[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9843-H9859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1635
           OMNIBUS CIVILIAN SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 90, line 16, strike 
     ``$49,955,000'' and insert ``$121,265,000.''
       Page 90, line 17, strike ``$43,234,000'' and insert 
     ``$55,714,000.''
       Page 90, line 20, strike ``$59,829,000'' and insert 
     ``$112,186,000.''
       Page 90, line 22, strike ``$45,535,000'' and insert 
     ``$66,597,000.''
       Page 90, line 23, strike ``$476,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,701,000.''
       Page 91, line 3, strike ``$1,994,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,304,000.''
       Page 91, line 5, strike ``$7,557,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,295,000.''
       Page 91, line 7, strike ``$12,370,000'' and insert 
     ``$14,919,000.''
       Page 91, after 7, insert the following new paragraph:
       (9) Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas, and Electricity, 
     $2,687,000.
       Page 91, line 13, strike ``$55,074,000'' and insert 
     ``$88,645,000.''
       Page 91, line 14, strike ``$55,110,000'' and insert 
     ``$109,518,000.''
       Page 91, line 15, strike ``$112,123,000'' and insert 
     ``$176,568,000.''
       Page 91, line 17, strike ``$7,813,000'' and insert 
     ``$31,600,000.''
       Page 91, after line 17, insert the following:
       (5) Policy and Management--Energy Conservation, $7,666,000.
       (e) FISCAL YEAR 1997.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 1997 for 
     operating, capital equipment, and construction, the following 
     amounts:
       (1) Energy Supply Research and Development Activities, 
     $2,600,000,000.
       (2) General Science and Research Activities, $950,000,000.
       (3) Fossil Energy Research and Development, $220,950,000.
       (4) Energy Conservation Research and Development, 
     $230,120,000.
       Page 93, strike lines 3 and 4 and lines 21 and 22; and 
     redesignate the subparagraphs accordingly.
       Page 103, line 24, strike ``Unobligated'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Subject to further appropriations, 
     unobligated''.

  Mr. WALKER (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 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment essentially is an attempt to 
bring about where the authorization bill is in the energy area in line 
with where the Interior appropriations conference report has come in 
terms of numbers. So what we do in this particular amendment is align 
the 1996 authorization levels for fossil energy and energy conservation 
R&D with the levels contained in the 1996 Interior appropriations 
conference report. I think that solves the problems of a couple of 
Members who wanted to make certain that our authorization bill, if it 
passed, did not interfere with the arrangements that have already been 
made with regard to the fossil energy accounts in the present 
appropriations bill.
  But beyond that, it needs to be understood that one of the reasons 
why we accepted somewhat higher levels than the original authorization 
bill called for in Interior appropriations was because there was a 
problem in terms of close-out costs and a number of other anomalies in 
the process that gave them a 1-year problem. So as a result, when the 
House committee came forward with its report, that is, the 
appropriations subcommittee, what they did was indicated that they 
would then look at a plan for downsizing these accounts over the years 
in the future.
  I quote from page 80 of that report: ``Those would be in line or be 
consistent with the recommendations of the authorization committee of 
jurisdiction as adopted by the House.''
  So it was our feeling that this whole arrangement is based upon the 
fact that, yes, for this year we are going to have to have numbers 
consistent with close-out costs and a number of other items.
  But as we look out toward the next year, then we have to make certain 
that we get these accounts on a glide path toward a balanced budget by 
the year 2002.
  So this amendment also contains 1997 spending figures which are 
consistent with the amounts of money that presently are in the 
authorization bill for 1996. In other words, what we have done is we 
have accepted the Interior appropriations numbers for this year, and 
then we have moved the bills' authorized amounts to next year, which 
means there would be a reduction next year over what is being spent 
this year, but it would still be considerably above what the budget 
recommendation called for. We think it does establish a glide path 
toward a balanced budget.
  So I would say to my colleagues that if what you want to do is assure 
that in these authorized accounts we do get ourselves on the road 
toward a balanced budget and assure that we are going to get to a 
balanced budget by the year 2002, what you want to do is support this 
amendment. It does two things: Yes, for the moment it raises the 
authorized levels to the appropriated levels to conform our bill with 
what is coming along in the appropriations accounts, but for the future 
what it does is it assures we are on the glide path to a balanced 
budget beginning with the amounts that are put in the bill for next 
year.
  I would urge you to accept this amendment, to assure that we do two 
things: make certain that we have sufficient authorization to cover the 
appropriations for this year; but, second, to assure that next year we 
are on the glide path toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I know he offers the amendment in an 
effort to make this bill a more acceptable bill and more in conformity 
with actions already taken by the Committee on Appropriations.
  But let me indicate, in all honesty, some of my reservations about 
this, and they are probably nitpicking. We proposed earlier a couple of 
amendments which were aimed at doing essentially the same thing in 
other categories where the authorization is below the appropriation. 
The chairman, in his eloquence, and he is very eloquent, defended to 
the death the logic of maintaining our authorization in this bill 
substantially below both the House- and the Senate-appropriated 
numbers.

[[Page H 9844]]

  I understand that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] certainly does not have a 
small mind and, therefore, does not have to be consistent, but I raise 
that point just so that we will understand that on occasion we can be 
inconsistent and the result is not always bad.
  In this case, his willingness to raise the 1996 figures for this 
category of energy R&D to the level already appropriated is 
commendable. Now, the other part of his amendment is not quite so 
commendable, because it then goes on to authorize for fiscal year 1997.
  There are one or two places in this bill where we have 2-year 
authorizations, but it is not the pattern, and certainly not in this 
particular case. This is another technical inconsistency. I can 
understand that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], in his 
desire to put his imprint as much as possible on the future, now wants 
to imprint his 1997 numbers, which he has not yet had a chance to do in 
the Committee on the Budget, onto this bill. I would prefer that he 
followed due procedure and waited until, as vice chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, he can undoubtedly influence them to come up 
with these numbers, and then we could put it in another bill.
  But, as I say, I am nitpicking here, because essentially I believe in 
2-year authorizations, and I certainly believe that they should not be 
lower than the appropriations. So I take this opportunity to take 
advantage of it to point these things out and hope that the political 
dialog can be somewhat more rational as a result of it.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly commend our distinguished chairman of the 
full Committee on Science for this action.
  What has happened here is that at our Committee on Science earlier 
this year as we did our work, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
actually offered an amendment that said, and it passed the Committee on 
Science, that if the appropriators actually appropriated a dollar 
figure higher than the authorization that we were setting in place 
there, that we could increase these funds at that time, and this 
accommodates that desire.
  As he knows, my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, and I were 
prepared to offer an amendment, which is at the desk which I do not 
believe is necessary at this time, which would actually accommodate 
this, and the chairman saw this need to increase this funding up to 
that appropriated level in 1996.
  I want to point out this keeps us within our budget caps, keeps us on 
the glide path to a balanced budget, something we can all agree must be 
done.
  I commend the chairman for this action and support his initiative.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the chairman of our Committee 
on Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for his 
action in this amendment. But I would like to express some concerns 
about this amendment also.
  First of all, I think it is wonderful in this amendment that we are 
going to match the authorization levels in this bill with those 
contained in the Interior appropriations conference report. It is what 
we talked about doing in committee. It is what we talked about during 
the Davis amendment, and I commend the chairman for raising those 
levels.
  However, I do have some concern with the fact that we are going to 
authorize 1997 numbers today, and some of the concerns I have are with 
regard to the fossil energy program. It is my understanding that, under 
the chairman's amendment, that we would be taking fossil energy from 
$380 million down to $220 million next year, in 1997.
  I would like to read from the House Interior appropriations 
conference report, which says:

       The committee recommendation reduces fossil energy research 
     and development funding about 10 percent below fiscal year 
     1995 levels. The committee intends to continue reducing this 
     account by 10 percent a year for each of the next 4 years.

  So it seems to me that the language that I read in the House Interior 
appropriations conference report calls for a gradual phasing down of 
the fossil energy budget by an amount of 10 percent a year over the 
next 4 years.
  As I understand the chairman's intention, it is his intention to get 
that entire cut in next year's budget in 1997, as opposed to doing it 
gradually, if I understand the chairman correctly, and I cannot in good 
conscience support that type of a cut in a 1-year period.
  I do support the conference report, which gets us there 10 percent a 
year over a 4-year period.


   amendment offered by mr. doyle as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. walker

  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Doyle as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Walker:
       Page 90, line 16, strike ``$49,955,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$121,265,000''.
       Page 90, line 17, strike ``$43,234,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$55,714,000''.
       Page 90, line 20, strike ``$59,829,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$112,186,000''.
       Page 90, line 22, strike ``$45,535,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$66,597,000''.
       Page 90, line 23, strike ``$476,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$1,701,000''.
       Page 91, line 3, strike ``$1,994,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$2,304,000''.
       Page 91, line 5, strike ``$7,557,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$6,295,000''.
       Page 91, line 7, strike ``$12,370,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$14,919,000''.
       Page 91, after line 7, insert the following new paragraph:
       (9) Fuels Conversion, Natural Gas, and Electricity, 
     $2,687,000.
       Page 91, line 13, strike ``$55,074,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof $88,645,000''.
       Page 91, line 14, strike ``$55,110,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof $109,518,000''.
       Page 91, line 15, strike ``$112,123,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof $176,568,000''.
       Page 91, line 17, strike ``$7,813,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof $31,600,000''.
       Page 91, after line 17, insert the following:
       (5) Policy and Management--Energy Conservation, $7,666,000.
       Page 93, lines 4 and 5, strike paragraph (29).
       Page 93, lines 21 and 22, strike paragraph (41).
       Redesignate paragraphs (30) through (42) on page 93 
     accordingly.
       Page 91, at the end of section 303, insert the following 
     new section:
       (e) Fiscal Year 1997.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 1997, for the 
     purposes for which amounts are authorized under subsections 
     (c) and (d), amounts which are 10 percent less than the 
     amounts authorized under such subsections.

  Mr. DOYLE (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 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, basically what my substitute amendment does 
is basically what the chairman does in his amendment; we raise the 
fossil energy and energy conservation levels up to the level in the 
Interior appropriations conference report. The only difference is for 
the year 1997, since we are doing a 2-year authorization, that we in 
1997 authorize 10 percent less basically in accordance to the language 
of the House conference report which calls for a 10 percent reduction 
over the next 4 years. We just do that in 1997. It is basically the 
same as what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] does, with 
the exception being we are authorizing a 10 percent reduction in 1997 
versus a reduction from $380 million to $220 million.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it just seems to me we have got two alternatives in 
front of us: One alternative by the chairman, who basically is setting 
forth a proposal that we balance the budget. Again we are faced with 
another alternative coming from the other side of the aisle in which 
balancing the budget has no priority whatsoever.
  While I have some questions about the chairman's original proposal, 
certainly this substitute basically takes away from the chairman's 
long-term goals, and I think they are supposed to be the long-term 
goals of this Congress, which is we will balance the budget within a 
reasonable period of time.
  I remember during the early days of this session when the Republicans 
were challenged, people said, ``We do not need a balanced budget 
amendment. Just do it. Just go ahead and do it.''

[[Page H 9845]]

  Well, that is what we are trying to do. Over and over again, what we 
found is every time we try to do this, because the people said, ``You 
do not need the balanced budget amendment, you can do it because you 
are the majority,'' when we try it, we get nothing but opposition from 
the other side of the aisle.
  This is yet another example of how, when we are trying to balance the 
budget, not only can we not get a balanced budget amendment, but we 
cannot get a game plan to lead us to a balanced budget amendment.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is talking to one of the 
Democrats that voted for a balanced budget amendment. Raising this up 
to the authorization levels in the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Interior is consistent with the House budget resolution asking for a 10 
percent reduction.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is what the chairman is doing.
  Mr. DOYLE. I agree with the chairman. The chairman and my amendment 
are similar in that respect. We both agree with that. Where my 
amendment differs is I am using the report language in the Interior 
appropriations conference report. I read it verbatim.
  It is my impression that the members of that conference and the 
chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior are also 
committed to balancing the budget. I think I am just reading the 
language, not from any Democrats; I am reading the House conference 
report, which is Republican language and is consistent with what your 
Interior appropriations chairman has said, which is we will reduce 
these accounts 10 percent a year over the next 4 years.
  We are committed to reducing these accounts. It is just that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] proposes to do it in 1 year. 
We propose to do it over a 4-year period, both consistent with 
balancing the budget. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I wish 
the gentleman would not characterize it as us not wanting to balance 
the budget.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems every 
time we come forward with some proposal like this, there is some kind 
of objection. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Walker, 
just like the other members of the committee on the majority side, have 
made their commitment to try to do what we can to balance the budget. I 
personally would go a lot further than what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has, but he wants to be responsible and try 
to make sure everybody can vote for this, and he is letting Dana 
Rohrabacher be the radical here. But the fact is I would even be more 
strenuous in cutting down the budget than the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. He is being frugal, but not irresponsible. 
Now what we find is even a frugal approach is being rejected by the 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an interesting series of arguments going on. On 
the one hand, we have the ranking Democrat on the committee arguing 
that these are somehow my figures, that I created these figures.
  None of the figures we are dealing with here were created by this 
chairman. They were figures created by our committee. Our committee 
voted for the $220 million. They voted for the $220 not for next year, 
but for this year. That is the authorization level. That is what our 
committee decided to do, by a majority vote in our committee. We made 
that determination. These are not Chairman Walker's figures; they are 
the figures developed as a part of our consensus process.
  Now, the fact is that as we move forward, that the Committee on 
Appropriations said there are a number of contracts and all kinds of 
problems in keeping with that figure for this year. We have decided to 
agree with that, that in essence that for this year we will accept that 
figure. So we are giving them the authorization numbers that they need 
in order to comply with contractual arrangements and a number of other 
anomalies within the process.
  Now, what they wrote in their report was if there is no authorization 
figure, that their intent is to go at 10 percent a year. That is what 
the Committee on Appropriations decided to do. The authorizing 
committees, it may surprise some people to find out, have some 
authority in all of this, too, and in fact that was recognized in the 
report. What they said was they would agree to a plan for getting to a 
balanced budget that was passed by the House as an authorization plan. 
What we are trying to do here is to do exactly what the report asks us 
to do.
  I realize there are people that would decide that they do not want to 
go that far, that they do not want to actually get us toward a balanced 
budget. Ten percent a year does not get one anywhere close to a 
balanced budget. The fact is that this year's number is within the 
context of the balanced budget.
  But I do not think there is anybody who analyzes this and suggests 
that doing 10 percent a year over the next several years gets to a 
balanced budget.
  So what we are trying to do here is make certain that we are taking 
an approach that recognizes what needs to be done this year, but, 
beginning next year, moves us on to that glidepath for a balanced 
budget.

  My colleague from Pennsylvania has decided he does not want to do 
that. He wants to go to the overall figure. He wants to do 10 percent a 
year. He is about $270 million out of whack with me. He wants to spend 
$270 million more than I do and call that a balanced budget approach? 
Fine, It is not. It does not get anywhere close to a balanced budget. 
It is, in fact the antithesis of a balanced budget, and it is the kind 
of thing that we cannot permit to have happen on a regular basis if we 
are going to meet the conditions that we have set forth.
  So I would ask the House to reject the Doyle substitute. The Doyle 
substitute is, in fact, going the opposite direction from what we have 
to do. It takes these high figures from this year and uses them as a 
base off which to continue spending at levels that are much too high to 
get to a balanced budget.
  I do not think that is the route that the House is going to take. It 
seems to me we want to get down to doing two things: We want to make 
certain that, as in the original Walker amendment, that we make certain 
our authorizations come to the appropriate numbers. But, second, we 
want to make certain that beginning next year, we get on the glidepath 
to the balanced budget that supposedly everybody is for. But it is 
always amazing to me, members say, ``I voted for a budget amendment, I 
am for it.'' Fine. What did they vote to do to discipline yourself to 
actually get to one? That is what we are enacting in the House today.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify then, now in 1996 the 
gentleman's amendment ups the amount to the full appropriated amount?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, absolutely.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in 
1997 is it not possible we could reauthorize again next fall?
  We are talking somewhat semantics, to reauthorize into the future. I 
understand the gentleman wants the stakes to be set in the ground. The 
fact is the appropriators are also going to have a voice in what we 
spend in 1997 as well.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they continue to have 
that voice. They did say in their report they would respect the 
authorization levels set by the House. I think that presents us with an 
opportunity and, in my view, an obligation to then give our best wisdom 
about how we move in that direction. With this amendment, what we are 
trying to do is meet that obligation and utilize that opportunity.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, this is the point I am trying to make.
  It is my understanding that what the chairman wanted to do today is 
in effect lock us into a number, today, for 

[[Page H 9846]]
next year's authorization. If I would vote for the gentleman's 
amendment, what I am in effect voting for is not only to raise these 
levels up to the Interior, but I am also locking myself into saying I 
will vote for $220 million for fossil energy next year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what I would like to see us do as the Committee on Science, No. 1, no 
member of the Committee on Science voted to authorize for 1997. We 
talked about 1996. That is what the vote was in the Committee on 
Science.
  We said if additional moneys were found per the Davis amendment and 
per the gentleman's speeches here, too, we would authorize at higher 
levels. We found additional money. The appropriators gave us additional 
money, and we are upping it. Now we are going to say for 1997. No 
member of the Committee on Science voted only 1997 authorizations, as 
the gentleman tried to state. We are going to state today we are going 
to set 1997 authorization levels, and we are all going to be honor 
bound by that. I would expect the gentleman would intend to hold us to 
that.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the House Committee on 
Science did vote for the $220 million per year for 1996, and we have 
simply extended that over to 1997, having gotten the new moneys.
  I would say as chairman, that I have fulfilled the obligation that 
the committee gave me. If additional moneys were found, we were 
supposed to move ahead with it. I have done that, but we are now going 
to go to what the committee decided it wanted to do with the $220 
million.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising in support of the substitute amendment we 
are considering here and take issue with some of the statements which 
the chairman of the committee has made.
  This has been a controversial area within the committee, because 
despite the chairman's protestations that these numbers have been 
arrived at by full and fair discussion in the committee, and so forth, 
the committee began the year with a memo from the chairman to the 
subcommittee chairmen telling them how much they could authorize within 
their subcommittees and asserting this was their 602(b) authorization 
number.
  I think we all know that there is no such thing as a 602(b) 
authorization level for authorizing legislation. The process does not 
exist. The 602(b) process applies to appropriation bills only, and in 
fact the budget resolution applies to appropriation bills only, not the 
authorization bills, and the chairman knows this full well. But I 
sometimes suspect he thinks by talking real fast that people will think 
that he is saying something that is real important when it really has 
no basis in fact or law, and I regret this.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Doyle amendment to 
raise authorization levels for the fossil energy and conservation 
research and development activities of the Department of Energy. At a 
time when the United States is extremely dependent on foreign oil, the 
Congress should not move to slash research and development efforts in 
fossil energy and conservation.
  I drove to work today in a car; I dare say most of us did. 
Figuratively speaking, half of the gas in my gas tank came from foreign 
countries. Do I want my grandkids to depend on foreign resources and to 
have the geopolitical problems that go along with them? Investment in 
R&D now will pay off later in increased energy conservation and less 
developed energy security problems. In 20 years, American auto 
manufacturers might be selling cars that are powered by renewable fuels 
or perhaps fossil resources will be increasingly produced domestically 
with enhanced recovery technologies. We cannot know now what the future 
will bring. However, we can be sure that with less R&D in these areas, 
the future will not bring as much innovation and discovery and that the 
American public will be poorer for it.
  If we cut R&D, we will balance the budget but leave an investment 
deficit for our children. It simply doesn't make sense to stymy long-
term investment in knowledge and discovery that can solve future fossil 
energy and energy security problems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Doyle amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows that the chairman has 
never contended in any way, shape or form that what he did in 
allocating 602(b)'s had any authority in law or the rules of the House. 
The chairman made the decision that that was the way he was going to 
run the committee.
  The gentleman from California, when he ran the committee, ran it in a 
different way. He never gave his subcommittee chairman any caps. That 
was his choice. My choice was to try to exercise some degree of 
responsibility. I know the gentleman does not agree with that, but the 
gentleman has never stated anything that was not factual in that 
regard.
  I simply stated from the beginning that this committee was going to 
operate in a sensible manner that lived within the budget restraints 
that this House had voted on itself. I know the gentleman does not 
agree with that, but the gentleman did not agree with the budget in the 
first place.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am very 
pleased that the chairman has made this clarification, and he has 
stated that there is nothing in law or in the Budget Act that allows 
him to proscribe a number like he did.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I am 
allowed to do it as chairman of the committee. It is not a matter of 
allowing. The gentleman is suggesting that there is nothing in the 
rules or in law. I am agreeing with the gentleman. As chairman of the 
committee, in consultation with the subcommittee chairmen, I am 
certainly allowed to do that. It is certainly something that we can do 
as a committee to be responsible. The gentleman does not like it, but 
it does not mean we are not allowed to do it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
this is a useful dialog, and I enter into it in good spirits because I 
have the greatest respects for the chairman, and the gentleman will 
recall that I have frequently praised him for the discipline and the 
leadership which he is giving his side of the committee, and I think he 
is setting new standards.
  It is not the style I am accustomed to. I preferred a much more 
collegial way of operating. I was unaware, frankly, of the extensive 
deliberations that the gentleman claims he was had with the 
subcommittee chairmen in which he reached these numbers.
  Now, that is the way the appropriators work. I assume the gentleman 
is saying he is following a similar process in the authorizing 
committee. I do not condemn the gentleman for that. I think that this 
is an interesting innovation, and I hope it works. But the gentleman is 
not very consistent.
  The gentleman has just proposed an amendment which extends the 
authorization for an additional year, and, to the best of my knowledge, 
the gentleman has not brought this before the committee, either the 
minority or the majority, staff. The gentleman has unilaterally picked 
this number because in the gentleman's opinion, it coincides with the 
budgetary glidepath necessary to balance the budget.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, again, if the gentleman would yield, I did 
not arbitrarily pick a number. I took exactly the numbers that the 
committee has approved for 1996. I took the numbers that the committee 
reported for 1996 and put them in 1997, and so it is no arbitrary 
number.
  Mr. BROWN of California. That was not my contention, that the 
gentleman has not picked the number that we approved for 1996. My 
contention is the committee never approved it for 1997.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I think that this is the point I am trying 
to make and I would make to every Member of this body. We, as a Science 
Committee, have not met to discuss authorization levels for 1997. We 
are going to abdicate that today by taking the 1996 numbers and say, 
``Let's use them for the 1997 numbers.'' Now, we may well 

[[Page H 9847]]
end up there when we sit as a committee and decide authorization 
levels, but we ought not to do it today. I would like to do it in 
committee.
  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 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have 
an open-rule process. The gentleman was going to bring his own version 
of reality to the floor. As chairman of the committee, I am not 
precluded from bringing my own amendment to the floor, and that is 
exactly what I have done. I have brought an amendment to the floor. The 
House can accept it or reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I brought happens to be consistent with 
what the committee already agreed to do in 1996, but under the open-
rule process I would tell the gentleman this is something that I am 
perfectly allowed to do.
  Mr. BROWN of California. The gentleman, if he will allow me to 
reclaim my time, I have never contended that he was not allowed to do 
that. He can project an amendment clear through to 2000 if he wishes. I 
am objecting to the fact that he is purporting to represent that this 
has been discussed in the committee and that he does nothing that has 
not been cleared by a democratic process in the committee.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman would yield, I never said anything of 
the kind. I said that this was approved by the committee as 1996 
numbers. I never contended that I brought this matter before the 
committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Let us agree that we have a slight 
misunderstanding then.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman that, if we 
approve his amendment today, would he consider all members of the 
Committee on Science, those that vote for his amendment this evening, 
would sort of be honor-bound to stick to those authorization levels 
when we meet as a committee and discuss 1997 authorizations?
  I am asking a question, if the gentleman would like to respond.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, Members obviously do whatever they want to 
do. As my colleagues know, some days they vote one way, some days they 
vote another way. Members can make their decisions at a particular 
time. I would think that, if the people vote in a particular way today, 
and they have changed their minds tomorrow, that the voters might have 
a problem with that, but the fact is the Members can do whatever they 
want.
  Mr. DOYLE. So we will not have to meet as a committee then. We will 
just authorize 1997 tonight and the Committee on Science does not have 
to have any more authorization meetings.
  Mr. Chairman, I just do not think that is a good way to do business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground a quorum 
is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2 of rule XXIII the Chair will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following this quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their name:

                             [Roll No. 705]

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     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)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1724

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred Members have answered to their name, a 
quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.

[[Page H 9848]]



                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the underlying amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 245, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 706]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--245

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bass
     Chapman
     Clay
     Condit
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Fields (LA)
     Hunter
     Kennelly
     Moakley
     Owens
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1733

  So 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. klug

  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I cannot hear 
the Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The committee will be in 
order.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Second, Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet 
seeking recognition to call for a roll call vote, as was the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] on the last vote and we were not 
recognized, primarily because of the disorder in the House, I believe.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair looked at both sides of the aisle for Members 
seeking recognition and did not see any Member seeking recognition, so 
I moved to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  Mr. BROWN of California. The Chair did not see me seeking 
recognition?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Nor the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Doyle].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not see the gentleman from California nor 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania seeking recognition.
  Mr. BROWN of California. For the Record I would like to state that I 
was seeking recognition, as was the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Doyle].
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klug:
       Page 104, after line 5, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 313. PRIVATIZATION OF DOE LABORATORIES.

       (a) Sale of Laboratories.--Within 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall 
     publish in the Commerce Business Daily a request for 
     proposals to sell all Department of Energy laboratories other 
     than Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National 
     Laboratories, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The 
     Secretary shall coordinate the process of review of such 
     proposals, and shall oversee the transfer of such operations 
     to the private sector.
       (b) Report on Disposition.--If no offer to purchase 
     property under this section is received within an 18-month 
     period after a request for proposals is published in the 
     Commerce Business Daily, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the Congress containing recommendations on the appropriate 
     disposition of the property and functions of such 
     laboratories.
       (c) Privatization of Lawrence Livermore National 
     Laboratory.--(1) Within 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall begin 
     the process of transferring national security and defense-
     related research from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
     to Los Alamos National Laboratory.
       (2) Within 18 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall publish in the 
     Commerce Business Daily a request for proposals to sell 
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The Secretary shall 
     coordinate the process of review of such proposals, and shall 
     oversee the transfer of such operations to the private 
     sector.
       (3) If no offer to purchase property under paragraph (2) is 
     received within an 18-month 

[[Page H 9849]]
     period after a request for proposals is published in the Commerce 
     Business Daily, the Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     Congress containing recommendations on the appropriate 
     disposition of the property and remaining functions of 
     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
       (d) Contracting Authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary is authorized, to the extent 
     provided in advance in appropriations Acts, to enter into 
     contracts for research functions performed by the 
     laboratories described in this section prior to their 
     privatization. Contract authority for such research for any 
     fiscal year shall not exceed levels appropriated for those 
     research functions for fiscal year 1995.
       Page 3, after the item in the table of contents relating to 
     section 312, inserting the following:

Sec. 313. Privatization of DOE laboratories.

  Mr. KLUG (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 
Wisconsin?
  There was not objection.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy maintains 10 major 
laboratories and 18 minor laboratories with a joint annual budget of 
approximately $6 million and a payroll of more than 50,000 employees. 
Earlier this year we received a critical report done and headed by Bob 
Galvin, the former Chairman of Motorola and the so-called Galvin Report 
which took a close look at the future of Department of Energy labs 
across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon we had an opportunity in this 
Chamber in an amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson] to cut the DOE laboratory budget by 15 percent, and then in 
an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] we had an 
opportunity to cut the DOE budget by 30 percent. We unfortunately 
failed in both of those efforts.
  We have talked for some time in this Chamber, over the last several 
months in particular, led by the freshmen with the idea of dismantling 
the Department of Energy. Mr. Chairman, about 30 percent of the 
Department of Energy staff runs and operates something called the Power 
Marketing Administration, which is a collection of 130 dams across the 
country. Nearly another 40 percent of the Department of Energy staff 
works in running and operating and managing those 10 Department of 
Energy labs with a budget of $6 billion.
  This amendment, based on testimony we heard in the Committee on 
Commerce earlier this summer, recommends that we dramatically move 
above and beyond the Galvin Commission recommendation and essentially 
says, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the 
Secretary of Energy shall publish in the Commerce Business Daily 
requests for proposals to sell all Department of Energy laboratories 
except Los Almos, Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.
  The reason we need to do this, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly is, as we 
discussed earlier today in the deliberations to cut the Department of 
Energy lab budget, was the fact that many of these labs no longer have 
a mission. For example, the mission of Lawrence Livermore 40 years ago 
was to do 90 percent of its research on nuclear power research. Today 
we find ourselves with that same laboratory doing less than 40 percent 
of its research on nuclear defense research connected to the national 
defense of this country.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I note that there are a number of my colleagues 
here who will say you cannot move to privatization even though that is 
what the Galvin Commission recommended very strongly. But let me 
suggest that across the world, other countries have attempted to do 
that, and frankly, with a great deal of success.
  In Britain, for example, the British Maritime Laboratory devoted to 
research and design on ship design and maritime structures was 
successfully privatized nearly 10 years ago. The National Engineering 
Laboratory in Great Britain, with a staff of 400 people dealing with 
the engineering of large structures such as oil rigs, was sold to a 
number of private investment firms just last year. The national 
physical lab, which does the primary meteorology research for the 
British government, was sold to a consortium of bidders including 
Laboure University. The Transport Research Laboratory was put up for 
sale as of August 31 of this year, and that deal will close at the end 
of 1995, and the AAE Technology Research Laboratory, which does most of 
the nuclear research for the British government, is going to be put up 
for sale in April of next year, although it is not clear whether it 
will be sold to a private firm or corporatized.

                              {time}  1745

  I know this will send shudders to a number of my colleagues who 
represent these laboratories and represent the employees. But with a 
mission I think largely now unfocused at the end of the cold war, with 
dedicating three very specific laboratories across the country to doing 
national security work, and with moving to privatize the other seven 
laboratories, I think we have managed to preserve that infrastructure 
but get those employees off the public payroll and allow them to do 
what they are beginning to do anyway, which is to move away from the 
kind of classic nuclear research, defense industry program that these 
laboratories have been engaged in for years and instead shift to a 
number of industrial technology research programs which those labs have 
embraced as a new way to define their mission into the future, now that 
the defense programs have all been evaporated underneath them.
  In that case they can do research on energy, they can do research on 
environmental technology, on advanced technology for manufacturing. I 
think those are all appropriate missions, but I would suggest to my 
colleagues those are missions better served in the private sector 
rather than in seven government laboratories largely constructed and 
funded and developed over the years to do arms research for the United 
States military.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize this is a bold move, but it is a move I think 
frankly that many of my colleagues in the Committee on Commerce 
endorsed. It is based on a hearing we had in the Committee on Commerce 
earlier this year.
  I would like to close, if I might, with a quote from a colleague of 
mine on the CATO Institute who pointed out to say: ``The principal 
organizational recommendation of this task force, the Galvin 
Commission, is that the laboratories be as close to corporatized as is 
imaginable. We are convinced that simply fine-tuning a policy or a 
mission, a project or certain administrative functions, will produce 
minimal benefits at best.''
  If colleagues are serious about cutting back on the $6 billion we now 
devote to the Department of Energy facilities, if we are serious about 
moving away from a cold war mission, and if we are serious about 
preserving those laboratories but doing it without taxpayer subsidies 
which can no longer be justified, I would urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment to move toward the sale and the privatization of 7 of 
the 10 DOE labs.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have a question for the maker of the amendment. If he would, I 
would like to know the comparative budgets. You have excluded Los 
Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore. What is their budget compared 
to the total budgets of those which you would sell?
  Mr. KLUG. If the gentleman will yield, I am looking at staffers to 
try to determine that. I cannot tell you. But the reason we focused on 
those three primary labs is because they are still dedicated and 
devoted to national security purposes. That is the core principal for 
the original organization of the DOE labs. As the Galvin Commission 
pointed out, those other seven labs have poorly defined missions at 
this point, and that is why we zeroed in on those for the privatization 
efforts.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I hope before the end of this debate 
we can get those numbers. I think that the serious money in the 
Department of Energy, if you look at the Department of Energy budget, 
it is not any more dedicated to energy independence and conservation of 
resources in this country. It is dedicated only to nuclear weapons 
production against a lot of enemies that no longer exist. These three 
labs get the lion's share of the money.
  Things that would make America truly competitive in the next century, 
like solar energy research, research conservation, we are gutting and 
doing away with. During the Reagan years,  

[[Page H 9850]]

we sold all of our solar energy division here in Washington, DC. We 
privatized it. You know who bought it? Seimens, the Germans. Now what? 
They are the world's leader in solar energy technology. The United 
States is far, far behind.
  So we are going to unilaterally disarm, that is, give up any research 
that makes America more competitive in the international energy 
markets, international energy wars, but we are going to keep on 
building hydrogen bombs that we do not need when we have already got 
10,000 of them. So the gentleman here, it looks good on the surface, 
but I wish the gentleman would do away with the obsolete nuclear 
weapons laboratories, ones that are building hydrogen bombs, and save 
the real money as opposed to picking on the things that have a real 
product, research for the civilian sector, research that makes this 
country more competitive in the international marketplace. It is an 
ill-intentioned amendment from that direction since it does not go 
after the big bucks.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. I am 
the chairman of the subcommittee that would have dealt with this bill 
had this bill been submitted in the proper way. The fact is that I am 
very sympathetic with the goal that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] has in mind here. Had we had a chance to look at it and to 
examine the issues and examine the figures and the facts, I might be 
standing today in partnership with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Klug] in support of this amendment. But we do not know. In fact, there 
were hearings on various bills that were aimed at privatizing 
laboratories or reforming the laboratory system and the bill of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] was not included because it was not 
submitted to us. Thus for all we know, there could be some unintended 
consequences that we have not looked at.
  So whereas I am always open-minded to try to find ways of privatizing 
government services and seeing how we can do this, I would have to be 
in opposition to this particular amendment at this time. I would hope 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], if this loses in a vote 
on the floor, would not give up but instead resubmit this and submit to 
the committee and I would be very happy to bring this up at the 
earliest possible time.
  Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLUG. I want to thank my colleague from California for his 
willingness to work on this. I think it is the intention of both 
members of the Committee on Science and also the Committee on Commerce 
to get to that point in serious discussions next year.
  To answer briefly my colleague from Oregon, if I might, of the $6 
billion programmed for the national energy laboratories, roughly $2.5 
billion still goes to nuclear weapons research. The balance is spread 
among a wide array of programs. But again I think what we need to do is 
to figure out as we talked about on privatizing other areas, that what 
we should do is figure out a way to move these forward, allow the 
Secretary to develop individual strategies perhaps to corporatize some 
and privatize others and to see quite frankly what interest is out 
there in the private sector because I am convinced these are a national 
treasure that we can preserve, be run and operated by the private 
sector and at the same time preserve the technology for important 
science and technology programs.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, I would just say that I agree 
with that goal. I agree totally with that goal and that may well be 
achievable. I would like to try to proceed and to study that issue and 
let people on both sides of the aisle have their say and examine it as 
it should be examined. In terms of the amount of money spent on energy 
research, let me just say, to correct my friend, this bill is about 
$6.5 billion of non-defense energy and environmental research. That is 
what this is about. So I do not think that that is low-balling this 
issue. I believe that $6.5 billion spent by the Federal Government on 
energy and environmental research is a good sum of money. Our job is to 
make sure it is spent properly. Some people may want to spend more 
money, but we should at the very least prioritize and make sure that 
the very most effective and promising sources of energy and 
environmental technology are funded. That is what this is all about, 
when we are trying to balance the budget, to find that particular 
project, rather than funding all the projects or cutting all the 
projects by 10 or 20 percent, find those projects that are most 
promising and fund those and come up with creative ideas like we just 
have.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Let me just speak in behalf of our national 
treasures that we are cutting. The Livermore and Sandia labs and the 
other labs in New Mexico as well as California are cutting. This year 
the laboratory in my district, Livermore Lab, is cutting $46.4 million. 
That is a lot of jobs, a lot of scientists, a lot of science.
  Are we afraid of the future? Are we afraid of looking forward and 
saying, is there an alternative to burning coal and burning oil? Do we 
need nuclear fusion? Without the national ignition facility which has 
just been proposed by the Energy Department, Livermore was selected as 
the site because of their laser capability. Without it, we are going to 
have to go back to nuclear testing. France is fighting that battle now 
and losing. We are not going to do that.
  The national ignition facility allows us to keep our stockpile fresh. 
It also allow us to keep out stockpile fresh. It also allows us to 
study nuclear power. We are not afraid of the future. We are going to 
manage our $6 billion and we are going to downsize the laboratories 
because the need for nuclear defensive laboratories is waning. But we 
want to be prepared for China, we want to be prepared for the next 
empire and the laboratories are doing that for us.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and I would like to say just a 
couple of things about why. I do not have a national lab in my 
district, but I have a very great interest in the national labs 
because, like other Americans, I believe that science and research 
really holds the key to our economic future as a country.
  I think it is important to outline what the Galvin report did say and 
did not say. The Galvin report never said to put our national labs up 
for sale. In fact, when Mr. Galvin testified before the Committee on 
Science, that question was posed to him. He said that that was not a 
good idea, that it was impossible to imagine who would have the money 
to bid on these labs.
  What the Galvin report suggested was a different type of management 
structure for the labs. Actually it is an issue that I think, as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said, deserves 
additional analysis and study. I for one believe it is something that 
we ought to explore, but never once did Mr. Galvin suggest that the 
national labs go outside of the ownership of the Federal Government. I 
think the concept of selling the national jewels is one that ought to 
be rejected.

  Finally, I would like to note that the complex arrangement of some of 
these labs, for example, the linear accelerator at Stanford University 
is not readily susceptible to a bid as is suggested in the amendment. I 
would say in closing that the only people who have lobbied me to 
eliminate our investment in the labs are foreign companies. Our 
economic competitors have lobbied me to cut the labs. No one else in 
America has.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Klug amendment 
to privatize the Department of Energy laboratories. Congressman Klug's 
amendment would privatize the DOE laboratories, encouraging private 
sector innovation and competitiveness, much like we did in the 
dismantling of the Department of Commerce act, H.R. 1756.

[[Page H 9851]]

  By privatizing the laboratory functions of the DOE, we will encourage 
these newly privatized entities to produce and sell their services more 
widely. By removing the nonessential research and development functions 
and the means of production from the Federal Government labs, we will 
now produce on the basis of demand, and in turn spin off other 
industries, creating jobs and providing increased revenues for the 
Nation.
  Speaking from firsthand experience, the private sector entities have 
always proved to be more efficient and accountable, and if they are 
not, they would go out of business. Federal programs, on the other 
hand, such as the DOE labs, are simply not held to the degree of 
accountability that private sector labs are. Instead of going out of 
business, as would be the case in the private sector, Congress 
merely passes the cost on to the taxpayers.

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think 
that the spirit of this amendment is supported by many people on both 
sides of the aisle. That spirit is that we really need to look at these 
national labs because some of their missions have changed. We are in a 
post-cold-war era. That does not mean that we are in a really safe 
world. I am not sure this is the best way to approach that problem, but 
I wanted to take just a moment to focus on one of the things that our 
labs are doing which I think is very important for our future.
  Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend my committee chairman, Mr. 
Walker, for this sensible approach to consolidating U.S. civilian 
science research and development programs into an omnibus bill. I 
believe that this approach elevates civilian science R&D and its 
contribution to our national security.
  It is a sound precedent for prioritizing national science programs.
  As we consider H.R. 2405 and our priorities in science policy, I urge 
my colleagues to reflect of the importance of these science programs.
  I am particularly interested in alternative energy research programs. 
Just as it is irresponsible to saddle our children with the national 
debt we have created, it is irresponsible for this Nation not to 
develop clean, safe alternative energy sources for future generations.
  Harnessing fusion power is the most challenging and ambitious 
scientific endeavor ever undertaken by man. Not only is fusion one of 
very few long-term energy options for the future but it is at the 
cutting edge of scientific research and technology. This country must 
not lose sight of the importance of scientific research, especially 
research that has such a tremendous payoff.
  Steady progress continues in demonstrating the scientific and 
technological feasibility of magnetic fusion power as a viable long-
term energy supply system. I realize that all programs must be tailored 
to more closely meet today's budgetary constraints, and this bill does 
not responsibly.
  However with additional funding cuts we would forfeit our ability to 
develop a technology that holds great promise for our Nation's economic 
and environmental future.
  I thank my colleagues on the Science Committee for their attention to 
alternative energy research and urge support for the civilian science 
programs in H.R. 2405.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
  The amendment was rejected.


                     amendment offered by ms. furse

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Furse:
       Page 94, strike line 6.

  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to strike 
a very punitive provision in this bill. That provision would eliminate 
last year's funding for a vital program in Oregon. This program has 
just begun. It is relying on a grant from the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a few minutes to describe this 
program so that the Members will know exactly what it is that is being 
terminated. The Biomedical Information Communication Center is the 
backbone of Oregon health sciences rural network. This network provides 
information, education, and diagnostic services to health care 
providers and citizens throughout the State of Oregon. Through its 
innovative, 21st century information system, student practitioners can 
be educated and trained on the spot in their hometown communities. This 
allows isolated towns to retain health personnel in their area. Rural 
doctors are able to obtain information on the latest research in 
medical techniques via the network.
  For example, if there were an injured logger in a rural, remote area, 
his x-rays can be transmitted electronically so that doctors hundreds 
of miles away can treat the patient. At a time when we are celebrating 
the many potential benefits of the information superhighway and are 
exploring ways to upgrade health and medical services to rural 
populations, this communications center will put innovative ideas into 
practice.
  Mr. Chairman, a 1-year grant was approved by the Department of Energy 
to pay for the cost of completing the infrastructure of the network and 
to provide the staff and services. The Biomedical Information 
Communications Center opened September 15, relying on the grant, and 
personnel and programs are in place for the entire next year, based on 
a commitment of last year's appropriation. If, at this eleventh hour, 
the Congress were to pull the rug from under this important project, 
the jobs of more than 100 people would be in jeopardy and, even more 
important, thousands of people throughout the State would be denied the 
most up-to-date health care information far from its cities.
  It makes no economic nor common sense whatsoever to terminate the 
Biomedical Information Communications Center in this bill. It is 
fundamentally unfair for Congress to renege on commitments it has 
already made.
  I urge my colleagues to support rural health care, sound health 
science, and vote ``yes'' for this amendment so that we can fix the 
punitive provision in the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the language is in the bill for a very specific reason. 
One of the most disturbing processes that characterized Congresses of 
the past was the fact that we had a lot of earmarked science, money 
that showed up out of nowhere in conference committees that just 
suddenly appeared as spending that we ought to be doing because 
somebody thought it was a good thing. There was never peer review, 
never showed up on the House floor or Senate floor for debate. It just 
emerged out of a conference committee out of nowhere and so on, a 
specific earmark for a specific university or for a specific program.
  So what we have decided to do is try to eliminate some of those 
programs and say to them, ``Compete with the rest of us.'' If this 
program is as good as the gentlewoman tells us it is, it ought to be 
very competitive. It ought to be able to go in and offer its 
credentials with everybody else, be peer reviewed by people who have 
knowledge about the programs and survive and be funded. They did not 
want to do that. They did an end run, got somebody to offer an earmark, 
got somebody to practice a little pork-barreling for them and throw it 
in the bill.
  What we are going to do is we are going to stop that practice. Where 
we have projects that are on the dole because of some earmark along the 
way, we are going to divest them. We are not making a judgment about 
those programs. We are saying about those programs they ought to come 
in and compete in the regular process, and we would be perfectly happy 
to have Oregon or Nebraska or wherever get their money through the good 
old traditional way of actually competing fairly.
  But this outrage that the American people's tax money gets spent 
simply because somebody sits in a committee somewhere and sneaks it in 
in the dark of night has got to stop. This is a ridiculous way to do 
science.
  We are spending vast amounts of science money in this country going 
for earmarked pork-barrel projects. We cannot afford it. The science of 
this country is too important to have it being run that way, and so 
when this amendment is offered to knock out 

[[Page H 9852]]
that provision, what this amendment is is that this is a propork, 
proearmark amendment. This simply says, ``Keep it. We got it, it is all 
ours,'' and so on, ``and now we ought to keep it. It does not matter 
how we got it. If we got it unfairly, if we stuck it in in the dark of 
night, keep it, it is fine.'' I think the American people are telling 
us they want the Government run more effectively and they want to make 
certain the moneys we spend have been properly evaluated.
  These projects, good as they might be, were not properly evaluated, 
and we thought they ought to be cut out. So we included in our bill a 
cut of some of these programs that showed up as earmarks in the past.
  I would say to my colleagues, I think we ought to oppose this 
amendment. It is a terrible way to spend the taxpayers' money when what 
happens is powerful people in the Congress are able to earmark things 
without being properly reviewed, and it seems to me that this is a good 
chance to strike an antiearmarking blow once and for all.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's 
sentiment about getting rid of pork-barrel projects. It rings hollow 
with me when I think back to the debate we had on this floor about 
hydrogen research, which, as I recall, had a 50-percent increase, the 
bulk of which went to a plant close to or in the gentleman's district.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is making an accusation, which I think is 
against the rules of the House. The gentleman is absolutely wrong in 
both his facts and what we believe was done. I have supported hydrogen 
research for a long time. The gentleman is making an outrageous claim 
here. I brought it to the floor. I did not sneak it in in the dead of 
night somewhere. I brought up to the floor as part of a bill because it 
is the right thing to do.
  I have no plant in my district. I have no plant close to my district. 
The fact is the money in that program went to Texas. If the gentleman 
thinks I am from Texas, maybe he ought to go check his Members' 
handbook and find out the real facts.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. I did not say you sneaked it in in the 
middle of the night. I said it had a 50-percent increase.
  Mr. WALKER. It is entirely legitimate. There are increases in this 
bill as well. We increase a number of places for science. Does the 
gentleman not want to increase priority science? Does the gentleman not 
believe doing hydrogen research is, in fact, the right kind of thing to 
do for our energy future? Maybe the gentleman is against doing good 
science. The gentleman can be a total antiscience person on this floor. 
He can do that. That is fine.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
stand by my statement that my understanding is there is considerable 
hydrogen research done in the State of Pennsylvania. Maybe I am wrong. 
But I think that that is something----
  Mr. WALKER. I would hope that Pennsylvania and a number of other 
States are doing hydrogen research. The gentleman is absolutely correct 
in his assumption here.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is making an accusation here as though I 
brought a pork-barrel item to the floor myself. I did nothing of the 
kind. The gentleman will find nothing in my district that got any of 
that money, and the gentleman will find that the bulk of the hydrogen 
money goes to States far outside.
  I just think it is outrageous for the gentleman to raise the level, 
because I tell you what happened on this program, if the gentleman is 
up to defending this program, it was sneaked into a conference report. 
There was no debate on it on the House floor, no debate on the Senate 
floor. I think the gentleman came out here and tried to cut the 
hydrogen money, in fact. The gentleman came out here and got his shot 
at cutting the hydrogen money. In fact, he could not do it, because the 
House recognized the gentleman simply did not want to do something that 
was not in the best long-term interests of the country. Having good 
hydrogen research is the way to do it.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further, again, 
I may vote with the gentleman on this. I think we should have some 
consistency. Yes, I felt hydrogen production, I correct myself, should 
have taken a cut just like other things. I think we should have some 
consistency. That should take a cut just as you go after these 
projects. That is what I am asking for, simply asking for consistency.
  Mr. WALKER. The fact is, there is no port in any of these bills. 
There was no designation of Pennsylvania or any other place for the 
hydrogen money. It was put out on a competitive basis. Anybody who 
wanted to compete for it was happy to compete for it. The gentleman 
walks away. He does not want to hear the truth. This is what I am 
asking for in this kind of situation.
  I think what we ought to have is a competitive process where 
everybody has a chance to come in and compete, and this kind of program 
is just an outrage, and I would hope that we would vote against this 
program that got the money strictly through a really pork-barrel, 
earmarked approach.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I think the gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke and insinuated 
something about the chairman of the Committee on Science owes the 
chairman of the Committee of Science an apology. The insinuation was 
that this is some way correlates, the support of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], of hydrogen research, in some way correlates 
to the, you know, what we have in front of us today, which is basically 
pork-barreling that has not gone, and earmarking, that has not gone 
through the process, and it is very clear to those of us who are on the 
Committee on Science that any money allocated for hydrogen research was 
something that went through the committee process. Everyone had a 
chance to debate it. Everyone had a chance to examine it, to disagree 
or agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] about 
hydrogen research.
  That is totally unlike what we are talking about today in this bill, 
where we are basically talking about something that was put in, not 
through the committee process, but instead has just materialized in 
front of us. I think that it is basically my colleague from Wisconsin, 
who, through this insinuation at the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] and owes him an apology. I would have to say that I have 
witnessed that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] did on 
the hydrogen research bill has nothing to do and is totally dissimilar 
and was absolutely consistent with the rules.
  I would suggest that if some one is going to make those kinds of 
insinuations, that maybe they should study the the process and 
understand it a little more before they attack a senior Member, as 
such.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Furse amendment. I 
would hope for a moment we could get beyond the matter of accusations 
and look at a few facts.
  The first is that the Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated 
with the Committee on Science at every turn. They have submitted 
detailed responses to committee questions with respect to earmarks. The 
president of the university has been available to the bipartisan 
leadership of the Committee on Science. The fact is that the university 
has cooperated in every respect with the Committee on Science.
  Now, these funds have been obligated. Contracts have been let. 
Expenses are being met on a monthly basis with the expectation of the 
Department of Energy providing promised grant moneys. It now becomes 
simply a matter of fairness to ensure that the obligations under this 
contract are met.

[[Page H 9853]]

  The gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] has been absolutely correct 
in talking about the extraordinary potential of telemedicine. As our 
friend, the chairman of the health committee, notes, telemedicine is 
the medicine of the future. So this program that is being pioneered at 
the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center dollar for dollar is 
going to produce a return across this country. To consider that, after 
the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated in an 
aboveboard fashion with the committee at every step along the way, the 
obligation has essentially been incurred by the Federal Government; the 
potential of the telemedicine is extraordinary. To then come and 
rupture the good work that has been done strikes me as a tragedy, not 
just for the country, but for the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis would 
support the excellent amendment of the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. 
Furse]. It has implications for bringing this country together, urban 
and rural areas across the Nation, across our State, and I hope my 
colleagues will support the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this might be a very 
fine program, and it probably is a very fine program, but what does 
this have to do with the Department of Energy?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman knows, 
the Department of Energy has been one of the pioneers in the research 
field. That is what this is all about. The Oregon Health Sciences 
Center is on the cutting edge of future medical technology.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, is this not supposed to be energy research, and not medical 
research?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the Department of 
Energy is involved in a variety of important research. Much of this 
interfaces between communications and health and a number of related 
agencies.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. This is one of the reasons why these types of 
requests should go through the committee and subcommittee and be 
presented there rather than just being basically voiced on the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to repeat again 
that the university has cooperated with the Committee on Science at 
every step. They have returned detailed responses. The university 
president has been available to the committee at every step along the 
way. The University of Oregon Health Sciences Center has cooperated.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
am sorry the gentleman's information is incorrect, unless my staff is 
incorrect. I am informed there has been no communication from the 
university this year, and that this was not presented to our 
subcommittee, nowhere along the line.
  If this is such an important project and this is so justifiable, why 
was not an amendment presented to us at the subcommittee so we could go 
through the procedures and it could be talked out, so people up and 
down through the system would have their chance to have a say and to 
vote on this? Why do we have to have it just appear all of a sudden on 
the floor at the last minute?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. With regard to the point that the 
distinguished subcommittee chairman raises, the gentleman is correct in 
stating on the basis of the information from his staff that there has 
been no interaction this year. On the other hand, the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Wyden] is absolutely correct; there were extensive 
discussions during the last Congress when I was chairman of the 
committee.
  The gentleman may recall that we threatened to subpoena the earmarked 
institutions and bring them into Washington. The University of Oregon 
voluntarily came in and sent their president of the institution, and 
there were discussions. I will speak a little bit later about my 
attitude about earmarks, but the gentleman is correct that the 
cooperation was extended, the programs were fully explained, and they 
are among the best in the world.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, that is last year. They had a different Congress than.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Were it so that 
this bill has been scrubbed so clean. It seems out of a number of 
earmarks, that it would have been chosen for some reason. Now, was this 
particular earmark chosen to be eliminated because it lacks merit? I 
think not.
  What we are talking about here goes to some of the essential themes 
before this Congress. It is about health care in America. It is about 
providing more efficient health care. It is about saving lives for 
fewer dollars. That is what this project would do.
  I represent a district that is the 45th largest district in the U.S. 
Congress. Many people in my district live a couple hours away from the 
nearest hospital. We have a lot of rural clinics. Those rural clinics 
will be tied in by this system, which is developing a model for rural 
medicine across America, so that when Blue River, OR, has a nurse-
practitioner and there is a serious accident and they take the x ray, 
they can get real-time consultation with experts up in Portland and 
decide whether or not we have to dispatch a helicopter, a very 
expensive helicopter, on a mercy flight, or whether that person can be 
stabilized and transported an hour by ambulance to the nearest 
hospital.
  Those are the sorts of decisions that will be made in an informed 
manner with this system. It is a system not just for the State of 
Oregon. Oregon is going to be the model, and it is going to set the 
template for the rest of the Nation, a way to provide rural health care 
in this country and meet our fiscal constraints.
  So it is not that this program lacks merit. I would wonder what are 
the merits of the Florida State University earmark, the Southern 
earmark, the University of Vermont earmark, the earmark for A&M College 
Systems in Baton Rouge, LA. I think there is an important person 
representing that area, lives down that way. The University of Florida 
solar program. These are all earmarks that are still in the bill. This 
is not a clean bill that suddenly has achieved great virtue, although 
the chairman would have us believe that.
  A couple of things have been chosen, for whatever reason, to be 
eliminated. I guess the question is, should this remain in on its 
merits? It saves money. Ultimately, it will save tens of millions, 
hundreds of millions of dollars across the country, for rural 
Oregonians and rural Americans. It will save lives.
  The most outrageous thing about this amendment is this was funded 
previously. The program was begun on September 15. Funds have already 
been committed, people have been hired. The software is being written, 
the technology is contracted for. And now we are going to cut it off in 
midstream, because we are saying that the Senator from Oregon, Mark 
Hatfield, somehow no one knew what the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations was doing, that he snuck this in in the dark of the 
night. As Members heard from the former chairman of the committee, 
Portland State, the Oregon Health Sciences Center came forward with 
information last year.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, was this item in the Senate bill? If 
Mark Hatfield was so supportive of it, was it in the Senate bill? It 
was not in the House bill. It just sort of appeared. That really is the 
question. We are trying to make sure things do not just appear anymore.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members not to refer to Members 
of the Senate.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this debate, I indicated that it 
really did not make too much difference what 

[[Page H 9854]]
we did with this bill, but that we could expect some interesting dialog 
as a result of it, and this dialog with regard to earmarking or so-
called pork is a part of that.
  Now, I have been involved generally in close cooperation with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] on this issue for a number of 
years. We have almost always seen eye to eye in conducting a vigorous 
campaign to restrict the growth of earmarks which during the eighties 
reached the level of almost $1 billion on appropriation bills for 
research and development. Not earmarks for highways and dams and things 
like that, but for research and development, whose essence is that it 
should be peer reviewed and the best should be selected.
  We felt that it was a crusade that was worth conducting. We compiled 
annual lists of the States and, as far as we could tell, the Members of 
this august body who were the most successful in their practice of 
earmarking.
  Now, amongst the list of centers, the State of Oregon ranked very 
high. The reasons were very simple. It had two outstanding Senators, 
one of whom was the ranking minority member during this period of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and he had no hesitancy about getting what 
Oregon ought to have. He was not the only one. The Senator from 
Louisiana, from South Carolina, other Senators, from Alaska, I do not 
want to pick out any particular Senators, but they, because they were 
members of the Committee on Appropriations, participated in the 
conference, got very expert at this business of trading off pork with 
their counterparts on the House side. It became a fine art, which the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and I tried to stop.
  Now, let me say, as I have already indicated, that the question was 
not necessarily the merit of the particular project. I tried wherever 
possible to invite these earmarked institutions to come in and defend 
their earmarks and, if it seemed meritorious, to assist them with 
getting a proper authorization.
  We did that with the University of Oregon, and they were extremely 
cooperative. We did it with many other institutions. We did it with a 
fine institution up in Michigan, for example, which a former House 
subcommittee appropriations chairman wanted to earmark. We thought it 
was sufficiently meritorious to authorize it.
  Our effort is to cooperate in making the systems of this Congress 
work effectively and to achieve the public goal. Now, it is my opinion, 
and I will state it very strongly, that the University of Oregon Health 
Sciences Center is one of the finest institutions in this country. I do 
not think there is any question about that. It will be a model for many 
other States. But it did go about securing its funding in the manner 
which has been described, which I was opposed to, and I sought to 
correct. But it was of very little avail, except that, as I indicated, 
there was full cooperation from the university in helping us to 
understand on the committee the work that these programs do, and I am 
glad to assert they were extremely cooperative.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
yielding, because I suspect this debate is closing.
  Mr. Chairman, the Furse amendment is not a referendum on earmarks. A 
lot of us on a bipartisan basis have reservations, as the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown] has said, about the earmarking concept. 
What we are concerned about is when a university does cooperate with 
the bipartisan leadership of the Committee on Science, does things in 
an above the board way, and incurs these obligations, it is a great 
mistake to then in effect tear up all of that good work which has the 
potential to serve the country. This is not a referendum on earmarks. 
This is a question of fairness for a particular university that has 
cooperated with the Congress in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me for the record state that I 
have deep admiration for the former chairman of the Committee on 
Science and in the past several years I have worked with the former 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], on this issue as 
well as on the issue about other what I consider to be some kind of 
violations of the Committee on Appropriations process. The gentleman 
has my full respect for this and other issues that we have worked side-
by-side on
  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 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is a new Congress, and what the 
gentleman was describing earlier seems to indicate that this particular 
item was handled last year, and perhaps had there not been this change 
over between the Republicans and Democrats, that this might not have 
come up as an issue because things would have been handled, the 
university's request would have been handled in a different way earlier 
on because we would have been aware of it. As it was, the university 
did not communicate with us, but was in communication with the chairman 
and with the former leaders of the committee.
  So I see where there is a breakdown of communication here, perhaps as 
the former chairman has indicated, with no bad thoughts or any strategy 
in mind, but just because of naivete did not remake the request. We 
needed the request earlier on before the subcommittee so people could 
have basically voted on it. By not following that procedure, that is 
why we have come to this conflict today.
  Mr. Chairman, I do verify and respect the former chairman for all he 
has done in this area and appreciate the work that he has done.
  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 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
remarks and, Mr. Chairman, to complete my statement, I want to make 
this point. The campaign against earmarking needs to be continued and 
it should be on a bipartisan basis, and I would appreciate a chance to 
cooperate in that.
  Second, the point before us is that the particular language in the 
bill here attempts to revoke two earmarks from last year's 
appropriations bill. I have said from the beginning that this bill that 
we are considering is not going anywhere and I will tell Members that 
if we strike out the money for the University of Oregon Health Sciences 
University, the former ranking minority member, who is now the chairman 
of that Committee on Appropriations, is going to take great umbrage and 
we will not get any consideration of getting this bill out of the 
Senate, which I think is probably just as well.
  I am curious as to what masterful stroke of political acumen made the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] decide to strike out the 
favored project over the last 15 years of the senior Senator from 
Oregon who chairs the Committee on Appropriations. Could the gentleman 
answer that?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for a 
response, these two projects were the only two projects that came out 
of this conference committee that were in neither the House bill nor 
the Senate bill, and that is why they were selected.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Well, Mr. Chairman, the concluding point I 
will make is that I have looked at the bill, there are about three 
pages of other earmarks, as was pointed out earlier. My objection to 
the provisions here, and my reason for supporting the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] is that out of about 20, the 
gentleman has selected two, for one reason or another, and I was trying 
to elicit what those reasons were.
  I would say, for lack of equal application of the gentleman's zeal, 
that we ought not to go ahead with these two.
  There is a third paragraph here which is so defective that the 
Committee on Rules struck it out. The gentleman should have asked them 
to strike out these two earmarked positions as well and he would have a 
much better bill.

[[Page H 9855]]

  I have mixed emotions in saying this, because the bill is very bad. I 
hope it gets worse and that will guarantee it will not get anywhere, 
but I think this has been a most enlightening debate and it has been a 
pleasure to participate in it with the gentleman.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I include four pages for the 
Record regarding earmarks in the House and Senate energy and water 1995 
appropriations bill.

                     EARMARKS IN HOUSE AND SENATE ENERGY AND WATER 1995 APPROPRIATIONS BILL                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Location/section                           Description                        House          Senate    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corp. of Engineers, pp. H18 and    * * * has provided $300,000 for the Corps of      $300,000.00     $300,000.00
 S12.                               Engineers to proceed with detailed design                                   
                                    and plans and specifications, including                                     
                                    detailed cost estimates, for certain                                        
                                    elements of the master plan of the                                          
                                    multipurpose Indiana University South Bend,                                 
                                    St. Joseph River, Indiana, project * * *.                                   
                                    The Committee expects the Corps to continue                                 
                                    to conduct this work in close cooperation                                   
                                    with Indiana University South Bend.                                         
Pp. H19 and S22..................  * * * has included $300,000 for continuation       300,000.00               0
                                    of the Construction Technology Transfer                                     
                                    Project between the Corps of Engineers                                      
                                    research institutions and Indiana State                                     
                                    University.                                                                 
Corps of Engineers, p. S22.......  * * * Committee has included an additional     ..............  \1\ 2,000,000.
                                    $2,000,000 for R&D activities related to                                  00
                                    zebra mussel control.                                                       
Corp. of Engineers, Aquatic Plant  * * * directs that $1,000,000 of these           1,000,000.00    1,000,000.00
 Control Program, p. H28.           additional funds be used to increase the                                    
                                    research effort at the Corps of Engineers                                   
                                    waterways Experiment Station * * * for                                      
                                    cooperative research to be conducted                                        
                                    primarily by the University of Miami,                                       
                                    Florida.                                                                    
Corp. of Engineers, Oil Spill      In accordance with section 7001(c)(10) of the  ..............      275,000.00
 Research p. S58.                   act [Oil Pollution Act of 1990], the                                        
                                    Committee has added $275,000 * * * to                                       
                                    establish cooperative agreements with                                       
                                    research institutions located in the                                        
                                    northern gulf coast region to conduct                                       
                                    essential research in oilspill remediation                                  
                                    and restoration.                                                            
Dept. of Energy/Electric Energy    * * * has included $600,000 to support the         600,000.00      600,000.00
 Systems and Storage, p. H71.       ongoing and productive research at the                                      
                                    Florida Solar Energy Center.                                                
DOE/Biological & Environmental     * * * provides $1,000,000 to make one grant      1,000,000.00    1,000,000.00
 Research, pp. H72 and S85.         to continue research and develop technology                                 
                                    for commercial exploitation in the disposal                                 
                                    of infectious hospital waste through                                        
                                    electron beam sterilization at a public,                                    
                                    urban teaching hospital affiliated with a                                   
                                    comprehensive medical school and research                                   
                                    center with an active electron beam program                                 
                                    and documentable experience in operating a                                  
                                    functional machine.                                                         
DOE/Biological & Environmental     * * * Committee recommends an appropriation    ..............    5,000,000.00
 Research, p. S86.                  of $5,000,000 to assist the University of                                   
                                    Nebraska Medical Center in the development                                  
                                    of its transplant center * * *.                                             
                                   Positron emission tomograph (PET) * * *        ..............     Unspecified
                                    Committee directs the Department to                                         
                                    undertake a cooperative project to develop                                  
                                    and test this concept in a medical setting *                                
                                    * * and has provided funding for this                                       
                                    purpose.                                                                    
                                   * * * Committee has included $5,000,000 for    ..............    5,000,000.00
                                    the second phase of the Biomedical                                          
                                    Information Center (BIC) at the Oregon                                      
                                    Health Sciences University.                                                 
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * to continue the Midwest                    3,200,000.00    3,700,000.00
 Technical Analysis, pp. H75 and    Superconductivity Consortium. The Consortium                                
 S90.                               is directed to continue using a competitive                                 
                                    review process to identify and fund                                         
                                    university research * * *.                                                  
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * is supportive of the work done at          5,900,000.00  ..............
 Technical Analysis, p. H76.        Florida State University's Super                                            
                                    Computations Research Institute * * *                                       
                                    recommendation includes $5,900,000 to                                       
                                    continue the Super Computations Research                                    
                                    Institute.                                                                  
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the Ana      4,000,000.00    4,000,000.00
 Technical Analysis, pp. H76 and    G. Mendez Educational Foundation and Jackson                                
 S91.                               State University have enjoyed a productive                                  
                                    relationship intended to enhance computer                                   
                                    science and scientific research at all three                                
                                    institutions * * * directs the Department to                                
                                    continue the program, and provides                                          
                                    $4,000,000 to maintain and support this                                     
                                    relationship.                                                               
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * Committee recommendation provides        ..............      500,000.00
 Technical Analysis, p. S90.        $500,000 to continue the partnership begun                                  
                                    in 1992 with Lawrence Livermore and Sandia                                  
                                    National Laboratories, Southern University,                                 
                                    and other institutions of higher education                                  
                                    to support the Louisiana systemic initiative                                
                                    * * * to increase representation of                                         
                                    minorities and women in science, math                                       
                                    technology, engineering and related                                         
                                    disciplines.                                                                
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * urges the Department to fund nonprofit   ..............     Unspecified
 Technical Analysis, p. S91.        optics consortia to coordinate research and                                 
                                    development activity between the private                                    
                                    sector, university researchers, and the                                     
                                    Government * * *.                                                           
DOE/Supporting Research and        * * * an additional $5,000,000 under           ..............    5,000,000.00
 Technical Analysis, p. S91.        university and science education programs to                                
                                    establish the Center for Minorities in                                      
                                    Science, Engineering, and Technology at                                     
                                    existing facilities at Southern University                                  
                                    and A&M College System in Baton Rouge, LA.                                  
DOE/Environmental Restoration and  From within available funds, the Committee       4,000,000.00  ..............
 Waste Management, p. H77.          recommendation is to continue the support of                                
                                    the existing University Research Program in                                 
                                    Robotics at the level of fiscal year 1994 of                                
                                    $4,000,000.                                                                 
Defense Environmental Restoration  * * * the Department is presently considering  ..............     Unspecified
 and Waste Management, p. S134.     a proposal to establish the International                                   
                                    Center for Groundwater Remediation Design.                                  
                                    The Center is an outgrowth of the                                           
                                    partnership between Lawrence Livermore Lab                                  
                                    and the University of Vermont * * *. The                                    
                                    Committee encourages the Department to                                      
                                    support this university/national laboratory                                 
                                    consortia * * *.                                                            
Cong. Record, 6/30/94, p. S8033..  * * * within funds available for hydrogen      ..............      250,000.00
                                    research, $250,000 shall be made available                                  
                                    to an institution [University of Oklahoma]                                  
                                    where expertise in electrochemical (fuel                                    
                                    cells), thermochemical and photochemical                                    
                                    reactions for hydrogen production may be                                    
                                    synergistically studied and the application                                 
                                    to gas storage and alternate vehicle                                        
                                    technology may be integrated.                                               
      Grand totals...............  .............................................   20,300,000.00   26,625,000.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although included on this list, Senate report provides no cue as to where research will be conducted. The   
  $2,000,000 for this earmark is not included in Senate grand total amount.                                     
                                                                                                                
Note: Page references with H=House report; S=Senate report.                                                     

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  The amendment was rejected.


                    amendment offered by mr. kleczka

  Mr. KLECZKA. 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. Kleczka: Page 90, lines 17 through 
     19, strike ``, including'' and all that follows through 
     ``Energy Research''.

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, a short time ago the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the committee, indicated that 
the time has come that we have to stop earmarking, and in an effort to 
continue the ware against earmarking, this amendment does exactly that.
  I direct the attention of the Members to page 90 of the authorization 
bill before us where we do authorize funds for various programs in the 
fossil fuel energy program. If the Members look down to the coal 
technology, up pops off the page one big fat earmark, and if I might 
read the portion that deals with the authorization for oil technology, 
it indicates an amount of $43,234,000 for operating; however, it adds 
including maintaining programs of the National Institute of Petroleum 
and Energy Research.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise this point is because the House 
spoke a few months ago on the appropriations bill whereby a vote of 251 
to 160 this earmark was deleted. My information is that the committee 
will accept this amendment and I will yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the committee will accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] and ask if he also concurs?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, since it has met my ironclad 
test of what constitutes a good amendment, mainly satisfying the 
Republicans, I am happy to accept it.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] for accepting this ironclad amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to 
engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman taking the time to talk with 
me about my concerns over report language in this bill that serves to 
prioritize research and development programs for the Department of 
Energy, in particular requiring $1 million to be spent on research in 
the area of sonoluminescence.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered an amendment to the energy and water 
appropriations bill to strike that funding. The amendment was passed by 
a vote of 276 to 141. I believe there is widespread support for 
allowing the Department of Energy, and other departments, for that 
matter, and their scientists and administrators, to make the decisions 
on what research and development projects to fund, and that Congress 
should not attempt to micromanage these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
shares my respect for the importance of research and development 
programs but especially in the area of basic energy sciences. That is 
why I seek his assurance that the report language would not be binding, 
in that the Department of Energy would not be required to spend $1 
million on sonoluminescence research.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman 
is correct that the Committee on Science believes the research into 
sonoluminescence is worthy of support. We hope the Department of Energy 
will agree. Scientists at Lawrence Livermore believe the effect of 
sound waves in water holds promise for a number of 

[[Page H 9856]]
applications, however, the report language would not be binding and the 
Department of Energy would be free to spend its research dollars as it 
sees fit.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
assistance.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the Chair of the Committee on Science, in a 
colloquy regarding H.R. 2405.
  Specifically, I rise to inquire about section 303(b)(2) of H.R. 2405, 
the Omnibus Science Authorization Act of 1995, which authorizes funds 
for the Department of Energy nuclear physics program. I would also like 
to applaud the gentleman for his leadership role in funding this 
program.
  It is my understanding that $316,873,000 is authorized to be 
appropriated for nuclear physics for fiscal year 1996, of which 
$239,773,000 is designated for operating in capital equipment. Of these 
dollars, I understand that it is the intention of the Committee on 
Science to support the university-based accelerators under the nuclear 
physics account within the funds available. Furthermore, I understand 
that it is the intention of the committee to support the William H. 
Bates Linear Accelerator Center, named after former Congressman Bill 
Bates, and located in Middleton, MA, again within available funds; is 
this correct?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the gentleman 
is corrected that university-based accelerators are crucial to the 
further scientific exploration of the nuclear physics field in the 
United States. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Torkildsen] for bringing up this important point for clarification.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, again I applaud the chairman for his 
leadership role and thank him for his clarification.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
       TITLE IV--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title, the term--
       (1) ``Act of 1890'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     increase the efficiency and reduce the expenses of the Signal 
     Corps of the Army, and to transfer the Weather Bureau to the 
     Department of Agriculture'', approved October 1, 1890 (26 
     Stat. 653);
       (2) ``Act of 1947'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     define the functions and duties of the Coast and Geodetic 
     Survey, and for other purposes'', approved August 6, 1947 (33 
     U.S.C. 883a et seq.);
       (3) ``Act of 1970'' means the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     clarify the status and benefits of commissioned officers of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for 
     other purposes'', approved December 31, 1970 (33 U.S.C. 857-1 
     et seq.);
       (4) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
       (5) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Commerce.
        Subtitle A--Atmospheric, Weather, and Satellite Programs

     SEC. 411. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

       (a) Operations and Research.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the operations 
     and research duties of the National Weather Service, 
     $472,338,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such duties include 
     meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic public 
     warnings and forecasts, as well as applied research in 
     support of such warnings and forecasts.
       (b) Systems Acquisition.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the public 
     warning and forecast systems duties of the National Weather 
     Service, $79,034,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such duties 
     include the development, acquisition, and implementation of 
     major public warning and forecast systems. None of the funds 
     authorized under this subsection shall be used for the 
     purposes for which funds are authorized under section 102(b) 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567). None of the 
     funds authorized by such section 102(b) shall be expended for 
     a particular NEXRAD installation unless--
       (1) it is identified as a National Weather Service NEXRAD 
     installation in the National Implementation Plan for 
     modernization of the National Weather Service, required under 
     section 703 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
     567); or
       (2) it is to be used only for spare parts, not as an 
     installation at a particular site.
       (c) New NEXRAD Installations.--No funds may be obligated 
     for NEXRAD installations not identified in the National 
     Implementation Plan for 1996, unless the Secretary certifies 
     that such NEXRAD installations can be acquired within the 
     authorization of NEXRAD contained in section 102(b) of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
     Act of 1992.
       (d) ASOS Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in 
     subsection (b), $16,952,000 for fiscal year 1996 are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for the 
     acquisition and deployment of--
       (1) the Automated Surface Observing System and related 
     systems, including multisensor and backup arrays for National 
     Weather Service sites at airports; and
       (2) Automated Meteorological Observing System and Remote 
     Automated Meteorological Observing System replacement units.

     and to cover all associated activities, including program 
     management and operations and maintenance.
       (e) AWIPS Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in 
     subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary $52,097,000 for fiscal year 1996, to remain 
     available until expended, for--
       (1) the acquisition and deployment of the Advanced Weather 
     Interactive Processing System and NOAA Port and associated 
     activities; and
       (2) associated program management and operations and 
     maintenance.
       (f) Construction of Weather Forecast Offices.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     construction, repair, and modification activities relating to 
     new and existing weather forecast offices, $20,628,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996. Such activities include planning, design, 
     and land acquisition related to such offices.
       (g) Streamlining Weather Service Modernization.--
       (1) Repeals.--Sections 706 and 707 of the Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) are repealed.
       (2) Conforming Amendments.--The Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended--
       (A) in section 702, by striking paragraph (3) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (4) through (10) as paragraphs (3) 
     through (9), respectively, and
       (B) in section 703--
       (i) by striking ``(a) National Implementation Plan.--'';
       (ii) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), 
     respectively; and
       (iii) by striking subsections (b) and (c).

     SEC. 412. ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

       (a) Climate and Air Quality Research.--(1) There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     its climate and air quality research duties, $8,757,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996. Such duties include internannual and 
     seasonal climate research and long-term climate and air 
     quality research.
       (2) The Administrator shall ensure that at least the same 
     percentage of the climate and air quality research funds that 
     were provided to institutions of higher education for fiscal 
     year 1995 is provided to institutions of higher education 
     from funds authorized by this subsection.
       (b) Atmospheric Programs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its atmospheric 
     research duties, $39,894,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such 
     duties include research for developing improved prediction 
     capabilities for atmospheric processes, as well as solar-
     terrestrial research and services.
       (c) GLOBE Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Global 
     Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment program, 
     $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 413. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE, DATA, AND 
                   INFORMATION SERVICE.

       (a) Satellite Observing Systems.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its 
     satellite observing systems duties, $319,448,000 for fiscal 
     year 1996, to remain available until expended. Such duties 
     include spacecraft procurement, launch, and associated ground 
     station systems involving polar orbiting and geostationary 
     environmental satellites, as well as the operation of such 
     satellites. None of the funds authorized under this 
     subsection shall be used for the purposes for which funds are 
     authorized under section 105(d) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-567).
       (b) POES Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary $184,425,000 for fiscal year 1996, to remain 
     available until expended, for the procurement of Polar 
     Orbiting Environmental 

[[Page H 9857]]
     Satellites, K, L, M, N, and N\1\, and the procurement of the launching 
     and supporting ground systems of such satellites.
       (c) Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites.--Of 
     the sums authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator $46,300,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996, to remain available until expended--
       (1) to procure up to three additional Geostationary 
     Operational Environmental NEXT Satellites (GOES I-M clones) 
     and instruments; and
       (2) for contracts, and amendments or modifications of 
     contracts, with the developer of previous GOES-NEXT 
     satellites for the acquisition of the additional satellites 
     and instruments described in paragraph (1).
       (d) Environmental Data and Information Services.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     its environmental data and information services duties, 
     $35,665,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such duties include climate 
     data services, geophysical data services, and environmental 
     assessment and information services.
       (e) National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
     Satellite System Program Authorization.--Of the sums 
     authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, for fiscal year 1996, 
     $39,500,000, to remain available until expended, for the 
     procurement of the National Polar-Orbiting Operational 
     Environmental Satellite System, and the procurement of the 
     launching and supporting ground systems of such satellites.
                      Subtitle B--Marine Research

     SEC. 421. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

       (a) Mapping and Charting.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out mapping and 
     charting activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law 
     involving those activities, $29,149,000.
       (b) Geodesy.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out geodesy activities under the Act 
     of 1947 and any other law involving those activities, 
     $19,927,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (c) Observation and Prediction.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out observation and prediction 
     activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
     those activities, $11,279,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Circulatory survey program.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Circulatory 
     Survey Program, $695,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (3) Ocean and earth sciences.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out ocean and earth 
     science activities, $4,231,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (d) Estuarine and Coastal Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to support estuarine and coastal assessment 
     activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
     those activities, $1,171,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Ocean assessment.--In addition to amounts authorized 
     under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration to carry out the National Status 
     and Trends Program, the Strategic Environmental Assessment 
     Program, and the Hazardous Materials Response Program, 
     $8,401,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (3) Damage assessment program.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Damage 
     Assessment Program, $585,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (4) Coastal ocean program.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Coastal Ocean 
     Program, $9,158,000 for fiscal year 1996.

     SEC. 422. OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES RESEARCH.

       (a) Marine Prediction Research.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine prediction 
     research activities under the Act of 1947, the Act of 1890, 
     and any other law involving those activities, $13,763,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (b) National Sea Grant College Program.--(1) Section 212(a) 
     of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1131(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Grants and Contracts; Fellowships.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 205 and 
     208, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 1996.''.
       (2) Section 212(b)(1) of the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1131(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``an amount'' and all that follows through ``not to exceed 
     $2,900,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,500,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996''.
       (3) Section 203(4) of the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1122(4)) is amended by striking 
     ``discipline or field'' and all that follows through ``public 
     administration)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``field or 
     discipline involving scientific research''.

     SEC. 423. USE OF OCEAN RESEARCH RESOURCES OF OTHER FEDERAL 
                   AGENCIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Observing, monitoring, and predicting the ocean 
     environment has been a high priority for the defense 
     community to support ocean operations.
       (2) Many advances in ocean research have been made by the 
     defense community which could be shared with civilian 
     researchers.
       (3) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
     missions to describe and predict the ocean environment, 
     manage the Nation's ocean and coastal resources, and promote 
     stewardship of the world's oceans would benefit from 
     increased cooperation with defense agencies.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     should expand its efforts to develop interagency agreements 
     to further the use of defense-related technologies, data, and 
     other resources to support its oceanic missions.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     submit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on the feasibility of 
     expanding the use of defense-related technologies, data, and 
     other resources to support and enhance the oceanic missions 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       (2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       (A) a detailed listing of defense-related resources 
     currently available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration missions which utilize those resources;
       (B) detailed findings and recommendations, including 
     funding requirements, on the potential for expanding the use 
     of available defense-related resources;
       (C) a detailed listing and funding history of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration resources, including 
     data and technology, which could be supplemented by defense-
     related resources;
       (D) a listing of currently unavailable defense-related 
     resources, including data and technology, which if made 
     available would enhance the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration mission performance;
       (E) recommendations on the regulatory and legislative 
     structures needed to maximize the use of defense-related 
     resources;
       (F) an assessment of the respective roles in the use of 
     defense-related resources of the Army Corps of Engineers, 
     data centers, operational centers, and research facilities of 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
       (G) recommendations on how to provide access to relevant 
     defense-related data for non-Federal scientific users.
                      Subtitle C--Program Support

     SEC. 431. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

       (a) Executive Direction and Administrative Activities.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to 
     enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to 
     carry out executive direction and administrative activities 
     under the Act of 1970 and any other law involving those 
     activities, $20,632,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (b) Central Administrative Support.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out central 
     administrative support activities under the Act of 1970 and 
     any other law involving those activities, $30,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1996.
       (c) Retired Pay.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary, for retired pay for retired commissioned 
     officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration under the Act of 1970, $7,706,000 for fiscal 
     year 1996.
       (d) Marine Services.--
       (1) Contracting authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     contracts for data or days-at-sea to fulfill the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration missions of marine 
     research, climate research, fisheries research, and mapping 
     and charting services.
       (2) UNOLS vessel agreements.--In fulfilling the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mission requirements 
     described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use excess 
     capacity of University-National Oceanographic Laboratory 
     System vessels where appropriate, and may enter into 
     memoranda of agreement with operators of those vessels to 
     carry out those mission requirements.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine 
     services activities, including activities described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), $60,689,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (e) Aircraft Services.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to 

[[Page H 9858]]
     enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     aircraft services activities (including aircraft operations, 
     maintenance, and support) under the Act of 1970 and any other 
     law involving those activities, $9,548,000 for fiscal year 
     1996.
       (f) Facilities Repairs and Renovations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     facilities repairs and renovations, $7,374,000 for fiscal 
     year 1996.
                 Subtitle D--Streamlining of Operations

     SEC. 441. PROGRAM TERMINATIONS.

       (a) Terminations.--No funds may be appropriated for the 
     following programs and accounts:
       (1) The National Undersea Research Program.
       (2) The Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding, and Construction 
     Account.
       (3) The Charleston, South Carolina, Special Management 
     Plan.
       (4) Chesapeake Bay Observation Buoys.
       (5) Federal/State Weather Modification Grants.
       (6) The Southeast Storm Research Account.
       (7) The Southeast United States Caribbean Fisheries 
     Oceanographic Coordinated Investigations Program.
       (8) National Institute for Environmental Renewal.
       (9) The Lake Champlain Study.
       (10) The Maine Marine Research Center.
       (11) The South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic Survey 
     Account.
       (12) Pacific Island Technical Assistance.
       (13) Sea Grant/Oyster Disease Account.
       (14) National Coastal Research and Development Institute 
     Account.
       (15) VENTS program.
       (16) National Weather Service non-Federal, non-wildfire 
     Fire Weather Service.
       (17) National Weather Service Regional Climate Centers.
       (18) National Weather Service Samoa Weather Forecast Office 
     Repair and Upgrade Account.
       (19) Dissemination of Weather Charts (Marine Facsimile 
     Service).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, 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 report certifying that all the programs listed in 
     subsection (a) will be terminated no later than September 30, 
     1995.
       (c) Repeal of Sea Grant Programs.--
       (1) Repeals.--(A) Section 208(b) of the National Sea Grant 
     College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) is repealed.
       (B) Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 
     1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 209 of the National Sea 
     Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``and section 3 of the Sea Grant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1976''.
       (d) Additional Repeal.--The NOAA Fleet Modernization Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 851 note) is repealed.

     SEC. 442. LIMITATIONS ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) 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.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1996.--No more than $1,692,470,000 is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal 
     year 1996, by this Act or any other Act, to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     all activities associated with Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities.
       (c) Reduction in Travel Budget.--Of the sums appropriated 
     under this Act for Operations, Research, and Facilities, no 
     more than $20,000,000 may be used for reimbursement of travel 
     and related expenses for National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration personnel.

     SEC. 443. REDUCTION IN THE COMMISSIONED OFFICER CORPS.

       (a) Maximum Number.--The total number of commissioned 
     officers on the active list of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration shall not exceed--
       (1) 369 for fiscal year 1996;
       (2) 100 for fiscal year 1997; and
       (3) 50 for fiscal year 1998.

     No such commissioned officers are authorized for any fiscal 
     year after fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Separation Pay.--The Secretary may separate 
     commissioned officers from the active list of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and may do so without 
     providing separation pay.
                       Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 451. WEATHER DATA BUOYS.

       (a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any unauthorized 
     person to remove, change the location of, obstruct, willfully 
     damage, make fast to, or interfere with any weather data buoy 
     established, installed, operated, or maintained by the 
     National Data Buoy Center.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--The Administrator is authorized to 
     assess a civil penalty against any person who violates any 
     provision of this section in an amount of not more than 
     $10,000 for each violation. Each day during which such 
     violation continues shall be considered a new offense. Such 
     penalties shall be assessed after notice and opportunity for 
     a hearing.
       (c) Rewards.--The Administrator may offer and pay rewards 
     for the apprehension and conviction, or for information 
     helpful therein, of persons found interfering, in violation 
     of law, with data buoys maintained by the National Data Buoy 
     Center; or for information leading to the discovery of 
     missing National Weather Service property or the recovery 
     thereof.

     SEC. 452. DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--To protect life and property and enhance 
     the national economy, the Secretary, through the National 
     Weather Service, except as outlined in subsection (b), shall 
     be responsible for--
       (1) forecasts and shall serve as the sole official source 
     of weather warnings;
       (2) the issue of storm warnings;
       (3) the collection, exchange, and distribution of 
     meteorological, hydrological, climatic, and oceanographic 
     data and information; and
       (4) the preparation of hydrometeorological guidance and 
     core forecast information.
       (b) Competition With Private Sector.--The National Weather 
     Service shall not compete, or assist other entities to 
     compete, with the private sector when a service is currently 
     provided or can be provided by commercial enterprise, 
     unless--
       (1) the Secretary finds that the private sector is 
     unwilling or unable to provide the services; and
       (2) the service provides vital weather warnings and 
     forecasts for the protection of lives and property of the 
     general public.
       (c) Amendments.--The Act of 1890 is amended--
       (1) by striking section 3 (15 U.S.C. 313); and
       (2) in section 9 (15 U.S.C. 317), by striking all after 
     ``Department of Agriculture'' and inserting in lieu thereof a 
     period.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, 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 report detailing all National Weather Service 
     activities which do not conform to the requirements of this 
     section and outlining a timetable for their termination.

     SEC. 453. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 3302 (b) and (c) 
     of title 31, United States Code, and subject to subsection 
     (b) of this section, all amounts received by the United 
     States in settlement of, or judgment for, damage claims 
     arising from the October 9, 1992, allision of the vessel 
     ZACHERY into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration research vessel DISCOVERER--
       (1) shall be retained as an offsetting collection in the 
     Marine Services account of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration;
       (2) shall be deposited in that account upon receipt by the 
     United States Government; and
       (3) shall be available only for obligation for National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration vessel repairs.
       (b) Limitation.--Not more than $518,757.09 of the amounts 
     referred to in subsection (a) may be deposited into the 
     Marine Services account pursuant to subsection (a).

     SEC. 454. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from 
     consideration for awards of financial assistance made by the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric 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. 455. 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. 456. REPORT ON LABORATORIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     review of the laboratories operated by the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration and submit a report to the 
     Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Requirements.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) address potential efficiencies and savings which could 
     be achieved through closing or consolidating laboratory 
     facilities;
       (2) review each laboratory's--
       (A) mission and activities and their correlation to the 
     mission priorities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration;

[[Page H 9859]]

       (B) physical assets, equipment, condition, and personnel 
     resources; and
       (C) organization and program management; and
       (3) address other issues the Inspector General considers 
     relevant.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
LaHood] having assumed the chair, Mr. Kingston, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________