Oceans and Human Health Act

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Akaka, Leahy, Durbin and Dayton today in introducing the Federal Employees Protection of Disclosures Act. Our bill strengthens the law protecting employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs.

Whistleblowers play a crucial role in ensuring that Congress and the public are aware of serious cases of waste,

fraud, and mismanagement in government. Whistleblowing is never more important than when our national security is at stake. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, courageous individuals have stepped forward to blow the whistle on significant lapses in our efforts to protect the United States against potential future attacks. Most notably, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley alerted Congress to serious institutional problems at the FBI and their impact on the agency's ability to effectively investigate and prevent terrorism.

In another example, two Border Patrol agents from my State of Michigan, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann, risked their careers when they blew the whistle on Border Patrol and INS policies that were compromising security on the Northern Border. Their disclosure led to my holding a hearing at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in November 2001, that exposed serious deficiencies in the way Border Patrol and INS were dealing with aliens who were arrested while trying to enter the country illegally. Since the hearing, some of the most troublesome policies have been changed, improving the security situation and validating the two agents' concerns. Despite the fact that their concerns proved to be dead on, shortly after they blew the whistle, disciplinary action was proposed against the two agents. Fortunately in this case, whistleblower protections worked. The Office of Special Counsel conducted an investigation and the decision to discipline the agents was reversed. However, that disciplinary action was proposed in the first place is a troubling reminder of how important it is for us to both strengthen protections for whistleblowers and empower the Office of Special Counsel to discipline managers who seek to muzzle employees.

Agent Rowley, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann are simply the latest in a long line of Federal employees who have taken great personal risks in blowing the whistle on government waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Congress has long recognized the obligation we have to protect a Federal employee when he or she discloses evidence of wrongdoing in a federal program. If an employee reasonably believes that a fraud or mismanagement is occurring, and that employee has the courage and the sense of responsibility to make that fraud or mismanagement known, it is our duty to protect the employee from any reprisal. We want federal employees to identify problems so we can fix them, and if they fear reprisal for doing so, then we are not only failing to protect the whistleblower, but we are also failing to protect the taxpayer.

I sponsored the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 which strengthened and clarified whistleblower rights, as well as the bill passed by Congress to strengthen the law further in 1994. Unfortunately, however, repeated holdings by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have corrupted the intent of Congress, with the result that additional clarifying language is sorely needed. The case of LaChance versus White represents perhaps the most notable example of the Federal Circuit's misinterpretation of the whistleblower law.

In LaChance, decided on May 14, 1999, the court imposed an unfounded and virtually unattainable standard on Federal employee whistleblowers in proving their cases. In that case, John E. White was an education specialist for the Air Force who spoke out against a new educational system that purported to mandate quality standards for schools contracting with the Air Force bases. White criticized the new system as counterproductive because it was too burdensome and seriously reduced the education opportunities available on base. After making these criticisms, local agency officials reassigned White, relieving him of his duties and allegedly isolating him. However, after an independent management review supported White's concerns, the Air Force canceled the program White had criticized. White appealed the reassignment in 1992 and the case has been in litigation ever since.

The administrative judge initially dismissed White's case, finding that his disclosures were not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. The MSPB, however, reversed the administrative judge's decision and remanded the case back to the administrative judge, holding that since White disclosed information he reasonably believed evidenced gross mismanagement, this disclosure was protected under the Act. On remand, the administrative judge found that the Air Force had violated the Whistleblower Protection Act and ordered the Air Force to return White to his prior status; the MSPB affirmed the decision of the administrative judge. OPM petitioned the Federal Circuit for a review of the board's decision. The Federal Circuit subsequently reversed the MSPB's decision, holding that there was not adequate evidence to support a violation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Federal Circuit held that the evidence that White was a specialist on the subject at issue and aware of the alleged improper activities and that his belief was shared by other employees was not sufficient to meet the ``reasonable belief'' test in the law. The court held that ``the board must look for evidence that it was reasonable to believe that the disclosures revealed misbehavior'' by the Air Force. The court went on to say: ``In this case, review of the Air Force's policy and implementation via the QES standards might well show them to be entirely appropriate, even if not the best option. Indeed, this review would start out with a presumption that public officers perform their duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and governing regulations. . . . And this presumption stands unless there is ``irrefragable proof to the contrary'.''

It was appropriate for the Federal Circuit to remand the case to the MSPB to have it reconsider whether it was reasonable for White to believe that what the Air Force did in this case involved gross mismanagement. However, the Federal Circuit went on to impose a clearly erroneous and excessive standard for him to demonstrate his ``reasonable belief''--requiring him to provide ``irrefragable'' proof that the Air Force had engaged in gross mismanagement.

Irrefragable means ``undeniable, incontestable, incontrovertible, incapable of being overthrown.'' How can a Federal employee meet a standard of ``irrefragable'' in proving gross mismanagement? It is a virtually impossible standard of proof to meet. Moreover, there is nothing in the law or legislative history that even suggests such a standard applies to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The intent of the law is not for a Federal employee to act as an investigator and compile ``irrefragable'' proof that the Federal Government, in fact, committed fraud, waste or abuse. Rather, under the clear language of the statute, the employee needs only to have ``a reasonable belief'' that there is fraud, waste or abuse occurring in order to make a protected disclosure.

LaChance is only one example of the Federal Circuit misinterpreting the law. Our bill corrects LaChance and as well as several other Federal Circuit holdings. In addition, the bill strengthens the Office of Special Counsel and creates additional protections for federal employees who are retaliated against for blowing the whistle.

One of the most important issues addressed in the bill is to clarify again that the law is intended to protect a broad range of whistleblower disclosures. The legislative history supporting the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act amendments emphasized: ``[I]t also is not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) that protection for ``any'' whistleblowing disclosure truly means ``any.'' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content.''

Despite this clear Congressional intent that was clearly articulated in 1994, the Federal Circuit has acted to push a number of whistleblower disclosures outside the protections of the whistleblower law. For example, in Horton versus the Department of the Navy, the Federal Circuit ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to co-workers, or to the wrong-doer, or to a supervisor were not protected by the WPA. In Willis versus the Department of Agriculture, the court ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to officials in

the agency chain of command or those made in the course of normal job duties were not protected. In Huffman versus Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Horton and Willis. And in Meuwissen versus Department of Interior, the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower's disclosures of previously known information do not qualify as ``disclosures'' under the WPA. All of these rulings violate clear Congressional intent to afford broad protection to whistleblower disclosures.

In order to make it clear that any lawful disclosure that an employee or job applicant reasonably believes is evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, or gross mismanagement is covered by the WPA, the bill codifies previous statements of Congressional intent. Using the 1994 legislative history, it amends the whistleblower statute to cover any disclosure of information without restriction to time, place, form, motive or context, or prior disclosure made to any person by an employee or applicant, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is credible evidence of any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or other misconduct specified in the whistleblower law. I want to emphasize here that, other than the explicitly listed exceptions identified in the statute, we intend for there to be no exceptions, inferred or otherwise, as to what is a protected disclosure. And the prohibition on inferred exceptions is intended to apply to all protected speech categories in section 2302(b)(8) of the law. The intent here, again, is to make it clear that when the WPA speaks of protecting disclosures by federal employees ``any'' means ``any.''

The bill also addresses the clearly erroneous standard established by the Federal Circuit's LaChance decision I mentioned earlier. Rather than needing ``irrefragable proof'' to overcome the presumption that a public officer performed his or her duties correctly, fairly, in good faith, and in accordance with the law and regulations, the bill makes it clear that the whistleblower can rebut this presumption with ``substantial evidence.'' This burden of proof is a far more reasonable and appropriate standard for whistleblowing cases.

In the 1994 WPA amendments, Congress attempted to expand relief for whistleblowers by replacing ``compensatory'' damages with all direct or indirect ``consequential'' damages. Again, despite clear Congressional intent, the Federal Circuit has narrowed the scope of relief available to whistleblowers who have been hurt by adverse personnel actions. Our legislation would clarify the law to provide whistleblowers with relief for ``compensatory or consequential damages.''

The Federal Circuit's repeated misinterpretations of the whistleblower law are unacceptable and demand Congressional action. In response to the court's inexplicable and inappropriate rulings, our bill would suspend for five years the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over whistleblower appeals. It would instead allow a whistleblower to file a petition to review a final order or final decision of the MSPB in the Federal Circuit or in any other United States appellate court of competent jurisdiction as defined under 5 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2). In most cases, using another court would mean going to the federal circuit where the contested personnel action took place. This five year period would allow Congress to evaluate whether other appellate courts would issue whistleblower decisions which are consistent with the Federal Circuit's interpretation of WPA protections and guide Congressional efforts to clarify the law if necessary.

In addition to addressing jurisdictional issues and troublesome Federal Circuit precedents, our bill would also make important additions to the list of protected disclosures. First, it would subject certain disclosures of classified information to whistleblower protections. However, in order for a disclosure of classified information to be protected, the employee would have to possess a reasonable belief that the disclosure was direct and specific evidence of a violation of law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a false statement to Congress on an issue of material fact. A whistleblower must also limit the disclosure to a member of Congress or staff of the executive or legislative branch holding the appropriate security clearance and authorized to receive the information disclosed. Federal agencies covered by the WPA would be required to establish a process to provide confidential advice to employees on how to lawfully make a protected disclosure of classified information to Congress.

Current law permits Federal employees to file a case at the MSPB when they feel that a manager has taken a personnel action against them in retaliation for blowing the whistle. The legislation would add three new personnel actions to the list of adverse actions that cannot be taken against whistleblowers for engaging in protected activity. These actions would include enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form or agreement against a whistleblower for making a protected disclosure; the suspension, revocation, or other determination relating to a whistleblower's security clearance; and an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment if taken due to their participation in whistleblowing activity.

It is important to note that, if it is demonstrated that a security clearance was suspended or revoked in retaliation for whistleblowing, the legislation limits the relief that the MSPB and reviewing court can order. The bill specifies that the MSPB or reviewing court may issue declaratory and other appropriate relief but may not direct a security clearance to be restored. Appropriate relief may include back pay, an order to reassign the employee, attorney fees, or any other relief the Board or court is authorized to provide for other prohibited personnel practices. In addition, if the Board finds an action on a security clearance to have been illegal, it may bar the agency from directly or indirectly taking any other personnel action based on that illegal security clearance action. Our legislation would also require the agency to review and provide a report to Congress detailing the circumstances of the agency's security clearance decision, and authorizes expedited MSPB review of whistleblower cases where a security clearance was revoked or suspended. The latter is important because a person whose clearance has been suspended or revoked and whose job responsibilities require clearance may be unable to work while their case is being considered.

Our bill would also add two prohibited personnel practices to the whistleblower law. First, it would codify the ``anti-gag'' provision that has been in force since 1988, by virtue of its inclusion in appropriations bills. Second, it would prohibit a manager from initiating an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment because they engaged in a protected activity, including whistleblowing.

Another issue addressed in the bill involves certain employees who are excluded from the WPA. Among these are employees who hold ``confidential policy-making positions.'' In 1994, Congress amended the WPA to keep agencies from designating employees confidential policymakers after the employees filed whistleblower complaints. The WPA also allows the President to exclude from WPA jurisdiction any agency whose principal function is the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities. Our legislation maintains this authority but makes it clear that a decision to exclude an agency from WPA protections must also be made prior to a personnel action being taken against a whistleblower from that agency. This provision is necessary to ensure that agencies cannot argue that employees are exempt from whistleblower protections after an employee files a claim that they were retaliated against.

Another key section of the bill would strengthen the Office of Special Counsel. OSC is the independent federal agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting federal employee complaints of whistleblower retaliation. Current law, however, limits OSC's ability to effectively enforce and defend whistleblower laws. For example, the law provides the OSC with no authority to request the Merit Systems Protection Board to reconsider one of its decisions or to seek appellate review of an MSPB decision. Even when

another party petitions for a review of a MSPB decision, OSC is typically denied the right to participate in the proceedings.

Our bill would provide explicit authority for the Office of Special Counsel to appear in any civil action brought in connection with the whistleblower law. In addition, it would authorize OSC to obtain circuit court review of any MSPB order in a whistleblowing case if the OSC determines the Board erred and the case would have a substantial impact on the enforcement of the whistleblower statute. In a letter to me addressing these provisions, Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan said, ``I believe that these changes are necessary, not only to ensure OSC's effectiveness, but to address continuing concerns about the whittling away of the WPA's protections by narrow judicial interpretations of the law.'' I ask unanimous consent that the OSC letter be printed in the Record.

OSC currently has the authority to pursue disciplinary action against managers who retaliate against whistleblowers. However, Federal Circuit decisions, like LaChance, have undermined the agency's ability to successfully pursue such cases. The Special Counsel has said that ``change is necessary in order to ensure that the burden of proof in these cases is not so onerous as to make it virtually impossible to secure disciplinary action against retaliators.'' In addition to it being difficult to win, if the OSC loses a disciplinary case, it has to pay the legal fees of those against whom OSC initiates disciplinary action. In its letter, OSC said that ``the specter of having to pay large attorney fee awards . . . is a significant obstacle to our ability to use this important authority to hold managers accountable.'' Our bill addresses these problems by establishing a reasonable burden of proof for disciplinary actions and requiring the employing agency, not the OSC, to reimburse the prevailing party for attorney fees in a disciplinary proceeding.

Finally, the bill addresses a new issue that has arisen in connection

with the recent enactment of the Homeland Security Act or HSA. To evaluate the vulnerability to terrorist attack of certain critical infrastructure such as chemical plants, computer networks and other key facilities, the HSA asks private companies that own these facilities to submit unclassified information about them to the government. In doing so, the law also created some ambiguity on the question of whether federal employee whistleblowers would be protected by the WPA if they should disclose information that has been independently obtained by the whistleblower about such facilities but which may also have been disclosed to the government as under the critical infrastructure information program.

While I believe it was Congress' intent to extend whistleblower protections to federal employees who disclose such independently obtained information, the law's ambiguities are troublesome in the context of the tendency of the Federal Circuit to narrowly construe the scope of protections afforded by the WPA. Our bill would thus clarify that whistleblower protections do extend to federal employees who disclose independently obtained information that may also have been disclosed to the government as part of the critical infrastructure information program.

We need to encourage federal employees to blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse in federal government agencies and programs. These people take great risks and often face enormous obstacles in doing what they believe is right. The Congress and the country owe a particular debt of gratitude to those whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to protect national security. Since September 11, 2001, we have seen a number of examples of how crucial people like Coleen Rowley, Mark Hall and Bob Lindemann are to keeping our country safe. I request unanimous consent to print a letter from Agent Rowley in the Record. In the letter she says that when she blew the whistle, she was lucky enough to garner the support of many of her colleagues and members of Congress. However, her letter warns that for every Coleen Rowley, ``there are many more who do not benefit from the relative safety of public notoriety.'' It is to protect those responsible, courageous many that we offer this legislation. We need more like them.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a section- by-section explanation of the bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to spur the advent of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is cosponsoring this bill. The Oceans and Human Health Act proposes to establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research efforts and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would establish a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to strengthen and coordinate its work in this very important arena.

In recent years, we have gained a renewed appreciation for the importance of the ocean to our future and well-being. We now recognize that human health is one are in which the oceans exert major influences that are both positive and negative. However, studying this relationship is challenging. To be successful, a research program must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities. Pioneering scientists are needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution, marine pathogens and potential drug discoveries. A number of Federal agencies would share responsibility and expertise for such a program, requiring that capabilities be harnessed across such diverse entities as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

The rich biodiversity of marine organisms represent an important biomedical resource, a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic potential, and a potentially significant contribution to the national economy. A 1999 National Research Council report, From Monsoons to Microbes, noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over 50 percent of the marketed drugs are extracted from natural sources or produced using natural products. Virtually every type of life that exists on this planet is found in the sea and many types of plants and animals are exclusively marine. While the oceans are a repository for much of our biodiversity, little of it has been catalogued or studied. One important aspect that we have yet to explore is the potential of marine life to produce chemicals for treating diseases. There are only three marine compounds now in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed this effort up to ensure we get more approved sooner.

But our relationship to the sea also has a darker side. The oceans drive climate and weather factors causing severe weather events and shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. These changes in turn affect the density and distribution of disease-causing organisms and the ability of public health systems to address them. In addition, the oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease and illnesses through ingestion of contaminated seafood and direct contact with seawater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms. We need to know more about how our health is affected by the

marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``Dead Zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Research on the health of marine organisms, including marine mammals and other sentinel species, can assist scientists in their efforts to investigate and understand human physiology and biochemical processes, as well as providing a means for monitoring the health of marine ecosystems. Unfortunately such research often does not fall clearly within a single federal agency's mission. The dolphins of Florida's Indian River Lagoon provide an example of a marine population that is the victim of contaminated habitat and food. The result is unusually high mortality rates and harmful health effects. Not only is the population at risk, but it provides a clear indicator of environmental pollution concerns for its human neighbors. We must harness the sciences of genomics, forensics and ecology and put them to work in the marine world, creating an ocean Center for Disease Control--a ``CDC for the Oceans''.

An exciting example of this new interdisciplinary and medically- oriented approach to ocean research can be found at NOAA's two marine laboratories in Charleston, including a unique research partnership among NOAA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston, formerly known as the Marine Environmental Health Research Laboratory, and now referred to as the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML). HML works with a variety of Federal, State, and academic partners around the Nation and is on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on today's important public and marine environmental health issues. Their exciting dolphin health research will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to diagnosing and documenting dolphin health, which will help us learn more about dolphins in the wild than we have ever known. In addition, HML scientists, important partners in the Coral Disease and Health Consortium, are already analyzing samples from the two Florida coral reefs ``quarantined'' by NOAA today because of a fast-spreading coral disease.

The HML epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side-by-side if we are to make progress in this area. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness and disease processes and natural product chemistry. Scientists at HML and its partner NOAA facility use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help ``map'' cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. They also are developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess their effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

A number of Federal agencies are now recognizing the importance of understanding health-related ocean research and to make needed investments. Last year, initiatives began both through our ocean agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as two of our Federal research institutions, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, and the National Science Foundation, NSF.

This past year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, received appropriations of $8 million to develop an oceans and human health initiative. Within NOAA, many programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not realized their potential. Establishment of this coordinated, interdisciplinary program consisting of nationally-recognized research centers and an external interdisciplinary research grant program will enhance the NOAA program. In addition, last November, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, National Science Foundation, NSF, invited applications for research programs to explore the relationship between marine processes and public health. The joint initiative commits $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vector-borne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticals and probes.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for a coordinated national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. The legislation would amend the 1976 Science and Technology Act to clarify the role of the National Science and Technology Council in coordinating interagency research efforts. It would also establish an interagency committee on oceans and human health to develop a research plan and coordinate participation by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS and other agencies. Governing NOAA's contribution to the interagency effort, the bill would establish a new NOAA program on oceans and human health. At the heart of this legislation and key to its success is our commitment to building new partnerships--among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, among diverse scientific disciplines, and among academic researchers and government experts.

A more detailed summary of the legislation follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis Oceans and Human Health Act

The Oceans and Human Health Act would authorize the

establishment of a coordinated federal research program to

aid in understanding and responding to the role of oceans in

human health. The bill would establish a Federal interagency

Oceans and Human Health initiative coordinated through the

National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, as well as

create an Oceans and Human Health program at the Department

of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). The bill also directs the Secretary of Commerce to

establish a coordinated public information and outreach

program with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Centers for

Disease Control CDC, and the States to provide information

on potential ocean-related human health risks.

Section 1. Short Title

Section 1 provides the short title of the Act is the

``Oceans and Human Health Act.''

Section 2. Findings

Section 2 sets forth findings and purposes for the Act.

Section 3. National Science and Technology Council

Section 3 would amend the National Science and Technology

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.

6616, to codify the responsibilities of the National Science

and Technology Council NSTC, which was established by

executive Order in 1993, and whose functions have superceded

the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology, FCCSET, the functions of which were

transferred to the President under a 1977 executive order.

The Act is also amended to clarify the director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, serves as chair of

the NSTC.

Subsection b replaces existing section 401 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 6651) with new text specifying NSTC functions, which

focus on prompting domestic and international coordination

among government, industry and university scientists.

Subsection b sets forth the following as NSTC functions: 1.

promote interagency efforts and communication with respect to

the planning and administration of Federal scientific,

engineering, and technology program. 2. identify research

needs; achieve more effective use of Federal facilities and

resources; 3. further international cooperation in science,

engineering and technology; and 4. develop long-range and

coordinated research plans. The NSTC is directed to carry out

these and other related duties with the assistance of the

Federal agencies represented on the Council. This subsection

also authorizes the NSTC Chairman to establish standing

committees and working

groups to assist in developing interagency plans, conduct

studies and make reports for the Chairman.

Section 4. Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research Program

Interagency Program. Section 4 provides for the

establishment of an Interagency Oceans and Human Health

Research Program, Interagency OHH Program, to be coordinated

and supported by the NSTC. Subsection (a) directs the NSTC to

establish a Committee on Oceans and Human Health comprised of

at least one representative from NOAA, the National Science

Foundation, NSF, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, CDC,

EPA, FDA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and other

agencies and department deemed appropriate by the NSTC. This

section also provides for the biennial selection of a

Chairman of the Committee, who shall represent an agency that

contributes substantially to the Interagency OHH Program.

10-Year Implementation Plan. Subsection b directs the NSTC,

through the Committee on the Oceans and Human Health, to

submit to Congress within one year of enactment a 10-year

implementation plan for coordinated federal activities under

the Interagency OHH Program. In developing the plan, the

Committee is required to consult with the Inter-Agency Task

Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The implementation

plan will complement the ongoing activities of NOAA, NSF, the

NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

NIEHS, and other departments and agencies, and: 1. establish

the goals and priorities for Federal research related to

oceans and human health; 2. describe specific activities

required to achieve such goals; 3. identify relevant Federal

programs and activities that would contribute to the

Interagency OHH Program; 4. consider and use reports and

studies conducted by Federal agencies and departments, the

National Research Council, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and other entities; 5.

make recommendations for the coordination of national and

international programs; and 6. estimate Federal funding for

research activities to be conducted under the Interagency OHH

Program.

Scope of Interagency Program. Subsection c outlines the

scope of the Interagency OHH Program, as follows:

1. Interdisciplinary and coordinated research and

activities to improve our understanding of how ocean

processes and marine organisms can relate to human health and

contribute to medicine and research;

2. Coordination with the National Ocean Leadership Council

(established under 10 U.S.C. 7902(a)) to ensure any ocean and

coastal observing system provides information necessary to

monitor, predict and reduce marine public health problems;

3. Development of new technologies and approaches for

detecting and reducing hazards to human health from ocean

sources and to strengthen understanding of the value of

marine biodiversity to biomedicine; and

4. Support for scholars, trainees and education

opportunities that encourage a multidisciplinary approach to

exploring the diversity of life in the oceans.

section 5. NOAA Oceans and human health program

Establishment of NOAA Program. Section 5 would establish a

NOAA program on Oceans and Human Health that would coordinate

NOAA activities with the Interagency OHH Program. Subsection

(a) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop an Oceans

and Human Health Program, consistent with the interagency

program developed under Section 4, that will coordinate and

implement research and activities within NOAA related to the

role of the oceans in human health. In establishing the

program, the Secretary is required to consult with other

Federal agencies conducting integrated ocean health research

or research in related areas, including the CDC, NSF, and

HIEHS. The NOAA Oceans and Human Health Program will provide

support for the following components: 1. a Program and

Research Coordination Office; 2. an Advisory Panel; 3.

National Center(s) of Excellence; 4. Research grants and

5. Distinguished scholars and traineeships.

Program Office. Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to

establish a program to coordinate oceans and human health-

related research and activities within NOAA and to carry out

the elements of the program. In cooperation with the Oceans

and Human Health Advisory Panel established under subsection

(c), the program office will serve as liaison with academic

institutions and other agencies participating in the

Interagency OHH Program established under Section 3.

Advisory Panel. Under subsection (c), the Secretary will

establish an Oceans and Human Health Advisory Panel to assist

in the development and implementation of the NOAA Oceans and

Human Health Program. Membership of the Advisory Group will

include a balanced representation of individuals with multi-

disciplinary expertise in the marine and biomedical sciences.

The subsection provides that Federal Advisory Committee Act,

5 U.S.C. App. 1, shall not apply to the Panel.

Centers of Excellence. Subsection (d) provides that the

Secretary shall, through a competitive process, establish and

support Centers of Excellence that strengthen NOAA's

capabilities to carry out programs and activities related to

the ocean's role in human health. These NOAA Centers of

Excellence shall complement and be in addition to any centers

of excellence for oceans and human health established through

NSF or NIEHS. Centers selected for funding and support under

Section 4 would focus on areas related to NOAA missions,

including: 1. use of marine organisms as indicators for

marine environmental health; 2. ocean pollutants; 3. marine

toxins and pathogens, harmful algal blooms, seafood testing,

drug discovery, biology and pathobiology of marine mammals;

and 4. such disciplines as marine genomics, marine

environmental microbiology, ecological chemistry and

conservation medicine. The Secretary will consider the need

for geographic representation and will encourage proposals

that have strong scientific and interdisciplinary merit.

Research Grants. Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce to provide grants for research and projects that

explore the relationship between the oceans and human health,

and that complement or strengthen NOAA-related programs and

activities. In implementing this subsection, the Secretary is

directed to consult with the Oceans and Human Health Advisory

Panel and the National Sea Grant College Program, and may

work cooperatively with other agencies in the Intergency OHH

Program to establish joint criteria for such research

projects. This subsection specifies that the grants shall be

awarded through a peer-review or other competitive process

and that such a process may be conducted jointly with other

agencies participating in the Interagency OHH Program or

under the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, 10

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to spur the advent of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, who is cosponsoring this bill. The Oceans and Human Health Act proposes to establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research efforts and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would establish a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to strengthen and coordinate its work in this very important arena.

In recent years, we have gained a renewed appreciation for the importance of the ocean to our future and well-being. We now recognize that human health is one are in which the oceans exert major influences that are both positive and negative. However, studying this relationship is challenging. To be successful, a research program must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities. Pioneering scientists are needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution, marine pathogens and potential drug discoveries. A number of Federal agencies would share responsibility and expertise for such a program, requiring that capabilities be harnessed across such diverse entities as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.

The rich biodiversity of marine organisms represent an important biomedical resource, a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic potential, and a potentially significant contribution to the national economy. A 1999 National Research Council report, From Monsoons to Microbes, noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over 50 percent of the marketed drugs are extracted from natural sources or produced using natural products. Virtually every type of life that exists on this planet is found in the sea and many types of plants and animals are exclusively marine. While the oceans are a repository for much of our biodiversity, little of it has been catalogued or studied. One important aspect that we have yet to explore is the potential of marine life to produce chemicals for treating diseases. There are only three marine compounds now in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed this effort up to ensure we get more approved sooner.

But our relationship to the sea also has a darker side. The oceans drive climate and weather factors causing severe weather events and shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. These changes in turn affect the density and distribution of disease-causing organisms and the ability of public health systems to address them. In addition, the oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease and illnesses through ingestion of contaminated seafood and direct contact with seawater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms. We need to know more about how our health is affected by the

marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``Dead Zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Research on the health of marine organisms, including marine mammals and other sentinel species, can assist scientists in their efforts to investigate and understand human physiology and biochemical processes, as well as providing a means for monitoring the health of marine ecosystems. Unfortunately such research often does not fall clearly within a single federal agency's mission. The dolphins of Florida's Indian River Lagoon provide an example of a marine population that is the victim of contaminated habitat and food. The result is unusually high mortality rates and harmful health effects. Not only is the population at risk, but it provides a clear indicator of environmental pollution concerns for its human neighbors. We must harness the sciences of genomics, forensics and ecology and put them to work in the marine world, creating an ocean Center for Disease Control--a ``CDC for the Oceans''.

An exciting example of this new interdisciplinary and medically- oriented approach to ocean research can be found at NOAA's two marine laboratories in Charleston, including a unique research partnership among NOAA, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston, formerly known as the Marine Environmental Health Research Laboratory, and now referred to as the Hollings Marine Laboratory (HML). HML works with a variety of Federal, State, and academic partners around the Nation and is on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on today's important public and marine environmental health issues. Their exciting dolphin health research will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to diagnosing and documenting dolphin health, which will help us learn more about dolphins in the wild than we have ever known. In addition, HML scientists, important partners in the Coral Disease and Health Consortium, are already analyzing samples from the two Florida coral reefs ``quarantined'' by NOAA today because of a fast-spreading coral disease.

The HML epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side-by-side if we are to make progress in this area. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness and disease processes and natural product chemistry. Scientists at HML and its partner NOAA facility use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help ``map'' cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. They also are developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess their effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

A number of Federal agencies are now recognizing the importance of understanding health-related ocean research and to make needed investments. Last year, initiatives began both through our ocean agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as two of our Federal research institutions, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, and the National Science Foundation, NSF.

This past year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, received appropriations of $8 million to develop an oceans and human health initiative. Within NOAA, many programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not realized their potential. Establishment of this coordinated, interdisciplinary program consisting of nationally-recognized research centers and an external interdisciplinary research grant program will enhance the NOAA program. In addition, last November, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, National Science Foundation, NSF, invited applications for research programs to explore the relationship between marine processes and public health. The joint initiative commits $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vector-borne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticals and probes.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for a coordinated national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. The legislation would amend the 1976 Science and Technology Act to clarify the role of the National Science and Technology Council in coordinating interagency research efforts. It would also establish an interagency committee on oceans and human health to develop a research plan and coordinate participation by NOAA, NSF, NIEHS and other agencies. Governing NOAA's contribution to the interagency effort, the bill would establish a new NOAA program on oceans and human health. At the heart of this legislation and key to its success is our commitment to building new partnerships--among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, among diverse scientific disciplines, and among academic researchers and government experts.

A more detailed summary of the legislation follows:

Section-by-Section Analysis Oceans and Human Health Act

The Oceans and Human Health Act would authorize the

establishment of a coordinated federal research program to

aid in understanding and responding to the role of oceans in

human health. The bill would establish a Federal interagency

Oceans and Human Health initiative coordinated through the

National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, as well as

create an Oceans and Human Health program at the Department

of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA). The bill also directs the Secretary of Commerce to

establish a coordinated public information and outreach

program with the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, the

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the Centers for

Disease Control CDC, and the States to provide information

on potential ocean-related human health risks.

Section 1. Short Title

Section 1 provides the short title of the Act is the

``Oceans and Human Health Act.''

Section 2. Findings

Section 2 sets forth findings and purposes for the Act.

Section 3. National Science and Technology Council

Section 3 would amend the National Science and Technology

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C.

6616, to codify the responsibilities of the National Science

and Technology Council NSTC, which was established by

executive Order in 1993, and whose functions have superceded

the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,

and Technology, FCCSET, the functions of which were

transferred to the President under a 1977 executive order.

The Act is also amended to clarify the director of the Office

of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, serves as chair of

the NSTC.

Subsection b replaces existing section 401 of the Act (42

U.S.C. 6651) with new text specifying NSTC functions, which

focus on prompting domestic and international coordination

among government, industry and university scientists.

Subsection b sets forth the following as NSTC functions: 1.

promote interagency efforts and communication with respect to

the planning and administration of Federal scientific,

engineering, and technology program. 2. identify research

needs; achieve more effective use of Federal facilities and

resources; 3. further international cooperation in science,

engineering and technology; and 4. develop long-range and

coordinated research plans. The NSTC is directed to carry out

these and other related duties with the assistance of the

Federal agencies represented on the Council. This subsection

also authorizes the NSTC Chairman to establish standing

committees and working

groups to assist in developing interagency plans, conduct

studies and make reports for the Chairman.

Section 4. Interagency Oceans and Human Health Research Program

Interagency Program. Section 4 provides for the

establishment of an Interagency Oceans and Human Health

Research Program, Interagency OHH Program, to be coordinated

and supported by the NSTC. Subsection (a) directs the NSTC to

establish a Committee on Oceans and Human Health comprised of

at least one representative from NOAA, the National Science

Foundation, NSF, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, CDC,

EPA, FDA, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and other

agencies and department deemed appropriate by the NSTC. This

section also provides for the biennial selection of a

Chairman of the Committee, who shall represent an agency that

contributes substantially to the Interagency OHH Program.

10-Year Implementation Plan. Subsection b directs the NSTC,

through the Committee on the Oceans and Human Health, to

submit to Congress within one year of enactment a 10-year

implementation plan for coordinated federal activities under

the Interagency OHH Program. In developing the plan, the

Committee is required to consult with the Inter-Agency Task

Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia. The implementation

plan will complement the ongoing activities of NOAA, NSF, the

NIH National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,

NIEHS, and other departments and agencies, and: 1. establish

the goals and priorities for Federal research related to

oceans and human health; 2. describe specific activities

required to achieve such goals; 3. identify relevant Federal

programs and activities that would contribute to the

Interagency OHH Program; 4. consider and use reports and

studies conducted by Federal agencies and departments, the

National Research Council, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel,

the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and other entities; 5.

make recommendations for the coordination of national and

international programs; and 6. estimate Federal funding for

research activities to be conducted under the Interagency OHH

Program.

Scope of Interagency Program. Subsection c outlines the

scope of the Interagency OHH Program, as follows:

1. Interdisciplinary and coordinated research and

activities to improve our understanding of how ocean

processes and marine organisms can relate to human health and

contribute to medicine and research;

2. Coordination with the National Ocean Leadership Council

(established under 10 U.S.C. 7902(a)) to ensure any ocean and

coastal observing system provides information necessary to

monitor, predict and reduce marine public health problems;

3. Development of new technologies and approaches for

detecting and reducing hazards to human health from ocean

sources and to strengthen understanding of the value of

marine biodiversity to biomedicine; and

4. Support for scholars, trainees and education

opportunities that encourage a multidisciplinary approach to

exploring the diversity of life in the oceans.

section 5. NOAA Oceans and human health program

Establishment of NOAA Program. Section 5 would establish a

NOAA program on Oceans and Human Health that would coordinate

NOAA activities with the Interagency OHH Program. Subsection

(a) directs the Secretary of Commerce to develop an Oceans

and Human Health Program, consistent with the interagency

program developed under Section 4, that will coordinate and

implement research and activities within NOAA related to the

role of the oceans in human health. In establishing the

program, the Secretary is required to consult with other

Federal agencies conducting integrated ocean health research

or research in related areas, including the CDC, NSF, and

HIEHS. The NOAA Oceans and Human Health Program will provide

support for the following components: 1. a Program and

Research Coordination Office; 2. an Advisory Panel; 3.

National Center(s) of Excellence; 4. Research grants and

5. Distinguished scholars and traineeships.

Program Office. Subsection (b) directs the Secretary to

establish a program to coordinate oceans and human health-

related research and activities within NOAA and to carry out

the elements of the program. In cooperation with the Oceans

and Human Health Advisory Panel established under subsection

(c), the program office will serve as liaison with academic

institutions and other agencies participating in the

Interagency OHH Program established under Section 3.

Advisory Panel. Under subsection (c), the Secretary will

establish an Oceans and Human Health Advisory Panel to assist

in the development and implementation of the NOAA Oceans and

Human Health Program. Membership of the Advisory Group will

include a balanced representation of individuals with multi-

disciplinary expertise in the marine and biomedical sciences.

The subsection provides that Federal Advisory Committee Act,

5 U.S.C. App. 1, shall not apply to the Panel.

Centers of Excellence. Subsection (d) provides that the

Secretary shall, through a competitive process, establish and

support Centers of Excellence that strengthen NOAA's

capabilities to carry out programs and activities related to

the ocean's role in human health. These NOAA Centers of

Excellence shall complement and be in addition to any centers

of excellence for oceans and human health established through

NSF or NIEHS. Centers selected for funding and support under

Section 4 would focus on areas related to NOAA missions,

including: 1. use of marine organisms as indicators for

marine environmental health; 2. ocean pollutants; 3. marine

toxins and pathogens, harmful algal blooms, seafood testing,

drug discovery, biology and pathobiology of marine mammals;

and 4. such disciplines as marine genomics, marine

environmental microbiology, ecological chemistry and

conservation medicine. The Secretary will consider the need

for geographic representation and will encourage proposals

that have strong scientific and interdisciplinary merit.

Research Grants. Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce to provide grants for research and projects that

explore the relationship between the oceans and human health,

and that complement or strengthen NOAA-related programs and

activities. In implementing this subsection, the Secretary is

directed to consult with the Oceans and Human Health Advisory

Panel and the National Sea Grant College Program, and may

work cooperatively with other agencies in the Intergency OHH

Program to establish joint criteria for such research

projects. This subsection specifies that the grants shall be

awarded through a peer-review or other competitive process

and that such a process may be conducted jointly with other

agencies participating in the Interagency OHH Program or

under the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, 10

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, which is co-sponsored by my colleagues Senators Stevens and Inouye. The passage of this bill would mark a brand new day for our oceans and an important new chapter in Federal management of these waters.

Our oceans are critical to the economic and environmental security of our Nation. This is why I sponsored the Oceans Act of 2000, along with several of my distinguished colleagues. The Oceans Act created a Commission of national experts to conduct a rigorous assessment of ocean and coastal issues and offer their recommendations for a coordinated national ocean policy. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, chaired by Admiral James Watkins, released its preliminary report in April and will issue its final report later this summer.

The Ocean Commission strongly urged us to pay more attention to our

ocean planet. Our oceans cover seven-tenths of the Earth's surface and are home to 80 percent of all life forms on Earth, holding incredible promise of new medicines, technologies, and ecological resources. However, 95 percent of the deep ocean remains unexplored and the Federal government spends only 3.5 percent of its research budget on oceans. Each day, more than 3,000 people move to coastal areas and these population and development pressures are resulting in degraded coastal habitat, polluted estuaries, and an increased risk of damage from coastal storms. Our fish stocks are being depleted, our corals are dying, and the number of oxygen-starved ``dead zones'' in our coastal waters have doubled in the past 15 years.

The Ocean Commission appropriately acknowledges the importance of the oceans to our Nation. It champions the notion that major changes are needed now if we are to preserve our marine resources for future generations. Among these urgent changes is a need to invest in ocean research and education in order to lay a foundation for the future. Even more importantly, the report stresses the need to improve the management framework governing our oceans and coasts, starting with the strengthening of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into the Nation's premier civilian ocean agency. These were some of the themes Admiral Watkins testified to at hearings on the preliminary report before the Committees on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Appropriations Committee on April 22 and 23, 2004.

The preliminary recommendations of the Ocean Commission were heard loud and clear in the Senate. I could not be more supportive of the need to strengthen NOAA and improve Federal coordination on ocean and coastal issues. That is why I am pleased to be introducing the National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act today.

The National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act provides a vision to guide this Nation's management of the oceans. It outlines a National Ocean Policy that articulates national oceanic and atmospheric policy goals to guide all federal agency activities. These include concepts such as ecosystem-based management, integration of land-water-air activities, and preservation of marine biodiversity. This vision also includes preserving the role of the United States as a global leader in ocean, atmospheric and climate-related activities.

The National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act also provides a NOAA Organic Act to strengthen, clarify and codify NOAA's missions. Specifically, it confirms that NOAA is the lead federal agency responsible for oceanic, weather, and atmospheric issues. Consistent with the original recommendations of the 1969 Stratton Commission, the bill also establishes NOAA as an independent agency, and legislatively establishes a coherent and accountable line office structure headed by the NOAA Administrator. As recommended by the Commission, the bill would also encourage NOAA to streamline its line office structure, focus on integrated approaches, and organize its regional activities around common eco-regional boundaries. It also gives NOAA a firm hand in working with other agencies to reduce programmatic overlap, conflict and duplication.

Making NOAA independent is a tall order, and has raised questions from some of my colleagues, including those who believe that NOAA should one day be independent. I believe in the long term, the Nation will need an agency dedicated to addressing our oceanic and atmospheric environments--whether an independent NOAA or a Department of the Oceans and Environment. This bill thus provides for a transition period for reorganization of the agency, as well as a Presidential plan for future action. I look forward to working with our Chairman, Senator McCain, and other colleagues on options for moving forward on this bill that will minimize disruption for the agency, but ensure we achieve our shared long-term goal.

Strengthening NOAA is only one piece of the puzzle. More than half of the Federal cabinet-level departments, plus four independent agencies, conduct programs or activities that affect oceans and coasts. Title III of the bill establishes formal mechanisms to force Federal agencies to coordinate budgets and programs and work cooperatively on cross-cutting activities that cannot be addressed by a single agency. It establishes a Council on Ocean Stewardship in the White House to bring Federal agencies together. It also adopts the Commission's recommendation of creating a non-Federal Presidential Panel of Advisors on Oceans and Climate to provide advice to the Council and NOAA. This title also sets the stage for future improvements in Federal ocean policy by directing the President to submit a plan to further strengthen NOAA, including elevation of the agency to departmental status and by transferring relevant ocean and atmospheric programs to NOAA.

The National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act provides the vision and management framework to guide Federal ocean policy well into the 21st century. The valuable work of the Ocean Commission has provided us with an extraordinary opportunity to re-shape federal ocean policy and meet the challenges that lay before us so that future generations may enjoy the same marine resources we enjoy today. It is critically important that we do not delay implementation of the Commission's recommendations. We can start right now with passage of this bill. I hope our colleagues will join us in co-sponsoring this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Ocean Research Coordination and Advancement Act, which is cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Stevens and Inouye.

The oceans remain one of the least explored and understood resources on our planet. Our Nation needs a coordinated research and education program staffed by a skilled scientific and technical workforce to further our knowledge of the oceans and ensure their health and vitality well into the future. NOAA, the lead civilian Federal agency for oceanic and atmospheric affairs, is the linchpin to this effort. However, this is also a job that the entire Federal Government must take on, since NOAA will need the cooperation and resources of a variety of other Federal agencies to achieve our common scientific and educational goals.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established by the Congress and President pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, issued its Preliminary Report in April and is set to release its final report later this summer. The Preliminary Report identifies ocean research and education as a high priority and calls for the doubling of ocean research funding over five years. It also recommends formal ocean research and education programs to cultivate a new generation of ocean scientists, educators, technicians and decision-makers.

This bill directly responds to the Ocean Commission's recommendations by establishing ocean research and education priorities both within NOAA and across the federal government.

First, the bill establishes a Federal Government-wide Ocean Science Committee to provide advice on ocean science and education to two high- level entities: the existing National Science and Technology Council and the new Council on Ocean Stewardship, to be established by the National Ocean Policy and Leadership Act, which I am also introducing today. A model for such a committee already exists at the NSTC, chaired by NOAA and NSF, and this would further define the Committee's tasks. This Federal Ocean Science

Committee would oversee implementation of many cross-cutting ocean science and technology needs, including an integrated ocean and coastal observing system and improved cooperation among Federal agencies.

The bill also calls for the development of a government-wide National Strategy for Ocean Science, Education and Technology, which is to include a doubling of the Federal ocean research budget. To assist in meeting this goal, the bill strengthens and focuses the multi-agency National Oceanographic Partnership Program, which is currently chaired by the NOAA Administrator, renaming it the National Ocean Partners Program. The bill also recognizes the need to focus Federal priorities in ocean education by establishing an interagency Ocean Education Program and an Ocean Science and Technology Scholarship Program to recruit and prepare students for ocean-related careers with the Federal Government.

I am particularly pleased that the bill specifically addresses NOAA's research and education programs. It directs the NOAA Administrator to prepare a 20-year research plan, as well as a plan for ocean education. Such a long-term vision is necessary to enable the agency to take the federal lead on an effective, integrated and coordinated national ocean research, operations, and management. The Commerce Committee has already taken action on important components of this research program, including S. 1218, the Oceans and Human Health Act, which passed the Senate unanimously earlier this year.

The bill also breaks new ground, placing NOAA at the head of a 10- year national marine ecosystem research program patterned on the approach we took in creating the Global Change Research Program. We have immense and critical information needs, specific questions, and management decisions to make concerning our oceans and their resources. Responding to these needs will require a coordinated and focused Federal effort. By pulling together Federal scientific data and expertise on this specific topic, and partnering with the external research community through a research grant program, we can really get some results that will make a difference to Federal and State managers and decision-makers.

The bill also promotes and encourages NOAA's ocean education activities, which have been conducted for many years under programs such as the National Sea Grant College Program, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program, the Ocean Exploration Program, and the Educational Partnership Program. It is high time that NOAA fully and publicly take a leadership role in this area, and the bill directs the Administrator to prepare a long-term ocean education plan that will help achieve this goal.

It is critically important that we invest in improving our understanding of the oceans, as they are the lifeblood of this planet. No greater resource exists on Earth or in space that has such a tremendous impact on our economy, weather and climate, or our environment and overall quality of life.

I hope my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1218, the Oceans and Human Health Act, legislation being considered by the Senate today. This bill, which Senator Stevens and I introduced last year, was reported unanimously from the Commerce Committee, will spur the development of an exciting new field of research, one that explores the role of the oceans in human health. Senators Inouye, Breaux, Kerry, Cantwell, Bill Nelson, Lautenberg, DeWine, Levin, and Kennedy have all lent their considerable support to the bill as cosponsors. I am also pleased to have worked closely with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee, Senators Judd Gregg and Ted Kennedy, in crafting the final manager's amendment to the bill.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, established pursuant to the Oceans Act of 2000, is poised to issue its draft report with recommendations for a new national ocean policy. The draft report is likely to recommend increased Federal support for integrated and innovative ocean research initiatives such as in oceans and human health in order to focus attention on the increasingly complex interaction between humans and the sea. The Cceans and Human Health Act would establish a national interagency program that will coordinate research into oceans and human health and ensure the availability of an adequate Federal investment in this critical area. It also would authorize such a program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to strengthen its work in this important field of study.

Throughout history, society has turned to the oceans for food, transport, commerce and recreation. This

tremendous resource has enriched and sustained our existence. It is no coincidence that today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in the coastal zone, and this number is increasing. In addition, over 95 percent of U.S. overseas trade moves through our Nation's ports and this volume is expected to more than double by 2020. Our oceans are inextricably linked to our personal and economic well-being.

In recent years, the rich biodiversity of the world's seas has generated considerable interest. Scientists believe the oceans represent a promising source of novel compounds with therapeutic and/or disease-fighting capabilities. A 1999 National Research Council report, ``From Monsoons to Microbes,'' noted that nature has been the traditional source of new pharmaceuticals and found that over half of marketed drugs are extracted or produced from natural sources. Our oceans account for over 80 percent of the planet's biological productivity, yet little of it has been catalogued or studied. At present, there are only three marine compounds in clinical use--and these were developed in the 1950s. While there are some new compounds in the pipeline, we need to speed research efforts to ensure we get more products approved.

I am encouraged by research suggesting that sea sponges contain compounds which show promise in treating pancreatic cancer. And recently, a scientist analyzing a water sample from the Sargasso Sea, off Bermuda, discovered at least 1,800 new microbial species and more than 1.2 million genes in that sample. Imagine what new drug discoveries await researchers and the medical community.

Pioneering scientists are also needed to tackle marine environmental issues that affect human and marine life alike, such as ocean pollution and marine pathogens. Our marine resources are under growing environmental stresses. Signs of these stresses include ``dead zones,'' loss of coastal wetlands, changes in ocean salinity, contamination of fish and marine life, and increases in extreme weather events associated with global climate change. Over the past 2 weeks, over 60 dolphin carcasses have been found along Florida's panhandle beaches and bays. Preliminary test results point to one or more biotoxins that are associated with red tides. Certain biotoxins have been known to produce eye and respiratory irritation in humans. Dolphins are an important indicator species of environmental pollution and their unusually high mortality rates in Florida raise the issue of potential risks to human health.

Because oceans act as a route of exposure for human disease through ingestion of contaminated seafood or direct contact with saltwater containing toxins and disease-causing organisms, it is vital that we learn more about how public health is affected by the marine environment. We must ensure that the sea maintains its capacity to sustain itself without becoming a ``dead zone.'' We must find ways to monitor and reduce the occurrence of ocean toxins that kill marine mammals and taint seafood. As with cancer, our goal must be understanding and prevention, rather than relying exclusively on treatment.

Many research programs and laboratories perform research and related activities that could contribute significantly to a national research effort, but such efforts have not always realized their potential. To be successful, research into oceans and human health must integrate disciplines, bringing together oceanographers and biomedical researchers to better understand marine processes, reduce public health risks and enhance our biomedical capabilities.

The Oceans and Human Health initiative recently established at NOAA, and a joint program between the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, already show tremendous promise, and this legislation provides further support for a coordinated Federal effort. The NIEHS and NSF initiative provides $6 million annually to establish centers of excellence focusing on harmful algal blooms, water and vectorborne diseases, and marine pharmaceuticls and probes. In addition, we provided NOAA with appropriations of $8 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $10 million in Fiscal Year 2004 for an oceans and human health initiative focused on strengthening important oceans and human health research within NOAA's areas of focus, including health coasts and marine life.

Within NOAA, an interdisciplinary and medically oriented approach to ocean research can be found at two marine laboratories in Charleston, SC. The NOAA labs have partnered with the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the State of South Carolina, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston and are on the front lines of discovery and prevention, particularly in the emerging field of marine genomics. They are hard at work on todays' important public and marine environmental health issues. For instance, they are conducting research into dolphin health that will for the first time utilize a traditional medical approach to help us learn more about the health of dolphins in the wild.

This NOAA research collaboration epitomizes the variety of important disciplines that must work side by side if we are to make progress in understanding the connections between oceans and human health. It is home to cutting-edge research involving algal toxins, natural products with potential pharmaceutical applications, and viral and bacterial pathogens that cause disease in marine animals, with potential links to human illness, disease processes and natural product chemistry. The scientists use unique medical tools such as nuclear magnetic resonators to help map the cellular and genetic structure of marine organisms and have developed methods for detecting pesticides in water, sediments, fish, and marine mammals that may potentially affect both the health of the marine environment and human health. The scientists are also developing exposure, toxicology and disease models to assess pollution's effects on a variety of marine organisms. Their work will better define ocean health and bridge the gap with existing human health models.

Taken together, the NIEHS-NSF and NOAA research initiatives offer an excellent basis for building a comprehensive national program. In addition, a number of other Federal agencies are poised to make significant contributions.

The Oceans and Human Health Act provides the legislative framework for coordinated, national investment to improve understanding of marine ecosystems, address marine public health problems and tap into the ocean's potential contribution to new biomedical treatments and advances. At the heart of this legislation--and key to its success--is our commitment to building new partnerships among Federal health, science and ocean agencies, diverse scientific disciplines, and academic researchers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a more detailed summary of the legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am extremely proud to sponsor this legislation, and hope that this will mark the beginning of a new century of ocean research that will reveal how integral and important the oceans are to our daily lives and our health, whether we live by the edge of the sea or in the heartland.