[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 64 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4764-H4766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3322, OMNIBUS CIVILIAN SCIENCE
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 427 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 427
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3322) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 1997 for civilian science activities of the Federal
Government, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause
2(l)(2) of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. The bill shall be considered by title rather than by
section. The first section and each title shall be considered
as read. Points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in
order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by Representative Walker of Pennsylvania or his designee.
That amendment shall be considered as read, may amend
portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be
debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended,
shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of
further amendment. During further consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 2015
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Knollenberg). The gentlewoman from Utah
[Ms. Greene] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 427 provides for consideration of H.R. 3322, the
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. This is an open rule
providing for one hour of debate. The resolution makes in order a
manager's amendment, and gives priority recognition to Members who have
had their amendments pre-printed in the Congressional Record. The
resolution waives the House rule requiring a quorum in order to report
a bill. The Rules Committee understands that this is a technical
violation, and that there was no intentional violation
[[Page H4765]]
of the rules. In addition, there are two technical violations in the
bill relating to appropriating in a legislative bill. The resolution
waives that rule as the Committee understands that the manager's
amendment will address these concerns. Finally, the resolution provides
for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule providing for consideration of a
bill to authorize fiscal year 1997 appropriations for most programs and
missions under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. H.R. 3322
authorizes spending for the following programs:
The National Science Foundation; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration [NASA]; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA]; The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA];
various scientific and technical research programs within the National
Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]; Federal fire prevention
and control; and research, engineering and development within the
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA].
I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Bob WAlker, for crafting a bill that makes the necessary
tough budget decisions and, at the same time, makes responsible
decisions to ensure that we fund our highest priority programs.
This open rule will give Members the opportunity to offer any
amendments that they feel will address their concerns with the bill and
fully participate in the amendment process. I urge my colleagues to
support this resolution and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms.
Greene] for yielding the customary 30 minutes of debate time to me. I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for H.R. 3322, the omnibus
civilian science authorization bill.
However, we believe this bill is seriously encumbered by the Science
Committee's indifference to and disregard of the deliberative committee
process. And we are disturbed that the Committee on Rules is, in
effect, condoning those procedural abuses.
Frankly, we would find the way this bill was brought to the floor
disturbing, whatever the rule provided. The type of rule, in this case,
is not the issue.
The issue is process, and it is one that should be of special concern
to the Committee on Rules--the committee charged with ensuring that
regular procedure and rules are followed, unless there is a very good
reason for not doing so.
Mr. Speaker, one specific waiver in the rule illustrates most
strongly our concerns about the way H.R. 3322 was considered, and the
haste with which it was reported.
The rule waives clause 2(l)(2) of rule XI against this bill, a rule
that requires that a quorum be present when a committee reports a
measure. That is a rule that was never specifically waived when
Democrats were in the majority.
The rule is being waived in this instance because the bill, H.R.
3322, was never actually before the Science Committee when the
committee reported the legislation. Instead, the Committee followed an
unusual route, reporting out the chairman's mark of this bill, which
was introduced the next day.
Chairman Walker testified to the Rules Committee that his committee
misunderstood the advice they were given on how best to proceed at that
point, and we accept his explanation.
However, our point is that the waiver reflects the far too prevalent
pattern of circumvention of the standard committee process in bringing
bills to the floor.
If the standard process had been followed, with subcommittee markups
and the full committee considering the subcommittees' products rather
than a chairman's mark that few people had seen, this situation would
have been averted.
Mr. Speaker, further complicating the way the bill was considered,
the Science Committee, as it did for the first time last year, combined
several of its major authorization bills into one omnibus measure. The
bill this rule makes in order should actually be receiving the time we
would have given, in past Congresses, to five bills.
Merging most of the authorization bills for civilian research and
development, usually considered separately, into a single, multi-
billion dollar markup vehicle meant that members of the committee had
much less time, and so were unable to focus on all the important
issues. The effect will be the same on the House floor, limiting debate
and deliberations severely.
In our opinion, that is extremely unwise, especially when we are
considering the direction of programs that represent major investments
in our Nation's future.
The ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Brown] predicted last year that this strategy would be
unsuccessful in the Senate, where the separate authorizations are
unlikely to be considered in one omnibus package. He was correct.
So it is especially difficult to understand why the majority decided
to pursue once again this strategy that seems doomed to failure.
In addition, we are disturbed about the chairman's decision to bypass
subcommittee markups on this bill, which instead went directly to the
full committee for markup.
This action was taken despite the official objections of the ranking
Democratic subcommittee members, who noted in dissenting views in the
committee report that the entire process by which the committee
considered the bill ``represents a new low point in the increasing
marginalization of the committee's deliberative process.''
The distinguished ranking member of the Science Committee, Mr. Brown,
described the process by which the bill was considered as one that
minimized, at every opportunity, careful consideration and thoughtful
debate.
As my colleagues well know, the ranking member is the perfect example
of type of policy specialist who has served the committee system in the
House so well and so fairly.
We should be making the maximum use of his expertise. His warnings
about this bill, about the way it has been and is being considered,
should not go unheeded.
His concerns go to the heart of the importance of the authorization
process that gives the House the opportunity to consider broad policy
issues after conscientious consideration under the committee hearing
and markup process.
The gentleman has been speaking eloquently about the significance of
this procedure for many years, and I fear we have not listened
carefully enough to his warnings about abusing the deliberative
authorization process.
Certainly, we ought to have more time and more information before we
cut so severely programs that are crucial to how we make investments in
new knowledge and technologies.
Mr. Speaker, the ranking member brought other procedural concerns to
our attention:
Instead of negotiating with members of the majority on the committee
who opposed his energy R&D proposal, the Chairman simply took those
provisions out of the bill entirely, even though those programs are a
major component of Federal civilian basic research funding.
The committee was required to comply with artificial budget
constraints, even though we have no House-passed budget resolution that
suggests any kind of caps or cuts in funding.
The committee was given an inadequate amount of time to study the
bill before markup. Members has little time to read the bill, much less
understand the ramifications of its provisions. Further, the hearing
record that should back up the legislative product was totally
inadequate, giving members little opportunity to make informed policy
choices.
Mr. Speaker, the substance of the bill itself is disturbing. It
represents a continuation of the trend in last year's budget
resolution, which called for a 33-percent cut in civilian research and
development by the year 2002. It cuts more than $1.3 billion from the
President's budget request, which many Members consider very modest.
The bill unfortunately also continues the disinvestment in the
scientific infrastructure that supports our understanding of the
environment by further
[[Page H4766]]
cutting the programs that bring better science to bear on environmental
problems. It reduces funding for key environmental research in global
change by cutting NASA's Mission to Planet Earth and research at NOAA
and EPA.
Unwisely in our opinion, it would effectively terminate much of the
research to determine the validity of the global warming phenomenon.
It continues the attack on the National Science Foundation's research
in social and behavioral sciences without the benefit of hearings or
oversight.
It damages our ability to stay competitive in international markets,
by eliminating the Advanced Technology Program and severely cutting the
Manufacturing Extension Program.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill represents a massive
disinvestment in our civilian research and development efforts, at a
time we should be doing just the opposite.
We shall be supporting the substitute to be offered by the ranking
member of the Science Committee. It is a good alternative that
maintains a proper level of funding in technology development and
environmental research programs. We must continue our strong support
for our Nation's R&D programs, and we believe the substitute deserves
support.
Mr. Speaker, to repeat, we support this open rule. It is especially
important for a bill that is so seriously lacking in the type of
thoughtful committee consideration that it deserved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the process on this bill, we feel confident
that there is no intentional violation of the rules, and there is not a
pattern of disregarding the rules of the committee. The substance of
the bill will be addressed through this open rule, and any Member who
has concerns about any shortcomings they feel are present in the bill
will have an opportunity to offer such amendments as they feel
appropriate.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________