[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9796-H9843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OMNIBUS CIVILIAN SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 234, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 234
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2405) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 for civilian science activities of the
Federal Government, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather than by
section. The first section and each title shall be considered
as read. An amendment striking section 304(b)(3) shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 234 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian
Science Authorization Act of 1995. The rule provides 1 hour of general
debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science.
The rule provides that the bill be considered by title, rather than
by section, and that the first section and each title be considered as
read. Additionally, the rule provides for the automatic adoption of an
amendment striking section 304(b)(3) related to rule-making activities
by the Department of Energy. The rule accords priority in recognition
to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2405 consolidates the following seven bills into
one measure:
H.R. 1814 authorizing appropriations for the environmental research,
development, and demonstration activities of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act, which covers the National Oceanographic Service, the
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Administration, the National Weather
Service, and other important functions.
H.R. 1816, the Department of Energy, Civilian Research and
Development Act.
H.R. 1851, reauthorizing the U.S. Fire Administration, which
coordinates the Nation's fire safety and emergency medical service
activities, and educates the public on fire prevention and control.
H.R. 1852, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act.
H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement Act, which provides
for the important technological invasions promoted by the Department of
Commerce Technology Administration, and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
H.R. 2043, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act, which will keep America at the forefront of space
exploration and research.
Although the minority expressed some dissatisfaction with all of
these bills, I would like to point out that each one was ordered
reported by a voice vote, and reports were filed on each bill by the
Committee on Science.
I salute the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Bob Walker,
the ranking member, the gentleman from California, George Brown, and
all of the Members of the Committee on Science for their diligence and
devotion in bringing this conference measure forward. I strongly
support this bill, and this open rule will allow all Members to fully
participate in the amendment process. I urge its adoption
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material:
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of October 10, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 51 74
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 15 22
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page H 9797]]
Total......................... 104 100 69 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of October 10, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-100; A:
Revitalization. 227-127 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226.................... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... .................
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1130
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Quillen] for yielding the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. We do not oppose it, although we
do have serious concerns about the way that the bill has been
considered and has been brought before us. We find it very disturbing,
in fact, that the majority on the Committee on Rules is condoning the
process by which the Committee on Science considers this bill and by
which the House will take it up today.
Seven separate authorization bills, six of them major ones, were
rolled into one major piece of legislation. These were traditionally
considered individually and they should have been this time as well, we
believe. Instead of having 6 or 7 hours of general debate, as would
ordinarily be the case, we will
[[Page H 9798]]
have only 1 hour of time, only for the most cursory type of debate on
these seven separate pieces of legislation.
During the hearing process, we understand the legislation was often
not made available so that Members could not ask about it and witnesses
could not respond to specific legislative proposals. That meant that
much of what the committee had recommended has no basis in the printed
record of the committee's proceedings. Since H.R. 2405 was never
reported by the committee, it is insulated from several points of order
that apply only to committee-reported bills. That includes clause 5(a)
of rule XXI, which prohibits an authorizing committee from reporting a
bill that contains an appropriation of funds.
For example, Mr. Speaker, we understand that section 312 of the bill
takes funds that have been previously appropriated for clean coal
technology and permits them to be used to pay for termination costs of
various programs zeroed out in title III. This section appears to
permit a new purpose for funds that had been previously appropriated by
the House.
Under the precedents of the House, this section appears to constitute
an appropriation violative of clause 5(a) of rule XXI which prohibits
an authorizing committee from reporting a bill that contains an
appropriation of funds.
Mr. Speaker, if this bill had been reported by the Committee on
Science, if it were being considered under the procedures the House
would normally follow, a point of order would lie against section 312
of H.R. 2405.
Those are special concerns, and since most of us will recall that the
current chairman of the Committee on Science, the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], when in the minority, was one
of those who complained most vociferously and properly, at times, about
using the Committee on Rules to protect bills that violated House
rules.
The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Science, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], has called the process by which
this bill is being considered unprecedented, unwarranted, and unwise,
and we believe he is correct in so categorizing it.
As my colleagues know, Mr. Brown is perhaps the perfect example of
the type of policy specialist who has served the committee system in
the House so well and so fairly for so many years in the past. We
should be making the maximum use of his expertise in his warnings about
this bill, about the way it has been and is being considered, and
should not go unheeded.
That goes to the heart of the importance of the authorization process
which gives the House the opportunity to consider broad policy issues
after conscientious consideration after the committee hearing and
markup process. Mr. Brown has been speaking eloquently about the
significance of this procedure and its proper use for many years, and
we fear that we have not listened carefully enough to his warnings
about the necessity for a deliberative authorization process, at least
in this particular case.
Mr. Speaker, the 1 hour of general debate provided by this rule
precludes all but the most cursory type of consideration. This is 1
hour of debate for six major bills that address such disparate programs
as nuclear physics, space, the Weather Service, global climate change,
fossil fuel energy research, environmental technologies, marine
research, Department of Energy laboratories, and the National Science
Foundation. They should, as I suggested earlier, have been taken up
separately. We have to wonder if the majority planned this so that the
programs which deserve more time and more thoughtful consideration,
especially since they are being cut back so severely, would not get the
attention they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown] testified before our committee about some other procedural
concerns. In several instances the Committee on Science acted without
benefit of testimony on matters entirely outside its jurisdiction; and,
important to the omnibus structure of the bill, since this bill would
go to four separate committees in the Senate, it certainly will not
survive the process in this unprecedented omnibus form.
Mr. Speaker, the substance of the bill itself is disturbing to many
of us. We hope that the concerns about the Federal Government's role in
encouraging the important investments made by civilian research and
development can be fully debated. This is an important debate, focusing
as it does on the enormous cut of 33 percent for civilian R&D over the
next 5 years.
The bill represents, sadly, the first step in dismantling the
scientific infrastructure that supports our understanding of the
environment; it cuts the programs that bring better science to bear on
the environmental problems we have discussed so often this year and
undoubtedly will continue to in years to come. The bill cuts NOAA's
global climate change budget in half, almost certainly terminating some
of the research to determine the validity of the global warning
phenomenon. It imperils our efforts to ensure our Nation's future
energy security and reduce our dangerous reliance on nonrenewable and
foreign energy resources by cutting our investment in energy research
and development so drastically. It effectively eliminates the National
Science Foundation's research in social and behavioral sciences without
the benefit of hearings or the opportunity for comments, and its cuts
in NASA will, as the ranking member of the committee testified,
adversely affect our future space program.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill represents a massive
disinvestment in our civilian research and development efforts at a
time when it is precisely these programs that we should be
strengthening.
So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have many concerns about the way in
which these several pieces of legislation are being brought before us
today. We hope that under this open rule Members are able to sort out
and vote intelligently on all of the many disparate matters that will
come before us in this omnibus piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking
member of the committee.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, although it may be a little repetitious, I want to go
over some of the factors which relate to this bill and which relate to
the rule under which we are considering it.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the chairman of the committee has
requested an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2405, and I
indicated my pleasure during the hearing at the Committee on Rules.
This continues a tradition of the Committee on Science, which
sometimes, to the chagrin of other Members of the House, has requested
open rules and debated bills rather lengthily here on the floor.
While all Members will have an opportunity to come to the floor and
offer amendments by which the House as a whole can express its will,
the opportunity in this case may be more theoretical than real. The
Committee on Rules has chosen to honor the request of the chairman of
the Committee on Science to bundle seven bills which were separately
reported by the Committee on Science. While a few are relatively
noncontroversial, many were reported only after many hours of debate
and discussion in the committee.
Unfortunately, Members who are not on the Committee on Science have
had very little time to digest this seven-course meal; and other
critical activities which are likewise ongoing this week, like the
markup of the budget reconciliation bill, are likely to further
distract Members' attention away from this bill.
This is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because the policies in this bill will
have an impact in every district in this Nation. H.R. 2405 reflects the
Republican budget resolution, which reverses the policies of the last
50 years that have made the United States the undisputed world leader
in science and technology. H.R. 2405 is another step in the most
massive disinvestment of Federal support for research and technology
since the end of World War II.
[[Page H 9799]]
For some, the impacts will come soon, as researchers in Federal
laboratories lose their jobs, as universities cut faculty and research
programs, as graduate students in science and engineering find
themselves without challenging work opportunities. But the greater
impacts will be long-range, in the loss of economic opportunities, in
the loss of our intellectual capital, in the diminution of our
scientific and engineering enterprise, and in missed opportunities for
improved environmental quality, energy security, and health care.
Mr. Speaker, I do not fault the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Walker], the chairman of the Committee on Science, for rolling these
bills together into a single omnibus bill, even though I think it will
have the effect of diminishing the attention we can give to each
agency. Indeed, I commend him for his efforts to elevate the
authorization process for the civilian science agencies by emulating
the defense authorization bill.
I might say parenthetically that over the past years, we have worked
together in a constructive way to enhance the authorization process,
and I give the chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker], full credit for attempting, in what he is doing here, to
continue to enhance that process. I doubt seriously that what we are
doing will have that effect, and I want all of the Members of the House
to consider whether or not this is the answer to the problem of
enhancing the authorization process in the workings of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that the bill does not
authorize all of civilian science, which would be desirable, in our
opinion. Many important civilian science agencies, including the single
largest civilian science agency, the National Institutes of Health, are
not included in this bill. Therefore, the House cannot truly set
priorities in the civilian science portfolio in this bill as the Armed
Services Committee does with regard to military expenditures.
Second, the structure of the authorization and appropriation
committees in the House and Senate are not as conducive to moving
authorization bills for these programs as they are for moving a defense
authorization and appropriation bill. In the House, for example, the
appropriations for the programs in H.R. 2405 are assigned to four
different subcommittees, each with many of the programs competing with
these science programs for its 602(b) allocation. In the Senate, this
bill will be referred to four different authorizing committees that
historically have not been particularly active in passing
authorizations. Although it is a little late to comment on it, the
chairmen of some of these authorizing committees in the Senate were
also chairmen of appropriation subcommittees and have too little
motivation to go through the process of dealing with the funding of
these programs twice.
This structure is very different from the single defense authorizing
committee and the single defense appropriations committee with parallel
jurisdiction in both the House and Senate. For that reason, I see
little reason to believe that the Senate will act at all on this bill,
despite the Chairman's commendable efforts to convince the Senate to
act. In fact, if he desires, I would be more than happy to join him in
trying to get bipartisan action in the Senate. But as I say, I am
dubious that we can succeed in this.
Finally and most importantly, the defense authorization bill comes to
the floor before the appropriations bill, and that has been worked out
very carefully over the years and has the full support of the
leadership in order to accomplish that. Despite the hard work that our
committee has expended on the part of H.R. 2405, the fact is that it is
largely irrelevant to the fiscal year 1996 appropriation process. The
real funding decisions have already been made in the various
appropriations bills. We will debate this bill and vote on amendments,
but the debate will be largely symbolic, with little effect on the real
world.
Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the House now conforms H.R. 2405 to
the actions of the Appropriations Committee, the Committee on Science
will be reduced to a rubber stamp. Indeed, the chairman of the
committee has acknowledged the weakness of the authorizing process. He
instituted a number of interesting new procedures this year to help
ensure the committee's relevance to the budget process, but I question
whether he has been entirely successful in this effort. In his other
role as the vice chairman of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the
Committee on Science first helped to establish his desired science
budget policies in the budget resolution. The chairman then instructed
the Committee on Science that the authorization levels for each agency
needed to be within authorization caps mandated by the budget
resolution, although no such caps could of course be found within the
House budget resolution, a point that I made repeatedly during the
deliberations in the subcommittees. Nonbinding report language,
however, accompanying the House budget resolution was elevated to dogma
for the Committee on Science.
Finally, when the Appropriations Committee began to mark up bills
with numbers different from those that the chairman of the Committee on
Science wanted, he hastily called markup sessions with the barest
minimum of notice and opportunity to review the bill, and often without
adequate hearings.
{time} 1145
At the DOE bill markup, for example, the chairman announced that the
old mandatory budget authorization caps that he had instructed the
subcommittee's chairman would be binding on the subcommittee had been
replaced, overnight, by new, higher budget resolution caps which
remarkably permitted the committee to raise the authorization funding
closer to levels that had been approved by the appropriators.
As the chairman will surely respond, the evidence of the committee's
influence can be shown by the fact that most of the appropriations
funding, with a few notable exceptions, are fairly close to the levels
found in this bill that we will be taking up. But I think that a
careful consideration of the facts above will show that the only
influence exercised was that of the chairman, not of the collective
membership of the committee.
Despite my high respect for the chairman, and my own efforts
previously as chairman to influence appropriators, and it is not a sin
to try and do that, this does not reflect, however, the action of the
full committee. The individual members of the committee have little if
any input into the fundamental policy decisions, most of which were
made prior to any committee consideration. The chairman arbitrarily
limited the committee scope of action and merely asked them to ratify
decisions already made.
Whether the chairman's increased leverage over the appropriation
process will be worth the loss of a collegial and democratic process at
the Committee on Science level remains to be judged by history. Of
course the usurpation of the responsibilities of the members of the
authorizing committee, the Committee on Science in this case, by the
Republican leadership, does not end at the committee's doors.
As we will witness in the reconciliation process this week, the
Republican leadership will have no qualms about ditching the considered
work product of any of the committees and substituting their own
politically correct views, as with the Commerce Dismantling Act, or as
in the case of the Committee on Agriculture. The leadership will bypass
that committee entirely and write the farm reconciliation bill itself.
Mr. Speaker, in the light of these actions it is hardly surprising
that some Members on both sides of the aisle have begun to question
whether authorizing committees have any role in this new Congress.
Unfortunately, we do nothing to advance an answer to that question
today in our largely symbolic consideration of H.R. 2405.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Science.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule, and I thank the
chairman of the Committee on Rules for his assistance in bringing H.R.
2405 to the floor. This bill is a compilation of seven traditional
agency authorization bills the
[[Page H 9800]]
Committee on Science is required to produce to meet its oversight and
priority setting responsibilities. Consideration of this comprehensive
bill is beneficial both from a practical and a programmatic viewpoint.
Combining these authorization bills under a single umbrella provides
Congress with a clear means of considering civilian R&D in its entirety
and provides an excellent forum for setting research priorities.
Defense funding has traditionally been considered in an omnibus
package, and by doing the same with civilian research funding the
committee is elevating science as a priority to a more prominent
standing within the authorization process.
The unification and rationalization of most of the Government's
fundamental science functions in one vehicle demonstrates the advantage
of coordinating these programs. It is a good illustration of the
enormous potential of a consolidated Federal science infrastructure. So
I do urge the support of this resolution to bring this rule to the
floor.
I am disappointed in the previous discussion, because it takes what
should be a policy concern and rather reduces it to a personality
battle that the gentleman from California evidently has with the
chairman. Most of what he discussed was what the chairman did in this.
The chairman of the Committee on Science cannot act without a
majority of the members of the committee being with him, unlike the old
days. when the gentleman's party ran the Committee on Science and ran
the Congress, we operated with a proxy system where the chairman would
sit there and vote other people's votes along the way, and would
determine the course of policy by the use of an abhorrent system called
proxy voting.
Today you actually have to have Members in the room and a majority of
those Members have to support the actions that the chairman suggests or
any person other than the chairman might suggest. So we are operating
in a manner in Congress today which is entirely different, where
Members actually cast their votes for real.
It is a strange new world, I know, to the people who for years
operated in back rooms and then voted with proxies. But the fact is
that this is the way in which policy can indeed get made, and get made
I think in a beneficial way.
This particular bill was the subject of many days of hearings in
subcommittees. It is a bill that the gentleman from California
suggested had not had proper hearings. In all cases these were matters
that were heard in subcommittee. The committee deliberated on these
matters not only in subcommittee but in full committee. The decision to
wrap them together in a bill brought to the floor was indeed a decision
made with the idea of enhancing the stature of science.
To suggest that somehow this bill is diminishing the work of science
I think does not reflect reality. In fact, it gets almost humorous when
you look at the fact that we are dealing with the broad base of science
for the first time. For the first time in the history of the House, we
are dealing with the broad base of science as a comprehensive kind of
program.
I am also amused, having seen some of the missives that the minority
is sending out to the Members, that at the time that we are trying to
raise the stature of the program to a national effort, something that
the Nation should be proud of, the minority is sending out letters that
are broken down State-by-State, district-by-district, appealing to the
Members' pork barrel concerns.
If that does not undermine the ability to deal with these matters as
a national concern, I do not know what does. Yet they come to the floor
and suggest that somehow there is something happening here that
diminishes science's concern. we probably ought to look at what they
are doing.
I also heard them suggest that NIH is not included in this bill. No,
it is not in this bill. NIH is not in the jurisdiction of our
committee. Much as the gentleman from California and I might like to
have it in the jurisdiction of our committee, it is not. We cannot
bring it to the floor as a bill because we do not have the appropriate
jurisdiction. I wish it were different, but it is not.
I guess the final thing I would make mention of is that the mention
was made in the debate that we should not do the right thing because
the Senate might not act. I mean, in general it has been discussed here
that this is the right thing to do, to treat science as an issue that
needs some comprehensive treatment, but we ought not do it because the
Senate might not act.
William Penn, who founded the commonwealth which I am proud to help
represent, once made the statement that right is right even if everyone
is against it, and wrong is wrong even if everyone is for it. Sometimes
in this body we ought to consider that. If it is the right thing to do,
even if everyone is against it, maybe we ought to try it, and so on,
because right is right, even if everyone is against it. Wrong is wrong,
even if everyone is for it.
In this case we have the right bill, we have the right rule. I would
suggest that we should support both the rule and ultimately the bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the distinguished ranking
member of the committee.
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have the very highest respect for the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Science, and I did not intend to
personalize this discussion in the fashion that he seemed to indicate
he thought I was trying to do. I was referring to his institutional
role as chairman when I suggested some of the things that he has done
in his institutional role as vice chairman of the Committee on the
Budget, and in other roles that he plays.
He has continued to present this bill in his remarks just now as
being justified because it allows us to deal in one bill with the broad
base of science in a comprehensive way. Obviously he did not really
mean that, because he further on in his remarks acknowledged that the
entire field of the health sciences, which represents about a third of
our civilian science, was not included. Of course it does not deal with
the even larger broad base of science which is contained in the defense
bill, which is about 55 percent of our total science expenditures.
So we cannot in this bill establish programs for the board base of
science at the maximum we are talking about, perhaps 30 percent, of
that broad base of Federal investments in research and development.
In that 30 percent that we deal with in this broad-based bill, we are
setting a trend which differs completely from what is happening in the
other two-thirds. In the case of the health sciences, basic research,
we continue to increase that budget, not much. For next year it barely
exceeds the cost-of-living increase, but it is an increase.
In the case of the 55 percent of the Federal R&D investments which
are in the Defense Department, you would think with the declining
threat to our national security, surely we would be leading the way by
reducing our investments in military R&D. As a matter of fact, the
military R&D programs continue essentially stable.
So in this key element, civilian research and development outside of
the health field, we are proposing a one-third cut over the next
several years in contradistinction to the other two-thirds of our
Federal R&D investment. This, of course, is the very disturbing thing
that bothers me.
The chairman has also indicated that we had, I gather, full and free
debate on this bill and that we acted democratically in voting it out.
Technically he is in error. This bill before us has never been before
the Committee on Science. We have never had a chance to vote on it. It
was not reported by the Committee on Science. If it had been, it would
have been subject to a point of order, as the distinguished member of
the Committee on Rules on the minority side pointed out.
What we did do is have a varying degree of debate over varying
portions of this bill, and when these portions were voted out, as they
were, then they were put together after the bill had left the committee
and taken to the Committee on Rules and asked for their blessing, which
they got. I do not disapprove of that. But by no means have we, as the
chairman said, had full and free debate on this bill. Now if he had
intended to say that we had free and full debate on most of the
components
[[Page H 9801]]
of this bill when they were reported out of the committee, I would of
course agree with him, but not on the statement that he made here.
Now, as to whether or not we should be influenced by the Senate
prospects, normally I would agree. We voted out in previous years a lot
of bills which we knew from historical experience over a decade the
Senate would not take up, but we knew it was right to vote them out. We
voted them out and then we used every device that we could, including
the obviously inadequate efforts of the then chairman, to get the
Senate to consider these bills.
If the current chairman believes that there is a realistic chance,
and I hope he is correct, then I would pledge my full support in going
with him or doing anything I could, either opposing him or supporting
him, as would do the most good, to get the Senate to act on this
package or any version of it, to separate it and send it out and act on
a separate portion.
The chairman has never approached me about that. I do not see from
his performance during the first part of this year that he intends to
ask for any help in doing that. I think that I have, based on the
experience with similar problems, some right to advise him in all good
conscience that I doubt if he is going to succeed. But if there is a
chance, I would like to help him.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have several amendments to the bill,
one that I have been working on for many years.
I believe we have come to some language that might make it a part of
law.
Let me start out by saying I wish the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker] the best. I am familiar with the years I have been here of
his steadfast determination, and I have really no complaints. On some
of the policy issues that we might have, that is understandable. But I
think we need a strong leader in this particular field. I would hope
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] can get together for the best interests of
our country.
The first one says, though, ``Look, we've got a big NASA here, it's
not on the Moon anymore, it's lost a little bit of luster,'' and one of
the reasons we have a rough time coming up and stabilizing the funding
is not everybody has a piece of NASA like we do with the Pentagon.
The Traficant amendment says to the greatest extent practicable, when
NASA is going on and developing new initiatives where it does not hurt
NASA, they should look at communities diversely around our country and
spread those opportunities of NASA around and get more of a
constituency, if you will, and more of a support base.
{time} 1200
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman that we are
prepared, when the gentleman offers that amendment, to take that
amendment. I think it is an excellent addition. We are prepared on this
side to take that amendment at the appropriate time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The second amendment,
I am not so sure. The third one is a straight Buy American language we
have had in many, and I do not think that is a problem, but I think we
come to an impasse on the second amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the second amendment deals with the issue of technology
transfer.
The budget cuts are real. There has to be some cuts. R&D in America
has taken some hits. But there has been a participatory joint R&D
program with the private sector in NASA, and now we are coming up under
new technology-transfer initiatives, unrestricted disclosure.
The Traficant amendment says when there is a joint R&D program, and
in fact NASA is determining to, in fact, release certain undisclosed,
unrestricted information, that at the request of the company, who is
also a participant in the funding of it, that the NASA Administrator
would not release into a period not to exceed 5 years.
Now, before everybody panics over this, if the NASA Administrator who
still has the discretion would believe that it is not as significant as
the concern of the company, that may only be a short period of time.
But the Traficant bill says in order for it to be a 5-year holding back
of this release of this information that there would have to be a 50-
percent contribution in the private sector. I think language could be
worked out here.
Let me say this. American industry needs some protection here. They
are coming up and ask to spend more and more of their dollars in R&D,
and the long-range R&D is going to be coming from overseas. Let us be
careful.
Mr. Speaker, the Traficant language says when our economy can be
endangered, the private sector entities would be endangered by that
disclosure, that they have a right to request this action, and it could
be granted. The Traficant language says that the Administrator, on the
request of a private sector entity, shall delay for a period not to
exceed 5 years the unrestricted public disclosure of technical data in
the possession of or under the control of the Administrator that has
been generated in the performance of experimental, developmental, or
research activities or programs funded jointly by the administration
and the private sector entity.
Further on in there it does state for it to be the maximum of 5 years
there has to be a cost-sharing factor of 50 percent. It still leaves
open the discretion, it still gives that opportunity, and let me say
this:
Those industries that would be adversely affected by premature
disclosure of any sensitive research information must get some
consideration. This technology-transfer amendment would require NASA to
notify Congress as well annually of all determinations that withhold
sensitive data from premature disclosure.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we provide American industry with
some assurances that their sensitive research efforts will be
protected, not be compromised. I believe there is language that makes
sense, and I am hoping that we can come to some common ground. I
believe this is an important issue in technology transfer.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Pursuant to House Resolution
234 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2405.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1204
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2405) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 for
civilian science activities of the Federal Government, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Shays (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 234, the bill
is considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] each will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 12 minutes.
[[Page H 9802]]
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring to the floor today H.R. 2405, the
Omnibus Science Authorization Act of 1995. This legislation represents
the work of the Science Committee begun last winter with the
authorization hearings and culminating in the reporting of seven
separate authorization bills.
Authorizations totaling $21.5 billion for the core research
activities of seven agencies are provided in H.R. 2405. Those agencies
are: the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency,
the technology programs of the Department of Commerce, and the United
States Fire Administration. This amount represents a reduction of $2.4
billion from spending at current levels, but increase spending on
targeted basic research.
We are considering these authorizations as seven titles in one bill
in an attempt to bring to the House a comprehensive civilian science
spending and policy bill. Considering these bills as a whole, rather
than as separate pieces, clearly illustrates the themes of emphasizing
basic research and fundamental science that the Committee on Science
has stressed over the past 9 months.
First, the committee believes that a strong basic research foundation
is essential to the future of our Nation. Basic budget realities
dictate that we follow this course. We do not have the luxury, and it
is not a wise use of resources to continue steering taxpayer dollars in
the direction of applied research which can, and should, be market-
driven and conducted by the private sector.
Second, the committee took seriously the mandate to achieve a
balanced budget by the year 2002. We recognize that as important as
this Nation's science and research efforts are to our future, every
sector of the government, including science, must make sacrifices so
that the economy can be improved for all of our citizens.
Opponents of this measure will tell you that they did not feel bound
by the limits set by the House Budget Committee. I can assure you, Mr.
Chairman, that the majority of the members of the committee took those
limits very seriously, and made the tough choices that were necessary
for us as authorizers to contribute fully to the budget and
appropriations process. We approached the task of trimming spending
from those programs which have outlived their usefulness and from those
which may have proven their worth, but which, we believe, can get along
with less of an increase than had been requested by the administration.
We also followed several criteria: Research should be focused on long-
term, noncommercial research, leaving economic feasibility and
commercialization to the marketplace; Federal funding research and
development should not be carried out beyond demonstration of technical
feasibility; revolutionary new ideas that make possible the impossible
should be pursued; the Federal Government should avoid funding research
in areas that are receiving or could receive funding from the private
sector; government-owned laboratories should confine their in-house
research to areas in which they have no peer; and research and
development programs should be tightly focused on the agency's stated
mission.
The chairmen of the four subcommittees will each be describing the
sections of the bill for which they are responsible, but I want to
touch on several provisions which I believe to be significant and which
demonstrate that the Science Committee's decision that we should make
the difficult decisions responsibly.
The 2-year authorization for the National Science Foundation provides
for 3-percent growth in the research activities account which funds the
real work of the foundation in the second year, while freezing salaries
and expenses of the bureaucracy. We have directed that the agency
streamline its bureaucracy by at least one directorate, and we have
funded other accounts at, or more than, the President's request.
Understand that. We put the emphasis in this agency on basic
research. What we said was it was high time that we begin trimming
bureaucracy in government in favor of doing real programs. This puts
the money in programs and tells the agency that they have got to take
some money out of bureaucracy.
Two weeks ago the House passed an authorization for the construction
of the international space station H.R. 2405 authorizes the remainder
of NASA's budget for fiscal year 1996 at $11.5 billion, and refocuses
NASA's priorities towards basic research, human exploration, and space
science. And, we have begun the process of getting NASA out of the
business of operating mature systems, such as the space shuttle, and
utilizing new funding resources in programs like Mission to Planet
Earth by tapping the private sector's expertise.
The committee's authorization for the Department of Energy's civilian
energy research and development programs cuts $960 million from the
current year total of $5.21 billion. Within that cut, however, we
protect and enhance basic research. By eliminating corporate subsidies
and low-priority programs, and streamlining the bureaucracy, we have
been able to increase funding for life sciences research, basic energy
sciences, and high energy and nuclear physics.
A strong EPA research and development program is critical to
providing the needed information needed to make reasonable regulations.
We have preserved that essential research mission by eliminating
program which duplicate research conducted by other agencies and
eliminating corporate technology subsidies.
In the area of technology, we have reasserted our strong commitment
to the priority of the core scientific work of the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, yet another example of where we have been
able to refocus an agency to its primary mission.
The U.S. Fire Administration, which oversees the important fire
training and prevention programs, has been funded at $28 million for
each of the next 2 years, nearly the entire request that the President
made of us.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I thank the four subcommittee chairs--Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Schiff--and the vice
chairman of our committee, Mr. Ehlers, for their hard work and
dedication to this process. I also want to commend all the other
members of the committee or both sides of the aisle who assisted in
moving this legislation through committee and to the floor. H.R. 2405
is a bill which is fiscally responsible, yet keeps the U.S. science
enterprise health and vital. I urge support of the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes
initially.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2405 and in
opposition to the overall direction that the Republican leadership has
laid out for our Nation's research and development program. If there is
any doubt about what the future holds for American science and
technology, my colleagues should pay close attention to the debate over
this bill.
But I would like to say just parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that,
unless we have an awful lot of Members assiduously sitting in their
offices watching the television screen, that we currently have on the
floor less than 10 Members. So, we are not going to have a vigorous
exchange of views, which is conducive to broad-scale understanding of
the policy issues involved here.
Now in part the reason for that is that most of the Members have said
to themselves: Why should I go down and listen to a debate over a
package of authorization bills when we have already passed the
appropriations bills and these actions that we take probably will be of
little consequence? The action that we take today, the importance of
that action, is not based upon whether we pass the authorization bill
or not. As a matter of fact, this debate is about the ideas which are
contained here which are of vital importance to the future of our
country. It is about how research and development can be brought into
the mainstream of economic policy. It is about whether we will make the
investments today to contribute to our economic growth in the future.
[[Page H 9803]]
{time} 1215
I also want to make sure that this is not and should not be a
partisan debate. Indeed, research and development has been one of the
strongest areas of bipartisan agreement between the two parties over
the past 50 years. Many of the programs that have been targeted in this
bill are the results of such bipartisan agreement. Many of them are
programs that were initiated by the past two Republican
administrations. I strongly supported those programs then, and I will
continue to do so today.
As a matter of fact, I participated in the effort to convince these
past two Republican administrations that this was the correct direction
to move in, and those arguments were successful because they came not
just from Democrats but from Republicans, from the business community,
from the research community, and from many others.
Mr. Chairman, what is different today than in the past is the
extremism that has made its way into the thinking of the Republican
leadership and the Republican planning process. The decisions that have
been presented to us by this bill have nothing to do with whether
science is good or science is bad, but whether it passes the
ideological litmus test of the Republican leadership.
Thus, I again stress that this should not be a partisan debate, but
the issue has, much to my regret, been politicized. It would be
profoundly misleading to call H.R. 2405 an authorization bill for
science programs. Rather, it is a deauthorization bill. It is a first
step toward the most significant postwar reduction in science funding
ever proposed.
Mr. Chairman, I have a chart here which I think will illustrate the
point very well. On this chart, as Members can see, the bottom line is
that it shows a 33-percent decline in R&D over the next 5 years, R&D in
those areas represented in this bill, which, as I indicated earlier,
actually is only about a one-third of the total R&D investment of the
Federal Government. But these are the components that are included in
the bill, and as Members can see, after the year 2000, the next 5
years, these are all drastically declining.
I wish I had the chart, we had the information, as to what is
happening with the other two-thirds of R&D: the military, health, and
certain smaller portions such as agriculture. These are continuing to
either slightly increase or to remain relatively stable. Therefore, the
first question that comes to my mind is what is so bad about the
science programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science
that they have to take a one-third cut while the other two-thirds are
not.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget resolution which was adopted
earlier this year included this 33-percent reduction in science
programs within our committee over the next 5 years. The bill before us
today is the first installment in that planned disinvestment. It is
ironic that the Republican plan requires that in order to pay for a tax
cut, we must sacrifice the very things that we know lead to long-term
economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, I am not just trying to parrot a catch phrase here. In
developing alternative bills in the committee to the Republican bills,
we recognized that it was imperative to do so within the framework of a
budget philosophy that would balance the budget within 7 years. We did
that. We did not choose to make the tax cut within our budget; we
adopted the philosophy of the conservative coalition budget, which
calls for balancing in the 7-year period, but does not provide for the
tax cut which is in the Republican budget.
As a consequence, we were able to provide in our alternative, which
the Members will get a chance to vote on, funding for all these
programs at a somewhat higher level; not as much as the President
proposes, certainly not as much as we spent last year, but not as
severe a cut as we see in the figures before us on this chart.
Mr. Chairman, over the past several decades there has been widespread
agreement among economists that between a quarter and a half of all
improvements in economic growth is attributable to technology
development; the technology is represented by these programs, as a
matter of fact, and not necessarily so much the technology developed in
the military programs, which are generally rather special purpose. R&D
is an investment in the Nation's future. Although deficit reduction
will remain the foremost national priority, this is only one element of
improving the national economy. Deficit reduction by itself, valuable
as it is, could slow the economy, unless accompanied by investments
such as those in research and development and certain other specific
infrastructure investments. It is highly illustrative to look at what
reductions in this bill hit the hardest.
I would like to show the next chart at this point. In this chart, we
are able to see the differences between the cuts received below 1995 or
increases for the various categories, including, as I have referred to
earlier, the defense and the health sciences, the first two. These, as
you can see, receive an increase in funding above the 1995 level.
All of the rest of these are cut in various degrees. Commerce is
notable for the fact that it takes the largest cut. Interior takes the
second largest cut, and the fact is that the Committee on Commerce
programs have been found to be not politically correct by the
Republican leadership, and they have, of course, suffered the
consequences.
Mr. Chairman, there is no question that these major cuts have been
focused on programs which involve technology partnership with the
private sector. In the opinion of the Republican leadership, this is
not good science and, therefore, they are going to cut it to the bone,
or eliminate it if they possibly can. We will have some further
discussion of that a little later on.
Of all of our expenditures in R&D, those that involve cooperation
with the private sector, those which basically were programs that came
out of the 1988 trade bill and the advanced technology programs of that
trade bill, are the ones which will make America more productive and
will help us to come out of the slump that we are in. There is a
similar agenda for environmental research and development. The fact is
that that is being drastically cut. Much of the energy research is
being cut, because it is considered to be applied.
Mr. Chairman, I will present one more chart here to give the broad
picture. The real reason that there is an advanced technology program
in the 1988 trade bill is because we found that other nations of the
world were taking global market shares and we were not, and that there
was a direct relationship between this and the amount they were
investing in research and development.
This chart gives us an illustration of what will be the comparison
between us and Japan between now and the year 2000, based upon budgets
and plans already announced in Japan, compared with the Republican
budget resolution, which is the same picture as I showed before: a one-
third decrease in these programs. In Japan they are proposing a
doubling of their investment.
Mr. Chairman, it takes a few years for these kinds of investments to
pay off. Our investments during the period after World War II is what
gave us the leadership in the world in terms of competitiveness. It was
our failure to maintain that rate of growth, while Japan and Europe, as
well as other Asian countries, continued to increase theirs. That began
to disturb our balance of trade. We hope that we will not have the bad
sense to continue to follow the path laid out here, because I can
assure the Members that it will be devastating to our economic future.
Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor the remainder of the remarks here. I
have previously asked approval to put them in the Record, and we will
have further discussion of them as we proceed with the debate.
We now spend about 2.4 percent of the GNP on R&D. Japan spends nearly
3 percent and in July of this year announced a national plan to double
this by the year 2000. This will be in stark contrast to the Republican
plan to decrease our civilian research by over 30 percent during the
same period.
I know that we will hear many arguments during the course of this
debate that seek to rationalize these reductions. Most of them are
based on nothing more than sloganeering--by calling R&D by other names
such as ``corporate welfare'', ``applied research'', ``bureaucratic
overlap'', and so on.
In particular, Republicans have repeatedly justified their reductions
by claiming that these undesirable areas of research have been cut
[[Page H 9804]]
in order to fund basic research. There is even a claim that this bill
increases basic research. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The
fact of the matter is that this bill cuts basic research below fiscal
year 1995 levels and dramatically below the request level. The
Republican claim is only possible if one actually redefines the term
``basic research'' in some way other than the current convention used
by the OMB, the administration, and the science agencies. The only area
of basic research that is being increased is NIH which is not in this
bill.
Clearly, the distortion is intended to assure the University
community that their research will be protected. The fact of the matter
is that it is impossible to inflict a 33-percent reduction in R&D over
the next 5 years and not cut basic research. Indeed, it cannot even be
done this year.
The distinction between basic and applied research is, of
course, convenient for budget cutting purposes but it is meaningless as
a public policy and reveals a profound lack of understanding on the
part of the Republicans of what basic research really is and how basic
and applied research is related.
We will also hear today that the research that is being eliminated
can and should be done by the private sector. Privately owned companies
are completely oriented toward maximizing a return on investment.
Research that may take years to mature has become an increasingly poor
investment for most companies. The Republican assertion that the
private sector will somehow step in to take up the slack is sadly out
of touch with reality.
On May 22 of this year, the Wall Street Journal reported the
disturbing news of a sharp decline in industrial research and
development over the past 4 years. Spending among AT&T, GE, IBM, Kodak,
Texaco, and XEROX--giants in the high-technology industry--declined by
30 percent since 1990. This is all associated with the emerging
corporate imperative to achieve a favorable short-term return on the
stockholders' investment. Federal R&D policy simply cannot ignore this
reality and must adjust to it with the type of Government-industry
partnerships that were conceived by the Bush and Clinton
administrations.
I will close by stating my intention to offer a substitute to this
bill at some point later in the process. Although this will no doubt be
called the Brown substitute or the Democratic substitute I want to be
clear on the fact that this substitute is nonpartisan in every
conceivable way. Indeed, my substitute is a simple attempt to maintain
at some minimal level the investments in R&D that have had wide
bipartisan support in the past. The bulk of my substitute is, in fact,
the result of initiatives begun during Republican administrations.
Indeed it was only in February 1992 when all 20 Republican members of
the Science Committee, including the present majority leadership, set
forth their independent views and estimates for the Budget Committee
strongly advocating a 2-percent real increase in civilian R&D. Their
submittal stated:
Surely, a 2% real increase in civilian R&D can be
accommodated within a $1.5 trillion budget pie. To not make
this investment would be irresponsible and ultimately lead to
catastrophe.
They were right then and could well make the same case today.
I will ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in
supporting this substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], chairman of the Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the
gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership of the Committee on
Science during this 104th Congress. Because we must balance the budget
and restore financial discipline to the Federal Government, all
discretionary accounts are experiencing new fiscal pressures.
Consequently, we must prioritize programs and discontinue those
functions that the private sector can take over from Washington. Under
the gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership, all of us on the Science
Committee have worked to accomplish this task and focus our civil
science expenditures on those activities which only the Government can
perform and which have the largest long-term benefits to the country.
H.R. 2405 meets these goals by focusing on basic research and fulfills
the responsibility Congress has to ensure that tax dollars are spent
wisely.
Mr. Chairman, American science is undergoing a profound change.
Government set up the modern scientific establishment right after World
War II and the organization of the scientific enterprise reflects its
cold war origins. Since that time, we've always worked to increase the
science budget. As a consequence, many activities that would defy our
traditional definitions of proper scientific activity have been funded
by the Federal Government, including corporate welfare and questionable
behavioral disciplines. Recently in the weekly research journal,
Science, two social scientists experienced in Federal funding of
science wrote that ``the social contract currently governing U.S.
science is an obstacle to needed changes in science policy. This policy
cannot realistically justify large science budgets. The situation
demands more than a defense of the status quo--if faced constructively,
it is an opportunity to develop a sounder social contract, to develop
an ecology in which science can thrive.''
H.R. 2405 is the first step in developing this new contract. We
elevate science's profile in the Federal Government by considering
Federal civil science activities as whole, as this bill does, rather
than as a collection of separate and unconnected programs. Similarly,
H.R. 2405 will help us better integrate science into the very fabric of
society by encouraging greater public-private partnerships to achieve
our scientific goals. For example, title II of the bill, which
authorizes funding for NASA, includes funding and authority for unique
government-industry cooperation to develop new space launch vehicles
that place industry in the leading role. Similarly, title II begins
privatizing certain functions of NASA that the private sector is
providing, such as airborne microgravity experiments. By taking these
steps, we can better leverage Federal and private dollars in pursuit of
the national interest, saving taxpayer resources in the short and long
term.
By passing H.R. 2405, Congress will send the message that we are
serious about balancing the budget and that we are going to do so
intelligently by focusing on those programs with the greatest need for
Federal dollars and the greatest benefit to the Nation. H.R. 2405 is an
important step in the process of ensuring the long-term health of the
scientific enterprise by cutting out fat and waste while improving our
commitment to basic research. Please join us in passing this bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
{time} 1230
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown] for yielding me this time, and I certainly adhere to some
of the instructive remarks that he has made.
Mr. Speaker, I think we come to this issue hoping for a bipartisan
approach, for who can be against research and development that
basically is the underpinnings of the work of the 21st century.
Certainly it has been the hallmark of this Republican Congress that has
been controlled by this party for a couple of months that in
everything, small is better. Many productive and useful activities of
this Government have been cast aside in the blinding light of that
irrational ideology. If the United States is going to continue,
however, its preeminent role in technology and commerce, then we must
not allow the decimation of our scientific establishment.
Basic science research has been the driving engine in the prosperity
of our country for the past 50 years. Why only yesterday, two of
America's most prominent physicists won the Nobel Prize. With the more
than obvious beneficial results of such investments as federally funded
research, it is incomprehensible to me that my Republican colleagues
are so eager to cut one of the best returns on investment we can make.
Mr. Speaker, numerous studies have indicated that up to one-half of
all U.S. economic growth is directly attributable to the introduction
of new technology. I entreat my colleagues that this is in fact an
important debate, and that we should come to the House Floor in droves,
for this talks about where this country will be in the 21st century. Do
we want to slash and cut research and development that has been the
very backbone of many of the discoveries in this world?
[[Page H 9805]]
It has been stated by the Republican majority that this bill is
cutting R&D spending by only 12 percent, while actually raising the
overall level of basic research by 1 percent. What they have not said
is that based upon the budget resolution which the Republican Party led
the fight for, there will be a 33 percent decline in Federal research
funding from now until the year 2000. The recipients of this
precipitous decline include NASA, NSF, DOE, the principal torch-bearers
in our R&D advancement.
These same Republican colleagues say that they are supportive of
basic science, cutting only what they deem to be applied. Well, based
upon the facts, I have serious reservations concerning the definitions
of both basic and increase. Using OMB definitions, H.R. 2405 does
indeed cut fiscal year 1996 spending on basic research, which has been
basically what has driven this country.
Federal R&D investment has been the backbone, because private sector
companies have stopped their long-term R&D investment. We realize that
if we are to continue in this manner, if we are to have a future for
our children, the elementary school children, the secondary school
children and our colleges, the Government must play a part in research
and development. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, we must bring the budget down, and we have an alternative that I
hope we will be able to support that responds to bringing the budget
deficit down, but does not steer us away from research and development,
creating jobs for America in the 21st century.
In closing, let me say that I want to remind my Republican colleagues
of their former President, our former President, the advice that
President Ronald Reagan gave us. He said, ``America has always been
greatest when we dare to be great.'' Let us be great with R&D, and let
us make sure that we keep support of a very important opportunity in
our country.
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the Basic Research Subcommittee developed the
provisions of titles I and VII of H.R. 2405, which authorize the
activities of the National Science Foundation and the United States
Fire Administration, respectively. These are small agencies with a
disproportionate impact on the well being of the Nation.
The National Science Foundation plays a key role in developing and
sustaining America's unparalleled academic research enterprise. It is
the only Federal agency with the sole mission to support basic science
and engineering research and education in the Nation's schools,
colleges, and universities. Its programs support individual faculty
members, postgraduate research fellows and graduate students; the
operation of national research facilities; the modernization of
scientific instruments and research facilities; and science education
at all levels of instruction.
Although NSF represents only 4 percent of the Federal R&D budget, the
agency provides one quarter of all Federal support for academic basic
research. This support makes major contributions to disciplinary
research, including, for example, more than 40 percent of Federal
funding for mathematics research and one-third of the funding for both
the Earth sciences and the nonmedical biological sciences.
In addition, NSF is an important participant in multiagency research
efforts in areas of strategic importance to America's technological
strength. For example, NSF provides approximately 30 percent of the
total funding for the High Performance Computing and Communications
Program. This major Federal-university-industry research initiative
provides the technical underpinnings for the emergence of the National
Information Infrastructure.
Finally, NSF plays a large role in precollege and undergraduate
science and mathematics education. The foundation supports programs of
model curriculum development, teacher preparation and enhancement, and
informal science education.
A direct linkage exists between these wide-ranging research and
education activities and the long-term economic health and well being
of our country. These programs generate the new knowledge and produce
the human capital needed to fuel a technologically-based economy.
Ultimately, the success of NSF's programs are reflected in such
concrete ways as the productivity of the Nation's workforce.
The NSF authorization in H.R. 2405 attempts to maintain the core
research and education programs of the foundation in a difficult budget
climate. I share the commitment of many of my colleagues to achieve a
balanced budged over the next 7 years and realize that even the most
valuable Federal programs, such as NSF's research activities, must bear
some of the pain of achieving this goal.
Although the bill lowers funding from fiscal year 1995 levels, it is
an allocation that provides relatively gentle treatment for NSF in a
year in which many Federal science and technology programs authorized
by the Science Committee have experienced severe cuts. In addition,
some funding increases are provided by the bill in the second year that
will bring the NSF research directorates back to the fiscal year 1995
funding levels.
The bill also addresses the question of how to ensure a wise
allocation of resources in stringent budget times. A requirement is
included for NSF to develop and submit to Congress annually a clear
statement of the agency's goals. The annual multi-year plan is intended
to highlight expected areas of program emphasis, including research
initiatives under development, and contain criteria and procedures for
assessing progress toward defined goals. A related requirement calls
for the development and periodic updating of a plan for new
construction of NSF's national research facilities, such as telescopes,
and upgrades to existing national facilities. These two requirements
will assist Congress in determining priorities to ensure that the
resources allocated to NSF are used for maximum benefit.
The other major provision of H.R. 2405 which was the product of the
Basic Research Subcommittee is title VII, which authorizes the U.S.
Fire Administration. This agency has long enjoyed bipartisan support in
Congress because of its vital mission to improve the safety of all our
citizens. The agency supports training, research, and public education
efforts which have advanced public awareness of fire safety practices,
and have improved the effectiveness of fire services and home fire
safety devices. Much has been accomplished, but the record of fire
death rates and property loss in the Nation reveals that much remains
to be done.
The bill authorizes funding for the important programs of the U.S.
Fire Administration at a level very close to the President's request.
This is a significant accomplishment because of the severe downward
budget pressures on all Federal agencies and activities. In light of
the current budget climate, I am pleased that the committee has
developed a bill that will sustain the important programs of the Fire
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the open and collegial approach
taken by the chairman of the Basic Research Subcommittee, Mr. Schiff,
in developing titles I and VII of H.R. 2405, and am pleased to join him
in commending these measures to the House for its favorable
consideration.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], chairman of the subcommittee on Basic Research.
(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman I rise in support of H.R. 2405.
I would like to thank my chairman, Bob Walker, for his tireless
efforts on behalf of science as evidenced by this omnibus science bill
before the House today. This legislation for the first time attempts to
focus the House's attention at one time on most of the civilian
research and development programs supported by the Federal Government.
I also want to thank the ranking minority member, Mr. Brown and my
subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Geren, for their hard work in bringing
this bill through the Science Committee.
Beginning in February of this year, the Science Committee and its
subcommittees have held a number of budget and oversight hearings and
markups on the separate pieces of legislation that have been rolled
into this omnibus bill. The process has been very fair and thoughtful,
and the result is good legislation which reauthorizes many important
programs while staying within the budgetary constraints established by
the budget resolution. This legislation demonstrates that
[[Page H 9806]]
Congress' dual responsibilities of balancing the budget and supporting
important Federal research and development programs are not mutually
exclusive--indeed, they are supportive because they force us to become
more efficient and to prioritize.
I am proud of the role my Subcommittee on Basic Research has
contributed in creating this legislation. Responsible for the
authorization of the National Science Foundation and the Federal
Emergency Management Administration's [FEMA] fire programs, the
subcommittee worked on a bipartisan basis to complete 2-year
authorization bills, H.R. 1852 and H.R. 1851, respectively.
The Basic Research Subcommittee's legislation was incorporated into
H.R. 2405 as titles I and VII. I would like to focus my remarks on
those two titles.
The National Science Foundation [NSF] is the principal supporter of
fundamental research and education conducted at colleges and
universities in the fields of mathematics, science, and engineering.
The NSF accomplishes this through grants and contracts to more than
2,000 colleges, universities, and other research institutions in all
areas of the United States. The NSF accounts for approximately 25
percent of all Federal support to academic institutions for basic
research. As chairman of the Science Committee and vice-chairman of the
Budget Committee, Mr. Walker has voiced his strong support for basic
research. I share these views, and title I of H.R. 2405 reflects this
strong support.
In addition to budget authorizations for fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
there are provisions in this bill on prohibition of lobbying
activities, financial disclosure of high-level employees, protecting
Reservist and National Guard personnel recalled to active duty, and
assigning to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
the task of finding ways to further reduce indirect costs.
I would like to point out that in these difficult fiscal times, NSF
was affected very little by the budget resolution in fiscal year 1996.
In fact, the budget resolution's assumptions provide for growth in the
research and related accounts at NSF of 3 percent per year after 1996,
which is reflected in title I of this bill for fiscal year 1997.
It is important to state here that the science community needs to
recognize that the majority in both the House and the Senate, are
supportive of basic research. Members understand that basic research is
essential, that it is an appropriate Federal activity, and that it is
an economic driver. The Science Committee is acutely aware of the
importance of basic research, and so worked to preserve funding even as
other Federal programs have been cut to meet aggregate budget
requirements.
I would now like to address title VII of H.R. 2405. This is the part
of the legislation which authorizes the United States Fire
Administration [USFA] and includes funding for the National Fire
Academy [NFA]. The USFA performs a vital function for our country, one
that saves lives and property. H.R. 2405 incorporates the funding
levels reported by the subcommittee and full committee which are
sufficient to enable this agency to accomplish its mission.
Like the NSF, and USFA was affected very little when one consider the
tight fiscal constraints under which we are operating. The authorized
level is about 3 percent lower than the administrations' request, and
we have preserved all of the essential functions and activities of the
USFA and the Fire Academy.
Before closing, I would like to discuss the titles over which my
subcommittee did not have jurisdiction, but which are equally
important. Title II of the bill is the reauthorization of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], minus funding for the
space station, which has been reauthorized in separate legislation
previously passed by the House. H.R. 2405 makes much needed reforms in
the way NASA operates, primarily by refocusing its mission on basic
research, space science, and human exploration of space.
The NASA provisions of this legislation require the agency to develop
plans to privatize the space shuttle. This effort could save taxpayers
more than a billion dollars over the next 5 years. At the same time,
the bill continues NASA's next generation reusable launch vehicle
program. This very important program will help to develop a
commercially viable launch vehicle that will ensure U.S. leadership in
space transportation. A subscale model of such a vehicle is currently
being tested in New Mexico. The Delta Clipper or DC-X has been
successfully launched several times and shows amazing promise. Given
the future significance of space commercialization and space
transportation, I am hopeful and optimistic that this program will be
pursued vigorously and successfully.
Title III reauthorizes the civilian research and development programs
of the Department of Energy [DOE]. These programs include some
extremely important research that will help to enable this Nation move
toward energy independence. Research programs in solar and renewable
energy, nuclear energy and fusion, and advanced fossil fuels extraction
methods are important for national security as well as economic
security. Advances in these areas and others will help the United
States to become free from relying on foreign sources of oil.
Another DOE-sponsored activity covered under this title is human
genome research, ongoing at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico and at other sites. This research, which includes mapping the
human genetic code, may be the key to the discovery of a cure for
cancer and other devastating diseases.
As a Member who represents a State with two world-class national
laboratories involved in energy research, I personally hope that
funding levels for the programs in this section will be increased while
staying within a balanced budget as we continue through the budget
process. But, I am confident that title III of H.R. 2405 preserves the
essential energy research and development programs necessary to move
this Nation forward.
Titles IV and V of the bill authorize the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA] and the Environmental Protection
Agency's [EPA] research and development programs and provide for the
continuation of important programs within NOAA's atmospheric and ocean
research activities and EPA's air and water quality research
activities, while staying within the constraints of the budget
resolution.
Finally, title VI of H.R. 2405 provides for continuation of the
essential research activities of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology [NIST] and the Office of Technology Administration
within the Department of Commerce. NIST provides technical assistance
to industry through the development of measurements and standards as
well as a wide range of technology services such as standard reference
materials and data, information on national and international
standards, laboratory accreditation, equipment calibration, and
evaluation of inventions. The NIST laboratories conduct essential basic
research on infrastructural technologies such as new measurement
methods.
In the likely event that the Department of Commerce, the current
Cabinet-level home for NIST, is eliminated, NIST needs to be preserved
either as an independent agency or housed in some other Cabinet-level
department. While the Congress is not likely to create another Federal
agency because of budget constraints, I think we should further explore
the concept of a Department of Science to house NIST and all other
Federal civilian science activities. By consolidating these programs
into one agency we will ultimately save money and eliminate
bureaucracies.
Chairman Walker, thank you again for all of your hard work on this
bill. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the bill H.R. 2405, the
so-called Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, as it
exists now. The bill has a grandiose title to mask its pernicious
effects on the Nation's research and development system. We will hear
again and again in this debate how the majority supports research,
especially basic research. Would that their rhetoric was matched by
their legislative language.
[[Page H 9807]]
Otto von Bismarck once warned that those who liked laws and sausages
should watch neither one being made. This bill offers a stellar example
of this principle. The legislation we consider here is not the product
of in-depth consideration by the Science Committee. It is, rather, a
large muddle made up of a jumble of small messes--slapped together
authorization bills for agencies under our jurisdiction to create the
unwieldy morass we are about to debate. If the component titles were
more than the product of little thought and even less deliberation,
this might be acceptable. H.R. 2405, however, is in the unenviable
position of being less than the sum of its parts.
The value of science and technology to the Nation and its people has,
for the last 50 years, been an area where both parties have shared a
common vision. Many economists credit innovation with up to half of
U.S. economic growth. Both parties have also agreed that the Federal
Government played a critical role in maintaining American leadership in
these vital areas. The Federal Government has been an early adopter of
new technologies; ask Cray Supercomputer how long it took their market
to broaden beyond the Department of Energy and the Department of
Defense. The Government joined with industry to improve existing
technologies or to adapt them to new needs. After the war, the
Government injected vast new resources into the Nation's universities
and reaped a network of laboratories and a supply of talent that is the
envy of the world.
Until now. H.R. 2405 marks wholesale retreat from this bipartisan
consensus. The majority cry is, ``Less will be more.'' That's unlikely.
The cost of maintaining leadership is not shrinking, it is rising.
Indeed, in some fields we have admitted that we cannot afford to
maintain progress with our resources alone.
Mr. Chairman, there will be an amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered to correct the short-sightedness that permeates H.R.
2405. The substitute recognizes that every element of Federal activity
will be squeezed in the effort to balance the budget, but that reducing
investment in future productivity is the worst of all possible ways to
do this. The substitute will authorize less spending than that actually
spent in fiscal year 1995. It is less than the President requested for
fiscal year 1996. But it is above the level authorized in H.R. 2405.
Historians mark the zenith of the Confederacy as the day Pickett's
soldiers charged into the teeth of Union cannon on Cemetery Ridge on
July 3, 1863. At least they died with guns blazing and on the attack.
With H.R. 2405, the majority furls our flag and skulks from the field.
We should not be surprised if history records the end of American
scientific and technological leadership with the passage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in favor of the substitute to H.R. 2405.
{time} 1245
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, simply put, this bill is good for
science and good for the taxpayer. Titles III, IV, and V concern
agencies under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment which I chair.
The authorization does not mindlessly cut programs across the board,
which President Clinton insisted on doing in the continuing resolution.
Rather, it follows the priorities laid out in the budget resolution
passed by the House in May and puts us on the path to a balanced
budget. It preserves funding for fundamental scientific research, while
obtaining most of it and most of its budget savings from three major
areas, that is, the bureaucracy, market development, and promotion
programs, and corporate welfare.
If my colleagues have been reading their mail, they have been reading
some misleading statements in the last few days. There have been claims
of extremist cuts in research that could lead to all kinds of
disastrous consequences. But, of course, there are no specifics
included, no details of actual cuts. That is because there are so few
specifics to back up these charges.
Instead of name-calling, as Al Smith used to say, let us look at the
record. Fact: In the Department of Energy title, basic energy sciences,
we see that it has been increased by $100 million over the fiscal year
1995 levels. At hearings held before my Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment in February, every director of a major national laboratory
testified in person or in writing that the scientific facilities
initiative was their number one research priority for fiscal year 1996.
It is fully funded in this bill.
Fact: The $1 billion general science and research account is reduced
from the fiscal year 1995 levels by exactly 1 percent. How awesome it
is that we want to take it down by 1 percent while we are trying to
balance the budget.
Fact: Reducing an account called energy supply research and
development, or another one, energy conservation research and
development, does not mean that we are reducing funds for scientific
research.
For example, there are administrative slush funds at DOE that are
used to pay for each program's own policy gurus and to hire, get this,
to hire expensive outside public relations firms to promote their
programs. They are listed under what? That is right, research and
development.
Programs to subsidize new heat pumps for the world's largest air
conditioner manufacturers are also listed under basic research and
development. Programs to subsidize the purchase of alternative fuel
vehicles are funded under what heading? You guessed it, research and
development.
In these budgets, the titles are intended to mislead rather than to
explain. Do not let anybody tell you that we are cutting basic
research.
Fact: Almost none of the massive increases called for by the Clinton
administration budget request, and none of them since 1993 for the
Department of Energy under this bill's jurisdiction, involve
fundamental scientific research. These hikes that President Clinton has
been calling for in spending are for market development and promotion
programs and for politically inspired programs such as the climate
change action plan.
The NOAA authorization has been subject to even more misleading
lobbying. Contrary to what you may have heard, H.R. 2405 provides for a
25-percent increase in NOAA's weather satellite program, so this vital
needed information and the information gathering program can remain on
target.
The National Weather Service modernization program is fully funded.
That means that lifesaving doppler radar will be installed on schedule.
Keep in mind that NOAA's budget has increased by over 50 percent in
the last 5 years. What we are proposing is that over a 5-year period
this growth would come out to be just 30 percent. That is not
draconian.
But there are some cuts in this area. For example, we save $300
million without affecting NOAA's core mission. We accomplish this by
eliminating congressional add-ons, eliminating costly procedures for
closing old Weather Service offices, and by privatizing the fleet and
eliminating the NOAA core corps.
You will hear this called that we are cutting NOAA research. What we
are doing instead is saving the taxpayers the $2 billion that it would
cost to modernize the NOAA fleet, which should have been privatized in
the first place. Cutting NOAA research? Nothing could be further from
the truth.
The NOAA fleet is operated by the NOAA Navy, an anachronistic corps
of civilians dressed up in Navy officer's uniforms, receiving military
pay and military retirement benefits. This is a throwback to World War
I when the mapping of the U.S. coastline was considered a military, not
a civilian job. Private charters are itching for the chance to provide
the vessels for needed research at lower cost, and we should give them
this chance and save the taxpayers some money.
Our mark on EPA has also been under attack, but we have taken great
pains to see that the EPA title provides full funding for research that
is relevant to EPA's mission. For example, we increased the funding for
air quality research.
We get our savings, however, when we are talking about the EPA, by
cutting and by looking at politically inspired programs like the
environmental technologies initiative which
[[Page H 9808]]
was put forward by this administration, and the Clinton climate change
action plan. Among other things, this program seeks to find out what
would happen to fish if global warming is actually a reality. Well, all
we ask and all we are trying to fund is the core mission, the research
and development core mission of the EPA which we are not touching.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support sound science and a
balanced budget by passing H.R. 2405, and for my colleagues to take a
close look at some of these charges of what is actually being proposed
in our legislation. We protect basic research and development by taking
out the frills, taking out nonsensical programs that are not research
related.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
2405, the omnibus antiscience and anticompetitiveness bill. This is a
reckless bill, a shortsighted approach to national priority setting
that endangers America's role in the global economy both today and in
the future.
As a representative from the Third District of Connecticut, I have
the honor of representing one of our Nation's research jewels. Yale
University, located in my hometown of New Haven, boasts one of the most
advanced scientific research facilities in the world. The work done at
Yale and at colleges and universities across America provides an
absolutely essential component of our Nation's economic competitiveness
by conducting federally funded basic research and applied science.
The knowledge gained by these efforts teams cutting edge scientific
breakthroughs with practical applications that point the way toward
America's future economic progress. America's economic competitors
around the world know well the value of investing in civilian research
and development. American jobs in every State in the Union rely on
international competitiveness.
Yet the United States invests a smaller percentage of its R&D dollars
on civilian research and development than does nearly any of our
economic competitors. Mexico, the Philippines, Japan, Argentina,
Canada, Italy, Germany, Taiwan, Korea, France, and Britain all surpass
America in their investment in civilian research and development.
How can America ensure our future economic competitiveness with this
shortsighted approach? The fact that we will still rank slightly ahead
of the formerly Communist Czech Republic stands as little consolation
for the working men and women of this country whose hard work produces
goods and services that are suffering from increased competition from
our economic rivals.
We must stand tall for intelligent scientific policy. As the
President of the California Institute of Technology recently wrote,
``Without first class science, we can look toward only to a second
class economy and second class standard of living.'' Vote no on H.R.
2405.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, with the beginning of this Congress, the Science
Committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has
engaged in a new process which strives to put us, as an authorizing
committee, at the table with the Appropriations Committee and the
Budget Committee in the setting of public policy and in directing how
our Federal moneys are spent.
As a result, the committee has been exercising our policy setting
responsibilities with a strong voice in the funding process. The
gentleman from Pennsylvania, as chairman of the committee, has asked
all the subcommittee Chairs to produce authorization bills which
reflect the House-passed budget resolution, moving us to a balanced
budget in 7 years.
We needed to do this because otherwise the committee's authorization
might not have been considered credible or realistic in our work
product. As difficult as it has been, the committee is being guided by
the same budgetary limitations affecting the Appropriations Committee.
Accordingly, these budget limitations have forced us to prioritize our
Federal spending, resulting in a limitation of our ability to fund
every worthwhile program.
H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, reflects
the need to prioritize our Nation's scientific research funding under
tight fiscal limitations which moves us to a balanced Federal budget.
It also incorporates as title VI, the committee-passed version of H.R.
1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995, which provides
for the authorization of programs within the technology administration,
especially the laboratory functions of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology [NIST].
Mr. Chairman, I believe NIST is a well-run agency with a well-defined
mission. NIST's mission to promote economic growth by working with
industry to develop technology, measurements, and standards is integral
to our Nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace. Title VI of
H.R. 2405 sends out the strong signal that the core scientific work
being done at the NIST laboratories must be a priority.
In addition, NIST's construction account must also be maintained as
another priority. Without the necessary renovation and construction of
facilities, NIST will simply not be able to adequately fulfill its
basic mission in the future. The bill before us today reinforces this
priority with its funding of NIST construction and modernization of its
laboratories.
Title VI of H.R. 2405 provides fiscal year 1996 authorizations for
the Under Secretary for Technology, for the NIST core programs, and for
construction of research facilities. It also contains language
permitting NIST to perform important administrative functions. These
include: expanding NIST's ability to continue hiring the best and the
brightest scientists; permanently extending the NIST personnel
demonstration project; increasing the cap on the NIST Postdoctoral
Fellows Program; providing authority to give excess scientific
equipment to secondary schools; and creating authority for a NIST metro
shuttle for employees, among others.
I commend the chairman for his efforts in bringing this bill to the
floor and I will support its passage.
{time} 1300
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] for yielding this time to me, and of course I
rise in support of the Nation's several space programs, and there are
many reasons why I take this position. Basically it is because I have
seen the benefit that our spending on space exploration has delivered
to our citizens over the past 37 years. Communications satellites,
weather satellites that are so important in this year of the
hurricanes, advanced materials that have led to improved hip and joint
replacements, technologies developed for the space program that have
absolutely revolutionized medical diagnostic and monitoring devices and
so forth; the list is absolutely endless, and I am convinced that our
continued investment in the space program will deliver equally
impressive returns in the future.
As we debate H.R. 2045, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization
Act of 1995, I would like to urge my fellow Members to make sure that
we do nothing today to hurt the Nation's civil space program. We have
tough decisions to make in the midst of difficult budgetary times.
However, we should resist the temptation to be penny-wise and pound-
foolish when it comes to one of America's most important investments in
the future: Our investment in the space program.
As the former chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I have long pushed
NASA to streamline its activities and be the best steward it can be of
the taxpayers' money. I believe that NASA has responded to the
challenge. Many Members may be unaware that NASA--with help from both
Congress and the administration--has cut its funding plans by some 35
percent since 1993. In many ways, NASA has led the way in delivering a
quality product at the lowest possible cost.
[[Page H 9809]]
However, I believe that we have cut NASA just about as much as
we can. To make any more cuts to NASA's budget runs the risk of
unraveling all of the progress we have made and jeopardizing the
projects that are so important to America's future: projects in
aeronautics, in science, in space technology, and so forth. I do not
believe we want to make that mistake.
Why do I feel so strongly about the space program? It is because I
have seen the benefit that our spending on space exploration has
delivered to our citizens over the last 37 years. Communications
satellites, weather satellites--so important in this ``year of the
hurricanes'', advanced materials that have led to improved hip and
joint replacements, technologies developed for the space program that
have revolutionized medical diagnostic and monitoring devices, and so
forth. The list is endless, and I am convinced that our continued
investment in the space program will deliver equally impressive returns
in the future.
One need only look at the space station program and the research that
is planned for that orbiting facility to realize that we are on the
verge of an exciting era in research and development. As many of you
may know, I am personally very interested in the potential for
important advances in medical research that may come from experiments
conducted on the space station.
When I was chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I held a series of
hearings over the last 3 years on the potential benefits of space-based
biomedical research. The testimony we received from some of the premier
medical experts in the country--people like Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr.
Charles LeMaistre, as well as some of the most promising, up-and-coming
researchers, was truly impressive, and I invite Members to review the
hearing record.
We have worked hard to ensure that NASA and the National Institutes
of Health develop good collaborative research activities, and that
effort is bearing fruit. At a time when every family in America, on
average, has someone that has been touched by the dreaded disease of
cancer, we should not turn our back on any possible avenue of progress.
I think that the space program has much to offer in our fight against
the diseases that afflict our citizens--young and old, men and women--
and we should not turn away in a misguided attempt to save a few
dollars. Space is an investment in our future and that of our children.
I urge my fellow Members to support the space program.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be more optimistic in
remarks I have to make about H.R. 2405. It claims to trim corporate
welfare, while maintaining support for university-based research.
The rhetoric accompanying this bill claims that by maintaining
funding at the National Science Foundation we are preserving our core
investment in university-based research. At least in my State of
Tennessee, the facts present a far different picture.
According to a National Science Foundation report, in Tennessee NSF
provides only 5 percent of the Federal obligations to universities,
while the Department of Energy provides 18 percent of the Federal funds
going to Tennessee.
The 22-percent cut to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory means less
Federal spending at Tennessee universities. In my conversations with
officials at the University of Tennessee, cuts to the Oak Ridge Lab
translate directly into cuts in Tennessee's research budget and access
to research facilities. These cuts result in the College of Engineering
losing one-third of its research funding, the Center of Biotechnology
stands to lose almost three-quarters of a million dollars, and
reductions to the Energy, Environment, and Resource Center could
eliminate $6 million in research funds alone. Now these cuts, hiding
behind the jargon of corporate welfare, directly impact university
research in my State.
I would now like to talk about title VI, the provisions regarding the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. This bill provides no
authorization and no funding for the Advanced Technology Program and
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at NIST. The elimination of
these two programs sends the strongest signal possible to our business
community that we simply do not care about the harsh realities they
face today. It is a matter of fact that corporate research focus today
is short-term and risk-adverse and our small and medium-sized
manufacturers in this country face international competition on every
street corner in America. As Michael Schrage, research associate at MIT
put it, what is being advocated in this portion of the bill are
``science and technology policies that would have been deemed
simplistic during the country's agrarian heyday.''
This bill would eliminate government-industry partnerships which
enjoy widespread support among the private sector, professional
associations, and the university community. The actions of the
Committee on Science on title VI are not based on one private-sector
witness or professional association person appearing before the
Subcommittee on Technology who advocated eliminating those programs.
Our major corporations are cutting research funding and focusing on
short-term goals in response to the pressures of Wall Street. For
example, a recent article in the New York Times of September 26, 1995,
reported on the breakup of the AT&T laboratories, due to diminishing
corporate interest on the brilliant breakthrough discoveries that might
lead to an entirely new generation of products. In this global economy
blindly eliminating government-industry partnerships which promote
private-sector investment in long-term research and development with no
immediate payback such as the market forces might demand is not only
shortsighted in our opinion but dangerous.
In closing may I say that Members here today should realize we are
not talking about simply cuts in numbers of bureaucrats or the
elimination of wasteful government programs. We are all for that. We
are talking about cutting basic research at both Federal labs and
universities, and cutting successful long-term industry-government
partnerships.
This is the real-time, life-size embodiment of the old axiom, penny-
wise and pound-foolish. Under the cover of political rhetoric I am
afraid we are doing something very dangerous to our country.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a
couple of general comments. I am going to speak later during the
discussion regarding NASA, but I have been listening this morning about
how we do not want to cut, we do not want to cut, and every single time
we had a bill come up on this floor where there is any reductions in
spending, that is the theme, and that is why we have this tremendous
problem.
Mr. Chairman, we have got about a $5 trillion debt. We are going to
spend $270 billion paying interest on the debt in 1996. Imagine how
much we could spend on basic science research, on NASA, on other
important seed corn programs, if we did not have to pay all this
interest on the debt, and this minority, when it was the majority, was
never able to make any of these tough decisions, and that is why they
are the minority today, and, if we do not deal with this problem and
make the tough decisions, as the chairman of the full committee, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], has done, then we are going
to be bankrupt. Our children are going to inherit bankruptcy.
Five trillion dollars of debt, $180,000 for every man, woman, and
child; that is the problem we are dealing with. This bill preserves
important programs. I support the bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I met several times with leadership on
the other side, and let me say this:
This bill leaves the sole discretion to the Administrator to make
decisions about whether or not they should delay the information to be
in fact published.
Under title II the Traficant amendment says instead of ``may delay
upon the request of a private sector entity'' ``shall delay.'' It can
only be a 1-day delay.
There is some concern coming out that if, in fact, some chief
executive of a company is friends with the Administrator, that that
company is going to be favorably treated. Let me say this:
Under the open-ended language of this bill with full disclosure, with
full
[[Page H 9810]]
sole discretion available to the Administrator, my God, those types of
things can happen overnight.
I think this is an industry-friendly amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have only taken a minute because I want the staff to
review this language. I think it makes the bill better.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as we indicated at the
beginning of this debate, it is quite possible that this authorization
bill, packaged as it is, may never see the light of the President's
signature, and the significance of what we are doing really is to
explore some of the policy issues and some of the semantic issues which
are involved in this debate.
For example, on the Republican side they have said rather
consistently that this bill is friendly to basic research, and they
confess that they are cutting certain things that they call corporate
welfare. This is a wonderful position to be in from a p.r. position
because everybody likes basic research and nobody likes corporate
welfare. So they are going to cut corporate welfare.
Now the corporate welfare they are cutting are the programs which
were adopted and enacted under the last Republican administration to
show that this Government wanted to be partners with American industry
and to assist them. I can remember the debates we had with President
Bush's science adviser and with his Cabinet members about how this
could best be done. I remember the discussions with Admiral Watkins,
for example, the last Secretary of Energy, about the importance of the
Department of Energy making their resources available to the private
sector, to the corporations, to pursue research that would have a
payoff in the short and middle term, what the distinguished chairman
calls corporate welfare. Now this was not Admiral Watkins' view of it.
Similarly in the Department of Commerce, where they were authorized to
have an Advanced Technology Program and a Manufacturing Extension
Program, they wanted to cooperate with industry in doing that. They did
not consider it corporate welfare, and these are the programs which, of
course, are taking the brunt of these one-third cuts which we have
shown in the graphs are going to take place.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today about extremism
and the idea that one-third cuts are extreme. I would like to read one
quote to my colleagues that I think is an interesting quote in that
regard. It says:
I'm also in the belief that any agency of Government can be
cut probably by at least a third without seriously impairing
the overall results.
That was said on September 7, 1995, about a month ago, and it was
said by none other than the ranking member of the Committee on Science.
Now either one-third cuts are extreme or they can be done without
impairing the overall results. I do not know which it is, but the fact
is that those kinds of issues are what we are dealing with, but we have
not gone through and cut by one-third with a meat ax. We have been
very, very careful about how we cut things because we wanted to make
certain that, as we cut programs, we cut out a lot of the fat of
Government.
Now what my colleagues just heard is people standing up here and
defending this whole idea of corporate welfare, that somehow if
Republican administrations put it in place for the big Fortune 500
companies, that should be justification enough for us to keep it.
Wrong. None of those Republican administrations balanced the budget,
not a one of them, and we were criticized day in and day out on the
House floor for the fact that Ronald Reagan and George Bush were not
balancing the budget.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress has come here to balance the budget. How
are we going to do so if we do not do something about adjusting
priorities? And that is exactly what we are doing. Is that going to be
at the expense of science? No.
My colleagues saw some charts here on the floor indicating that our
spending is going down while Japan is going up. Well, at least they did
admit that the Japan upward line was proposed, but the fact is this
country spends in R&D more than Japan, France, Italy, Great Britain,
and Germany combined. All of them combined do not spend as much as we
do in R&D.
So what we have got to get going is getting the right kind of
priority out of R&D. Can we do that? I think we can.
Here is a pretty good article out of Science magazine, news and
comment. It is talking about how Japan is behind us for instance in the
human genome research. It makes the point that Japan, for all of their
spending, is not doing a very good job in some instances. We think what
we ought to do is prioritize the money in this Government so we do a
better job of spending it, and we cannot do a better job of spending
science money by calling corporate welfare science and then spending
lots of money on it.
Mr. Chairman, it is high time that we stop the Fortune 500 companies
from coming in here and getting the Government to do the things that
they could spend their own money on. The fact is the General Accounting
Office on one of these big technology programs, the ATP program, the
Advanced Technology Program, said that 80 percent of the money would
have or might have been done by the companies if the Government had not
provided the money. That tells us the right thing.
We support basic research; that is what needs to be done.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2405, the
Omnibus Science Research Authorization Act of 1995. While the bill
contains provisions which I support, I believe the bill cuts deeply
into the Federal science research and development budget. I recognize
that there must be cuts in many of these programs, however this bill
clearly lessens our ability to excel in achieving the highest quality
research and development. Now more than ever, we need to stay the
course. The research performed and gained from these agencies and the
entities they support are crucial to the vitality of our Nation.
Science plays a key role in the economic and technological
development of our Nation. As an important player in the global
economy, we must ensure that we are unrelenting in our efforts to
remain competitive. The reductions contained in this bill are
shortsighted and make unnecessary cuts to vital research and
development programs. Therefore, it is important that we oppose this
measure which makes cuts to prevent us from achieving our goal.
The bill authorizes $21.5 billion in fiscal year 1996 for several
science programs and agencies. Its authorization level is $3 billion
less than fiscal year 1995, and $3.6 billion less than the
administration's request. It makes cuts in various agencies which
provide critical research and information which benefit the Nation.
The bill provides $54 million less than the fiscal year 1995 and $228
million less than the administration's request for the National Science
Foundation. While this may be a small cut, it represents the first time
the National Science Foundation has received decreased funding. The
National Science Foundation provides excellent support for research in
the physical and mathematical sciences at universities. Moreover, it
plays a significant role in ensuring that universities such as the
University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University maintain a standard
of excellence in research which is internationally recognized. At a
time when the reponsibilities and activities of the National Science
Foundation are increasing, it does not make sound sense to make big
cuts to its budget.
The bill authorizes a total of $1.7 billion for fiscal year 1996 for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. This
represents $297 million less than the fiscal year 1995 funding and $476
million less than the administration's request. Mr. Chairman, this is
particularly disturbing given that NOAA is presently in the middle of
their efforts to modernize and restructure the National Weather
Service.
The bill authorizes $4.3 billion in fiscal year 1996
civilian research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application activities for the Energy Department. This is a decrease of
$1.4 billion from the administrations request and $1.1 billion less
than the fiscal year 1995 funding level. It is clear that as our fossil
fuels and other resources become scarce, these programs are
increasingly important.
As I stated previously, there are provisions in the bill which I
support. I want to thank Congresswoman Harman and my colleague from
[[Page H 9811]]
Maryland, Mr. Bartlett, for their efforts to restore funding for the
Mission to Planet Earth Program. I also want to thank the chairman and
the committee for accepting the Harman-Bartlett amendment during the
full committee markup of the NASA authorization bill.
Mission to Planet Earth produces practical benefits and long-term
understanding of the environment. The centerpiece of Mission to Planet
Earth is the Earth Observing System [EOS]. EOS will help us understand
the causes of natural disasters and how to respond to them. The
importance of the EOS Program becomes clearer when we look at the
record number of hurricanes we have experienced this year. EOS will
allow us to dramatically improve weather forecasts and improve
agricultural and natural resources productivity. EOS will generate the
facts needed to make objective decisions about the environment.
I am also pleased with the $28 million funding level for the U.S.
Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy in fiscal years 1996
and 1997. This small investment in our Nation's fire safety and
emergency medical activities provides the American people with the
finest public education, fire prevention and control, and research into
fire suppression in the world.
No one doubts the data which ranks the United States below many other
industrialized countries in fire safety. The funds in this bill will
enable the National Fire Academy to continue to provide the best
training in the world to our Nation's first responders.
There are more than 340 Members of this body in the bipartisan Fire
Services Caucus. We all must continue to support the U.S. Fire
Administration, which provides the backbone of our Nation's fire safety
and protection services.
Today, it is my intention to support the Brown substitute which
provides sufficient levels of funding to keep our science programs on
track. Not only does the Brown substitute provide sufficient operating
levels for the National Science Foundation, NOAA, and the Department of
Energy's research and development program, it authorizes higher levels
for Mission to Planet Earth and the U.S. Fire Administration. the Brown
substitute moves us in the direction we ought to be going with our
science budget. The research and development we perform today will lead
to a better quality of life for us all tomorrow. Therefore, I would
urge my colleagues to oppose the committee bill and support the Brown
substitute.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for a
strong, balanced civil space program, and in particular for NASA's
Mission to Planet Earth Program.
Title II of H.R. 2405 contains a bipartisan amendment which I offered
at full committee with my colleague Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. That
amendment, which was adopted by voice in the Science Committee,
restored $274 million of the $323 which had been cut from Mission to
Planet Earth. The amendment was budget neutral and required a
corresponding general reduction at NASA to pay for the increased
Mission to Planet Earth authorization.
The intent of both Mr. Bartlett and myself, as well as the language
of the amendment, is unambiguous--the amendment authorized an
additional $274 million for Mission to Planet Earth, but placed certain
conditions on the obligation or expenditure of such additional funds.
No conditions or limits were placed on the actual authorization or
appropriations.
The most important obligation or expenditure condition was a
requirement that the NASA Administrator report to Congress on a plan
for implementing the recommendations of a recently completed National
Academy of Sciences review of the Mission to Planet Earth Program.
The National Academy's report, which was released last month,
validates the committee's actions of authorizing the additional $274
million. In particular, the report recommends that the Earth Observing
System's PM-1 and Chem-1 missions be implemented without delay--an
important endorsement in light of earlier committee report language
which advocated delaying the missions to realize savings. Additionally,
the National Academy found that the scientific basis of Mission to
Planet Earth is fundamentally sound, and that any further budgetary
reductions would severely damage the program.
Mr. Chairman, Mission to Planet Earth's scientific and economic
benefits are numerous. In addition to providing invaluable information
on global change, the program's scientific data will help us better
understand the effects of El Nino conditions on our Nation's farms, and
will further the developing science of risk assessment.
I urge my colleagues to support NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, as an
integral part of a civil space program which balances human space
flight with science, aeronautics, and technology.
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be more optimistic in my
remarks, but I cannot. H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science
Authorization Act of 1995 claims to trim corporate welfare, while
maintaining support for university-based research. But it does not.
H.R. 2405 cuts civilian R&D Programs by 12 percent in fiscal year 1996,
the first step in the majority's plan to cut Federal R&D spending by 33
percent over the next 7 years. The rhetoric accompanying H.R. 2405
claims that by maintaining funding at the National Science Foundation
we're preserving our core investment in university-based research.
At least in my State of Tennessee, the facts present a different
picture. According to an NSF report, in Tennessee NSF provides only 5
percent of the Federal obligations to universities, while the
Department of Energy provides 18 percent of Federal funds. Cuts to
DOE's Health, Environment and Safety account and to Energy R&D will
impact universities and colleges across the State--at Fisk University,
Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee State University,
Tennessee Technological University, the University of Memphis, the
University of Tennessee, and Vanderbilt University.
The 22 percent cut to the Oak Ridge National Lab also means less
Federal spending at Tennessee Universities. In my conversations with
officials at the University of Tennessee, cuts to Oak Ridge translate
directly into cuts to the University of Tennessee's research budget and
access to research facilities. These cuts could result in the College
of Engineering losing one-third of its research funding, the Center of
Biotechnology stands to lose almost three-quarters of a million
dollars, and reductions to the Energy, Environment and Resource Center
could eliminate $6 million in research funds for the University of
Tennessee. These cuts, hiding behind jargon of corporate welfare,
directly impact university research. And although we have been told
that NSF will grow by 10 percent over the next 7 years, according to
the University of Tennessee this will not make up the difference--there
will simply be more competition for less funds.
I would now like to address the provisions in title VI of H.R. 2405
regarding the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST].
This bill provides no authorization and no funding for the Advanced
Technology program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] at
NIST. The elimination of the ATP and the MEP sends a strong signal to
the business community that we don't care about the harsh economic
realities they face today. Corporate research focus is short-term and
risk adverse and our small and medium-sized manufactures face
international competitors on every street corner in America. As Michael
Schrage, research associate at MIT put it, what's being advocated are
``science and technology policies that would have been deemed
simplistic during the country's agrarian heyday.''
We are eliminating government/industry partnerships which enjoy
widespread support among the private sector, professional associations,
and the university community. What has the Science Committee based it's
actions on? Not the hearing record. Not one private sector witness or
professional association appearing before the Technology Subcommittee
has advocated eliminating those programs. Our major corporations are
cutting research funding and focusing on short term goals in response
to the pressures of Wall Street. For example, a recent article in the
New York Times (26 September 1995) reported on the break-up of the AT&T
lab, due to diminishing corporate interest on the brilliant
breakthrough discoveries that might lead to an entirely new generation
of products.
We should not be blindly eliminating government/industry partnerships
which promote private sector investment in long-term, high-risk
research that is vital to our economic future.
In closing, Members here today should realize that what we're talking
about aren't simply cuts in numbers of bureaucrats or the elimination
of wasteful Government programs--we're cutting basic research at both
Federal labs and at universities, and we're cutting successful
industry/Government partnerships.
We should not be penny-wise and pound foolish. Under the cover of
political rhetoric, we're in danger of indiscriminately chopping
research and undermining a system that has for decades produced the
best scientists and engineers in the world.
I am all for fiscal conservativism and deficit reduction, but the
need to cut the deficit is no excuse for setting aside common sense and
good judgment.
I urge my colleagues to support the conservative substitute for H.R.
2405.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the
amendment by my colleague from Alaska and Chairman of the House
Resources Committee, which strikes section 422(b) of H.R. 2405, thereby
preventing passage of the bill with a shortsighted and under-funded Sea
Grant program.
During the full committee mark up on H.R. 1175, the Sea Grant
Authorization Bill, in the Science Committee, I and other members
received assures from the Chair that we would be consulted as the
process moved forward to
[[Page H 9812]]
address concerns with the low funding levels advocated by the
Chairman's mark. I reluctantly supported reporting the bill for
consideration on the floor with the understanding that we would work
together to resolve the situation. The presence of the same language in
H.R. 2405 raises serious questions about whether the Science Committee
ever had any true intention of working with me or other Members to
properly raise funding levels.
The appropriators on both sides of the Capitol have made a commitment
to and recognized the importance of the Sea Grant program by
designating over $50 million. The Resources Committee version of H.R.
1175 similarly orders the priorities of the program in a responsible
manner and reasonably authorizes $53 million. The provisions of H.R.
2405, however, do not realize the contributions that Sea Grant makes to
research and outreach on matters critical to the survival of coastal
communities. The Science Committee's $36 million is not satisfactory.
The Sea Grant Program has been a highly acclaimed and successful
research program to advance our cognizance of marine sciences and
subsequently apply that knowledge to assist coastal communities in
better managing their marine resources. Since 1968, Louisiana Sea
Grant, for example, has been instrumental in helping people living and
working in coastal Louisiana to improve marine conservation through
research, education, and advisory services. By addressing vital
economic, environmental, and resource management issues, Louisiana Sea
Grant has facilitated the effective implementation of many Federal and
State conservation policies to preserve our marine and fisheries
resources in the Gulf of Mexico, while at the time protecting our
important economic industries that depend on those same resources.
Louisiana Sea Grant's advisory and extension services were especially
crucial in facilitating Gulf-wide workshops to better inform shrimpers
about appropriate compliance with turtle excluder devise [TED]
regulations as required by the National Marine Fisheries Service to
enforce the Endangered Species Act. While, like most shrimpers, I
question the legitimacy of the science justifying the rule itself, the
shrimping community unanimously praised these meetings as productive.
Moreover, Sea Grant's research and education efforts will also assist
us in improving our understanding the causes of Vibro vulnificus and
could be an integral component in our fight to preserve the Gulf Coast
oyster industry. By recognizing causes of Vibrio, timely data can be
distributed to the public to prevent the misinformation about at-risk
consumer populations.
H.R. 2405's $36 million will not satisfactorily enable Sea Grant to
perform all of these functions. I understand and expect that Chairman
Young will expeditiously bring H.R. 1175 to the floor for full and fair
debate of the higher authorization numbers. For the long-term
sustainability of our marine resources, I commend my colleague from
Alaska and again urge Members to support the Young amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the amendment by my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, which increases the amounts in
conservation and fossil fuel research and development accounts in H.R.
2405 up to the levels contained within the fiscal year 1996 Interior
Appropriations conference report.
In my home State of Louisiana, the downturn in the oil and gas boom
of the 1980's has devastated our economy. We are only now starting to
recover. The research efforts of the Department of Energy, in
cooperation and partnership with universities across our State, are and
will continue to be critical to the future hope of ailing Gulf Coast
businesses which still depend on oil and gas for significant portions
of their income.
Embodied in the Doyle amendment, we have an opportunity to provide
needed additional dollars for research for purposes of determining
potential strategies for increasing our dwindling domestic energy
resources. At the same time, Mr. Doyle recognizes the House's
obligation to balance the Federal budget and does so by following the
path of the appropriators for fiscal year 1996 spending. In his remarks
during the full Committee mark up on the Department of Energy R and D
Bill, H.R. 1815, Chairman Walker when referring to the premise behind
his substitute amendment stated that ``if we found, in the course of
the on-going process, that additional monies were going to be made
available in energy accounts, that in fact the Committee should be
given a chance to act on those additional monies.'' The Doyle amendment
accomplishes precisely that objective. In fact, as my colleagues are
well aware, the House Interior Appropriations Bill included higher
fiscal year 1996 figures which acknowledge the importance of a Federal
presence in research and development of fossil fuels and energy
conservation.
The conservation and fossil programs provide near-term and long-term
benefits in the development of innovative technologies to reduce energy
use, commercialize new energy efficient products, make exploration and
extraction of energy sources cheaper and more efficient, and promote
national energy security.
John Henry, the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, once
said that ``science is the pursuit above all which impresses us with
the capacity of man for intellectual and moral progress and awakens the
human intellect to aspiration for higher condition of humanity.''
It is in this spirit that I urge my colleagues to adopt the Doyle
amendment and to demonstrate our commitment to invest in the
improvement of the condition of every American through this vital
energy research.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute
rule by titles, and the first section and each title shall be
considered read.
An amendment striking section 304(b)(3) of the bill is adopted.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus
Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Subtitle A--National Science Foundation Authorization
Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 112. Proportional reduction of research and related activities
amounts.
Sec. 113. Consultation and representation expenses.
Sec. 114. Reprogramming.
Sec. 115. Further authorizations.
Subtitle B--General Provisions.
Sec. 121. Annual report.
Sec. 122. National research facilities.
Sec. 123. Eligibility for research facility awards.
Sec. 124. Administrative amendments.
Sec. 125. Indirect costs.
Sec. 126. Research instrumentation and facilities.
Sec. 127. Financial disclosure.
Sec. 128. Educational leave of absence for active duty.
Sec. 129. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 130. Science Studies Institute.
Sec. 131. Educational impact.
Sec. 132. Divisions of the Foundation.
Sec. 133. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 134. Eligibility for awards.
TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Subtitle B--Authorization of Appropriations
Chapter 1--Authorizations
Sec. 211. Human space flight.
Sec. 212. Science, aeronautics, and technology.
Sec. 213. Mission support.
Sec. 214. Inspector General.
Sec. 215. Total authorization.
Sec. 216. Additional authorization and corresponding reduction.
Sec. 217. Limited availability.
Chapter 2--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
Sec. 221. Findings.
Sec. 222. Asset-based review.
Chapter 3--Limitations and Special Authority
Sec. 231. Use of funds for construction.
Sec. 232. Availability of appropriated amounts.
Sec. 233. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.
Sec. 234. Consideration by committees.
Sec. 235. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 236. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary
expenses.
Sec. 237. Limitation on transfer to Russia.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 241. Commercial space launch amendments.
Sec. 242. Office of Air and Space Commercialization authorization.
Sec. 243. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 244. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 245. Procurement.
Sec. 246. Additional National Aeronautics and Space Administration
facilities.
Sec. 247. Purchase of space science data.
Sec. 248. Report on Mission to Planet Earth.
[[Page H 9813]]
Sec. 249. Shuttle privatization.
Sec. 250. Aeronautical research and technology facilities.
Sec. 251. Launch voucher demonstration program amendments.
Sec. 252. Privatization of microgravity parabolic flight operations.
Sec. 253. Eligibility of awards.
Sec. 254. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 255. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 256. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Sec. 303. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 304. Funding limitations.
Sec. 305. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 306. Merit review requirements for awards of financial assistance.
Sec. 307. Policy on capital projects and construction.
Sec. 308. Further authorizations.
Sec. 309. High energy and nuclear physics.
Sec. 310. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 311. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 312. Termination costs.
TITLE IV--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Definitions.
Subtitle A--Atmospheric, Weather, and Satellite Programs
Sec. 411. National Weather Service.
Sec. 412. Atmospheric research.
Sec. 413. National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information
Service.
Subtitle B--Marine Research
Sec. 421. National Ocean Service.
Sec. 422. Ocean and Great Lakes research.
Sec. 423. Use of ocean research resources of other Federal agencies.
Subtitle C--Program Support
Sec. 431. Program support.
Subtitle D--Streamlining of Operations
Sec. 441. Program terminations.
Sec. 442. Limitations on appropriations.
Sec. 443. Reduction in the commissioned officer corps.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous
Sec. 451. Weather data buoys.
Sec. 452. Duties of the National Weather Service.
Sec. 453. Reimbursement of expenses.
Sec. 454. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 455. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 456. Report on laboratories.
TITLE V--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 504. Scientific research review.
Sec. 505. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 506. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 507. Graduate student fellowships.
TITLE VI--TECHNOLOGY
Subtitle A--Technology Administration
Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 603. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act
amendments.
Sec. 604. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980
amendments.
Sec. 605. Personnel.
Sec. 606. Fastener Quality Act amendments.
Sec. 607. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 608. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 609. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 610. Standards conformity.
Sec. 611. Further authorizations.
TITLE VII--UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 703. Fire safety systems in Army housing.
Sec. 704. Successor fire safety standards.
Sec. 705. Termination or privatization of functions.
Sec. 706. Report on budgetary reduction.
{time} 1315
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word as to title
I, for the purpose of engaging in a brief colloquy with the chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
In section 134 entitled ``Eligibility for Awards,'' it states: ``The
director shall exclude any person who receives an earmark.'' I have
been asked by several universities as to what the definition of ``any
person'' is. Could the chairman please clarify how he interprets this
language?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly interpret ``person''
narrowly to mean only an awardee institution and not its affiliates or
subcontractors. Similarly, we would not view contracts that receive
funding under the Federal acquisition regulation procedures for
noncompetitive procurements as ``not subjected to a competitive, merit-
based award process.''
Mr. SCHIFF. Further on that section, Mr. Chairman, if a university
receives an earmark and refuses it, would this section prohibit them
from receiving future funding?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out we used the words
``received funds.'' If we had used the term ``awarded funds,'' then we
would have had a problem; however, should the university never receive
the funds because they refused to accept them, then this section would
not apply.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate title I. The text of title I
is as follows:
TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 1995''.
SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Foundation;
(2) the term ``Foundation'' means the National Science
Foundation;
(3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965;
(4) the term ``national research facility'' means a
research facility funded by the Foundation which is
available, subject to appropriate policies allocating access,
for use by all scientists and engineers affiliated with
research institutions located in the United States; and
(5) the term ``United States'' means the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or
possession of the United States.
Subtitle A--National Science Foundation Authorization
SEC. 111. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the programs of the Foundation are important for the
Nation to strengthen basic research and develop human
resources in science and engineering, and that those programs
should be funded at an adequate level;
(2) the primary mission of the Foundation continues to be
the support of basic scientific research and science
education and the support of research fundamental to the
engineering process and engineering education; and
(3) the Foundation's efforts to contribute to the economic
competitiveness of the United States should be in accord with
that primary mission.
(b) Fiscal Year 1996.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Foundation $3,126,000,000 for fiscal year
1996, which shall be available for the following categories:
(1) Research and Related Activities, $2,226,300,000, which
shall be available for the following subcategories:
(A) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $632,200,000.
(B) Engineering, $311,600,000.
(C) Biological Sciences, $293,300,000.
(D) Geosciences, $408,800,000.
(E) Computer and Information Science and Engineering,
$249,500,000.
(F) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences,
$111,300,000.
(G) United States Polar Research Programs, $156,000,000.
(H) United States Antarctic Logistical Support Activities,
$62,600,000.
(I) Critical Technologies Institute, $1,000,000.
(2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $600,000,000.
(3) Major Research Equipment, $70,000,000.
(4) Academic Research Facilities Modernization,
$100,000,000.
(5) Salaries and Expenses, $120,000,000.
(6) Office of Inspector General, $4,500,000.
(7) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
(c) Fiscal Year 1997.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Foundation $3,171,400,000 for fiscal year
1997, which shall be available for the following categories:
(1) Research and Related Activities, $2,286,200,000.
(2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $600,000,000.
(3) Major Research Equipment, $55,000,000.
(4) Academic Research Facilities Modernization,
$100,000,000.
(5) Salaries and Expenses, $120,000,000.
(6) Office of Inspector General, $5,000,000.
(7) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
SEC. 112. PROPORTIONAL REDUCTION OF RESEARCH AND RELATED
ACTIVITIES AMOUNTS.
If the amount appropriated pursuant to section 111(b)(1) is
less than the amount authorized under that paragraph, the
amount authorized for each subcategory under that paragraph
shall be reduced by the same proportion.
SEC. 113. CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION EXPENSES.
From appropriations made under authorizations provided in
this title, not more than $10,000 may be used in each fiscal
year for official consultation, representation, or other
extraordinary expenses at the discretion of the Director. The
determination of the Director shall be final and conclusive
upon the accounting officers of the Government.
[[Page H 9814]]
SEC. 114. REPROGRAMMING.
(a) $500,000 or Less.--In any given fiscal year, the
Director may transfer appropriated funds among the
subcategories of Research and Related Activities, so long as
the net funds transferred to or from any subcategory do not
exceed $500,000.
(b) Greater Than $500,000.--In addition, the Director may
propose transfers to or from any subcategory exceeding
$500,000. An explanation of any proposed transfer under this
subsection must be transmitted in writing to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives, and the Committees
on Labor and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. The proposed transfer may be
made only when 30 calendar days have passed after
transmission of such written explanation.
SEC. 115. FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
Nothing in this title shall preclude further authorization
of appropriations for the National Science Foundation for
fiscal year 1996: Provided, That authorization allocations
adopted by the Conference Committee on House Concurrent
Resolution 67, and approved by Congress, allow for such
further authorizations.
Subtitle B--General Provisions
SEC. 121. ANNUAL REPORT.
Section 3(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950
(42 U.S.C. 1862(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) The Foundation shall provide an annual report to the
President which shall be submitted by the Director to the
Congress at the time of the President's annual budget
submission. The report shall--
``(1) contain a strategic plan, or an update to a previous
strategic plan, which--
``(A) defines for a three-year period the overall goals for
the Foundation and specific goals for each major activity of
the Foundation, including each scientific directorate, the
education directorate, and the polar programs office; and
``(B) describe how the identified goals relate to national
needs and will exploit new opportunities in science and
technology;
``(2) identify the criteria and describe the procedures
which the Foundation will use to assess progress toward
achieving the goals identified in accordance with paragraph
(1);
``(3) review the activities of the Foundation during the
preceding year which have contributed toward achievement of
goals identified in accordance with paragraph (1) and
summarize planned activities for the coming three years in
the context of the identified goals, with particular emphasis
on the Foundation's planned contributions to major multi-
agency research and education initiatives;
``(4) contain such recommendations as the Foundation
considers appropriate; and
``(5) include information on the acquisition and
disposition by the Foundation of any patents and patent
rights.''.
SEC. 122. NATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITIES.
(a) Facilities Plan.--The Director shall provide to
Congress annually, as a part of the report required under
section 3(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950,
a plan for the proposed construction of, and repair and
upgrades to, national research facilities. The plan shall
include estimates of the cost for such construction, repairs,
and upgrades, and estimates of the cost for the operation and
maintenance of existing and proposed new facilities. For
proposed new construction and for major upgrades to existing
facilities, the plan shall include funding profiles by fiscal
year and milestones for major phases of the construction. The
plan shall include cost estimates in the categories of
construction, repair, and upgrades for the year in which the
plan is submitted to Congress and for not fewer than the
succeeding 4 years.
(b) Limitation on Obligation of Unauthorized
Appropriations.--No funds appropriated for any project which
involves construction of new national research facilities or
construction necessary for upgrading the capabilities of
existing national research facilities shall be obligated
unless the funds are specifically authorized for such purpose
by this title or any other Act which is not an appropriations
Act, or unless the total estimated cost to the Foundation of
the construction project is less than $50,000,000. This
subsection shall not apply to construction projects approved
by the National Science Board prior to June 30, 1994.
SEC. 123. ELIGIBILITY FOR RESEARCH FACILITY AWARDS.
Section 203(b) of the Academic Research Facilities
Modernization Act of 1988 is amended by striking the final
sentence of paragraph (3) and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: ``The Director shall give priority to institutions
or consortia that have not received such funds in the
preceding 5 years, except that this sentence shall not apply
to previous funding received for the same multiyear
project.''.
SEC. 124. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.
(a) National Science Foundation Act of 1950 Amendments.--
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the subsection (k) of section 4 (42
U.S.C. 1863(k)) that was added by section 108 of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 as subsection
(l);
(2) in section 5(e) (42 U.S.C. 1864(e)) by amending
paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Any delegation of authority or imposition of
conditions under paragraph (1) shall be promptly published in
the Federal Register and reported to the Committees on Labor
and Human Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate and the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives.'';
(3) by inserting ``be entitled to'' between ``shall'' and
``receive'', and by inserting ``, including traveltime,''
after ``Foundation'' in section 14(c) (42 U.S.C. 1873(c));
(4) by striking section 14(j) (42 U.S.C. 1873(j)); and
(5) by striking ``Atomic Energy Commission'' in section
15(a) (42 U.S.C. 1874(a)) and inserting in lieu thereof
``Secretary of Energy''.
(b) National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1976
Amendments.--Section 6(a) of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act, 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1881a(a)) is amended by
striking ``social,'' the first place it appears.
(c) National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988
Amendments.--(1) Section 117(a)(1)(B)(v) of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.
1881b(1)(B)(v)) is amended to read as follows:
``(v) from schools established outside the several States
and the District of Columbia by any agency of the Federal
Government for dependents of its employees.''.
(2) Section 117(a)(3)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1881b(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``Science and Engineering
Education'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``Education and
Human Resources''.
(d) Education for Economic Security Act Amendments.--
Section 107 of Education for Economic Security Act (20 U.S.C.
3917) is repealed.
(e) Technical Amendment.--The second subsection (g) of
section 3 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 is
repealed.
SEC. 125. INDIRECT COSTS.
(a) Matching Funds.--Matching funds required pursuant to
section 204(a)(2)(C) of the Academic Research Facilities
Modernization Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1862c(a)(2)(C)) shall
not be considered facilities costs for purposes of
determining indirect cost rates.
(b) Report.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in consultation with other relevant
agencies, shall prepare a report analyzing what steps would
be needed to--
(1) reduce by 10 percent the proportion of Federal
assistance to institutions of higher education that are
allocated for indirect costs; and
(2) reduce the variance among indirect cost rates of
different institutions of higher education,
including an evaluation of the relative benefits and burdens
of each option on institutions of higher education. Such
report shall be transmitted to the Congress no later than
December 31, 1995.
SEC. 126. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES.
The Foundation shall incorporate the guidelines set forth
in Important Notice No. 91, dated March 11, 1983 (48 Fed.
Reg. 15754, April 12, 1983), relating to the use and
operation of Foundation-supported research instrumentation
and facilities, in its notice of Grant General Conditions,
and shall examine more closely the adherence of grantee
organizations to such guidelines.
SEC. 127. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
Persons temporarily employed by or at the Foundation shall
be subject to the same financial disclosure requirements and
related sanctions under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
as are permanent employees of the Foundation in equivalent
positions.
SEC. 128. EDUCATIONAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR ACTIVE DUTY.
In order to be eligible to receive funds from the
Foundation after September 30, 1995, an institution of higher
education must provide that whenever any student of the
institution who is a member of the National Guard, or other
reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States,
is called or ordered to active duty, other than active duty
for training, the institution shall grant the member a
military leave of absence from their education. Persons on
military leave of absence from their institution shall be
entitled, upon release from military duty, to be restored to
the educational status they had attained prior to their being
ordered to military duty without loss of academic credits
earned, scholarships or grants awarded, or tuition and other
fees paid prior to the commencement of the military duty. It
shall be the duty of the institution to refund tuition or
fees paid or to credit the tuition and fees to the next
semester or term after the termination of the educational
military leave of absence at the option of the student.
SEC. 129. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.
None of the funds authorized by this title shall be
available for any activity whose purpose is to influence
legislation pending before the Congress, except that this
shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States
or of its departments or agencies from communicating to
Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to
Congress, through the proper channels, requests for
legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for
the efficient conduct of the public business.
SEC. 130. SCIENCE STUDIES INSTITUTE.
(a) Amendment.--Section 822 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal 1991 (42 U.S.C. 6686) is
amended--
[[Page H 9815]]
(1) by striking ``Critical Technologies Institute'' in the
section heading and in subsection (a), and inserting in lieu
thereof ``Science Studies Institute'';
(2) in subsection (b) by striking ``As determined by the
chairman of the committee referred to in subsection (c),
the'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The'';
(3) by striking subsection (c), and redesignating
subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d),
(e), and (f), respectively;
(4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated by paragraph (3)
of this subsection--
(A) by inserting ``science and'' after ``developments and
trends in'' in paragraph (1);
(B) by striking ``with particular emphasis'' in paragraph
(1) and all that follows through the end of such paragraph
and inserting in lieu thereof ``and developing and
maintaining relevant informational and analytical tools.'';
(C) by striking ``to determine'' and all that follows
through ``technology policies'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``with particular attention to the
scope and content of the Federal science and technology
research and develop portfolio as it affects interagency and
national issues'';
(D) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
``(3) Initiation of studies and analysis of alternatives
available for ensuring the long-term strength of the United
States in the development and application of science and
technology, including appropriate roles for the Federal
Government, State governments, private industry, and
institutions of higher education in the development and
application of science and technology.'';
(E) by inserting ``science and'' after ``Executive branch
on'' in paragraph (4)(A); and
(F) by amending paragraph (4)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) to the interagency committees and panels of the
Federal Government concerned with science and technology.'';
(5) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by paragraph (3)
of this subsection, by striking ``subsection (d)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (c)''; and
(6) by amending subsection (f), as so redesignated by
paragraph (3) of this subsection, to read as follows:
``(f) Sponsorship.--The Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall be the sponsor of the
Institute.''.
(b) Conforming Usage.--All references in Federal law or
regulations to the Critical Technologies Institute shall be
considered to be references to the Science Studies Institute.
SEC. 131. EDUCATIONAL IMPACT.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) Federal research funds made available to institutions
of higher education often create incentives for such
institutions to emphasize research over undergraduate
teaching and to narrow the focus of their graduate programs;
and
(2) National Science Foundation funds for Research and
Related Activities should be spent in the manner most likely
to improve the quality of undergraduate and graduate
education in institutions of higher education.
(b) Educational Impact.--(1) The impact that a grant or
cooperative agreement by the National Science Foundation
would have on undergraduate and graduate education at an
institution of higher education shall be a factor in any
decision whether to award such grant or agreement to that
institution.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall be effective with respect to any
grant or cooperative agreement awarded after September 30,
1996.
(c) Report.--The Director shall provide a plan for the
implementation of subsection (b) of this section, no later
than December 31, 1995, to the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources of the Senate.
SEC. 132. DIVISIONS OF THE FOUNDATION.
(a) Amendment.--Section 8 of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1866) is amended by
inserting ``The Director may appoint, in consultation with
the Board, not more than 6 Assistant Directors to assist in
managing the Divisions.'' after ``time to time determine.''.
(b) Report.--By November 15, 1995, the Director shall
transmit to the Congress a report on the reorganization of
the National Science Foundation required as a result of the
amendment made by subsection (a).
SEC. 133. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no sums are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the
activities for which sums are authorized by this title unless
such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by
this title.
(b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be
appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 for
the activities for which sums are authorized by this title
unless such sums are specifically authorized to be
appropriated by an Act of Congress with respect to such
fiscal year.
SEC. 134. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.
(a) In General.--The Director shall exclude from
consideration for awards of financial assistance made by the
Foundation after fiscal year 1995 any person who received
funds, other than those described in subsection (b),
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from
any Federal funding source for a project that was not
subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any
exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall
be effective for a period of 5 years after the person
receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to
persons who are members of a class specified by law for which
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a
formula provided by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
amendment offered by mr. brown of california
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. BROWN of California: Page 10,
strike line 1 through line 7.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter of
monumental importance. I will not belabor it at all if the majority is
willing to accept the amendment, which merely strikes section 115 on
page 10. I should explain that it has no effect in law or anything
else, as far as I can tell.
In the debate over the bill that this involves, the National Science
Foundation, there was some discussion in the committee that the
appropriators had already appropriated more money than this bill
provided. I think the chairman of the committee, in his wisdom, said
that he would concede that, and that if we wanted to authorize more
money, we could do it later on. This reflects that understanding.
It says: ``Nothing in this title shall preclude further authorization
of appropriations for the National Science Foundation,'' and then it
has a proviso that the authorization allocations adopted by the
conference committee on House Concurrent Resolution 67 and approved by
Congress should allow for further authorization.
Mr. Chairman, to begin with, the first line is of no effect, because
we know we can authorize any time we can get the House to approve it,
which means generally getting the action through the Committee on
Rules, to the floor, and getting the floor to accept it, and then the
Senate to accept it and the President to sign it. We can do that any
time. It does not have to be set forth in this bill.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at the time that
language was inserted into the bill we were at different points in the
budget process. I think where we are now, in view of the fact of where
we are now, I think the gentleman's amendment is well taken. We are
prepared to accept it.
Mr. BROWN of California. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Let me conclude by making one further remark. ``The proviso that
authorization allocations adopted by the conference Committee on the
Budget resolution allows for it.'' Now, we all know there is nothing in
the budget resolution that pertains to authorization. It pertains only
to appropriations. Therefore, to have this language in here, which
implies that something in the budget amendment would relate to
authorizations for the National Science Foundation is a fiction, so
that is not necessary either. I am happy to accept the gentleman's
willingness to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1996''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
failed to request sufficient funds to perform all missions it
has proposed in annual budget requests. For fiscal year 1996,
the budget requested is $140,000,000 below the amount
required to fulfill program commitments made by the fiscal
year 1995 budget approved by Congress. The request for fiscal
year 1996 proposes continued underfunding of the requirements
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by
$439,000,000 for fiscal year 1997,
[[Page H 9816]]
$847,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $1,189,000,000 for fiscal year 1999,
and $1,532,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
(2) In order to close the gap between projected program
requirements and the underfunding requested, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration should aggressively
pursue actions and reforms directed at reducing institutional
costs, including management restructuring, facility
consolidation, procurement reform, personnel base downsizing,
and convergence with other defense and private sector
systems.
(3) While institutional reforms, restructurings, and
downsizing hold the promise of comporting the projected needs
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration with
funding levels requested by the Administration, such reforms
provide no guarantee against cancellation of missions in the
event reform efforts fail to achieve cost reduction targets.
(4) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must
reverse its current trend toward becoming an operational
agency, and return to its proud history as the Nation's
leader in basic scientific air and space research.
(5) Commercial space activity is in a delicate state of
growth but has the potential to eclipse Federal space
activity in its economic return to the Nation if not stifled.
(6) The United States is on the verge of creating and using
new technologies in microsatellites, information processing,
and space launch that could radically alter the manner in
which the Government approaches its space mission.
(7) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal
Government's requirements for routine, nonemergency manned
and unmanned space transportation can be most effectively,
efficiently, and economically met by a free and competitive
market in privately developed and operated launch services.
(8) In formulating a national space transportation service
policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
should aggressively pursue reverse contracting opportunities
to support the private sector development of advanced space
transportation technologies including reusable space
vehicles, single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, and manner space
systems.
(9) International cooperation in space exploration and
science activities serves the United States national
interest--
(A) when it--
(i) reduces the cost of undertaking missions the United
States Government would pursue unilaterally;
(ii) enables the United States to pursue missions that it
could not otherwise afford to pursue unilaterally; or
(iii) enhances United States capabilities to use and
develop space for the benefit of United States citizens; and
(B) when it does not--
(i) otherwise harm or interfere with the ability of United
States private sector firms to develop or explore space
commercially;
(ii) interfere with the ability of Federal agencies to use
space to complete their missions;
(iii) undermine the ability of United States private
enterprise to compete favorably with foreign entities in the
commercial space arena; or
(iv) transfer sensitive or commercially advantageous
technologies or knowledge from the United States to other
countries or foreign entities except as required by those
countries or entities to make their contribution to a
multilateral space project in partnership with the United
States, or on a quid pro quo basis.
(10) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Department of Defense can cooperate more effectively in
leveraging their mutual capabilities to conduct joint space
missions that improve United States space capabilities and
reduce the cost of conducting space missions.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(2) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
Subtitle B--Authorization of Appropriations
CHAPTER 1--AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 211. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.
(a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 1996 for Human Space Flight
the following amounts:
(1) For Space Shuttle Operations, $2,341,800,000.
(2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades,
$837,000,000.
(3) For Payload and Utilization Operations, $315,000,000.
(4) For Russian Cooperation, $100,000,000.
(b) Construction of Facilities.--(1) Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(2),
$5,000,000 are authorized for modernization of the Firex
Systems, Pads A and B, Kennedy Space Center.
(2) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (a)(2), $7,500,000 are authorize for replacement
of the Chemical Analysis Facility, Kennedy Space Center.
(3) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (a)(2), $4,900,000 are authorized for replacement
of the Space Shuttle Main Engine Processing Facility, Kennedy
Space Center.
SEC. 212. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 1996 for Science, Aeronautics,
and Technology the following amounts:
(1) For Space Science, $1,995,400,000, of which--
(A) $1,167,600,000 are authorized for Physics and
Astronomy, of which $51,500,000 shall be for the Gravity
Probe B, except that no funds are authorized for the Space
Infrared Telescope Facility; and
(B) $827,800,000 are authorized for Planetary Exploration,
of which $30,000,000 shall be for the New Millennium
Spacecraft, including $5,000,000 for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration's participation in Clementine 2 (Air
Force Program Element 0603401F Advanced Spacecraft
Technology).
(2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications,
$293,200,000.
(3) For Mission to Planet Earth, $1,013,100,000, of which
$21,500,000 shall only be for activities described in section
248(b)(7)(A), except that no funds are authorized for the
Consortium for International Earth Science Information
Network (except as provided in section 217) or the Topex
Poseidon Follow-On mission. Funds authorized by this
paragraph may not be expended to duplicate private sector or
other Federal activities or to procure systems to provide
data unless the Administrator certifies to Congress that no
private sector or Federal entity can provide suitable data in
a timely manner. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds in excess of those authorized by this paragraph may not
be obligated for Mission to Planet Earth.
(4) For Space Access and Technology, $639,800,000 of
which--
(A) $193,000,000 are authorized for Advanced Space
Transportation;
(B) $10,000,000 are authorized to be made available for
defraying the costs of converting or redesigning commercially
inconsistent elements of former Federal facilities or to take
actions required for conformance with Federal laws or
regulations relating to commercial space transportation
infrastructure, to remain available until expended;
(C) $20,000,000 shall be for continuing the Launch Voucher
Demonstration Program authorized under section 504 of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1993(15 U.S.C. 5803); and
(D) $33,900,000 are authorized for the Small Spacecraft
Technology Initiative, except that funds for such Initiative
may not be expended to duplicate private sector activities or
to fund any activities that a private sector entity is
proposing to carry out for commercial purposes. No funds are
authorized under this paragraph for the Partnership for Next
Generation Vehicle.
(5) For Aeronautical Research and Technology, $826,900,000,
of which--
(A) $354,700,000 are authorized for Research and Technology
Base activities;
(B) $245,500,000 are authorized for High Speed Research;
(C) $133,,000,000 are authorized for Advanced Subsonic
Technology, except that no funds are authorized for concept
studies for Advanced Traffic Management and Affordable Design
and Manufacturing;
(D) $40,200,000 are authorized for High-Performance
Computing and Communications; and
(E) $48,100,000 are authorized for Numerical Aerodynamic
Simulation.
(6) For Mission Communication Services, $461,300,000.
(7) For Academic Programs, $102,200,000.
(b) Construction of Facilities.--(1) Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a)(3),
$17,000,000 are authorized for construction of the Earth
Systems Science Building, Goddard Space Flight Center.
(2) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (a)(5), $5,400,000 are authorized for
modernization of the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel Complex, Ames
Research Center.
(3) Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (a)(2), $3,000,000 are authorized for the
construction of an addition to the Microgravity and
Development Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center.
SEC. 213. MISSION SUPPORT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1996 for
Mission Support the following amounts:
(1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance,
$37,600,000.
(2) For Space Communication Services, $319,400,000.
(3) For Construction of Facilities, including land
acquisition, $152,600,000, of which--
(A) $6,300,000 shall be for restoration of Flight Systems
Research Laboratory, Ames Research Center;
(B) $3,000,000 shall be for restoration of chilled water
distribution system, Goddard Space Flight Center;
(C) $4,800,000 shall be for replacing chillers, various
buildings, Jet Propulsion Laboratory;
(D) $1,100,000 shall be for rehabilitation of electrical
distribution system, White Sands Test Facility, Johnson Space
Center;
(E) $4,200,000 shall be for replacement of main substation
switchgear and circuit breakers, Johnson Space Center;
[[Page H 9817]]
(F) $1,800,000 shall be for replacement of 15kV load break
switches, Kennedy Space Center;
(G) $9,000,000 shall be for rehabilitation of Central Air
Equipment Building, Lewis Research Center;
(H) $4,700,000 shall be for restoration of high pressure
air compressor system, Marshall Space Flight Center;
(I) $6,800,000 shall be for restoration of Information and
Electronic Systems Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center;
(J) $1,400,000 shall be for restoration of canal lock,
Stennis Space Center;
(K) $2,500,000 shall be for restoration of primary
electrical distribution systems, Wallops Flight Facility;
(L) $30,000,000 shall be for repair of facilities at
various locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project;
(M) $30,000,000 shall be for rehabilitation and
modification of facilities at various locations, not in
excess of $1,500,000 per project;
(N) $2,000,000 shall be for minor construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities at various
locations, not in excess of $750,000 per project;
(O) $10,000,000 shall be for facility planning and design
not otherwise provided for; and
(P) $35,000,000 shall be for environmental compliance and
restoration.
(4) For Research and Program Management, including
personnel and related costs, travel, and research operations
support, $2,094,800,000.
SEC. 214. INSPECTOR GENERAL.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for Inspector General,
$17,300,000 for fiscal year 1996.
SEC. 215. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the
total amount authorized to be appropriated to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration under this title shall
not exceed $11,547,400,000 for fiscal year 1996.
SEC. 216. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND CORRESPONDING
REDUCTION.
(a) Authorization.--In addition to amounts authorized by
section 212(a)(3), there are authorized to be appropriated to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal
year 1996 for Mission to Planet Earth $274,360,000, to be
derived from amounts otherwise authorized by this title.
(b) Operating Plan.--The Administrator shall, within 30
days after the later of--
(1) the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) the date of the enactment of the Act making
appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 1996,
transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate an operating plan which
identifies which amounts will be transferred pursuant to
subsection (a).
(c) Limitation on Obligation and Expenditure.--None of the
funds authorized by subsection (a) shall be available for
obligation or expenditure until--
(1) the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a
comprehensive review of the Mission to Planet Earth program
as part of its study of the United States Global Change
Research Program;
(2) the Administrator has reported to the Committee on
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a plan
for implementing the study's recommendations and a formal
request for all or part of such funds; and
(3) 90 legislative days have passed after the report is
transmitted under paragraph (2).
SEC. 217. LIMITED AVAILABILITY.
Nothing in this title shall interfere with the rights of
any parties under contracts. Nothing in this title shall
preclude the Consortium for International Earth Science
Information Network from receiving a contract awarded
following a full and open competition.
CHAPTER 2--RESTRUCTURING THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 221. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds that--
(1) the restructuring of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration is essential to accomplishing the space
missions of the United States while simultaneously balancing
the Federal budget;
(2) to restructure the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration rapidly without reducing mission content and
safety requires objective financial judgment;
(3) no effort has been undertaken by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to perform a formal
economic review of its missions and the Federal assets that
support them;
(4) therefore it is premature and unwarranted to attempt
closing any National Aeronautics and Space Administration
field center until an asset-based review of United States
space missions and capabilities to support them is performed;
and
(5) cost savings from the closing of National Aeronautics
and Space Administration field centers are speculative and
potentially injurious to mission goals, unless derived from
an asset-based analysis.
SEC. 222. ASSET-BASED REVIEW.
(a) Request for Proposals.--Not later than 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall publish in the Commerce Business Daily a request for
proposals to perform a National Aeronautics and Space
Administration asset-based review.
(b) Qualified Proposals.--Qualified proposals to perform
the asset-based review under this section shall be from
United States persons whose primary business is corporate
financial strategy, investment banking, accounting, or asset
management. All proposals shall, at a minimum, propose to
review, for each capital asset owned by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration--
(1) its primary function or purpose in relationship to a
program, mission, or activity of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration;
(2) the existence of other capital assets which duplicate
or overlap with such function or purpose;
(3) the Federal and non-Federal users thereof; and
(4) its necessity to carry out a program, mission, or
activity of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
(c) Report.--The contractor selected to perform the asset-
based review under this section shall complete such review
and transmit to the Administrator and the Congress, no later
than July 31, 1996, a report containing, at a minimum--
(1) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration
field center facility--
(A) a list of capital assets that should be permanently
retired or disposed of;
(B) a list of capital assets that may be transferred to
non-Federal institutions and corporations, if the transfer of
such asset is cost effective; and
(C) a list of capital assets essential to the conduct of
National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs,
missions, or activities, and a justification for retaining
the asset;
(2) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration
program element--
(A) a list of capital assets essential to the conduct of
the program element; and
(B) a plan for achieving the most cost-effective
consolidation and efficient use of necessary capital assets
to support such program element, including the use of non-
Federal assets where appropriate; and
(3) for each National Aeronautics and Space Administration
capital asset--
(A) the total annual cost of maintaining and operating such
capital asset, including Federal employee and contractor
costs;
(B) the depreciated cost, replacement cost, and salvage
value; and
(C) the most cost-effective strategy for maintaining,
replacing, upgrading, or disposing of the capital asset, as
appropriate.
(d) Implementation.--The Administrator shall consider the
results of the asset-based review conducted under this
section, and based on the Administrator's recommendations,
the President shall propose to Congress legislation required
to implement those recommendations no later than September
30, 1996.
(e) Closing of Field Centers.--The Administrator shall not
close any National Aeronautics and Space Administration field
center until after the asset-based review report is
transmitted under subsection (c), and may only close field
centers that would become obsolete as a result of the
implementation of the Administrator's recommendations, and
may do so only after enactment of legislation implementing
those recommendations.
CHAPTER 3--LIMITATIONS AND SPECIAL AUTHORITY
SEC. 231. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections
211(a), 212(a), and 213 (1) and (2), and funds appropriated
for research operations support under section 213(4), may be
used for the construction of new facilities and additions to,
repair of, rehabilitation of, or modification of existing
facilities at any location in support of the purposes for
which such funds are authorized.
(b) Limitation.--None of the funds pursuant to subsection
(a) may be expended for a project, the estimated cost of
which to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
including collateral equipment, exceeds $500,000, until 30
days have passed after the Administrator has notified the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate of the nature, location, and estimated cost to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration of such
project.
(c) Title to Facilities.--If funds are used pursuant to
subsection (a) for grants to institutions of higher
education, or to nonprofit organizations whose primary
purpose is the conduct of scientific research, for purchase
or construction of additional research facilities, title to
such facilities shall be vested in the United States unless
the Administrator determines that the national program of
aeronautical and space activities will best be served by
vesting title in the grantee institution or organization.
Each such grant shall be made under such conditions as the
Administrator shall determine to be required to ensure that
the United States will receive therefrom benefits adequate to
justify the making of that grant.
SEC. 232. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS.
To the extent provided in appropriations Acts,
appropriations authorized under chapter 1 may remain
available without fiscal year limitation.
[[Page H 9818]]
SEC. 233. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Appropriations authorized under any
paragraph of section 211(b), 212(b), or 213(3)--
(1) may be varied upward by 10 percent in the discretion of
the Administrator; or
(2) may be varied upward by 25 percent, to meet unusual
cost variations, after the expiration of 15 days following a
report on the circumstances of such action by the
Administrator to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate.
The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated under
sections 211(b), 212(b) and 213(3) shall not be increased as
a result of actions authorized under paragraphs (1) and (2)
of this subsection.
(b) Special Rule.--Where the Administrator determines that
new developments in the national program of aeronautical and
space activities have occurred; and that such developments
require the use of additional funds for the purposes of
construction, expansion, or modification of facilities at any
location; and that deferral of such action until the
enactment of the next National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act would be inconsistent with
the interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space
activities, the Administrator may use up to $10,000,000 of
the amounts authorized under section 211(b), 212(b), or
213(3) for each fiscal year for such purposes. No such funds
may be obligated until a period of 30 days has passed after
the Administrator has transmitted to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives a
written report describing the nature of the construction, its
costs, and the reasons therefor.
SEC. 234. CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration may be used for any program for which
the President's annual budget request included a request for
funding, but for which the Congress denied or did not provide
funding;
(2) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration may be used for any program in excess of
the amount actually authorized for the particular program by
October 1; and
(3) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration may be used for any program which has
not been presented to the Congress in the President's annual
budget request or the supporting and ancillary documents
thereto,
unless a period of 30 days has passed after the receipt by
the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate of notice given by the Administrator containing a full
and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and
the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such
proposed action. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall keep the Committee on Science of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate fully and currently
informed with respect to all activities and responsibilities
within the jurisdiction of those committees. Except as
otherwise provided by law, any Federal department, agency, or
independent establishment shall furnish any information
requested by either committee relating to any such activity
or responsibility.
SEC. 235. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED
APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the
later of the date of enactment of an Act making
appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 1996 and the date of enactment
of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a report to
Congress and to the Comptroller General which specifies--
(1) the portion of such appropriations which are for
programs, projects, or activities not authorized under
chapter 1 of this subtitle, or which are in excess of amounts
authorized for the relevant program, project, or activity
under this title; and
(2) the portion of such appropriations which are authorized
under this title.
(b) Federal Register Notice.--The Administrator shall,
coincident with the submission of the report required by
subsection (a), publish in the Federal Register a notice of
all programs, projects, or activities for which funds are
appropriated but which were not authorized under this title,
and solicit public comment thereon regarding the impact of
such programs, projects, or activities on the conduct and
effectiveness of the national aeronautics and space program.
(c) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds may be obligated for any programs, projects, or
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration for fiscal year 1996 not authorized under this
title until 30 days have passed after the close of the public
comment period contained in the notice required in subsection
(b).
SEC. 236. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR
EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES.
Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under
section 212 may be used for scientific consultations or
extraordinary expenses, upon the authority of the
Administrator.
SEC. 237. LIMITATION ON TRANSFERS TO RUSSIA.
(a) Limitation.--No funds authorized to be appropriated to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal
year 1996 may be paid or otherwise transferred to Russia
unless--
(1) the payment or transfer is authorized by this title;
(2) the payment or transfer is made in exchange for goods
or services that have been provided to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in accordance with a
written agreement between the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and Russia;
(3) the Government of the Russian Federation agrees to
provide a monthly report to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration during the term of such written
agreement, that fully accounts for the disposition of the
funds paid or transferred, including information with respect
to the preceding month on--
(A) the amount of the funds received, and the date of
receipt;
(B) the amount of the funds converted from United States
currency, the currency into which the funds have been
converted, and the date and rate of conversion;
(C) the amount of non-United States currency, and of United
States currency, that is disbursed to any contractor or
subcontractor, the identity of such contractor or
subcontractor, and the date of disbursement; and
(D) the balance of the funds not disbursed as of the date
of the report;
(4) Russia has provided all monthly reports with respect to
which an agreement was made pursuant to paragraph (3); and
(5) the President, before such payment or transfer and
annually upon submission of the President's budget request
for fiscal years after fiscal year 1996, has certified to the
Congress that--
(A) the presence of any troops of the Russian Federation or
the Commonwealth of Independent States; and
(B) any action by the Russian Federation or the
Commonwealth of Independent States, in Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, or any other independent state of the former
Soviet Union do not violate the sovereignty of those
independent states.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Russia'' means the Government of the Russian Federation,
the Russian Space Agency, or any agency or instrumentality of
the Government of the Russian Federation or the Russian Space
Agency.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 241. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendments.--Chapter 701 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the table of sections--
(A) by amending the item relating to section 70104 to read
as follows:
``70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries.'';
(B) by amending the item relating to section 70108 to read
as follows:
``70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation of
launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries.'';
and
(C) by amending the item relating to section 70109 to read
as follows:
``70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries.'';
(2) in section 70101--
(A) by inserting ``microgravity research,'' after
``information services,'' in subsection (a)(3);
(B) by inserting ``, reentry,'' after ``launching'' both
places it appears in subsection (a)(4);
(C) by inserting ``, reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch
vehicles'' in subsection (a)(5);
(D) by inserting ``and reentry services`' after ``launch
services'' in subsection (a)(6);
(E) by inserting ``, reentries,'' after ``launches'' both
places it appears in subsection (a)(7);
(F) by inserting ``, reentry sites,'' after ``launch
sites'' in subsection (a)(8);
(G) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' in subsection (a)(8);
(H) by inserting ``reentry sites,'' after ``launch sites,''
in subsection (a)(9);
(I) by inserting ``and reentry site'' after ``launch site''
in subsection (a)(9);
(J) by inserting ``reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch
vehicles'' in subsection (b)(2);
(K) by striking ``launch'' in subsection (b)(2)(A);
(L) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``commercial
launch'' in subsection (b)(3);
(M) by striking ``launch'' after ``and transfer
commercial'' in subsection (b)(3); and;
(N) by inserting ``and development of reentry sites,''
after ``launch-site support facilities,'' in subsection
(b)(4);
(3) in section 70102--
(A) by inserting ``from Earth'' after ``and any payload''
in paragraph (3);
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as
paragraphs (14) through (16), respectively;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new
paragraphs:
``(10) `reenter' and `reentry' mean to return or attempt to
return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, if
any, from Earth orbit, from exo-atmospheric flight, or from
outer space to Earth.
``(11) `reentry services' means--
[[Page H 9819]]
``(A) activities involved in the preparation of a reentry
vehicle and its payload, if any, for reentry; and
``(B) the conduct of a reentry.
``(12) `reentry site' means the location on Earth to which
a reentry vehicle is intended to return (as defined in a
license the Secretary issues or transfers under this
chapter).
``(13) `reentry vehicle' means a vehicle designed to return
from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable
launch vehicle designed to return from outer space or exo-
atmospheric flight to Earth, substantially intact.''; and
(D) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' each place it appears in paragraph (15), as so
redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph;
(4) in section 70103(b)--
(A) by inserting ``and Reentries'' after ``Launches'' in
the subsection heading;
(B) by inserting ``and reentries'' after ``space launches''
in paragraph (1); and
(C) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``space launch'' in
paragraph (2);
(5) in section 70104--
(A) by amending the section designation and heading to read
as follows:
``Sec. 70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and
reentries'';
(B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reenter a reentry
vehicle,'' after ``operate a launch site'' each place it
appears in subsection (a);
(C) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch or
operation'' in subsection (a)(3) and (4);
(D) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``launch license'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``license'';
(ii) by inserting ``or reenter'' after ``may launch''; and
(iii) by inserting ``or reentering'' after ``related to
launching''; and
(E) in subsection (c)--
(i) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows:
``Preventing Launches and Reentries.--'';
(ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``prevent the
launch''; and
(iii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``decides the
launch'';
(6) in section 70105--
(A) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry
vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' in subsection
(b)(1); and
(B) by striking ``or operation'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``, operation, or reentry'' in subsection (b)(2)(A);
(7) in section 70106(a)--
(A) by inserting ``or reentry site'' after ``observer at a
launch site''; and
(B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``assemble a
launch vehicle'';
(8) in section 70108--
(A) by amending the section designation and heading to read
as follows:
``Sec. 70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches,
operation of launch sites and reentry sites, and
reentries'';
and
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry
vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch or
operation'';
(9) in section 70109--
(A) by amending the section designation and heading to read
as follows:
``Sec. 70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or
reentries'';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``ensure that a
launch'';
(ii) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after ``United States
Government launch site'';
(iii) by inserting ``or reentry date commitment'' after
``launch date commitment'';
(iv) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``obtained for a
launch'';
(v) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after ``access to a
launch site'';
(vi) by inserting ``, or services related to a reentry,''
after ``amount for launch services''; and
(vii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``the scheduled
launch''; and
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or reentry'' after
``prompt launching'';
(10) in section 70110--
(A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``prevent the
launch'' in subsection (a)(2); and
(B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry
vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' in subsection
(a)(3)(B);
(11) in section 70111--
(A) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' in subsection (a)(1)(B);
(B) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``or launch
services'' in subsection (a)(2);
(C) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``commercial launch''
both places it appears in subsection (b)(1);
(D) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' in subsection (b)(2)(C);
(E) by striking ``or its payload for launch'' in subsection
(d) and inserting in lieu thereof ``or reentry vehicle, or
the payload of either, for launch or reentry''; and
(F) by inserting ``, reentry vehicle,'' after
``manufacturer of the launch vehicle'' in subsection (d);
(12) in section 70112--
(A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' in
subsection (a)(3);
(B) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' in subsection (a)(4);
(C) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch
services'' each place it appears in subsection (b);
(D) by striking ``, Space, and Technology'' in subsection
(d)(1);
(E) by inserting ``or Reentries'' after ``Launches'' in the
heading for subsection (e); and
(F) by inserting ``or reentry site or a reentry'' after
``launch site'' in subsection (e);
(13) in section 70113(a)(1) and (d)(1) and (2), by
inserting ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' each place it
appears;
(14) in section 70115(b)(1)(D)(i)--
(A) by inserting ``reentry site,'' after ``launch site,'';
and
(B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``launch
vehicle'' both places it appears;
(15) in section 70117--
(A) by inserting ``or reentry site or reenter a reentry
vehicle'' after ``operate a launch site'' in subsection (a);
(B) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``approval of a space
launch'' in subsection (d);
(C) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
``(f) Launch Not an Export; Reentry Not an Import.--A
launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or payload that is launched
or reentered is not, because of the launch or reentry, an
export or import, respectively, for purposes of a law
controlling exports or imports.''; and
(D) in subsection (g)--
(i) by striking ``operation of a launch vehicle or launch
site,'' in paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof
``reentry, operation of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle,
or operation of a launch site or reentry site,'';
(ii) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(iii) by inserting ``reentry,'' after ``launch,'' in
paragraph (2);
(iv) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``; or''; and
(v) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) any amateur and similar small rocket activities, as
defined by the Secretary by regulation.'';
(16) in section 70119, by inserting the following after
paragraph (2):
``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Transportation $6,000,000 to carry out this chapter for
fiscal year 1996. None of the funds authorized by this
section may be expended for policy development or analysis
activities not directly related to the Secretary's regulatory
responsibilities under this chapter.''.
(b) Additional Amendments.--(1) Section 70105 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A person may apply'' in
subsection (a);
(B) by striking ``receiving an application'' both places it
appears in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof
``accepting an application in accordance with criteria
established pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(D)'';
(C) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following
new paragraph:
``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may
establish procedures for certification of the safety of a
launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or safety system, procedure,
service, or personnel that may be used in conducting licensed
commercial space launch or reentry activities.'';
(D) by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (b)(2)(B);
(E) by striking the period at the end of subsection
(b)(2)(C) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'';
(F) by adding at the end of subsection (b)(2) the following
new subparagraph:
``(D) regulations establishing criteria for accepting or
rejecting an application for a license under this chapter
within 60 days after receipt of such application.''; and
(G) by inserting ``, or the requirement to obtain a
license,'' after ``waive a requirement'' in subsection
(b)(3).
(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) shall take
effect upon the effective date of final regulations issued
pursuant to section 70105(b)(2)(D) of title 49, United States
Code, as added by paragraph (1)(F) of this subsection.
(3) Section 70102(5) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as
subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so
redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the
following new subparagraph:
``(A) activities directly related to the preparation of a
launch site or payload facility for one or more launches;''.
(4) Section 70103(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in the subsection heading, as amended by subsection
(a)(4)(A) of this section, by inserting ``and State Sponsored
Spaceports'' after ``and Reentries''; and
(B) in paragraph (1), by inserting `'and State sponsored
spaceports'' after ``private sector''.
(5) Section 70105(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, as
amended by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is amended by
inserting at the end the following: ``The Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate a written notice not later than
7 days after any occurrence when a license is not issued
within the deadline established by this subsection.''.
(6) Section 70111 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page H 9820]]
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after subparagraph
(B) the following:
``The Secretary shall establish criteria and procedures for
determining the priority of competing requests from the
private sector and State governments for property and
services under this section.'';
(B) by striking ``actual costs'' in subsection (b)(1) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``additive costs only''; and
(C) by inserting after subsection (b)(2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary shall ensure the establishment of
uniform guidelines for, and consistent implementation of,
this section by all Federal agencies.''.
(7) Section 70112 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry,
or site operator'' after ``(1) When a'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry,
or site operator'' after ``(1)A''; and
(C) in subsection (f), by inserting ``launch, reentry, or
site operator'' after ``carried out under a''.
SEC. 242. OFFICE OF AIR AND SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION
AUTHORIZATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Commerce for the activities of the Office of Air and Space
Commercialization, $457,000 for fiscal year 1996.
SEC. 243. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.
The Chief Financial Officer for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration shall be responsible for conducting
independent cost analyses of all new projects estimated to
cost more than $5,000,000 and shall report the results
annually to Congress at the time of the submission of the
President's budget request. In developing cost accounting and
reporting standards for carrying out this section, the Chief
Financial Officer shall, to the extent practicable and
consistent with other laws, solicit the advice of expertise
outside of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
SEC. 244. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958
AMENDMENTS.
(a) Declaration of Policy and Purpose.--Section 102 of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451)
is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating
subsections (f) through (h) as subsections (e) through (g),
respectively; and
(2) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (1)
of this subsection, by striking ``(f), and (g)'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``and (f)''.
(b) Reports to the Congress.--Section 206(a) of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C.
2476(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``May''; and
(2) by striking ``calendar'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``fiscal''.
(c) Disclosure of Technical Data.--Section 303 of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2454)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(C), by inserting ``or (c)'' after
``subsection (b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) The Administration may delay for a period not to
exceed 5 years the unrestricted public disclosure of
technical data in the possession of, or under the control of,
the Administration that has been generated in the performance
of experimental, developmental, or research activities or
programs funded jointly by the Administration and the private
sector.
``(2) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1996, the Administrator shall issue
regulations to carry out this subsection. Paragraph (1) shall
not take effect until such regulations are issued.
``(3) Regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall
include--
``(A) guidelines for a determination of whether data is
technical data within the meaning of this subsection;
``(B) a requirement that a determination described in
subparagraph (A) that particular data is technical data shall
be reported to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate;
``(C) provisions to ensure that technical data is available
for dissemination within the United States to United States
persons and entities in furtherance of the objective of
maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and
governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United
States industrial base; and
``(D) a specification of the period or periods for which
the delay in unrestricted public disclosure of technical data
is to apply to various categories of such data, and the
restrictions on disclosure of such data during such period or
periods, including a requirement that the maximum 5-year
protection under this subsection shall not be provided unless
at least 50 percent of the funding for the activities or
programs is provided by the private sector.
``(4) Along with the initial publication of proposed
regulations under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
include a list of those experimental, developmental, or
research activities or programs conducted by, or funded in
whole or in part by, the Administration that may result in
products or processes of significant value in maintaining
leadership or competitiveness in civil and governmental
aeronautical and space activities by the United States
industrial base. Such list shall be updated biannually.
``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `technical
data means any recorded information, including computer
software, that is or may be directly applicable to the
design, engineering, development, production, manufacture, or
operation of products or processes that may have significant
value in maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil
and governmental aeronautical and space activities by the
United States industrial base.''.
SEC. 245 PROCUREMENT.
(a) Procurement Demonstration Program.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish within
the Office of Space Access and Technology a program of
expedited technology procurement for the purpose of
demonstrating how innovative technology concepts can rapidly
be brought to bear upon space missions of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
(2) Procedures and evaluation.--The Administrator shall
establish procedures for actively seeking from persons
outside the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
innovative technology concepts, relating to the provision of
space hardware, technology, or service to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for the evaluation
of such concepts by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Advisory Council against mission
requirements.
(3) Requirement.--At least 1 percent of amounts authorized
to be appropriated under section 212(a)(4) shall be used for
innovative technology procurements that are determined under
paragraph (2) of this subsection to meet mission
requirements.
(4) Special authority.--In order to carry out this
subsection the Administrator shall recruit and hire for
limited term appointments persons from outside the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration with special expertise
and experience related to the innovative technology concepts
with respect to which procurements are made under this
subsection.
(5) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective 10
years after the date of its enactment.
(b) Technology Procurement Initiative.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall coordinate
National Aeronautics and Space Administration resources in
the areas of procurement, commercial programs, and advanced
technology in order to--
(A) fairly assess and procure commercially available
technology from the marketplace in the most efficient manner
practicable;
(B) achieve a continuous pattern of integrating advanced
technology from the commercial sector, and from Federal
sources outside the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, into the missions and programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(C) incorporate private sector buying and bidding
procedures, including fixed price contracts, into
procurements; and
(D) provide incentives for cost-plus contractors of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to integrate
commercially available technology in subsystem contracts on a
fixed-price basis.
(2) Certification.--Upon solicitation of any procurement
for space hardware, technology, or services that are not
commercially available, the Administrator shall certify, by
publication of a notice and opportunity to comment in the
Commerce Business Daily, for each such procurement action,
that no functional equivalent, commercially, available space
hardware, technology, or service exists and that no
commercial method of procurement in available.
SEC. 246. ADDITIONAL NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.
The Administrator shall not construct or enter into a new
lease for facilities to support National Aeronautics and
Space Administration programs unless the Administrator has
certified to the Congress that the Administrator reviewed
existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
other federally owned facilities, including military
facilities scheduled for closing or reduction, and found no
such facilities appropriate for the intended use.
SEC. 247. PURCHASE OF SPACE SCIENCE DATA.
(a) In General.--To the maximum extent possible, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall purchase
from the private sector space science data. Examples of such
data include scientific data concerning the elemental and
mineralogical resources of the moon and the planets, Earth
environmental data obtained through remote sensing
observations, and solar storm monitoring.
(b) Competitive Bidding.--(1) Contracts for the purchase of
space data under this section shall be awarded in a process
of full, fair, and open competitive bidding.
(2) Submission of cost data, either for the purposes of
supporting the bid of fulfillment of the contract, shall not
be required of bidders.
(3) Conformance with military specifications (Milspec) or
National Aeronautics and Space Administration specifications
systems with respect to the design, construction, or
operation of equipment used in obtaining space science data
under contracts entered
[[Page H 9821]]
into under this section shall not be a requirement for a commercial
provider bidding to provide such services.
(4) Contracts under this section shall not provide for the
Federal Government to obtain ownership of data not
specifically sought by the Federal Government.
SEC. 248. REPORT OF MISSION TO PLANET EARTH.
(a) Requirement.--The Administrator shall, within 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, transmit to the
Congress a report on Mission to Planet Earth.
(b) Contents.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) an analysis of Earth observation systems of other
countries and the ways in which the United States could
benefit from such systems, including by eliminating
duplication of effort;
(2) an analysis of how the Department of Defense's airborne
and space sensor programs could be used in Mission to Planet
Earth;
(3) a plan for infusing advanced technology into the
Mission to Planet Earth program, including milestones and an
identification of available resources;
(4) a plan to solicit proposals from the private sector on
how to innovatively accomplish the most critical research on
global climate change;
(5) an integrated plan for research in the Scientific
Research and Mission to Planet Earth enterprises of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(6) a plan for developing metrics and milestones to
quantify the performance of work on Mission to Planet Earth;
and
(7) an analysis of how the United States Government can--
(A) most effectively utilize space-based and airborne Earth
remote sensing data, services, distribution, and applications
provided by the United States private sector to meet
Government goals for Mission to Planet Earth; and
(B) evaluate and foster commercial data sources, commercial
archiving services, commercial applications, and commercial
distribution of Mission to Planet Earth data.
SEC. 249. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION
(a) Policy and Preparation.--The Administrator shall
prepare for an orderly transition from the Federal operation,
or Federal management of contracted operation, of space
transportation systems to the Federal purchase of commercial
space transportation services for all nonemergency launch
requirements, including human, cargo, and mixed payloads. In
those preparations, the Administrator shall take into account
the need for short-term economies, as well as the goal of
restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
research focus and its mandate to promote the fullest
possible commercial use of space. As part of those
preparations, the Administrator shall plan for the potential
privatization of the Space Shuttle program.
(b) Request for Proposals.--Within 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish
in the Commerce Business Daily a request for proposals to
achieve a single prime contract for the space shuttle
program. The request for proposals shall include--
(1) a timetable and milestones for selecting a single prime
contractor not later than September 30, 1996;
(2) criteria for selection of the single prime contractor;
(3) the annual target cost to be achieved by the single
prime contractor;
(4) proposed terms and conditions of the single prime
contract, including fee and incentives for achieving the
target cost, and for savings below the target cost; and
(5) a requirement that each proposal be accompanied by a
plan by the proposer to privatize the space shuttle program.
(c) Privatization Plans.--The Administrator shall forward
all privatization plans received pursuant to subsection
(b)(5) to the Congress not later than 30 days after the
deadline for submitting proposals under subsection (b).
(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
authorized by this title shall be used to plan or prepare for
Federal Government, or federally contracted, operation of the
Space Shuttle beyond the year 2012, nor for studying,
designing, or developing upgrades to the Shuttle whose sole
purpose is to extend the operational life of the Space
Shuttle system beyond 2012. Nothing in this title shall
preclude the Federal, or federally contracted, operation of
the Space Shuttle through the year 2012, or the privatized
operation of the Space Shuttle after the year 2012.
SEC. 250. AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds may be
obligated for fiscal year 1996 for Aeronautical Research and
Technology programs of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration in excess of amounts authorized by this title,
except to the extent that the Administrator receives from
non-Federal sources full reimbursement of such excess amounts
through payment of costs associated with research at the
aeronautical research and technology facilities of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
SEC. 251. LAUNCH VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.
Section 504 of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993 (15 U.S.C.
5803) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``the Office of Commercial Programs
within''; and
(B) by striking ``Such program shall not be effective after
September 30, 1995.'';
(2) by striking subsection (c); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
SEC. 252. PRIVATIZATION OF MICROGRAVITY PARABOLIC FLIGHT
OPERATIONS.
(a) Finding.--The Congress finds that no national security
or mission critical justification exists for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration to maintain its own
fleet of aircraft to provide a short duration microgravity
environment via parabolic flight.
(b) Privatization of Flight Operations.--(1) The
Administrator shall privatize all parabolic flight aircraft
operations conducted by or for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration in support of microgravity research,
astronaut training, and other functions, through issuance of
one or more long-term, renewable, block purchase contracts
for the performance of such operations by United States
private sectors providers.
(2) Within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall issue a request for proposals to
provide services as described in paragraph (1). The
Administrator shall coordinate the process of review of such
proposals, and shall oversee the transfer of such operations
to the private sector.
(3) Within 6 months after the issuance of a request for
proposals under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall award
one or more contracts for microgravity parabolic flight
services, and shall cease all National Aeronautics and Space
Administration-operated parabolic aircraft flights, and shall
thereafter procure all microgravity parabolic flight services
from private sector providers. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration experimenters, and National Aeronautics and
Space Administration-funded experimenters, who would
otherwise use National Aeronautics and Space Administration-
owned or operated microgravity parabolic flight aircraft,
shall be issued vouchers for the procurement of microgravity
parabolic flight services from the private sector.
SEC. 253. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from
consideration for awards of financial assistance made by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration after fiscal
year 1995 any person who received funds, other than those
described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year
after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a
project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based
award process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to
this section shall be effective for a period of 5 years after
the person receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to
persons who are members of a class specified by law for which
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a
formula provided by law.
SEC. 254. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.
None of the funds authorized by this title shall be
available for any activity whose purpose is to influence
legislation pending before the Congress, except that this
shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States
or of its departments or agencies from communicating to
Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to
Congress, through the proper channels, requests for
legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for
the efficient conduct of the public business.
SEC. 255. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no sums are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the
activities for which sums are authorized by this title unless
such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by
this title.
(b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be
appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 for
the activities for which sums are authorized by this title
unless such sums are specifically authorized to be
appropriated by Act of Congress with respect to such fiscal
year.
SEC. 256. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.
The Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 is amended--
(1) in section 101 (50 U.S.C. 511) by striking ``transsonic
and supersonic'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``transonic,
supersonic, and hypersonic''; and
(2) in section 103 (50 U.S.C. 513)--
(A) by striking ``laboratories'' in subsection (a) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``laboratories and centers'';
(B) by striking ``supersonic'' in subsection (a) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``transonic, supersonic, and
hypersonic''; and
(C) by striking ``laboratory'' in subsection (c) and
inserting in lieu thereof ``facility''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
amendment offered by ms. dunn of washington
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H 9822]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Dunn: Page 29, line 18, insert ``,
of which at least $2,000,000 is reserved for research and
early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and
other women's health issues'' after ``$293,200,000''.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will set aside $2
million out of the $293 million authorized for life and microgravity
sciences and applications in this bill for research and for early
detection systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's
issues.
Mr. Chairman, because of the unique microgravity environment space
provides for research, new and effective approaches to diagnosing and
treating breast and ovarian cancer tumors are being investigated in
space labs in ways not possible on Earth. The low gravity of space
allows cancer cells, actual human cancer cells, to be grown in a 3-
dimensional form replicating those to be found in the human body.
Developing technology to help eradicate breast cancer is not a new
direction for NASA, but one that needs to be spotlighted as a
continuing basis.
For example, technology that NASA has developed for the Hubbell space
telescope is being applied at this time to digital mammography
techniques that the National Cancer Institute hopes will lead to better
treatments of breast cancer through even earlier detection. Right now,
NASA and the National Cancer Institute have identified two technologies
that hold promise for direct digital mammography with high resolution
and a wide field of view that is necessary for early detection. They
are now in the process of testing these diagnostic systems.
These advanced sensors and signal processors could boost the
resolution of a mammogram and allow physicians to detect cancer soon
after its onset.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DUNN of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this
amendment. The amendment reserves $2 million of the life and
microgravity science budget program specifically for research on the
development of early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancers
and other women's health issues. Since it is my understanding that NASA
has been working toward the aims of the gentlewoman's amendment, and
since this reservation of funds would not adversely impact other
planned life sciences research by NASA, I would accept the amendment of
my colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington, and commend it to my
colleagues.
In fact, NASA and the National Institutes of Health have been engaged
under 18 separate cooperative research agreements in a variety of
fields. Our bill fully funds the $4.2 million already planned for
cancer-related research under these NASA-NIH agreements. NASA has
developed, using the Hubbell space telescope technologies, a
revolutionary new detection system for the early identification of
breast cancer. The system uses charged coupled devices developed by
NASA for converting light from faint, distant stars into digital
imagery. The same sensitive imaging technology is being used to conduct
nonsurgical biopsies on women who may or may not have breast cancer,
without leaving a scar. This is another example of how spinoffs from
the space program are applied to solve very real problems on Earth, and
is one of the reasons why the taxpayers' investment in the space
program pays dividends, not only in terms of finances, but also in
terms of alleviating human suffering and detecting diseases early
enough so they can be cured.
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman. On behalf of the one in eight women who will be diagnosed
with breast cancer this year, and the 46,000 women who die every year
from this disease, and on behalf of those women who are diagnosed with
ovarian cancer, who suffer from osteoporosis and other women's health
diseases, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of my amendment, and
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of adding my support for the
gentlewoman's proposal. I think it is meritorious and deserves the
unanimous support of the House.
Mr. Chairman, if I may indulge very briefly under my time on a
slightly different subject, my distinguished colleague on the other
side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], mentioned my
comments regarding cutting any agency by 33 percent, and he felt this
represented some inconsistency on my part in discussing the 33-percent
reductions in this bill. There are some slight differences here in that
I was stating that a department could reduce its budget, and I was
really being guided by the example of NASA. I know the gentleman will
be familiar with this.
NASA began in 1991 to reduce its budget, and has succeeded in making
the kind of a budget reduction that we are talking about here, roughly
one-third over the next 5 years. it is being asked to take even more
than that. The point here is that this did not come out of the muscle
of research and development. A good part of that came by reducing the
overhead of the agency here in Washington, making some other changes,
including the kind urged on the Republican side to privatize or to
contract for services, and under this combination of circumstances,
namely, reducing the waste, fraud and abuse, and corporate overhead at
the headquarters, and restructuring programs to put more in the private
sector, you can make these reductions. Unfortunately, those are not the
kind of reductions called for in this bill. As a consequence, I still
feel that they are extreme.
I did not use that in the sense of implying that anybody is an
extremist who supports extreme cuts in the budget. I am just trying to
point out the factuality of the situation. These cuts are larger, they
impact R&D more, and they fall outside the scope of my own remark about
how much budget cutting you could do if you include all the factors
involved.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington, [Ms. Dunn].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 79, after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 257. USE OF ABANDONED AND UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS,
GROUNDS, AND TO FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--In meeting the needs of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for additional
facilities, the Administrator whenever feasible, shall select
abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and
facilities in depressed communities that can be converted to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration facilities at a
reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator.
(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term
``depressed communities'' means rural and urban communities
that are relatively depressed, in terms of age of housing,
extent of poverty, growth of per capita income, extent of
unemployment, job lag, or surplus labor.
Page 3, after the item in the table of contents relating to
section 256, insert the following:
Sec. 257. Use of abandoned and underutilized building,
grounds, and facilities.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the fact that
we provide for an opportunity, whenever feasible, that the
administrator shall select abandoned facilities, underutilized
buildings and grounds in depressed communities that can be converted to
NASA facilities at a reasonable cost. Under the amendment, the term
``depressed community'' means both rural and/or urban communities.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment,
with
[[Page H 9823]]
the modification that he had just described, by stating that the
administrator, whenever feasible, shall select the abandoned and
underutilized buildings. I believe the modified amendment makes a
significant contribution to this bill, and I am glad that this side is
able to work out the problems and to support his amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, in the case of the amendments
of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], I follow one general rule.
If the gentleman can successfully persuade the Republicans to accept
them, they must be good amendments, and I therefore go along with this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. scott
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
Page 31, line 13, strike ``$826,900,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof ``$860,300,000''
Page 31, strike line 18 through line 22, and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
(C) $163,400,000 are authorized for Advanced Subsonic
Technology;
{time} 1330
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to speak while everyone is in
a cooperative mood.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment
to restore $33.4 million in fund cuts from NASA's advanced subsonic
technology request, which is one of the main components of NASA's
aeronautics activity. Although I acknowledge and support the need to
cut government spending where appropriate in order to meet our budget
responsibilities, such a cut to NASA's aeronautics program is extremely
counterproductive to our shared goals of creating a stronger economy
and a stronger America.
Mr. Chairman, the aeronautics industry is responsible for this
country's greatest positive balance of trade, $30 billion, and without
the research and support of NASA the U.S. aeronautics research would
not be competitive in the global marketplace. It was, in fact, the
purpose for which Congress created NASA in the first place.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that Congress created
NASA's predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics, the
NACA, for the purpose of regaining America's competitiveness in
aviation at a time of European dominance. Despite the early lead the
country enjoyed as a result of the Wright Brothers' flight in 1903, by
1917 the Europeans had become the major force in aviation.
NACA established NASA Langley in Hampton, VA, as a research center to
provide the United States with the competitive edge it had lost to the
Europeans by providing long-term research and some of the first
successful public-private partnerships that helped the United States to
regain its preeminence in aeronautics. Now, at a time when the
Europeans are in high gear supporting research and development of the
Airbus, we are poised to shoot ourselves in the foot again by cutting
the very program that kept the United States aeronautics program
competitive. We are on a fast track to the back seat status we suffered
in 1917.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while not restoring all of the funds
cut in NASA's very modest request, will enable these programs to
continue at a responsible level, so that we can effectively continue
our long-term research in fuel economy, in increased safety, reduced
sonic boom, improved design, and reduced environmental impacts. Much of
this research is considered high-risk, high-reward research, the very
kind of research that private companies who have to be concerned about
their quarterly profits are least likely to invest in until the
research looks promising on a short-term basis. Considering the state
of the national economy, we can ill-afford to reduce earned investment
in long-term research in the aeronautics industry. NASA aeronautics
works and is deserving for our continued support and attention.
Mr. Chairman, the House appropriations subcommittee, the Senate
appropriations and authorizing committees have all fully funded this
program. The committee bill is the only one to cut the advanced
subsonic program by $34.4 million. We should not contribute to the loss
of U.S. preeminence in aeronautics. I urge the Members of both sides of
the aisle to continue to support aeronautics and this country's economy
by supporting this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, regretfully, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]
has fallen under the sway of what I call Washington math. He is
claiming that this bill cuts the advanced subsonics program by an
amount of money. It does not. This bill increases this program by 6
percent. The gentleman from Virginia wants to increase it by more. That
is his prerogative. However, under the discretionary spending cap that
was passed in 1993 by the Clinton budget, whenever we increase a
discretionary spending account, we are supposed to reduce other
discretionary spending accounts, and this amendment does not do that.
It is just a plusing up of the advanced subsonic program without an
offset anywhere else in NASA.
Now, apparently the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott] wants to pump that whole issue of what to cut off to the NASA
Administrator. What our committee has attempted to do is to run NASA on
as tight a budget as possible. We are sick and tired of cost overruns
at NASA. All of the accounts that we have put in this bill are under
the new faster, better, cheaper NASA, and there really is not much play
around for the Administrator to offset these other programs without
underfunding them, and that is going to require stretch-outs and cost
overruns in these other programs in the long run.
The gentleman from Virginia, if his amendment were to be responsible,
should have identified where the offsets were, rather than leaving that
decision being made to the executive branch. The fact of the matter
remains that this bill increases the advanced subsonic program by 6
percent. It has been the determination of the Committee on Science that
that is enough. I would hope that the House would accept the committee
position and reject the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia for
the reasons that I have stated.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about the importance of this
amendment for a number of reasons which I will try to categorize. For
one thing, it reflects a primary opportunity to discuss really whether
we think that money spent to encourage and aid industry in their work
is corporate welfare. I think we all know that over the past decade or
so, the threat to the American aerospace industry's once virtual
monopoly of long-distance air carriers comes from places like France
where the European Airbus received something like $2 billion a year in
outright subsidies from their government, and in other countries of the
world, including potentially our Asian competitors where they do not
hesitate to not only direct the direction of research and development
in air transportation as other things, but to fund it quite handsomely.
Now, what the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] is proposing is a
modest increase in the amount contained in this account for aircraft
research, subsonic research, not up to the level of the President's
request, but certainly more than is contained in this bill, even though
this bill has what is essentially a cost-of-living increase, as the
gentleman mentioned, about a 6-percent increase over 1995.
Mr. Chairman, what is happening is that the international competition
in this field is increasing. If we are to walk away from that and say
to France and to Japan and to other countries, you go ahead and
continue to subsidize and with each additional $1 billion, you can take
an additional x percent of the global market and we are just going to
walk away from that and let you have it. That is essentially what we
are saying.
Now, is that what the experts in this country have suggested? I am
going to
[[Page H 9824]]
just quote from the findings of the National Research Council which has
reviewed this situation recently, and it says as follows: ``NASA should
emphasize the development of advanced aeronautical technology in the
following order: Advanced subsonic aircraft.'' That is the first
priority. That is what this amendment is directed at. Then, ``high-
speed supersonic aircraft. Second NASA should work with aircraft
manufacturers, the airline industry, and the FAA to bring about major
improvements in the utility and safety of the global air traffic
management system.''
Another part of the language in this bill, which the gentleman's
amendment would strike, prohibits NASA from continuing to cooperate
with the FAA on air traffic management. That in itself is justification
for the gentleman's amendment. It has nothing to do with the dollar
amount.
Again, quoting from the National Research Council: ``The magnitude of
NASA's civil aeronautics budget should be increased.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if all of this is so important, how
come you could not identify where to offset this increase in other NASA
accounts? The amendment is silent on that.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is deliberately
silent on this because we think that the caps imposed upon the
subcommittee by the chairman have no basis in law and certainly no
merit. The budget language was nothing to do with it, so there is no
need for an offset.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further, maybe that is
the difference between a Congress that ran up a $5 trillion debt and a
Congress that wants to balance the budget.
Mr. BROWN of California. Well, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has already acknowledged that it was
under the Republicans that the budget got out of balance.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further,
the Republicans have not controlled this House for 40 years and
Congress has the power of the purse, unless someone changed the
Constitution when we were not looking.
Mr. BROWN of California. Well, Mr. Chairman, the response to that,
the rebuttal, is that the Republican President could have vetoed the
Democratic Congress on these bills if he wished to, and he chose not
to.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. BROWN of California. Absolutely.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. As a matter of fact, the Republican President did
veto spending bills and got overridden by Congress.
Mr. BROWN of California. Including a lot of Republicans who obviously
must have voted to override them.
Now, this detracts a little from the point that we are trying to
make. In this amendment, we have a confrontation with the philosophy
that is involved in most of these cuts, namely that they are corporate
welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of making
a adequate summary, I would say that this is a confrontation of
ideology. It is also a matter which threatens the economic future of
this country, because the export of aircraft, transcontinental
airplanes, represents the largest or the next-to-the-largest favorable-
balance-of-trade item in the American economy. Do we want to continue
to have that eroded under the pious hope that the private aircraft
companies in this country can make up for those billions of dollars in
subsidies that are coming from the governments of these other
countries, or do we want to do something recommended by the industry,
recommended by the scientific community, recommended by anyone who has
any expertise in this area, that we do our best to remain competitive
in the global economy? This amendment would help us to do that.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting amendment, and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Brown] has defined it, I think, well. He said that
the idea of putting caps on spending has no merit, and that what they
are arguing is that there is absolutely no merit to the idea of capping
budgets and thereby to try to reduce spending.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has misstated my
position. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] knows that I
voted for a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget in 7
years and contains all of the discipline necessary to do that. The
gentleman did not like that particular budget, so now he is accusing me
of not supporting caps. I think that is unjust.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman voted for
a balanced budget, but he has steadily come to the floor and refused to
do anything to enforce the balanced budget that the House actually
passed. The gentleman voted for a balanced budget that did not pass. We
voted for a balanced budget that did pass.
What you have to do in order to bring about a balanced budget is not
just take credit for having passed this wonderful vote that you can go
back home and tell the people, I voted for a balanced budget. You have
to actually enforce it. You have to actually do something to cut the
spending to make the balanced budget work.
That is what caps are all about. Caps are all about doing the
enforcement necessary to actually balance the budget. The gentleman
chafes under that .
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I seem to recall in the 1993 budget
agreement which was passed by a single party in Congress and signed by
President Clinton, there was a discretionary spending cap which meant
that if one account at any discretionary spending area was increased,
there had to be a dollar-for-dollar offset in other accounts. Now, this
amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Scott] does not even pass the test that was imposed by President
Clinton 2 years ago, because there is no offset there.
{time} 1345
Mr. WALKER. Sure. The point is that what they want to do is they just
want to go on spending as though spending was not a problem; that you
can have balanced budgets but, oh, by the way, spend for everything
imaginable.
I have been watching some of the things on television where other
committees are having their deliberations, and guess what? Every
ranking member talks about how we ought not to have any caps on their
spending. They have got a very important area, does not matter what it
is, just keep spending the money, so we come to the floor here and we
hear about spending the money.
This is a particularly interesting one that the gentleman from
Virginia has brought forward, because the fact is that in high speed
research where you are doing the actual work toward developing the next
generation of aircraft, we increase the budget. We increase the budget
by as much as the President wanted to increase the budget. So we are
doing the leading edge research, but what the gentleman from Virginia
is proposing is that we ought to do work in subsonic research.
Just so we get the terminology so people can understand it, subsonic
research is the planes that we already fly. All these planes fly at
speeds below the speed of sound. So it is the planes that we already
know how to build and know how to fly, and they want to increase the
research dollars in that area.
What we are suggesting is that maybe industry could help us do the
research in those areas where they already are building the airplanes.
There are multi-billion-dollar Fortune 500 companies that are involved
in doing this work. We are suggesting that maybe they ought to share in
some of
[[Page H 9825]]
that research, while the Federal Government picks up the tab, an
increasing tab, if you will, for those things in the high speed
research areas.
It seems to me that that makes some sense. If you are going to
balance the budget, let us have some shared resources. Let us have the
Federal Government do the work of actually doing the fundamental work
that business and industry probably cannot pick up because there is no
market share in that. But where there is a market share, maybe we can
have a shared program.
We are not suggesting wiping out the money for subsonic research. All
we are doing is suggesting that some of the money could be cut back and
the industry could come in and share part of the burden. Good heavens,
that does not seem like an extreme or radical notion.
These are big companies. They are paying big dividends. They have the
ability to do some of these kinds of things, particularly if the
gentleman from California is correct that that is where the increase in
the market is going to be for the future. Any good businessman I know
wants to be a part of increasing the market for the future. Good
heavens, what we are proposing here is giving them their opportunity to
do it their own way, to put some of their own resources in it to make
certain that we are driven in the direction that allows them to exploit
that market.
The Democrats who simply believe that Government always is the right
solution to everything cannot accept the fact that these kinds of
partnerships are good things for the country. So what we have here is
an amendment that suggests increasing the amount of money that goes to
this program at the detriment to virtually everything else in the NASA
budget, and in the end the real drive here is to spend infinitely more
money overall for NASA. Defeat the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the
distinguished ranking member.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side
have made some interesting statements which I think deserve to be
responded to. This last dialogue, for example, which indicates that
there has been increased funding for supersonic research and
development and that is justified, apparently that is good research or
whatever they choose to dignify it with as a name in order to get it in
the budget. But the subsonic research, which is essential to our
competitive posture in the world, that is bad science or corporate
welfare, whichever way they choose to define it, and they use both
terms.
The fact is that supersonic air transport has been conventional for
the last generation. The Concorde is a supersonic transport, and it has
been flying for a generation. The United States had a competing
supersonic transport and decided not to proceed with it because based
upon economic analysis, it would go bankrupt. We were somewhat more
subjected to the rigors of the market because we were not subsidizing
our supersonic transport like the French are funding theirs,
subsidizing theirs.
So the argument that it is OK to fund the supersonic transport but
not the subsonic, when the basic market is in the subsonic and nobody
is ever going to make much money off the supersonic, it seems to me to
be a little naive. It means we are going to waste one hell of a lot of
money on something that the French do not want to waste money on
because they have already lost too much money, but we do not want to
put money into the area where the French are stealing our market, and
it is a big market. That is not common sense. I think that we ought to
consider that as we look at this amendment before us.
The argument actually really does get us involved in fantasy land to
some degree, and it is also illustrated by the constant referral to the
fact that the gentleman from California is some sort of a nut who does
not believe in fiscal discipline and cannot enforce caps. The fact is
that those nuts who think like I do over in the Senate have already
voted the amount of money that we are requesting here. They have set
their caps at considerably above the caps----
point of order
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. I believe it is
against the rules to refer to proceedings in the other body.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should avoid characterization of Members
of the other body.
Mr. BROWN of California. Is the gentleman specifically referring to
my use of the term ``those nuts in the other body''? I will refrain
from using that term.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will refrain.
Mr. BROWN of California. The gentlemen in the other body have already
adopted a cap----
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman cannot
do that, either.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will refrain from referring to Members of
the other body.
Mr. BROWN of California. Would the Chair instruct me as to how we
should refer to the Members of the Senate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen should not refer to Members of the
Senate.
Mr. BROWN of California. That is an almost insurmountable handicap to
my argument here.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in some magical way, the
authorization and appropriation bills which we will be called upon to
consider in conference already have the amount of money in it. The
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] referred to that earlier when he
made his presentation. I forget how he got away with it, but he pointed
out that that money was there.
The other side is arguing that it is both illegal, immoral, and
probably fattening for us to do the same thing. I am a little chagrined
to have that kind of a characterization made. If the gentleman would
like to explain to me how what we want to do here is immoral and
illegal but what is happening on the other side, if I can get away with
that term, is perfectly all right, even though it has what we are
trying to do in it here.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 281, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 701]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barcia
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--281
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
[[Page H 9826]]
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Chapman
Dickey
Dornan
Fields (LA)
Kennelly
Moakley
Murtha
Tejeda
Torres
Tucker
Waters
Wilson
{time} 1414
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dornan against.
Mrs. SMITH of Washington, Mr. COYNE, and Mr. GILMAN changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. McKINNEY and Messrs. NADLER, LANTOS, and HOKE changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. young of alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: No. 19: Page 79,
after line 16, insert the following new section:
SEC. 257. CLARIFICATION OF MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION.
The licensing of a launch vehicle or launch site operator
by the Secretary of Transportation and any amendment,
extension, or renewal thereof, shall not be considered a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment for purposes of section 102 of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Page 3, in the table of contents for subtitle C of title
II, insert the following after the item relating to section
256:
``Sec. 257. Clarification of major Federal action.''.
{time} 1415
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for 5
minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I do hope my good friend on the
committee will not raise the point of order.
The background for this amendment, the National Environmental
Protection Act, requires involvement of Federal agencies when
activities constitute a major Federal action. Commercial Space
Transportation Act requires the Department of Transportation to license
launch vehicles and launch site operators. Department of
Transportation, DOT, has determined licensing among constituents, alone
constituents, major Federal action. It is acting as middleman in
interpretation of NEPA requirements. Little or no Federal funding
involved in the manufacturing, and structure and operation of launch
sites or launch-like sites.
Problem: DOT's interpretation of NEPA has increased regulatory burden
and cost of compliance with NEPA.
If I may continue, the problems are that DOT's interpretation of NEPA
has increased regulatory burden and costs of compliance with NEPA. DOT
requires extensive paperwork which is duplicative of the NEPA
requirements.
I want to stress that. This duplicates what is already put in place
by NEPA.
DOT has determined that it is a decisionmaker regarding whether
environmental assessment is adequate or more costly. Time and money
environmental impact statement is required.
Now I have a solution. This is what my amendment does:
Solution that eliminates DOT as the middleman or the interpreter of
NEPA requirements. No NEPA requirements will be waivered.
I want to stress that, my good friend from California. State
governments and other Federal agencies will interpret NEPA
requirements. The result will be streamlined regulatory process
industry, more efficient, better able to compete with international
marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and there is really nothing
wrong with it. If my colleagues want to discuss the merits of it, let
us discuss the merits, but what has happened, we have an agency here
that has put itself in a position to interpretation when it is already
in place with NEPA, and this is one of the reasons we have such a
problem today in being competitive and so much disruption for the
general public. It is why should two agencies be involved in something
when we waive nothing, when NEPA sets down the requirements, when we
have DOT saying this is what they interpret what NEPA interprets? It is
an example of overgoverning what we are attempting to do, and in no way
does this weaken, nor does it take away, a right of any group, or a
right of a State or a committee to participate in the process.
It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge the passage of the
amendment.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] insist
on his point of order?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I press my point of order
that this amendment is not germane to the bill being amended and,
therefore, violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the House rules, the
general rule of germaneness.
As the gentleman has pointed out in his arguments on behalf of his
amendment, this is about amending or providing an exemption to the
National Environmental Policy Act and not about the facilities of the
authorizations under this act or under this title, and, therefore, I
believe it to be a nongermane amendment and, therefore, out of order
for consideration at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] raised the point of order. It may be, in fact,
subject to a point of order. But this amendment is an example of what
should be done.
No one gave DOT the authority to which they are proving today. By
duplicating what NEPA is doing, to slow
[[Page H 9827]]
up the process of issuing a launch site or launch vehicle; now that is
an example of, I must say so, of why this Congress has allowed the
agencies to run this country and why the people are upset. And if we
cannot, in fact, and if the gentleman from Illinois would like to speak
to me, I will speak to him, too, if in fact we cannot interpret what is
in reality wrong in this Government by this body, then we are not doing
our jobs, and I would withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alaska?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee: Page 32, following
line 5, insert the following new paragraph:
(8) For High-Performance Computing and Communications, in
addition to amounts authorized by paragraph (5), $35,000,000,
of which $22,000,000 shall be available for Information
Infrastructure Technology and Applications.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that again we can come to
the table on this issue in a bipartisan manner when we talk about
children and having them access the superhighway.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment to section 212 of H.R. 2405 raises the
authorization of appropriations for NASA's High Performance Computing
and Communications Program by $35 million in order to bring the level
back to the President's request. Most of this increase is designated
for the newest portion of the HPCC Program that supports educational
applications of computing and networking, the Information
Infrastructure Technology and Applications component, which is referred
to as IITA.
IITA funds quality educational tools and curriculum projects in all
50 States. Through this activity NASA has provided ``800'' number dial-
up access to the Internet for 850 teachers in schools across the
country. If there is anything that I have heard in my district in
Houston, it is in the school system and their fear of being left out of
this high technoloby. This program was designed to assist teachers in
discovering how to use the Internet to improve classroom instruction
and to provide opportunities for teachers' own professional
development.
In addition to assisting teachers in gaining network access, IITA
funds a wide variety of educational development and demonstration
projects. I would like to highlight a few of these projects to indicate
their nature and scope.
At the Antelope Valley, CA, school district, an electronic multimedia
student workbook is being designed for physically disabled students
that can be read over the Internet using World Wide Web browsers.
At Lincoln Elementary School in Grand Forks, ND, a teacher is working
with his students to put information about volcanos on the Internet as
part of a larger, multischool project to develop Earth science lessons
for the fifth- to eighth-grade levels.
In Texas a project developed by the Johnson Space Center deployed via
the Texas Educational Network and used by K-12 teachers all over the
State of Texas helps Texas teachers find educational materials on the
Internet. This is a widely utilized concept that I think we would be
terribly undermining the 21st century education of our children to not
provide for it.
Finally, NASA's IITA program provides support to science museums
which work with local teachers to develop improved science curriculum
products related to a museum's assets and to gain access to
instructional materials available via the Internet. In addition, some
museums use resources provided by NASA's IITA program to improve the
kinds of science information available to museum visitors by
incorporating the most recent science data into exhibits and displays.
A good example of this is the Houston museum's exhibit using the Comet
Shoemaker-Levy 9's collision with Jupiter last year.
It is clear that NASA's IITA program supports many valuable
educational programs that benefit students throughout the Nation. The
extensive use of the Internet allows many of the newly developed
materials to be readily available. We have constantly talked about what
is wrong on the Internet; let's talk about what is right on the
Internet. What is right on the Internet is that our children are
accessing good educational tools involving them in science and
preparing our children to be competitive in this global market.
What have been the accusations against the educational system in this
United States? It has been that we have been short on math and science.
This access to the Internet clearly allows this opportunity to be able
to be sophisticated and competitive in this global market.
This week the Committee on Science has joined the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities to hold hearings on the impact
of technology on education in the 21st century. It is widely accepted
that technology can be a powerful tool for overcoming many of the
shortcomings underlying the poor performance of America's schools. As
we debate this bill today, in one of our hearing rooms students are
demonstrating examples of some of the latest computer and network-based
instructional materials.
I find it ironic that we would leave them out and not have them
included, if you will, while we are listening to them in the Committee
on Science hearings. It is important to include teachers and students.
It is important to support the IITA program. This amendment does that.
This amendment cries out for bipartisan support, recognizing the
importance of technology and recognizing, to put it in, I guess, a
child's words, ``Let us see something good and interact with something
good on the Internet.''
I would ask that my colleagues support me in this amendment and
support our children for the 21st century.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Mr. Chairman, this is the second budget-busting amendment that we
have heard from the other side. It even violates the principles of
offsets contained in the 1993 Clinton budget bill, $35 million more for
an earmarked program that the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]
wants to spend it on with no offset whatsoever, either in NASA or
outside of NASA. This means that the Administrator of NASA is going to
have to figure out where to find this $35 million. The author of the
amendment does not come up and say where to find the $35 million. She
punts that whole issue over to the administration, and that is an
abdication of congressional responsibility.
Now is the Administrator supposed to take this money out of the
Johnson Space Flight Center? Is he supposed to take this money out of
mission control for bringing the space station up into orbit? That is
not specific, and an Administrator of NASA would have to do that.
I think that the amount of money that is in this bill which was
agreed to by the Committee on Appropriations and passed by the House of
Representatives is an adequate amount for this program. We should not
have an extra $35 million increase for NASA without saying where it is
going to come out of, and I would urge that the committee reject this
amendment.
{time} 1430
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any question that it is
important that children have access to information, and there is no
question about whether they can get it through the Internet or some
other forms. I think what is important is to find out that they have
the ability to get on-line, and not be afraid of computers.
Mr. Chairman, what they are doing in Wichita, in fact this week I was
able to visit a charter school called the Dodge Edison school, where
Dr. Larry Reynolds, in control of his budget, has provided computers
not only for his students, but computers that can be
[[Page H 9828]]
checked out into their home, where they can tie into the Edison
intermail, electronic mail, where they can learn about their ideas,
they can communicate with the teachers, they can do their homework,
they can look at what is on the schedule. All through the computerized
system, they are learning the principles of using a computer that are
absolutely necessary for the Internet, but it is not paid for by
Federal tax dollars, it is paid for by local tax dollars, where it is a
very important issue to them, so they have taken the resources and they
have channeled them. I do not think it is necessary for them to take
Federal tax dollars.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
comments. I am glad that he was able to see certainly some very vital
activity in his home district. What I would offer to say to the
gentleman in countering, and I think these numbers fall within the
Senate budget resolution, so we are in keeping with the spirit of our
intentions. In many places across the country, and I know the gentleman
comes from an area different from my community--an urban area, but many
places across the country, including some rural areas, have real
difficulty in using local funds for high-technology educational needs.
Obviously, we realize that we must be in partnership. This small
effort acts as a partnership to local funds in some school districts
and communities that cannot afford these kinds of services, and they
would, therefore, eliminate or diminish the opportunity for those
children to participate in the Internet information system.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a question of
priorities, which I think is what the gentlewoman did say here. Even in
our rural areas we have the information network of Kansas, where we
have tied together through electronic means the school systems, but it
is done, again, without Federal tax dollars. I think what would better
secure the future for these children is balancing the budget so they
have a strong economy to grow into. That is why I oppose this
amendment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this helps point out the reason why it is sometimes
good to bring these bills to the floor in a comprehensive way. The
gentlewoman made her whole argument based upon the fact that we need to
have access of children to computers. I think the gentleman and I agree
with that. The problem that she pointed out was the access to the
Internet and all of these kinds of things, as though this were the only
money in the Federal Government was spending in computers.
The fact is we just passed title I of this bill. If we go back to
page 7, where the National Science Foundation authorization is, we will
find on that page that we are spending $249 million on computer work.
That is the place where the Internet was created, was by the National
Science Foundation. This is the place where we are funding those kinds
of activities, to assure that children are going to have access in the
future.
The point is that when we have duplicative programs in government,
there are times when we can reduce some because we are willing to fund
others. That is exactly what is happening in this bill. We have $249
million being spent in the National Science Foundation in the computer
area. The gentlewoman objects to a cut in some of the areas within
NASA's budget that do exactly the same kind of work.
I would simply suggest that perhaps this is a place where, when we
are trying to balance the budget, that it makes sense to end some
duplication and do it the right way. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. TIAHRT. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say Dr. Larry
Reynolds has done a good job of establishing priorities at Dodge Edison
school and he is teaching his children how to use the computer. They
are very friendly with it, they are becoming more and more so, as are
their parents. That is the biggest obstacle to getting people involved
in the system, to overcome fear of computers. It is a matter of
priorities. I think balancing the budget is also important. That is why
I oppose this amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Again, this is in some sense a repetition of some of the arguments, at
least, that we went through in connection with the former amendment to
increase funding for aerospace research, subsonic aeronautics research.
The figure to which we seek to increase this is the same amount as
the Senate, the other body, has already appropriated. They had no
problem with caps in this matter, and I do not see any particular
reason why that bugaboo should be used in this situation. It is not a
budget buster. There is nothing in the budget resolution that applies
to this bill in any way, shape, or form, as the gentleman knows. But
they choose to use that kind of language in the hope, apparently, that
it will have effect of emphasis in reasserting their particular views
with regard to whether a particular item is good science or corporate
welfare or something of that sort.
Mr. Chairman, I think we all recognize that the problem of improving
the availability of computer resources in education is a matter of
considerable importance. It has been indicated that much is being done
at the State level already, and that is true. A great deal is being
done in California, and the communication companies, the private
communication companies, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars
to provide access, to provide fiber optics to the classroom, and to
provide for other kinds of things.
This money here is not intended to duplicate that. This money is to
provide for additional funding for the kind of research that NASA does
in terms of improving software and improving the technologies
themselves that make computers more effective as an educational tool.
Some of us have been working to try to move into this new era of
computers for at least a decade or longer, and there has been
considerable success. We are proud of that success. Does that mean that
we should now begin to cut the money that we have been investing? It is
not the same, incidentally, as the money that NSF is spending, despite
the contention that this account has been cut because it does exactly
the same thing that NSF is doing.
If Members would check with NSF, they would find that they would deny
that they are doing the same thing as NASA is. If they are, I would
join in cutting their budget for that purpose. However, this is an
extremely important issue. It is one that needs help, financial help,
to establish those things that the private sector is not going to do.
It would indicate our commitment to the kind of educational goals that
every President has set forth for the last 20 years. I think it is a
very good amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady
from Texas to increase the authorization for educational applications
in the NASA High Performance Computing and Communications Program. In
her statement on the amendment, Ms. Jackson-Lee pointed out the irony
in the need to defend a program cut by the Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities and by the Science Committee, which advances
educational technologies, while the committee is simultaneously holding
hearings and demonstrations to highlight the ways technology can
improve the effectiveness of the Nation's schools.
There is no significant debate about whether the application of the
latest information technologies can improve teaching and learning. The
main question is how to spur the deployment of the technologies as
broadly as possible and integrate them into the curriculum in the most
effective ways. No one disputes that we have a long way to go in
overcoming the many barriers to achieving the promise of educational
technology. Certainly further experimentation is needed to understand
what works best and how to replicate best practices on a large scale.
The NASA Information Infrastructure Technology Applications component
of the High Performance Computing and Communications Program is
specifically targeted at developing
[[Page H 9829]]
and demonstrating computer and network-based instructional tools and in
assisting teachers in the use of new technologies. It supports
cooperative, cost-shared efforts among schools, universities, industry,
and NASA laboratories, with participation by institutions in every
State. The expertise which NASA's scientists and engineers bring is
particularly valuable in tailoring new information technologies to
educational uses.
Unfortunately in the quest to slash Federal programs, the majority
has not spared education programs. Technology is certainly not a silver
bullet that will instantly transform our schools. But the promise of
technology is manifest, as is being effectively demonstrated today by
school kids in the Science Committee's hearing room. Greater--not
reduced--efforts are warranted to deploy technology more broadly.
Cutting programs that contribute to educational technology
development and its effective use will only harm and delay the
improvement of K-12 education, putting further off the time when
America's schoolchildren may obtain a truly world-class education. I
strongly support the amendment to restore funding for NASA's
educational technology efforts and urge its passage.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make an inquiry to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], because I think there have been
many who have spent long years in this area, but maybe not as long as
the gentleman has, having had the opportunity to work closely with the
private sector as the Government has tried to be a partner in their
efforts.
It is my understanding, even though this is maybe an extended issue
on this particular amendment, that usually when the dollars go down in
research and development in Government, we find that industry follows
suit. Even though we have had some outstanding leadership in the
private sector, if we are to make equal across the Nation children's
opportunities to access Internet and to apply the science of
computerization, the application of such, this program is vital to
doing so, and I ask the gentleman for a response.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely
correct. What we are doing in funding this particular program is vital
to the further utilization, the development of a market, if you could
use that term, for increased communication activities through the
schools. Education is considered to be a major market.
However, what I am afraid of is that the opposition to this stems
from a feeling that the role of the Federal Government is not to assist
education. I went through this in 1981, when President Reagan submitted
his first budget, and NSF had some very interesting things in this area
being done. They were totally eliminated. The grounds were not that
they were not important, but it was not an appropriate role for the
Federal Government.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I will not take up the full time. I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to conclude by acknowledging to my
colleagues that we have a great opportunity as we move toward the 21st
century. Let us not leave our children out, our teachers, and our
educational system. Let us equalize the access to this very important
tool. I would ask for support of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144,
noes 276, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 702]
AYES--144
Ackerman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skelton
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--276
Abercrombie
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Dornan
Fields (LA)
Kennelly
Leach
Moakley
Murtha
Tejeda
Torres
Tucker
Volkmer
Wilson
Woolsey
{time} 1459
The Clerk announced the following pair:
[[Page H 9830]]
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dornan against.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1500
amendment offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 64, line 14,
through page 67, line 2, amend subsection (c) to read as
follows:
(c) Disclosure of Technical Data.--Section 303 of the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2454)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(C), by inserting ``or (c)'' after
``subsection (b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) The Administrator, on the request of a private
sector entity, shall delay for a period of at least one day,
but not to exceed 5 years the unrestricted public disclosure
of technical data in the possession of, or under the control
of, the Administration that has been generated in the
performance of experimental, developmental, or research
activities or programs funded jointly by the Administration
and such private sector entity.
``(2) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act, Fiscal Year 1996, the Administrator shall issue
regulations to carry out this subsection. Paragraph (1) shall
not take effect until such regulations are issued.
``(3) Regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall
include--
``(A) guidelines for a determination of whether data is
technical data within the meaning of this subsection;
``(B) provisions to ensure that technical data is available
for dissemination within the United States to United States
persons and entities in furtherance of the objective of
maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and
governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United
States industrial base; and
``(C) a specification of the period or periods for which
the delay in unrestricted public disclosure of technical data
is to apply to various categories of such data, and the
restrictions on disclosure of such data during such period or
periods, including a requirement that the maximum 5-year
protection under this subsection shall not be provided unless
at least 50 percent of the funding for the activities or
programs is provided by the private sector.
``(4) Along with the initial publication of proposed
regulations under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
include a list of those experimental, developmental, or
research activities or programs conducted by, or funded
in whole or in part by, the Administration that may result
in products or processes of significant value in
maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and
governmental aeronautical and space activities by the
United States industrial base. Such list shall be updated
biannually.
``(5) The Administrator shall annually report to the
Congress all determinations made under paragraph (1).
``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `technical
data' means any recorded information, including computer
software, that is or may be directly applicable to the
design, engineering, development, production, manufacture, or
operation of products or processes that may have significant
value in maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil
and governmental aeronautical and space activities by the
United States industrial base.''.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the
gentleman's amendment on this side. We feel it makes a constructive
addition to the bill.
Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amendment be
passed without prejudice.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title II?
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to
engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ascertain from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania the intention and authorization amount of section 212 of
this Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. Is is true that $10
million of H.R. 2405 is authorized for converting commercially
inconsistent elements of former Federal space launch facilities for
conformance with Federal regulations relating to commercial space
transportation?
Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman will yield, that is correct.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Is it also the intention that the purpose of this
authorization is to encourage commercialization of space launches,
which will lead NASA and private high technology industries to rely on
a more affordable and efficient private sector to provide space
launching services?
Mr. WALKER. Again, the gentlewoman is correct in her interpretation.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Last, is it the intention of this authorization to
allow those States developing legitimate commercial spaceports to
compete for these funds via a bidding process through NASA?
Mr. WALKER. That is the intention of the language. I would certainly
feel that that is what NASA will engage in in terms of practices with
regard to this.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
I appreciate the time and effort and the intelligent organization that
he contributed to this legislation. I wholeheartedly support it.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title II?
amendment offered by mr. weldon of florida
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida: Page 74, after
line 23, insert the following new subsection:
(e) Safe Operation.--
In reviewing proposals for moving to a single prime
contractor the Administrator shall give priority to continued
safe operation of space transportation systems.
(Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a very simple
amendment. As NASA goes through the procedures of looking into the
issue of selecting a single prime contractor for the operation of our
Nation's space shuttle, my amendment clarifies that their priority
should be making sure that we have consistent safe operation of our
space shuttle.
This past August I toured Kennedy Space Center. Then again last week
I had the privilege of having the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space
and Aeronautics join me at Kennedy Space Center, and talk with the
people who put that space shuttle together and make sure that it will
fly safely, and talk to the people who are down there at the ground
level tightening the bolts, making sure that this system is going to
function and function properly so that it can return our astronauts
safely back to Earth.
Mr. Chairman, I discovered that there are three things that they
consider to be most important in this program, and, that is, safety,
safety, safety. They want to make sure that as our space program
continues on into the future, that our space shuttle will be safe and
will continue to run safely. I feel that my amendment clarifies the
language in this bill to make sure that our space program continues to
be the world's leader.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept this
amendment. I believe that the gentleman from Florida has made an
extremely valuable contribution to this bill.
Obviously safety cannot be compromised with the space shuttle,
because if we should have another disaster, America is out of manned
space exploration for a generation. That is why I believe that
mandating the Administrator of NASA to place safety first and going to
a single prime contractor, as is proposed by the gentleman from
Florida, puts the horse before the cart, and that is really important
if we are to have a viable space program for generations to come.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us.
No, this is not a perfect bill. In fact, I have discovered since my
election to Congress, that
[[Page H 9831]]
there are few perfect bills. However, the bill before us is a good bill
and takes some very important steps that move our country in the right
direction.
These are difficult budgetary times. We have already imposed upon our
children a national debt of $5 trillion dollars.
It is for our children and their children that we must make prudent
decisions about those endeavors we can and cannot afford. Only by doing
this can we ensure a brighter future for them.
We must separate those endeavors that we must pursue from those that
may be worthy activities but are not critical to our children's future,
are too expensive for us to pursue at this time, or should be
undertaken by the private sector. This bill does this. This bill makes
tough decisions. It sets priorities. It will ensure a brighter future
for our Nation.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss one aspect of this
bill--NASA. The NASA provisions are responsible and meet our national
requirements. They ensure a vibrant space program with clear direction.
Overall, the bill provides $11.5 billion for NASA programs in 1996.
This is $597 million under the administration's request. I am very
pleased that this reduction will not impact the space station or space
shuttle programs. These two programs are essential to our Nation's
continued international leadership in space and they are funded at
levels nearly identical to the President's request.
Multiyear funding for the space station was provided in H.R. 1601,
which passed the House by voice vote on September 28, 1995. It was
funded at the administration's request. Thus, the bill before us does
not include funding for the space station, but is fully consistent with
H.R. 1601.
The bill before us ensures a sound space shuttle program by fully
funding space shuttle operations at the administration's budget
request. The President requested $3.231 billion and H.R. 2405 provides
$3.178 billion. The entire $53 million reduction from NASA's requested
budget comes from completing the closure of the luka facility and will
have no negative consequences on space shuttle operations.
For mission support, another key component of shuttle operations,
H.R. 2405 provides $2.1 billion, this is $108 million below the
President's request. The administrator of NASA has said that this
savings is achievable because of those who have taken advantage of
buyouts offered by the agency. No additional reductions will be
required to achieve this budget target.
The bill includes language requested by NASA that enables NASA to
explore the possibility of moving portions of the operation of the
space shuttle under a single prime contract. As the Vice-Chairman of
the Space Subcommittee I will closely monitor NASA's activities in this
respect. I will not allow the safety of space shuttle operations to be
compromised.
I will make sure that any move to a single prime contract by the
Clinton administration does not compromise the integrity of our space
shuttle program.
Finally, I am pleased that the bill includes provisions to strengthen
commercial space endeavors. The bill expands the Commercial Space
Launch Act to include the full range of space transportation
activities. H.R. 2405 also takes significant steps in funding the
development of the next reusable launch vehicle. These are very
important steps in our Nation's future.
The United States once held 100 percent of the world's commercial
space launch market. Today, this has slipped to about 30 percent. The
provisions in this bill relating to commercial space launches will help
us regain a larger share of this expanding market.
I want to thank Chairman Walker for his leadership in the areas of
science, research and development, and space exploration. We must excel
in these areas in order to continue pushing the envelop on advanced
technology. This bill does this and at the same time cuts out the
waste, inefficiencies, and inappropriate uses of scarce Federal
dollars.
H.R. 2405 is a targeted, well-focused bill. It ensures a brighter
future for our children.
I urge all Members of the Congress to support this bill.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this
opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] on
the leadership he has been providing on this vital part of America's
space effort. The shuttle at this moment is a piece of technology that
we depend upon.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] has been making it his job to
make sure that America gets the best use out of this technology. He is
focusing today on safety but he has provided leadership in a number of
areas concerning the shuttle. I would just like to congratulate him and
rise in support of his amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by Mr. hoke
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: Page 76, line 16, strike
``30'' and insert in lieu thereof ``60''.
Page 76, line 18, insert ``which meet the microgravity
flight needs of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration,'' after ``to provide services''.
Page 76, line 21, insert ``as specified in paragraph (3)''
after ``to the private sector''.
Page 76, line 25, strike ``, and'' and insert in lieu
thereof ``to a microgravity flight provider certified by the
Federal Aviation Administration, and, except as provided in
paragraph (4),''.
Page 77, after line 9, insert the following new paragraphs:
(4) The Administrator may, as necessary to ensure the
continuity of National Aeronautics and Space Administration
operations, continue to operate parabolic aircraft flights
for up to 3 months after a contract is awarded under
paragraph (3). If the Administrator continues operations
pursuant to this paragraph, the Administrator shall
concurrently transmit to the Congress an explanation of the
reasons for such action.
(5) Six months after the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration ceases all parabolic aircraft flights under
paragraph (3), the Administrator shall transmit a report to
Congress on the effectiveness of privatization under this
section.
Mr. HOKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
(Mr. HOKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward and I
believe that it has been accepted by both sides of the aisle.
My intention with this amendment is not to hamper efforts generally
with respect to privatization and downsizing but to ensure that when we
do initiate these actions, they are undertaken in a thoughtful,
credible, step-by-step manner, and in this particular case do not
cripple NASA's ability to continue with its world-class microgravity
research.
In short, this amendment guards against any gaps in large
microgravity aircraft research by permitting the agency to operate its
microgravity support planes for up to 3 months after a viable private
contractor has received FAA certification, should such a contractor
exist and be awarded a contract. I repeat, this does not allow the
administrator to prevent privatization in any way. Rather, it only
serves to guard against gaps in the research.
To my knowledge, no thorough study has yet been conducted which
demonstrates a critical need to privatize NASA's microgravity aircraft
against NASA's will and better judgment. In fact, both NASA and the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, the organization established after the
Apollo 1 launchpad fire to review proposals just like the one in the
bill, have asked Congress to proceed slowly and deliberately. ASAP
further warns that:
under the proposed scenario, the lives of astronauts in
training, as well as those of the researchers and air crew on
board could be at risk . . . It must be recognized that
microgravity flying . . . requires the precise performance of
maneuvers close to operational and structural limits. It
takes years for a pilot to gain the experience necessary to
fly such complex maneuvers. In addition, specially trained
and experienced maintenance and inspection teams are required
to ensure that the aircraft is safe prior to flight
operations. To our knowledge there is no private enterprise
conducting operations similar to NASA large aircraft
microgravity flight operations anywhere in the world. The
costs involved in purchasing and modifying the appropriate
aircraft plus the time needed to obtain the required flight
operations expertise can be an expensive and herculean
undertaking in itself.
Clearly these are strong cautionary words, and therefore, I would
prefer to have the privatization happen contingent upon a positive
review of its feasibility. Failing that, I believe that some study must
be made of how his privatization has progressed. Thus, I am asking
[[Page H 9832]]
that NASA take a review of this several months after privatization has
gone into effect.
Privatization where possible is a goal we should all desire, but we
need to be sure that it is done in a rational and reasonable way.
Because microgravity research is so important not just to scientists,
but to our Nation's industrial, biomedical, chemical, and manufacturing
sectors, privatization should be done cautiously and with our full
understanding of its implications. That is why my amendment asks for a
study to be conducted after privatization has begun to review the
performance of private contractors offering microgravity aircraft
services to NASA.
In the interest of time, I ask for the assistance of the chairman and
ranking member of the Science Committee in keeping a close eye on the
NASA's privatization efforts and to make correction of NASA policies.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept this
amendment. I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] for offering
it.
The amendment addresses the concerns of NASA, specifically that it
provides the agency with a 3-month overlap of zero G operations by both
NASA aircraft as well as aircraft operated by a prime contractor. This
will ensure that there will be no hiatus in zero G capability during
the transition period, and this means that there will be no impact in
the training schedule of the astronauts.
Privatization of this program by NASA means that now private
corporations will have the opportunity to compete for a contract to
provide this service to the agency. There are at this time companies
that are prepared to enter competition and who are investing
considerable amounts of time and capital to lay the groundwork for this
effort. This legislation provides the opportunity to the private sector
to demonstrate their ability to provide this service more efficiently,
and this amendment allows sufficient overlap between the existing
Federal operation and its private counterpart to ensure that there is
no gap in this important function.
Mr. HOKE. I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed the
gentleman's amendment in great detail, and applying the same high
standards as I did to the other gentleman from Ohio on this side of the
aisle, I would like to say that as long as your amendment meets the
rigorous standards of the Republican leadership of the committee, I am
happy to support it.
Mr. HOKE. I thank the ranking member very much and will keep that in
mind. I appreciate having worked with him when he was the chairman of
the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the chairman of
the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, as follows:
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration,
Washington, DC, October 5, 1995.
Hon. Martin R. Hoke,
House of Representatives, Cannon Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Hoke: The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel
appreciates very much your confidence in its work and is must
pleased to respond to your letter of September 11, 1995,
requesting our assessment of the provision in H.R. 2043
mandating the privatization of NASA's microgravity flight
operations.
The Panel was previously made aware that such a provision
had been included in the Bill and has begun some preliminary
investigation into the potential impact to safety of NASA
microgravity aircraft operations. Our subcommittee on
aircraft operations under the leadership of VADM Robert F.
Dunn (retired) will be the cognizant Panel representative for
this study. Since our investigation is in the preliminary
stage we hesitate to offer a definitive comment at this time.
It should be noted that any time there is a major change in
modus of operations of such magnitude, the impact to safety
must be a prime concern. Our first recommendation would be to
proceed slowly and deliberately because under the proposed
scenario, the lives of the astronauts in training, as well as
those of the researchers and air crew on board could be at
risk. Thorough investigation and weighing of all hazards and
risk factors must take precedence over other considerations.
It must be recognized that microgravity flying, especially
when utilizing large aircraft such as NASA's KC-135 or DC-9,
requires the precise performance of maneuvers close to
operational and structural limits. It takes years for a pilot
to gain the experience necessary to fly such complex
maneuvers. In addition, specially trained and experienced
maintenance and inspection teams are required to ensure that
the aircraft is safe prior to flight operations. To our
knowledge there is no private enterprise conducting
operations similar to NASA's large aircraft microgravity
flight operations anywhere in the world. The costs involved
in purchasing and modifying the appropriate aircraft plus the
time needed to obtain the required flight operations
expertise can be an expensive and herculean undertaking in
itself.
Since the aircraft involved are used to support other NASA
programs in addition to the microgravity flight operations,
NASA must first address a number of major considerations
before a comprehensive assessment can be made:
1. What exactly is meant by the term ``privatization''?
2. How would ``privatization'' benefit NASA's microgravity
research programs?
3. Would the existing microgravity aircraft simply be
turned over to a commercial entity for flight operation or
would they have to purchase and certify new aircraft?
4. What priorities would be given to allow NASA to continue
to support the needed astronaut training, Space Shuttle
operations and basic microgravity research programs?
5. What are the economic benefits?
6. Where would the experienced pilots, flight crews and
ground maintenance personnel come from?
7. What are the legal and liability aspects of
``privatizing'' this operation?
The above notwithstanding, the Panel recognizes the
imperative to bring about efficiencies without compromising
safety and is committed to assist NASA in that endeavor. In
that light, it is our recommendation the provision of H.R.
2043 directing the privatization of NASA's microgravity
flight operations be stricken from the Bill for this year and
that NASA and the Panel be permitted to conduct the
appropriate investigations into the safety, legal and
economic aspects of the effort prior to the next legislative
session.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Johnstone
Chairman, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title II?
If not, the clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Energy
Civilian Research and Development Act of 1995''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) the term ``CERN'' means the European Organization for
Nuclear Research;
(2) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
(3) the term ``Large Hadron Collider project'' means the
Large Hadron Collider project at CERN;
(4) the term ``major construction project'' means a
civilian development, demonstration, or commercial
application protect whose construction costs are estimated to
exceed $100,000,000 over the life of the project;
(5) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy;
(6) the term ``substantial construction project'' means a
civilian research, development, demonstration, or commercial
application project whose construction costs are estimated to
exceed $10,000,000, but not to exceed $100,000,000, over the
life of the project; and
(7) the term ``substantial equipment acquisition'' means
the acquisition of civilian research, development,
demonstration, or commercial application equipment at a cost
estimated to exceed $10,000,000 for the entire acquisition.
SEC. 303. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
(a) Energy Supply Research and Development Activities.--
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for
fiscal year 1996 for Energy Supply Research and Development
operating, capital equipment, and construction the following
amounts:
(1) Solar and Renewable Energy, $235,451,000, of which--
(A) $235,331,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment; and
(B) $120,000 shall be for construction of Project GP-C-002,
General Plant Projects, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(2) Nuclear Energy, $270,448,000, of which--
(A) $267,748,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment, including, subject to section 304(c), $14,000,000
for the AP600 light water reactor;
(B) $1,000,000 shall be for construction of Project GPN-
102, General Plant Projects, Argonne National Laboratory-
West, Idaho; and
(C) $1,700,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 95-E-207, Modifications to Reactors, Experimental
Breeder Reactor-II, Sodium Processing Facility, Argonne
National Laboratory-West, Idaho.
[[Page H 9833]]
(3) Environment, Safety, and Health, $128,433,000 for
operating and capital equipment.
(4) Biological and Environmental Research, $369,645,000, of
which--
(A) $313,550,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment;
(B) $3,500,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
120, General Plant Projects, Various Locations;
(C) $5,700,000 shall be for construction of Project 94-E-
339, Human Genome Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory;
(D) $4,295,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 94-E-338, Structural Biology Facility, Argonne
National Laboratory;
(E) $2,600,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 94-E-337, ALS Structural Biology Support Facilities,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and
(F) $40,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 91-EM-
100, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory.
(5) Fusion Energy, $254,144,000, of which--
(A) $245,144,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment for Magnetic Fusion Energy;
(B) $4,800,000 shall be for operating and capital equipment
for Inertial Fusion Energy;
(C) $1,000,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
900, General Plant Projects, Various Locations; and
(D) $3,200,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-E-
310, Elise Project, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
(6) Basic Energy Sciences, $827,981,000, of which--
(A) $805,412,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment, including $60,000,000 for the Scientific
Facilities Initiative;
(B) $4,500,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
400, General Plant Projects, Various Locations;
(C) $12,883,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-E-
305, Accelerator and Reactor Improvements and Modifications;
(D) $3,186,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 89-R-402, 6-7 GeV Synchrotron Radiation Source,
Argonne National Laboratory; and
(E) $2,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 87-R-
405, Combustion Research Facility, Phase II, Sandia National
Laboratories-Livermore.
(7) Advisory and Oversight Program Direction, $6,200,000
for operating.
(8) Policy and Management--Energy Research, $2,200,000 for
operating.
(9) Multiprogram Energy Laboratories--Facilities Support--
(A) $15,539,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment;
(B) $8,740,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
801, General Plant Projects, Various Locations;
(C) $8,740,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
310, Multiprogram Laboratory Rehabilitation, Phase 1, Pacific
Northwest Laboratory;
(D) $1,500,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
303, Electrical Safety Rehabilitation, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory;
(E) $3,270,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 95-E-302, Applied Science Center, Phase 1, Brookhaven
National Laboratory;
(F) $2,500,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
301, Central Heating Plant Rehabilitation, Phase 1, Argonne
National Laboratory;
(G) $2,038,000 shall be for construction of Project 94-E-
363, Roofing Improvements, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(H) $440,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 94-E-351, Fuel Storage and Transfer Facility Upgrade,
Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(I) $800,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-E-332,
Building 801 Renovations, Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(J) $2,400,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 96-E-331, Sanitary Sewer Restoration, Phase I,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory;
(K) $1,200,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-E-
330, Building Electrical Service Upgrade, Phase I, Argonne
National Laboratory;
(L) $2,480,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
309, Loss Prevention Upgrade-Electrical Substations,
Brookhaven National Laboratory;
(M) $1,540,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
308, Sanitary System Modifications, Phase II, Brookhaven
National Laboratory;
(N) $1,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
307, Fire Safety Improvements, Phase III, Argonne National
Laboratory;
(O) $1,288,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 93-E-324, Hazardous Materials Safeguards, Phase I,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory;
(P) $1,130,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 93-E-323, Fire and Safety Systems Upgrade, Phase I,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and
(Q) $2,411,000 shall be for construction of Project 93-E-
320, Fire and Safety Improvements, Phase II, Argonne National
Laboratory.
Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) through (Q), the total
amount authorized under this paragraph shall not exceed
$39,327,000.
(10) Technical Information Management Program, $14,394,000,
of which--
(A) $12,894,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment; and
(B) $1,500,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-A-
500, Heating, Venting, and Air Conditioning Retrofits, Oak
Ridge.
(11) Environmental Management, $644,197,000, of which--
(A) $627,127,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment;
(B) $339,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 92-E-601, Melton Valley Liquid Low-Level Waste
Collection and Transfer System Upgrade, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory;
(C) $4,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 88-R-
830, Bethel Valley Liquid Low-Level Waste Collection and
Transfer System Upgrade, Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
(D) $2,255,000 shall be for construction of Project GPN-
103, Oak Ridge Landlord General Plant Projects;
(E) $730,000 shall be for construction of Project GPN-102,
Test Reactor Area Landlord General Plant Projects, Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory;
(F) $1,900,000 shall be for construction of Project 95-E-
201, Test Reactor Area Landlord Fire and Life Safety
Improvements, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
(G) $2,040,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
600, General Plant Projects, Waste Management, Non-Defense,
Various Locations;
(H) $300,000 shall be for construction of Project 94-E-602,
Bethel Valley Federal Facility Agreement Upgrades, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory;
(I) $4,048,000 shall be for construction of Project 93-E-
900, Dry Cast Storage, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
(J) $787,000 shall be for construction of Project 91-E-602,
Rehabilitation of Waste Management Building 306, Argonne
National Laboratory; and
(K) $671,000 shall be for completion of construction of
Project 88-R-812, Hazardous Waste Handling Facility, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory.
(b) General Science and Research Activities.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal
year 1996 for General Science and Research Activities
operating, capital equipment, and construction the following
amounts:
(1) High Energy Physics, $680,137,000, of which--
(A) $554,191,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment, including $15,000,000 for the Scientific
Facilities Initiative;
(B) $12,146,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
103, General Plant Projects, Various Locations;
(C) $9,800,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-G-
301, Accelerator Improvements and Modifications, Various
Locations;
(D) $52,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 94-G-
305, B-Factory, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and
(E) $52,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 92-G-
302, Fermilab Main Injector, Fermi National Accelerator
Center.
(2) Nuclear Physics, $316,873,000, of which--
(A) $239,773,000 shall be for operating and capital
equipment, including $25,000,000 for the Scientific
Facilities Initiative;
(B) $3,900,000 shall be for construction of Project GPE-
300, General Plant Project, Various Locations;
(C) $3,200,000 shall be for construction of Project 96-G-
302, Accelerator Improvements and Modifications, Various
Locations; and
(D) $70,000,000 shall be for construction of Project 91-G-
300, Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Brookhaven National
Laboratory.
(3) Program Direction, $9,500,000.
(c) Fossil Energy Research and Development.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal
year 1996 for Fossil Energy Research and Development
operating, capital equipment, and construction the following
amounts:
(1) Coal, $49,955,000 for operating.
(2) Oil Technology, $43,234,000 for operating, including
maintaining programs at the National Institute for Petroleum
and Energy Research.
(3) Gas, $59,829,000 for operating.
(4) Program Direction and Management Support, $45,535,000
for operating.
(5) Capital Equipment, $476,000.
(6) Construction of Project GPF-100, General Plant Projects
for Energy Technology Centers, $1,994,000.
(7) Cooperative Research and Development, $7,557,000.
(8) Fossil Energy Environmental Restoration, $12,370,000.
(d) Energy Conservation Research and Development.--There
are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal
year 1996 for Energy Conservation Research and Development
operating and capital equipment the following amounts:
(1) Buildings Sector, $55,074,000.
(2) Industry Sector, $55,110,000.
(3) Transportation Sector, $112,123,000.
(4) Technical and Financial Assistance (Non-Grants),
$7,813,000.
SEC. 304. FUNDING LIMITATIONS.
(a) Fiscal Year 1996 Appropriations.--None of the funds
authorized by this title may be used for the following
programs, projects, and activities:
(1) Solar Buildings Technology Research.
(2) Solar International Program.
(3) Solar Technology Transfer.
(4) Solar Program Support.
(5) Hydropowder.
(6) Space Power Reactor Systems.
(7) Nuclear Energy Facilities.
(8) Soviet-Designed Reactor Safety.
(9) Russian Replacement Power Initiative.
(10) Civilian Radioactive Waste Research and Development.
[[Page H 9834]]
(11) Tokamak Physics Experiment.
(12) Advanced Neutron Source.
(13) Energy Research Analysis.
(14) Energy Research Laboratory Technology Transfer.
(15) University and Science Education.
(16) Technology Partnerships.
(17) In-House Energy Management.
(18) Direct Liquefaction.
(19) Indirect Liquefaction.
(20) Systems for Coproducts.
(21) High Efficiency-Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle.
(22) High Efficiency-Pressurized Fluidized Bed.
(23) Technical and Economic Analysis.
(24) International Program Support.
(25) Coal Technology Export.
(26) Gas Delivery and Storage.
(27) Gas Utilization,
(28) Fuel Cells Climate Change Action Plan.
(29) Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas, and Electricity.
(30) Clean Coal Technology Program.
(31) Buildings Sector Implementation and Deployment.
(32) Industry Sector Municipal Solid Wastes.
(33) Industry Sector Implementation and Deployment.
(34) Alternative Fuels Utilization.
(35) Transportation Sector Implementation and Deployment.
(36) Utility Sector Integrated Resource Planning.
(37) International Market Development.
(38) Inventions and Innovation Program.
(39) Municipal Energy Management.
(40) Information and Communications.
(41) Policy and Management--Energy Conservation.
(42) Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor.
(b) Prior Fiscal Year Obligation and Expenditure.--No funds
may be available for obligation or expenditure with respect
to the following:
(1) University of Nebraska Medical Center Transplant
Center.
(2) Oregon Health Sciences University.
(c) Light Water Reactor Matching Funds.--Funds appropriated
for the AP600 light water reactor pursuant to section
303(a)(2)(A) shall be available only to the extent that
matching private sector funds are provided for such project,
and subject to the condition that such Federal funds shall be
repaid to the United States out of royalties on the first
commercial sale of such reactor design.
SEC. 305. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no sums are
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for the
activities for which sums are authorized by this title unless
such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by
this title.
(b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be
appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1996 for
the activities for which sums are authorized by this title
unless such sums are specifically authorized to be
appropriated by Act of Congress with respect to such fiscal
year.
SEC. 306. MERIT REVIEW REQUIREMENT FOR AWARDS OF FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Merit Review Requirement.--The Secretary may not award
financial assistance to any person for civilian research,
development, demonstration, or commercial application
activities, including related facility construction, unless
an objective merit review process is used to award the
financial assistance.
(b) Requirement of Specific Modification of Merit Review
Provision.--
(1) In general.--A provision of law may not be construed as
modifying or superseding subsection (a), or as requiring that
financial assistance be awarded by the Secretary in a manner
inconsistent with subsection (a), unless such provision of
law--
(A) specifically refers to this section;
(B) specifically that such provision of law modifies or
supersedes subsection (a); and
(C) specifically identifies the person to be awarded the
financial assistance and states that the financial assistance
to be awarded pursuant to such provision of law is being
awarded in a manner inconsistent with subsection (a).
(2) Notice and wait requirement.--No financial assistance
may be awarded pursuant to a provision of law that requires
or authorizes the award of the financial assistance in a
manner inconsistent with subsection (a) until--
(A) the Secretary submits to the Congress a written notice
of the Secretary's intent to award the financial assistance;
and
(B) 180 days has elapsed after the date on which the notice
is received by the Congress.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``objective merit review process'' means a
thorough, consistent, and independent examination of requests
for financial assistance based on preestablished criteria and
scientific and technical merit by persons knowledgeable in
the field for which the financial assistance is requested.
(2) The term ``financial assistance'' means the transfer of
funds or property to a recipient or subrecipient to
accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation
authorized by Federal law. Such term includes grants,
cooperative agreements, and subawards but does not include
cooperative research and development agreements as defined in
section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1)), nor any grant
that calls upon the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine,
or the National Academy of Public Administration to
investigate, examine, or experiment upon any subject of
science or art and to report on such matters to Congress or
any agency of the Federal Government.
SEC. 307. POLICY ON CAPITAL PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Requirement of Prior Authorization.--(1) No funds are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for any
substantial construction project, substantial equipment
acquisition, or major construction project unless a report on
such project or acquisition has been provided to Congress in
accordance with subsection (b).
(2) The Secretary may not obligate any funds for any
substantial construction project, substantial equipment
acquisition, or major construction project unless such
project or acquisition has been specifically authorized by
statute.
(3) This subsection may not be amended or modified except
by specific reference to this subsection.
(b) Reports to Congress.--(1) Within 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress a report that identifies all construction
projects and acquisitions of the Department described in
subsection (a) for which the preliminary design phase is
completed but the construction or acquisition is not
completed. Such report shall include--
(A) an estimate of the total cost of completion of the
construction project or acquisition, itemized by individual
activity and by fiscal year; and
(B) an identification of which construction projects or
acquisitions have not been specifically authorized by
statute.
The Secretary shall annually update and resubmit the report
required by this paragraph, as part of the report required
under section 15 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research
and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5914).
(2) The Secretary shall, after completion of the
preliminary design phase of a major construction project,
submit to the Congress a report containing--
(A) an estimate of the total cost of construction of the
facility;
(B) an estimate of the time required to complete
construction;
(C) an estimate of the annual operating costs of the
facility;
(D) the intended useful operating life of the facility; and
(E) an identification of any existing facilities to be
closed as a result of the operation of the facility.
SEC. 308. FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
Nothing in this title shall preclude further authorization
of appropriations for civilian research, development,
demonstration, and commercial application activities of the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 1996: Provided, That
authorization allocations adopted by the Conference Committee
on House Concurrent Resolution 67, and approved by Congress,
allow for such further authorizations.
SEC. 309. HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS.
(a) Large Hadron Collider Project.--
(1) Negotiations.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the National Science Foundation and the Secretary
of State, shall enter into negotiations with CERN concerning
United States participation in the planning and construction
of the Large Hadron Collider project, and shall ensure that
any agreement incorporates provisions to protect the United
States investment in the project, including provisions for--
(A) fair allocation of costs and benefits among project
participants;
(B) a limitation on the amount of United States
contribution to project construction and an estimate of the
United States contribution to subsequent operating costs;
(C) a cost and schedule control system for the total
project;
(D) a preliminary statement of costs and the schedule for
all component design, testing, and fabrication, including
technical, goals and milestones, and a final statement of
such costs and schedule within 1 year after the date on which
the parties enter into the agreement;
(E) a preliminary statement of costs and the schedule for
total project construction and operation, including technical
goals and milestones, and a final statement of such costs and
schedule within 1 year after the date on which the parties
enter into the agreement;
(F) reconsideration of the extent of United States
participation if technical or operational milestones
described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) are not met, or if the
project falls significantly behind schedule;
(G) conditions of access for United States and other
scientists to the facility; and
(H) a process for addressing international coordination and
cost sharing on high energy physics projects beyond the Large
Hadron Collider.
(2) Other international negotiations.--Nothing in this
title shall be construed to preclude the President from
entering into negotiations with respect to international
science agreements.
(b) Report to Congress.--Before January 1, 1996, the
Secretary, in consultation with
[[Page H 9835]]
the Director of the National Science Foundation and with the high
energy and nuclear physics communities, shall prepare and
transmit to the Congress a strategic plan for the high energy
and nuclear physics activities of the Department, assuming a
combined budget of $950,000,000 for all activities authorized
under section 303(b) for fiscal year 1997, and assuming a
combined budget of $900,000,000 for all activities authorized
under section 303(b) for each of the fiscal years 1998, 1999,
and 2000. The report shall include--
(1) a list of research opportunities to be purchased
including both ongoing and proposed activities;
(2) an analysis of the relevance of each research facility
to the research opportunities listed under paragraph (1);
(3) a statement of the optimal balance among facility
operations, construction, and research support and the
optimal balance between university and laboratory research
programs;
(4) schedules for the continuation, consolidation, or
termination of each research program, and continuation,
upgrade, transfer, or closure of each research facility; and
(5) a statement by project of efforts to coordinate
research projects with the international communities to
maximize the use of limited resources and avoid unproductive
duplication of efforts.
SEC. 310. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.
None of the funds authorized by this title shall be
available for any activity whose purpose is to influence
legislation pending before the Congress, except that this
shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States
or of its departments or agencies from communicating to
Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to
Congress, through the proper channels, requests for
legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary
for the efficient conduct of the public business.
SEC. 311. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall exclude from
consideration for awards of financial assistance made by the
Department after fiscal year 1995 any person who received
funds, other than those described in subsection (b),
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from
any Federal funding source for a project that was not
subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any
exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall
be effective for a period of 5 years after the person
receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to
persons who are members of a class specified by law for which
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a
formula provided by law.
SEC. 312. TERMINATION COSTS.
Unobligated funds previously appropriated for the Clean
Coal Technology program may be used to pay costs associated
with the termination of Energy Supply Research and
Development, General Science and Research, Fossil Energy
Research and Development, and Energy Conservation Research
and Development programs, projects, and activities of the
Department.
amendment offered by mr. roemer
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 104, after
line 5, insert the following new section:
SEC. 313. LABORATORIES EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT.
(a) Elimination of Self-Regulation.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Department shall not be the
agency of implementation, with respect to departmental
laboratories, other than departmental defense laboratories,
of Federal, State, and local environmental, safety, and
health rules, regulations, orders, and standards.
(b) Personnel Reductions.--
(1) Requirements.--The aggregate number of individuals
employed by all government-owned, contractor-operated
departmental laboratories, other than departmental defense
laboratories, shall be reduced, within 5 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, by at least one-third from the
number so employed as of such date of enactment. At least 3
percent of such reduction shall be accomplished within 1
year, at least 6 percent within 18 months, at least 10
percent within 2 years, and at least 15 percent within 30
months.
(2) Objectives.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
personnel reductions required by paragraph (1) are made
consistent with, to the extent feasible, the following
objectives:
(A) Termination of departmental laboratory research and
development facilities that are not the most advanced and the
most relevant to the programmatic objectives of the
Department, when compared with other facilities in the United
States.
(B) Termination of facilities that provide research
opportunities duplicating those afforded by other facilities
in the United States, or in foreign countries when United
States scientists are provided access to such facilities to
the extent necessary to accomplish the programmatic
objectives of the Department.
(C) Relocation and consolidation of departmental laboratory
research and development activities, consistent with the
programmatic objectives of the Department, within
laboratories with major facilities or demonstrable
concentrations of expertise appropriate for performing such
research and development activities.
(D) Reduction of management inefficiencies within the
Department and the departmental laboratories.
(E) Reduction of physical infrastructure needs.
(F) Utilization of other resources for performing
Department of Energy funded research and development
activities, including universities, industrial laboratories,
and others.
(c) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Initial report.--Within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit a report
to the Congress that--
(A) identifies the extent to which Department and
departmental laboratory staffs have been reduced as a result
of the implementation of subsection (a) of this section; and
(B) explains the extent to which reductions required by
subsection (b)(1) have been made consistent with the
objectives set forth in subsection (b)(2).
(2) Annual reports.--The Secretary shall transmit to the
Congress, along with each of the President's annual budget
submissions occurring--
(A) after the report under paragraph (1) is transmitted;
and
(B) before the full personnel reduction requirement under
subsection (b) is accomplished, a report containing the
explanation described in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection.
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``departmental laboratory'' means a Federal
laboratory, or any other laboratory or facility designated by
the Secretary, operated by or on behalf of the Department;
(2) the term ``departmental defense laboratories'' means
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and the Sandia National Laboratories;
(3) the term ``Federal laboratory'' has the meaning given
the term ``laboratory'' in section 12(d)(2) of the Stevenson-
Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a(d)(2)); and
(4) the term ``programmatic objectives of the Department''
means the goals and milestones of the Department, as set
forth in departmental strategic planning documents and the
President's annual budget requests.
Page 3, after the item in the table of contents relating to
section 312, insert the following:
``Sec. 313. Laboratories efficiency improvement.''.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that is fairly
simple and straightforward and easy to explain. It will help balance
the budget by requiring that the national laboratories participate in
fair, even cuts, as many of the other items in this bill are
experiencing. It does it in a fair way. It exempts the defense
laboratories, such as Sandia, Los Alamos, and Livermore. It does impact
the energy laboratories. This bill is about eliminating real corporate
welfare. It is saying, in fact, that the Government, the taxpayer,
should not be footing the bill for the AT&Ts and the Motorolas and the
Intels and all the big corporations in the United States that have the
ability to have their own laboratories, to have their own research, we
should not be putting all kinds of our tax dollars forward in these
areas. We should be asking the national laboratories to participate in
fair deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, this is reform. This is repositioning and retooling the
national laboratories in 1995 to move into the next century. This is
asking that the national laboratories not be exempt from any kind of
pain in cuts. If we are debating on this House floor cuts in Head Start
programs, in Medicare, if we are debating cuts in agriculture programs,
certainly the national laboratories should be part of this
restructuring.
I come to this, Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of the national
laboratories. These are in fact resources, valuable resources for our
science and research and development community, but there can be better
efficiencies. There can be better ways to do this research than
currently under the environment of the last 40 and 50 years.
My amendment, Mr. Chairman, does two things, two simple things: First
of all it eliminates self-regulation by the DOE labs in meeting
Federal, State and local environmental health and safety regulations.
This was maybe the prime recommendation by Mr. Bob Galvin, the former
CEO of Motorola in the Galvin Report, saying that while the Federal
labs should continue to
[[Page H 9836]]
have to abide by health and safety regulations, they should not do it
from Washington, DC., with scores of bureaucrats, and with a labyrinth
bureaucracy.
{time} 1515
That is what this Congress supposedly is trying to do, is come up
with new ideas to cut out the layers of red tape and bureaucracy. That
is what Mr. Galvin recommended as a former CEO of Motorola. Let us get
rid of that and have the laboratories abide by those regulations, but
do it in a businesslike fashion, do it from their laboratories and
their States and at the local level, not from Washington, DC., with a
big building here in Washington, DC., doing the self-regulating. That
is the first thing that this amendment does.
Second, the Department of Energy will be required to downsize the
number of full-time employees, again exempting the Defense Department
labs by one-third over a period of 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, this is a measure that was heartily endorsed by the
Council on Competitiveness. Now, the Council on Competitiveness is a
proresearch, proscience group that actually recommended in our hearings
that we cut back in an 18-month period by 33 percent, not in a 5-year
period as recommended in my legislation. They recommended it, although
they are proresearch, they are proscience, they are pro-national
laboratories. They said you could accomplish this in 18 months.
In order to make sure that we get a fair restructuring, adequate
efficiency in our national laboratories, we have given the national
laboratories 5 years to meet this goal.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment. It is offered by myself
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. It is an effort on the
part of a Republican and a Democrat to lead a new direction on
balancing the budget, not the status quo that some Members on my side
of the aisle have advocated over the years: Well, let us do nothing
about the deficit, let us let the deficit be where it is, and we will
be content to have a $4.8 trillion deficit.
But it also does not reflect some of the extremism that we see
sometimes on the other side of the aisle, that the balanced budget
amendment, the balanced budget should be achieved simply by cutting
programs for children, cutting programs for senior citizens and not
having the national laboratories participate in this tough, tough
environment to move toward a balanced budget in a fair way.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will speak my own mind on this, which should not be
the first, because I happen to agree with my colleague that this
amendment is a good amendment, and I will be supporting it.
But I do realize that there are a number of people on this side of
the aisle who do not agree with that opinion, and I will by yielding to
them as soon as they arrive here.
Let me say I agree that at the labs, just like everywhere else, we
should be setting down guidelines as to how they can reduce their own
costs and how they can reduce the costs to the Federal Government of
maintaining this laboratory system.
I think that the amendment before us today is thoughtful. It is one
that will actually achieve its goal, and it is one I think the author
should be commended for.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wanted to come in my subcommittee chairman's absence and rise in
support of the bill offered by the chairman, the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], H.R. 2142, which actually sets new priorities for
our national Federal laboratory system.
While I very much respect my colleague from Indiana and know that
everything he does is well-intentioned, and I think he is one of the
brightest stars on this side of the aisle, but in this case it is the
wrong approach to how we make our Federal laboratory system more
efficient. It does not take into consideration the priorities that need
to be set for where we spend our money in these critical areas. It
would be like coming into a plant and saying you are all of the same
worth and everyone is going to have to be reduced over time by these
figures regardless of your productivity, regardless of your efficiency,
regardless of what time you come to work and what time you leave.
What we need to do, as Bob Galvin, through the Galvin Commission
actually identified, is redefine the role of our Federal laboratory
system and come up with a whole new mission in the post-cold-war era of
what our laboratories should actually do, and we need to make them more
efficient.
Secretary O'Leary has actually enacted quite a few cuts in the
programs of the Department of Energy, including the laboratories over
time. Maybe some of them do not go far enough, and I think this side of
the aisle will make sure that they go further.
But I think that while your approach is well-intentioned, it is the
wrong approach at the wrong time.
I think another amendment will be heard later today that just says
let us sell off all the laboratories except three, which again is a
meat-ax approach to a very delicate thing. Our laboratories in this
country are essential to our international competitiveness, and I know
the gentleman from Indiana knows that and recognizes that.
So I think our intent would be the same, but your approach I cannot
agree with.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I say ``thank you'' to the chairman for his
support for this amendment, and to the gentleman from Tennessee who
just spoke, I share a great deal of admiration for him. He was at many
of the hearings where we debated the future of our national
laboratories, and I would say this, he quoted from the Galvin report.
Certainly a major part of my amendment is taken directly from the
Galvin report in terms of terminating the self-regulation by DOE of the
national laboratories and doing it more efficiently, doing it like
businesses do it.
I would say, second, the gentleman represents Oak Ridge, which is one
of the best national laboratories we have. My amendment does not say we
are going to cut Oak Ridge by 33 percent. In fact, what the effect of
my amendment might be is to say Oak Ridge is a great laboratory, it is
doing things very well. We may move some work from other national
laboratories to Tennessee in order to increase our efficiencies and to
do things better with the group of scientists that are currently doing
a great job there. It does not mandate closures.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is suggesting his
amendment only mandates that we make tough choices rather than what
those choices will be?
Mr. ROEMER. I would say the distinguished chairman said it more
succinctly than I said it in the last 2 minutes. We should not delegate
our tough choices to a committee or to a commission to make the choices
to close national laboratories. We are elected to represent the people
and the taxpayers. We should make those choices right here right now.
amendment offered by mr. richardson as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. roemer
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute
for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 104, after line 5,
insert the following new section:
SEC. 313. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LABORATORY OPERATIONS BOARD.
(a) Definitions.--
For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy;
(2) the term ``laboratory'' means--
(A) a laboratory, as defined in section 12(d)(2) of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3710a(d)(2)), or
(B) a Federal laboratory, as defined in section 4 of the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C.
3703);
but such term does not include defense laboratories, and
(3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.
(b) Laboratory Operations Board.--
(1) Establishment and membership.--The Secretary shall
establish a Department of
[[Page H 9837]]
Energy Laboratory Operations Board (in this section referred to as the
``Board''). The Board shall consist of at least 12 members
divided equally between Federal and public members.
(2) Federal members.--The Secretary shall appoint Federal
members from among the senior management of the Department on
the basis of their responsibilities with respect to the
operation of Department laboratories, including research and
development, policy, or administration responsibilities.
(3) Public members.--The Secretary shall appoint public
members from institutions of higher education, industry, or
government on the basis of their experience or
accomplishments in research and development, policy, or
administration.
(4) Terms of membership.--The Secretary shall appoint each
member for a term of 6 years, except that terms shall be
staggered to provide continuity.
(5) Governance of the board.--The Board shall be chaired by
one of the public members so designated by the Secretary.
(c) Purpose and Goal of the Board.--
(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the Board is to provide advice
regarding the strategic direction for Department
laboratories, the coordination of budget and policy issues
affecting laboratory operations, and effective laboratory
management.
(2) Goal.--The primary goal of the Board is to facilitate
productive and cost-effective use of Department laboratories.
(d) Functions of the Board.--
(1) In general.--The functions of the Board shall include--
(A) helping to sharpen the mission focus of Department
laboratories;
(B) assisting the Department in timely resolution of issues
and problems across laboratories;
(C) facilitating application of best business practices in
laboratory management, including reduction of unnecessary or
counterproductive management burdens;
(D) developing recommendations for the Secretary regarding
the size, mission, or scope of laboratories and laboratory
activities in view of changes in Federal policy or resources,
including funding; and
(E) providing advice and recommendations to the Secretary
with respect to--
(i) management improvement initiatives to reduce the burden
of Department oversight, to clarify lines of control and
accountability, and to secure higher levels of research and
development performance at lower cost;
(ii) cost-containment generally, including application of
best business practices, and more efficient use of resources
to comply with Federal and other administrative and
regulatory requirements;
(iii) strategic direction for the laboratories, including
validation of strategic plans, programmatic and management
issues, and coordination of the laboratories as a system;
(iv) development and implementation of a Laboratory Mission
Plan for the Department laboratories to ensure that
activities of each Department laboratory are optimally
focussed on the missions of the Department; and
(v) departmental efforts to integrate its basic and applied
research programs and to integrate Department laboratory
research programs with research and development programs of
industry, other government agencies, and institutions of
higher education.
(2) Public members only.--A subcommittee of the Board
consisting of its public members shall--
(A) analyze issues affecting Department laboratories to
provide the basis for independent views;
(B) report to the Secretary and the Congress on at least an
annual basis assessing the performance of--
(i) the Department, in improving its management practices
of Department laboratories through the reduction or
elimination of unnecessary or counterproductive management
burdens;
(ii) the Department laboratories, in reducing costs by a
cumulative amount of at least $1,400,000,000 between fiscal
year 1996 and fiscal year 2000 through the elimination of
unnecessary or counterproductive administrative practices and
procedures; and
(iii) the Department, in meeting the goal of cutting
employment of the Department laboratories by 15 percent over
5 years, using fiscal year 1994 personnel figures as the
baseline; and
(C) provide recommendations regarding budget allocation for
programs or Department laboratories.
(3) Additional functions.--The Secretary may establish
additional functions for the Board, or request additional
review, comment, or recommendations from public members of
the Board.
(4) Functions limitation.--The Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5 U.S.C. App.), section 17 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act (15 U.S.C. 776), and section 552b of title
5, United States Code, do not apply to the Board or its
members.
(e) Sunset.--This section terminates on September 30, 2005.
Page 3, after the item in the table of contents relating to
section 312, insert the following:
Sec. 313. Department of Energy Laboratory Operations Board.
Mr. RICHARDSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me just make it clear what my
amendment does and why I think it is a preferable choice to what my
colleague from Indiana is doing.
My amendment would, first of all, establish a laboratory operations
board for the purposes of providing attention to the reform that is
needed at the DOE national laboratories. But what my amendment would do
is cut lab personnel by 15 percent, not 30 percent. What my amendment
would do is strip about $1.4 billion in excess costs in the DOE labs.
My amendment would apply to what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer] is doing to the civilian labs. What is happening right now at
the Department of Energy is cost cutting is already going and taking
place. It happened at Los Alamos Laboratories just this last weekend
when I had close to 500 of my personnel that are being laid off.
I think that, in the interests of good science, we should not, as
politicians, be making these decisions. These should be scientific
decisions.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]
would lay off close to 14,000 people out of the DOE lab system,
scientists, engineers, technical experts.
The Department of Energy can live with my amendment. What my
amendment does is simply implement and recognize the cost cutting that
already is going on at DOE.
Mr. Chairman, today the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced a
Nobel Prize for physics. They went to two scientists who performed the
research at Department of Energy national labs, Martin Perl, for his
work at Stanford linear accelerator center; Frederick Reines, for work
at Los Alamos. The Royal Swedish Academy also announced the 1995 Nobel
Prizes in chemistry will go to two researchers who received their
funding support from DOE. These four awards bring to 64 the number of
Nobel Prizes from the United States, resulting from research supported
by DOE.
What my amendment does is acknowledge the good work of the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug],
but it is not a meat cleaver. Mine is 15 percent.
This is being implemented by the Department of Energy. It is moving
ahead. The language in my bill has a number of commissions that work
with the DOE to ensure that we do reduce spending at the labs.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be at the vanguard of science and
transfer of technology and energy and shifting many of these labs from
defense to civilian research, let us not cut it by 30 percent, 25
percent less than the administration budget. I think we are talking
about people that lose their jobs but also the Nation's research and
science capability.
My amendment, at 15 percent over 5 years, is something that the
scientific community and the Department of Energy can live with. The 30
percent, 30 percent, you are literally going to be closing down some
laboratories. You are going to be laying off 14,000 people. I have an
estimate of 20,000 people, but I will accept the figure of the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] or someone's figure that it is
14,000.
The goal of the gentleman from Indiana is to enhance efficiency of
these labs. But I think his approach is wrong. This amendment is a meat
cleaver when what you need is a scalpel.
So I want to also apologize to the Committee on Science for coming
forth with this amendment at the last minute, but this is too broad a
meat-ax approach, and I would hope that Members on both sides of the
aisle recognize that there is an honest effort at cutting, at reducing
waste, at continuing a 5-year trend of reducing spending at the labs,
but doing it in a way that can be absorbed.
Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to state that this amendment
is consistent with the Galvin report. The Galvin report did not say cut
the labs, the civilian side, by a third. They basically said that the
labs had to find new
[[Page H 9838]]
missions and reinforce old missions. They said there should be the
defense labs, and there should be the civilian labs, and some of the
defense labs should also do other research than nuclear weapons.
Theirs was a serious report, but to reinforce this amendment as the
reason for supporting the Galvin report, I do not think is good
science. I do not think it is good government.
I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Richardson] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent,
Mr. Richardson was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I take this time not so much to discuss his amendment, but I was
intrigued by his citation of the two outstanding scientists in the
laboratories of the Department of Energy who won the Nobel Prize in
physics. Of course, these are not the first scientists who have
distinguished themselves in either the laboratories or in research
funding from the Department of Energy.
One that I wanted to mention because he is a Californian is Dr.
Sherry Roland at the University of California at Irvine, who won the
Nobel Prize in chemistry just within the last few days because of the
pioneering work that he did on atmospheric chemistry relating to the
depletion of ozone. In the event that some of my friends on the other
side still think that this ozone depletion theory is still the fantasy
of some cockamamie environmentalist, the Nobel Prize committee did not
think so and awarded him the Nobel Prize in chemistry for that
research.
May I just conclude by saying that I appreciate the gentleman
offering this amendment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both of the amendments. I think
we are making a bad mistake here on the floor to adopt what is
essentially an amendment taking the Department of Energy's position.
The gentleman from New Mexico offers it, I know, in good faith, but
essentially what he is doing is locking in what the department of
Energy has already decided to do in terms of restructuring the labs. It
is simply the Department of Energy's approach taken forward.
{time} 1530
The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] does take an approach here
which I believe the language is unclear as to exactly what the effects
would be, but the language of his amendment says that the aggregate
number of individuals employed at all Government-owned, contractor-
operated, departmental laboratories, other than the defense ones, would
be affected, which sounds to me like it could be interpreted, as
someone interpreted earlier, as being a one-third cut from every
laboratory.
Now, as my colleagues know, we can interpret it both ways, but it is
certainly possible to put that interpretation on the language that we
have before us and with absolutely no discretion about how that is
going to be done. I think that is a bad approach.
Now earlier today we have members of the minority coming to the floor
complaining about the fact we have taken all these terrific cuts in
science. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that when the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer] tells us about the fact that we somehow should cut here,
the cuts have already been made. We have cut $1.1 billion out of these
accounts. We have left it to the Department to begin the process of
trying to figure out how to apportion those cuts in a way that makes
sense, but we did the job. We cut $1.1 billion out of these accounts,
so these are cuts over and above the $1.1 billion of money that has
already been cut, and let us understand we are cutting money out of
programs that most people regard as a national asset for this country.
We have had very little testimony to indicate that we do not have in
the national laboratories assets of great importance to our future.
The gentleman from Indiana a few moments ago referred to the Oak
Ridge Laboratory as being a stellar laboratory that maybe we would put
more things into. That is fine if he can identify the good ones. I
wonder if he can tell us what the bad ones are that are going to be
eliminated so that we can put the money into Oak Ridge. I wonder can
the gentleman tell us what the ones are that are going to get cut. He
has identified the good one that is going to get more money under his
amendment; what are some of the bad ones out there that are going to
end up being eliminated under the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that it is up to the discretion of the
Secretary of Energy to make that decision. Certainly we should say that
there have to be cuts and we should not pass that on, and I would say
to the gentleman, if he would further yield, that it could be that one
of my--I have a facility in my district that may end up losing jobs and
go to Tennessee. So I am certainly willing to do that in the efforts of
deficit reduction.
Mr. WALKER. Reclaiming my time, so in other words the gentleman was
incorrect when he said that Oak Ridge would be protected because the
Secretary would have the discretion to cut Oak Ridge; is that right?
Mr. ROEMER. If the gentleman would yield, I did not say Oak Ridge
would be protected. I said a hypothetical that Oak Ridge was a stellar
laboratory and, in fact, in gaining greater efficiencies they may move
some of the facilities----
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if we can identify the stellar
laboratories, which ones are not stellar?
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Wamp] would identify Oak Ridge as a stellar laboratory. The problem
around here, Mr. Walker, is everybody thinks they have a stellar one,
so we do not cut anybody's anything around here, and what I am saying
is we got to make some tough choices----
Mr. WALKER. OK, and the gentleman, I do not think, has supported us
along the way with a $1.1 billion cut we have already made in these
programs. I do not remember the gentleman voting for the bill that had
that $1.1 billion cut in it.
Mr. ROEMER. I have opposed many of the gentleman's cuts in Head Start
programs for children and Medicare for senior citizens.
Mr. WALKER. No, those are not in our committee.
Mr. ROEMER. B-2 cuts, CIA cuts; I voted for a host of cuts. We
disagree on where we should cut.
Mr. WALKER. No, the accounts that include the national laboratories
have been cut by $1.1 billion under our bill. Now I do not remember the
gentleman supporting that, and the gentleman's amendment is an add-on
beyond the $1.1 billion that has already been cut in those accounts.
Now can the gentleman tell me that he is in support of the $1.1
billion that we have already cut?
Mr. ROEMER. I am in support of making rational, fair cuts in science
as I am in the B-2 bomber, but I am not going to sit here and engage in
a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to which national
laboratory should be shut down.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is perfectly willing to suggest that he
knows laboratories that should not be affected by this because he
regards them as stellar, but he is not going to engage in the tough
decision then of where the cuts are going to be made, and the point is,
I would say to the gentleman, that we have a lot of very good
facilities all over the country.
Now he made reference to the Galvin report. So does the Department of
Energy. The Department of Energy is not following the Galvin report,
neither is the gentleman. I mean everybody seems to take the Galvin
report and do with it whatever they want. As my colleagues know, they
find that this language and that language and decide that the Galvin
report justifies anything they decide they want to do.
The Galvin report is very clear with its recommendation. The Galvin
report
[[Page H 9839]]
suggests the privatization scheme over a 10-year period by going to a
private corporation that would run the labs for a period of time so
that what we could do is ultimately sort out what the good ones and the
bad ones were, and we would sort them out based upon the marketplace.
The gentleman is taking a totally different approach. First of all,
it is not 10 years, it is 5 years for his approach. Second, he does not
allow the kind of process that the Galvin Commission recommended, and
so to refer to the Galvin Commission report as being the basis for this
amendment I just think is totally wrong based upon what the Galvin
report did.
I would say the same is true of the gentleman from New Mexico's
amendment. He refers to that and yet offers an amendment that
essentially does what the Department of Energy has already decided to
do, and that does not take into account the Galvin Commission either.
When the Department of Energy testified before our committee, they
said that they took the alternative approach offered by Galvin rather
than the main recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, I think maybe we ought to take the opinion of some
experts here and not begin dismantling with four amendments what most
people regard as a national treasure in our science establishment. If
the gentleman wants to cut another third below the $1.2 billion that we
have put in place, that can be the gentleman's decision, and some
members may decide to go along with it, but I think we ought to be
making sensible decisions, decisions based upon sound policy choices
rather than taking an approach that is embodied in the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] if Mr. Galvin did not support the termination
of self-regulation in his recommendations to Congress.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WALKER. Sure. There are a number of----
Mr. ROEMER. That is what I was citing in the Galvin report.
Mr. WALKER. There are a number of reforms that the Galvin Commission
recommended, but their main recommendation, their chief recommendation,
was, as you begin the business of paring down the laboratories, to do
it based upon a private-sector kind of approach, and not a private
sector, not just taking the labs and privatizing them immediately
because of the bureaucratic overhead in them at the present time. They
cannot be sustained in the private sector, and we will lose them.
The Galvin Commission has a very specific recommendation in that
regard. I think we ought to follow the recommendation of the experts.
We think that that should be done within a cost-cutting regime, and we
are willing to cut money out of DOE, but we are not willing to
dismantle the agency in ways that I personally regard as irresponsible.
Mr. ROEMER. I would just respectfully disagree with the gentleman.
The gentleman says that he is cutting $1.1 billion out of our science
budget. The gentleman has come up with a monetary figure. We have told
the Secretary of Energy that it should be a percent in terms of the
national laboratories not being exempt. There is not a huge difference
in arriving at $1.1. billion, or $1 billion, or $1.7 billion as opposed
to our recommendation to the committee.
Mr. WALKER. Our $1.1 billion is based upon going through program by
program and looking at what we think can be sustained in terms of cuts
over a period of time. We took the sensible approach to it. Certainly
the Secretary, in dealing with that $1.1 billion, can decide that they
want to spend less money in the national labs, and that may be one of
the approaches that they want to take. We do not prevent them from
doing that, but we do not mandate a system that goes down through and
says at least 3 percent of the reduction has to be in 1 year, 6 percent
within 18 months, 10 percent within 2 years, 15 percent within 30
months.
I mean that is not giving any latitude. That is in fact taking an
approach that may or may not produce the results that assure that the
national labs remain as a strong science asset for the country.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to respectfully oppose the gentleman from New
Jersey's amendment to essentially do an across-the-board cut in
national laboratory staff of one-third. I want to say at the outset
that there are two national laboratories in New Mexico, but these two
national laboratories fall jurisdictionally more on the military side
of funding and would not be affected by the gentleman's bill, and I
emphasize that to point out that my particular State would not be
affected by the bill if it does become law. However, I want to
emphasize that I think it is a mistake to come forward with the idea of
a one-third across-the-board cut.
I would say that my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Richardson's,
amendment is a better approach if we have to act in this bill. However,
I believe that both are unnecessary. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that
every agency, and every program, funded by the Federal Government does
indeed have an obligation to look to see how it can operate more
efficiently, more effectively, and in a better way for the taxpayers,
and nobody is exempt from that, not the national laboratories,
including the national laboratories that are in New Mexico, as far as
that goes, but an across-the-board cut is not based upon any finding of
there is a more efficient way of doing things.
It is true that the Galvin Commission estimated that perhaps the
national laboratories could be reduced by one-third in personnel, but
he was talking about specific personnel in specific places, and even
then only if certain management changes were made from the point of
view of the Department of Energy. So it is a process that we should
work at deliberately and identify those positions which might be
reduced and not be arbitrary about it for the national laboratories or
any other program.
I want to say also that in the Committee on Science we are working on
this issue. I have a bill introduced, H.R. 2142, which attempts to set
out missions for the national laboratory and an obligation upon the
Secretary of Energy to refine those missions, to assign them to
appropriate laboratories to avoid duplication of process where it is
not necessary and to try to achieve maximum efficiency.
There are other bills that would set up, for example, a military BRAC
type of closure board to examine national laboratories for closure. I
do not agree with those bills, but at least a closure board would be
looking individually at laboratories and would not be an across-the-
board cut either.
I think an across-the-board cut is bad policy. I think we can stay
within a bald budget, which is our necessary economic goal, without
doing so, and I would, therefore, urge rejection of the Roemer
amendment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, let me put in perspective what we are
doing here.
The gentleman from Indiana's amendment cuts the civilian labs by 33
percent. My amendment cuts by 15 percent but is consistent with the
Department of Energy's cost-cutting measures.
Now I do not think Members of Congress would want to get on record
against reductions and, perhaps, wastes that already are taking place,
and I would like to just simply read some of the labs that would be
affected under Mr. Roemer's amendment.
Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago; Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Upton, NY; Idaho
[[Page H 9840]]
National Engineering Laboratory; Laurence Berkeley Laboratory at the
University of California; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; the Pacific
Northwest Laboratory; Ames Laboratory; Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility; Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and
Education; Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; Savannah River Tech Center;
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; Bettis Atomic Power Lab; Energy
Technology Engineering Center; Environmental Measurements Lab;
Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute; Knolls Atomic Power Lab; Lab
of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences; Lab of Radiology and
Environmental Health; National Institute for Petroleum and Energy
Research; New Brunswick Labs; and Savannah River Ecology Lab.
{time} 1545
What I just want to do, Mr. Chairman, is say this. My amendment is
consistent with what DOE is doing. They do not want to cut 15 percent,
but we, through the strong efforts of many on the majority and
minority, are saying ``We do not have the money anymore. You have to do
more with less.''
If we go beyond the 15 percent, we are cutting science, we are
cutting the future. I agree with the chairman, the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Schiff], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker],
we should not be doing 30 or 15 percent. We are not scientists. I think
we have to make good science decisions with good budget decisions.
My amendment is supported by the administration. I hope that is not
the kiss of death with everybody here, but if they vote against my
amendment at 15 percent, Members are voting against even cutting what
the labs are already doing. I know this is an authorization effort, and
it requires a lot more study. I think this Committee on Science has
done a good job. The bill of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Schiff], I support it, too. However, I am here sort of as a fireman to
try to stop a cut by one-third that some very respected Members of
Congress are offering that are going to cut 14,000 jobs, and that I do
not think is good science.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I have always had a great deal of respect
for my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico. I did not know it
was possible to get 10 minutes to speak on his same amendment. He has a
lot more power than I gave him credit for. I have even more respect for
him.
However, the point that the gentleman is making by reading the list
of national laboratories is one of the points that I make, in that not
every one of those is going to be affected. There could be two of those
that are affected by cutting out different personnel and making better
efficiencies in our national laboratories that even you admit should be
done.
The second point is we are all proud of the Nobel Prize winners that
are being announced, and so many of them from America. So many of these
Nobel Prize winners are also from our private laboratories and our
private universities. This bill seeks a better partnership and
cooperation with our laboratories and universities, the University of
Chicago and other schools.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from
California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying that what he
is presenting to us is the position of President Clinton?
Mr. RICHARDSON. I am offering an amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the
request of the Department of Energy that says we can live with 15
percent over 5 years. We are going to be doing that as part of the
mandates by Congress, but if we go beyond that, at 30 percent, then we
are cutting science, we are cutting 14,000 people. It is a meat-axe
approach.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, I would ask, his figures are consistent with the President's
request?
Mr. RICHARDSON. The President is 25 percent higher. The President's
budget request is 25 percent higher. What my amendment does is cut it
by a certain percentage; as I said, 15.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. What the gentleman is saying is we should be
supportive of his position because his numbers are closer to what the
President would request on this item?
Mr. RICHARDSON. Let me say that I am told that Secretary O'Leary has
agreed to 10 percent, and I believe the 15 percent is a goal that most
likely can be achieved, by balanced budget provisions or otherwise.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, those of us who are not in support of
the President's position would be opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we are having a healthy discussion this afternoon about
the role of the national laboratories. We need to have this discussion,
and actually I think this first amendment here is going to flesh out a
lot of the feelings and points that Members need to make with respect
to this issue, and probably avoid a lot of discussion in the later
amendments. I want to back up just for a moment, though, because I have
become so sensitive since I became a Member of Congress to how the use
of words can confuse people.
I want to go back to what our distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], said in the
well just a few minutes ago when he was talking about Bob Galvin's
recommendations and the Galvin report when he used the word
privatization.
I just want to point out that the word ``corporatization'' is what
Bob Galvin used time and time again in the Galvin report. Privatization
has a different meaning to a whole lot of different people. I do not
want anyone thinking that the Republican chairman of the Committee on
Science recommended privatizing our national laboratories based on his
use of that word a few minutes ago. Corporatization is a different
approach. It is not selling off the laboratories. That is not what
Galvin said.
Let the record be clear, that is not what the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, just said. I want that
pointed out. There are so many people that take words and use them,
that the ``Republican majority is trying to privatize.'' No,
corporatization means private contractors manage. We have that right
now across the country. It is more efficient, wherever it can be
properly applied. Let us not abuse the word privatization.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to identify myself with the comments from the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the
Committee on Science, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], on
his bill, H.R. 2142, which I do support, which redefines the missions
of our Federal laboratory system in the post-cold war era. I support
that concept, and it really does not line up with the proposals that
are before us in these next three amendments.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Richardson amendment. Let
us make it very clear, there is a clear distinction, I think, obviously
to anybody who looks at the choice in these amendments, between the
amendment offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and myself, and the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Richardson]. The amendment of the gentleman from Indiana says the
Department of Energy will cut 30 percent. The amendment of the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] says we will set up a
committee that may recommend that we may cut 15 percent, if the
Secretary thinks it is a good idea.
So we have a clear choice. It is pretty easy. Either you think the
DOE labs should be shrunk and you want to make a 30-percent cut, or you
think we need another commission. That is the one thing Washington has
more of than we have national energy labs at this point.
We have had two studies done on the DOE labs in the last year. The
first, the Galvin Commission, which we have talked about, says in one
of its earliest conclusions, ``The National Labs
[[Page H 9841]]
should be downsized.'' That is what the commission we set up to review
the DOE labs said. That is the conclusion, downsize the DOE labs.
A few minutes ago the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]
shrunk in horror when he said, ``You know, the result of this could be
that we may close one of them if we force them to close 30 percent.''
What a horrible idea. They are scattered across the country.
What else did Galvin say? It says, ``The existing budget of the
National Laboratory system exceeds that required to perform its agenda
in the areas of national security, energy, environment, and fundamental
science.'' In other words, we have more labs than we have work to do at
the laboratories. That is the very condition and the very conclusion,
downsize because we do not have enough work to do.
``It is unrealistic for these institutions to attempt to retain their
current size by laying claims to new missions.'' In other words, if we
do not have enough work to do at the laboratories already and we have
excess laboratories, we will just think of new things for them to do.
One of the new things, frankly, is to get involved in industrial policy
and advanced technology.
To the credit of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I
think he has been absolutely right on point on this issue, that when
the Federal Government is involved in science, it should be involved in
basic science. One of the things he has done, and sent a very strong
message in this bill and his other work in the committee, is to get
away from applied science and industrial policy and to get us into
basic research.
If what we are going to do is to stay with basic research, we should
define what that research mission is. If we are keeping labs alive
essentially by creating industrial policy, that is a fundamental
mistake. I am not making that up, the Galvin Commission came to the
same conclusion: ``Through downsizing, there may be opportunities in
the future to convert one or more multi-program laboratories into
institutions dedicated to only one primary mission.''
The bottom line in all of this, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we now
have a series of laboratories stretching across the country largely
created to help do defense research during the cold war. As that
nuclear mission has shrunk, we only have two or three key laboratories,
including that of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] in his
district, doing military-related research.
Unfortunately for a number of those other laboratories, we do not
have missions for them today. I think the amendment of the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and myself is exactly right, that when we do
not have a mission, we should force the Secretary of Energy to make
difficult decisions about which of those labs to keep open and which of
those labs to close. Before we have to do that, fundamentally we have
to decide what the core mission is going to be of the Department of
Energy laboratories, so we can say ``This lab does this, this lab does
this, and this lab no longer has any business.''
Mr. Chairman, we have to, I think, at the end of the cold war, make
very difficult decisions about defense programs. We have made difficult
decisions about which DOE labs belong in continuing to do that defense
mission, but fundamentally we have to cut 30 percent of the spending,
because we have to force closure of the labs, and in contrast to my
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, I do not think that is a
horror story. Frankly, I think for this Congress that will be a success
story.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state, first of
all, the Galvin Commission said nothing about cutting the labs by a
third. I do not believe the chairman of the Committee on Science is
supporting the gentleman's amendment, nor is the minority. I think the
decision should be made on science, on production, and on cost cutting.
My amendment at 15 percent achieves all of those goals. I just want to
point that out for the Record.
I want the gentleman to affirm whether I am correct. Does the Galvin
Commission support the gentleman's amendment?
Mr. KLUG. I do not think the Galvin Commission said whether it was a
15-percent or 30-percent cut. They recommended redefining the mission
of the laboratories and appropriately downsizing. I agree with my
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] that we should be
much more aggressive rather than timid in this area.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, what the Galvin report said, I
would say to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], was we
should corporatize or privatize a host of laboratories. We are not in
favor of that. The gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug], and I are
saying they are a valuable resource.
Mr. KLUG. Reclaiming my time, actually, I am in favor of privatizing,
but as an intermediate step.
Mr. ROEMER. I am sorry for stepping ahead to the gentleman's next
amendment, but I am not in favor of that, and I think we should
maintain those as a national resource and asset.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson] is probably a better advocate for the Secretary
of State than he is for the Secretary of the Department of Energy.
I do think that there is a significant difference between these two
amendments, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Wisconsin. On one
hand, one requires a recommendation or a report, and that is the
Richardson amendment. The other one, the so-called Roemer amendment,
does require action.
I think that the downsizing is a topic that has often plagued the
private sector in America. In my own area, Wichita, KS, where the
Boeing Co. has recently gone from 24,000 employees to 15,000 employees,
that is a significant downsizing. Other companies like IBM, they have
also had to face downsizing. What has occurred through the process is
the establishment of priorities: What is the company in business for,
what is important to the stockholders, and how can they best serve
those stockholders.
I think that the Roemer amendment does drive priorities by forcing a
downsizing. I think that downsizing and the priorities establishment is
something that has been lacking.
I want to say Secretary O'Leary is, I think, on the right track to
some degree, which is demonstrated in the Richardson amendment when it
talks about the functions of the Board, on page 3, is to help sharpen
the mission focus of the Department laboratories. That is a very good
thing to do.
However, the so-called Roemer amendment would be more effective in
doing that because it does drive action for the reductions of 33
percent, so I think that most of us would prefer action over
recommendations, and that is why I rise in opposition to the Richardson
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] as a substitute for the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may
reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered,
on the underlying Roemer amendment.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 274, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 703]
AYES--147
Ackerman
Allard
Armey
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Callahan
Clay
[[Page H 9842]]
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hancock
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Montgomery
Moran
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Spratt
Stearns
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--274
Abercrombie
Andrews
Archer
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stenholm
Stockman
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Bass
Dornan
Fields (LA)
Kennelly
Moakley
Schiff
Tejeda
Tucker
Volkmer
Wilson
Zeliff
{time} 1621
Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. HARMAN, and Messrs. DOGGETT, KENNEDY of
Massachusetts, MOLLOHAN, THORNTON, and PARKER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HANCOCK, ALLARD, and STEARNS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 286, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 704]
AYES--135
Allard
Andrews
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Brownback
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
Deal
Doggett
Doyle
Ensign
Everett
Flanagan
Foley
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Geren
Gilchrest
Goss
Greenwood
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hayworth
Heineman
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy (RI)
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lincoln
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Mascara
McHale
McIntosh
Meehan
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Montgomery
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Owens
Oxley
Parker
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waters
Watts (OK)
NOES--286
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Molinari
Mollohan
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Nethercutt
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
[[Page H 9843]]
Ortiz
Orton
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Bass
Dornan
Fields (LA)
Kennelly
Moakley
Schiff
Tejeda
Tucker
Volkmer
Wilson
Zeliff
{time} 1631
Mr. MARKEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. LOWEY, and Messrs. STOCKMAN, PORTMAN,
NORWOOD, UPTON, BURTON of Indiana, and COOLEY changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message.
____________________