggert?
    Mrs. Biggert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Biggert votes aye.
    Mr. Akin?
    Mr. Akin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes aye.
    Mr. Neugebauer?
    Mr. Neugebauer. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye.
    Mr. McCaul?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun?
    Dr. Broun. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Broun votes aye.
    Mrs. Adams?
    Mrs. Adams. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Adams votes aye.
    Mr. Quayle?
    Mr. Quayle. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Quayle votes aye.
    Mr. Fleischmann?
    Mr. Fleischmann. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye.
    Mr. Rigell?
    Mr. Rigell. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rigell votes aye.
    Mr. Palazzo?
    Mr. Palazzo. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Palazzo votes aye.
    Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes aye.
    Mr. Harris?
    Mr. Harris. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Harris votes aye.
    Mr. Hultgren?
    Mr. Hultgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hultgren votes aye.
    Mr. Cravaack?
    Mr. Cravaack. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cravaack votes aye.
    Mr. Bucshon?
    Mr. Bucshon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bucshon votes aye.
    Mr. Benishek?
    Mr. Benishek. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Benishek votes aye.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Costello?
    Mr. Costello. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello votes no.
    Ms. Woolsey?
    Ms. Woolsey. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes no.
    Mr. Wu?
    Mr. Wu. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes no.
    Mr. Miller?
    Mr. Miller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes no.
    Mr. Lipinski?
    Mr. Lipinski. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lipinski votes no.
    Ms. Giffords?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards?
    Ms. Edwards. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Edwards votes no.
    Ms. Fudge?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan?
    Mr. Lujan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lujan votes no.
    Mr. Tonko?
    Mr. Tonko. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tonko votes no.
    Mr. McNerney?
    Mr. McNerney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. McNerney votes no.
    Mr. Sarbanes?
    Mr. Sarbanes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes votes no.
    Ms. Sewell?
    Ms. Sewell. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sewell votes no.
    Ms. Wilson?
    Ms. Wilson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Wilson votes no.
    Mr. Clarke?
    Mr. Clarke. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Clarke votes no.
    Chairman Hall. Are there other Members who wish to vote? 
Are there any Members who want to change their vote? All right.
    The clerk will call--report the vote.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 20 Members vote aye and 15 Members 
vote no.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. On that vote there were 20 ayes and 15 noes. 
The bill is agreed to.
    Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Hall. Yes?
    Ms. Lofgren. I would--I was detained and had I been present 
I would have voted aye on Ms. Edwards' and both of Mr. Miller's 
amendments, and I would ask that the record be noted to reflect 
that. And I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
    Chairman Hall. It will be noted. Is there objection? Chair 
hears none.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris, to 
offer a motion.
    Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 2484 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill do pass. Furthermore, I move that 
the staff be instructed to repair 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 Hall. Questions on the motion to report the bill 
favorably, those in favor will say aye. Those opposed say no.
    Ayes have it. The bill is favorably reported. Without 
objection, the Motion to Reconsider is laid on the table.
    All right. Members may have 2 subsequent calendar days in 
which to submit supplemental minority or additional views on 
the major. This concludes our full Committee markup. Chairman 
now declares the full Committee adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                              Appendix I:

                              ----------                              


  H.R. 2484, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendments, Amendment Roster

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                   Section-by-Section Analysis of the
         Amendment In The Nature of A Substitute To H.R. 2484,
               the Harmful Algal Bloom & Hypoxia Research
                    & Control Amendments Act of 2011
       (As Reported by the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment)

Changes from the Subcommittee Reported version are in bold and 
                    underlined.

    Purpose: To reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia 
Research and Control Act of 1998 to include a comprehensive and 
integrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, to 
provide for the development and implementation of comprehensive 
regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and 
for other purposes.

    Section 1: Short Title The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Amendments Act of 2011

    Section 2: Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research 
and Control Act of 1998 Explains that the text the bill modifies is the 
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, 
unless otherwise expressly stated.

    Section 3: Definitions Provides definitions, including: 
Administrator, Program, Task Force, and Under Secretary. In the 
definitions for Program and Task Force strikes the word ``established'' 
as both the Program and Task Force already exist in current law.

    Section 4: Inter-Agency Task Force Restates the President's 
establishment of an interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and 
Hypoxia through the Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources of 
the National Science and Technology Council. The bill reiterates 
representation and designation of the representative from the 
Department of Commerce to serve as the Chairperson of the Task Force. 
The bill directs the Task Force to meet at least once per year and to 
develop a coordinated budget to be submitted to the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget at the time designated for agencies to 
submit annual budgets.

    Section 5: National Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program Directs 
the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere to utilize 
the resources of the Task Force to maintain a National Harmful Algal 
Bloom and Hypoxia Program. The bill requires the Under Secretary to: 1) 
develop a national strategy to address both marine and freshwater HABs 
and hypoxia; 2) coordinate all Federal programs related to HABs and 
hypoxia; 3) work with State, tribal, and local government agencies; 4) 
identify additional research needs and priorities; 5) ensure the 
development and implementation of methods and technologies to protect 
ecosystems damaged by HABs; 6) encourage the appropriate exchange of 
research information with other countries; 7) coordinate existing 
education programs to improve public understanding; 8) provide 
resources for training of State, tribal and local water and coastal 
resource managers; 9) oversee the development of the Plan; and 10) 
administer peer-reviewed, merit-based competitive grant funding. In 
addition, the legislation directs the Under Secretary to work 
cooperatively and avoid duplication of efforts with other offices, 
centers, and programs within NOAA, as well as with States, tribes, 
nongovernmental organizations, and other agencies represented on the 
Task Force.
    The bill directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to work with the Under Secretary to utilize the resources of the 
task force to carry out freshwater activities. It also instructs the 
Administrator to ensure that such activities do not duplicate existing 
research and development programs authorized under this or any other 
Act. Furthermore, the bill requires the Administrator to submit a 
report to Congress detailing the budget explanation for all the 
activities conducted by the Administrator under the authority of this 
Act.
    The bill also specifies duties for the Under Secretary to maintain 
existing competitive grant programs, conduct marine and freshwater 
harmful algal bloom and hypoxia event response activities, and ensure 
communication among Federal agencies and increase availability of 
resources. The bill stipulates that all monitoring and observation data 
collected shall conform to standards and protocols developed pursuant 
to the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act of 
2009.
    The bill requires that the existing research programs maintain a 
focus on research, development, and demonstration of technology to 
monitor, predict, prevent, control, mitigate and respond to marine and 
freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxias. It also requires the 
Under Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to develop a protocol to assess technology development 
timelines, coordinate local State and Federal authorities to facilitate 
field testing, and work with State and local entities to conduct 
outreach and education on technology field testing projects.
    The bill directs the Under Secretary, in consultation with the 
Administrator, to expand on the existing electronic information 
clearinghouse to provide information about marine and freshwater 
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Furthermore, the bill directs the 
Under Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, to develop a 
mechanism to provide a reliable and cost-effective supply of toxin 
standards for comparative research and notify Congress of such in the 
report required under this section. The bill also directs the Under 
Secretary, through the Task Force, to report to Congress describing the 
activities carried out under the Program and the Plan.

    Section 6: Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy Directs 
the Under Secretary, through the Task Force, to oversee the development 
of a Comprehensive Research Plan and Action Strategy by identifying the 
appropriate regions and sub-regions to be addressed by the Plan and 
requires that the Plan include the following: 1) regional priorities 
for ecological, economic, and social research related to the impacts of 
HABs and hypoxia; 2) research, development, and demonstration 
activities to advance technologies and techniques for minimizing the 
occurrence and address the impacts of HABs and hypoxia; 3) ways to 
reduce the duration and intensity of HABs events; 4) research and 
methods to address the impacts of HABs on human health; 5) mechanisms 
and the potential costs of these mechanisms to protect vulnerable 
ecosystems that could be or have been affected by HABs; 6) mechanisms 
by which data is transferred between the Program and State, tribal, and 
local governments and relevant research entities; 7) communication, 
outreach, and dissemination methods used to educate and inform the 
public; and 8) the roles that Federal agencies can play to assist 
implementation of the Plan.
    Section 6 explicitly directs the utilization of existing peer-
reviewed research, assessments, and reports in the development of the 
Plan. The bill provides a list of individuals and entities that the 
Under Secretary shall coordinate with in developing the Plan. The bill 
directs that the Plan be completed and approved within 2 years after 
the date of enactment, and be periodically reviewed and updated as 
necessary.

    Section 7: Northern Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Amends the underlying 
statute to require the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed 
Nutrient Task Force to update its scientific assessment to include the 
following information: (1) the role of nutrient influx in the context 
of water column stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind 
and current dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico; (2) the contribution of the 
topography of the Gulf of Mexico to water column stratification, 
seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current dynamics; (3) the 
frequency and availability of monitoring to measure the size of the 
hypoxic zone; (4) the potential for hypoxia hot-spot formation with the 
Gulf of Mexico and possible causes; (5) The contribution of wetland 
loss to the nutrient level in the Gulf of Mexico; (6) the actual 
effects of hypoxia on the ecosystem of the Gulf of Mexico and the 
benefits resulting from a reduced hypoxic zone; and (7) a 
scientifically generated, peer-reviewed goal for an appropriate size of 
the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will protect ecosystem 
functions.
    Section 7 also requires the Task Force to update its Gulf Hypoxia 
Action Plan 2008 to include the following: (1) a strategy to enhance 
the understanding of the contribution of topography, water column 
stratification, seasonal flows and conditions, and wind and current 
dynamics on the size of the hypoxic zone; (2) the development of models 
to simulate the different shelf regions and the fundamental processes 
that act in each shelf region, differentiate between the separate 
effects of stratification and nutrient loading in the formation of 
hypoxia, and informed by realistic three-dimensional hydrodynamic and 
biogeochemical models; (3) a strategy to determine the appropriate 
amount of monitoring needed to get a scientifically robust accounting 
on the size of the hypoxic zone; and (4) an examination of several 
potential solutions based on the information provided by the updated 
assessment.

    Section 8: Chesapeake Bay Dead Zone Directs the Task Force to 
complete and submit to Congress an integrated assessment of hypoxia in 
the Chesapeake Bay that examines the current status of and gaps in 
research. The bill requires the Task Force to develop a research plan 
based on the integrated assessment for reducing, mitigating, and 
controlling hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay, and directs the Task Force 
to consult with State and local governments and representatives from 
academic, agricultural, industry, and other stakeholder groups. The 
bill also directs the Task Force to ensure that the plan does not 
duplicate activities conducted by other Federal or State agencies. It 
further directs the Plan to include incentive-based partnership 
approaches; and an economic cost-benefit analysis of the measure for 
reducing, mitigating, or controlling hypoxia events. Publication of the 
plan in the Federal Register and provide progress reports every two 
years on the activities leading toward attainment of the goals set 
forth in the plan. The bill states that the plan contents shall address 
the monitoring needs identified in the assessment; detail procedures 
for the development and verification of Chesapeake Bay hypoxia, 
including making all assumptions built into the model publicly 
available; and describe the efforts to improve the assessment of the 
impacts of hypoxia.

    Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations Provides an 
authorization of $18,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
2015 to the Under Secretary to carry out the Program. In addition, 
provides up to $2,700,000 for each of the fiscal years 2012 through 
2015 to the Administrator to carry out activities authorized in the 
bill. Furthermore, instructs that the Administrator ensure that 
activities carried out using authorized appropriations do not duplicate 
research and development activities related to harmful algal blooms and 
hypoxia conducted by Federal agency represented on the Task Force, 
States, tribes, and nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine 
and freshwater aquatic issues.

    Section 10: Clerical Amendments Amends Section 2 of the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 1998 to include an updated table of contents, and 
replaces any instance of ``Clean Water Act or'' with ``Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act or the'' in section 609 of the Act.

    *In certain places in the bill, the ANS make technical corrections 
to the use of the word ``bloom'' and ``blooms''. Simply replacing the 
singular version of ``bloom'' with the plural version ``blooms'' and 
vice versa for accuracy in the use of the term.
                               Amendments
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>

                            Amendment Roster

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>