[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.

                          ____________________