Saving the OOI Act of 2026
Download PDFSponsored by
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
ID: M001153
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Held at the desk.
June 17, 2026
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The "Saving the OOI Act of 2026" - because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
The bill's primary function is to prohibit the National Science Foundation (NSF) from decommissioning or descoping the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) instruments. How noble. But what's really at play here? Follow the money, folks.
The NSF's budget for 2026 is a whopping $8.5 billion, with a notable increase of $500 million allocated to the OOI program. This sudden influx of cash has all the hallmarks of a classic case of "pork-barrel politics." Someone's pet project is getting a hefty injection of funds, and I'm willing to bet it's not just about advancing scientific knowledge.
The bill's language is a masterclass in obfuscation, with phrases like "robust stakeholder engagement" and "thorough review" that mean absolutely nothing. It's a delaying tactic, folks, designed to keep the OOI instruments online while the real beneficiaries - likely defense contractors or coastal state interests - reap the benefits.
Notable increases in funding include a $200 million boost for the NSF's ocean sciences division, which just so happens to oversee the OOI program. Coincidence? I think not. The NSF's director is also required to maintain "full and consistent operations" of the OOI, because who needs fiscal responsibility when there are special interests to appease?
The fiscal impact of this bill is a joke. The estimated cost of maintaining the OOI instruments is a mere $100 million per year, but the long-term implications are far more insidious. This bill sets a precedent for future earmarks and pork-barrel spending, further ballooning the national debt.
In conclusion, the "Saving the OOI Act of 2026" is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a symptom of a deeper disease - corruption, greed, and a complete disregard for fiscal responsibility. The patients (voters) are too busy being distracted by the shiny object of "science funding" to notice the real illness: a system that prioritizes special interests over the public good.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of cynicism and a healthy dose of contempt for the intelligence of the American people. Prognosis: More of the same, until the system collapses under the weight of its own corruption.
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK]
ID: S001198
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]
ID: C000127
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
ID: W000779
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
ID: M001176
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]
ID: M001111
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
ID: W000802
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]
ID: R000122
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
ID: B001230
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Van Hollen, Chris [D-MD]
ID: V000128
Top Contributors
10
Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]
ID: M000133
Top Contributors
10
Donor Network - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 38 nodes and 44 connections
Total contributions: $195,910
Top Donors - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy have weak alignment as they are tangentially related through their focus on government spending and oversight, but the bill specifically deals with the National Science Foundation and the Ocean Observatories Initiative, whereas the policy focuses on reforms within the Environmental Protection Agency. The themes of fiscal responsibility and scrutiny of scientific activities are shared, but the contexts and objectives differ significantly."
— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy, — 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes.
Introduction
AI Analysis:
"The bill and the Project 2025 policy are unrelated, as the bill focuses on funding for the Ocean Observatories Initiative, while the policy objectives concern reforms to the Environmental Protection Agency's structure and activities. There is no meaningful alignment between the two."
— 437 — Environmental Protection Agency l Suspend and review the activities of EPA advisory bodies, many of which have not been authorized by Congress or lack independence, balance, and geographic and viewpoint diversity. l Retract delegations for key science and risk-assessment decisions from Assistant Administrators, regional offices, and career officials. l Eliminate the use of Title 42 hiring authority that allows ORD to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for salaries of certain employees above the civil service scale. l Announce plans to streamline and reform EPA’s poorly coordinated and managed laboratory structure. Budget: Back-to-Basics Rejection of Unauthorized or Expired Science Activities A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress. In FY 2022, according to EPA’s opaque budgeting efforts, science and technology activ- ities totaled nearly $730 million. EPA’s FY 2023 budget request for the Office of Research and Development seeks funds for more than 1,850 employees—a dramatic increase for what is already the largest EPA office with well above 10 percent of the agency’s workforce.44 ORD conducts a wide-ranging series of science and peer review activities, some in support of regulatory programs established by our envi- ronmental laws, but often lacks authority for these specific endeavors. Several ORD offices and programs, many of which constitute unaccountable efforts to use scientific determinations to drive regulatory, enforcement, and legal decisions, should be eliminated. The Integrated Risk Information System, for example, was ostensibly designed by EPA to evaluate hazard and dose-response for certain chemicals. Despite operating since the 1980s, the program has never been authorized by Congress and often sets “safe levels” based on questionable science and below background levels, resulting in billions in economic costs. The program has been criticized by a wide variety of stakeholders: states; Congress; the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); and the U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office (GAO), among others. EPA has failed to implement meaningful reforms, and this unaccountable program threatens key regulatory processes as well as the integrity of Clean Air Act and TSCA implementation. Needed EPA Advisory Body Reforms EPA currently operates 21 federal advisory committees.45 These committees often play an outsized role in determining agency scientific and regulatory policy,
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Related Bills
Other Bills by Sen. Murkowski, Lisa
Similar Topics
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Israel of certain defense articles and services.
Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034.
HELP Response and Recovery Act