[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5574-H5614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OMNIBUS CIVILIAN SCIENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 427 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3322.

                                  1425


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3322) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for civilian 
science activities of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Burton of Indiana in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House H.R. 3322, the 
Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996. This bill provides 
fiscal 1997 authorizations for the National Science Foundation, NASA, 
the U.S. Fire Administration in FEMA, NOAA, the research programs of 
EPA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the research 
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and the earthquake 
hazards reduction program. This legislation provides 5 percent or $285 
million more in basic research spending than the Clinton administration 
budget.
  This chart to my left indicates the basic funding research and shows 
that we are higher in funding the fundamental science of the country 
than what the Clinton administration budget calls for.
  In addition, this bill calls for $3.7 billion for environmental 
science including $1.25 billion for the global climate change programs, 
and it ends corporate welfare. In short, this represents a sound and 
responsible approach to the funding of our Nation's Federal civilian 
research and development efforts.
  The legislation authorizes $19.3 billion for fiscal year 1997. The 
President's request for these programs is $20.3 billion.
  We provide $3.2 billion for the National Science Foundation, a $31 
million increase over fiscal year 1996, plus $26 million for basic 
research grants and $25 million for South Pole environmental and safety 
renovations.
  We provide $13.5 billion for NASA, including full funding for the 
space station, an increase in space science and life and microgravity 
research and $1 billion for the missions to planet Earth.
  We provide $27.6 million for the U.S. fire administration. The 
President's request is that same number.
  We provide $1.37 billion for what are called the dry programs of 
NOAA, including full modernization of the National Weather Service, 
$100 million for basic climate change research, and a complete project 
authorization for the

[[Page H5575]]

installation of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System, the 
new weather forecasting technology so crucial to public safety.
  We provide $490 million for EPA's Office of Research and Development.
  We provide $385.8 million for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, $21 million over current funding and $10 million more than 
the President's request for the core functions of that agency.
  We provide $186 billion for the research and development programs of 
the Federal Aviation Administration, its current funding level.
  We provide $95.2 million for Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. 
That is the President's request.
  We are considering this science authorization bill in the same 
coordinated manner as last year, whereby we combined our individual 
authorization bills into one vehicle, a process which enables us to 
consider civilian research and development in a broad, rational 
context. We do not include the Department of Energy's programs in this 
bill, since we have already passed fiscal 1997 authorization in last 
year's bill. The subcommittee of jurisdiction, however, may consider a 
more detailed specification of those numbers in the near future.
  Along with providing funding, this bill includes some important 
policy provisions. In the NASA title, for instance, we have included 
language advancing the commercial use of the space station; making 
important amendments to the Commercial Space Launch Act; procurement 
changes to encourage the agency to use existing commercial technology 
in its programs, and to purchase private sector science and 
environmental data. Within NOAA, we revise the National Weather 
Service's Organic Act to allow the privatization of specialized weather 
services. And, at EPA, we have charged the Assistant Administrator for 
Research with responsibility for the quality of science at EPA, and we 
require the Science Advisory Board to review EPA's research budget.
  We have made some tough choices in crafting this legislation, choices 
made in the context of what is likely to be contained in the budget 
resolution and in the context of moving us along the glide path which 
leads to a balanced budget. Why? Because the Committee on Science has 
decided to be relevant to the process. We realize that if we, as 
authorizers, are going to have an impact on the funding decisions that 
will be made in the appropriations process, we have to commit ourselves 
to a realistic plan. Believe me, as all of our committee members know, 
those choices have not always been popular and they surely have not 
been easy.

                                  1430

  But I am proud of the work that we have done, and that good work is 
reflected in the fact that our bill passed the committee with 
bipartisan support.
  The tenor of the policy debate has now changed within the Congress 
and the science community as the emphasis has shifted from industrial 
policy to basic research and from status quo subsidies to new 
knowledge. Quite simply, we have proven to our colleagues and to the 
science community that this committee is serious about its 
responsibility and it is up to the challenge of setting our priorities 
and is tough enough to effect real change.
  At the conclusion of general debate, I will offer a manager's 
amendment to address the jurisdictional problems we have had with two 
other committees and to make some administrative changes at the request 
of the National Science Foundation. The chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Basic Research, the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Steve Schiff, will 
also have an amendment to add $41.2 million to NSF's university 
research grants account to reflect the work of the Committee on the 
Budget to bolster basic research.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge for special thanks the 
cosponsors of the legislation, the Chairs of our subcommittee who have 
been a part of the team, and without whose help we could not have 
brought this bill to the floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Jim 
Sensenbrenner, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher, the 
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Steve Schiff, and the gentlewoman from 
Maryland, Mrs. Connie Morella.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I hardly know where to start 
with this bill. I an not sure whether I should discuss the policy 
proposals in this bill or the process by which this bill was put 
together. Maybe I should start with my deep regret that we have come to 
the floor today so deeply divided on support for Federal research and 
development [R&D] programs, issues that should elicit bipartisan 
support.
  And I note the chairman indicated that there was bipartisan support 
for his bill. The rollcall will show that one Democrat, who probably 
did not know what he was voting, for, voted in support of this bill, 
and this does not exactly indicated to me strong bipartisan support.
  But both because of the proposals being made and the process that was 
used in putting this bill together, I cannot support H.R. 3322.
  My difficulties with this legislation start with the title: Omnibus 
Civilian Science Authorization Act. This is not an omnibus bill.
  When the House considered H.R. 2405 last year, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania was enthusiastic about his revolutionary idea to bring all 
of the Science Committee authorization bills into a single, omnibus 
bill. Among its other virtues, he argued, was that it would permit 
Congress to consider priorities among the civilian science portfolio.
  I was skeptical last year and I remain skeptical today. As I 
predicted last year, packaging the committee's bill together into a 
single bill has not expedited its consideration in the Senate. Indeed, 
last year's authorization bill remains languishing there without any 
Senate action on any of its provisions. This year's bill is likely to 
face the same fate.
  Nor does the claim that packaging these bills together permits 
Congress to set priorities stand up to closer scrutiny. As I also 
pointed out last year, much of the civilian R&D science and technology 
portfolio is not in this committee's jurisdiction. For example, neither 
NIH nor USDA, which together constitute a very significant fraction of 
the total of civilian science budget, are included in this bill. And, 
as the Resources Committee and the Transportation Committee have 
reminded us, neither are some of the research programs in NOAA, the 
Department of the Interior, and the Federal Aviation Administration. So 
the fact is that we only have some of the civilian science portfolio in 
front of us. We can't trade off the space station for more AIDS 
research in this bill.
  The case is even tougher to make this year because the so-called 
omnibus bill is less omnibus than last year's bill. The committee has, 
for political reasons, left behind programs, indeed entire Federal 
departments, that are under our jurisdiction and should be included in 
this bill. The Department of Energy's civilian research and development 
portfolio, a modest $4.7 billion per year effort, has been dropped from 
this bill, reportedly due to differences within the ranks of the 
majority on our committee. Likewise, the external programs at the 
Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology 
have been left behind, for the second year in a row, for political 
reasons on the other side of the aisle.
  Of course, the argument that we are setting priorities assumes that 
Members could actually offer amendments to move funding from one agency 
to another. But, under the rule which we are considering today, 
amendments which move funding from one title to another are subject to 
a point of order.
  The idea that we are somehow setting priorities is one of the most 
absurd fictions that we will be hearing from the other side today. As 
we all know, the real task of setting priorities is done in the 
Appropriations Committee, where the 602(b) allocation forces hard 
choices among sometimes disparate programs. The bill today has little 
relevance to those decisions. It doesn't tell the HUD-VA-IA 
Subcommittee how to allocate funds between NASA and the housing 
program, or NSF and veteran's hospitals.
  Once you get beyond the title, the substantive policy problems 
emerge.

[[Page H5576]]

Those programs that are contained in the legislation are treated so 
poorly and so arbitrarily that it would have been better to leave them 
out as well. This legislation cuts science programs so deeply that it 
is actually an antiscience bill. It treats environmental and ``soft 
path'' energy research so badly that this is an antienvironment bill. 
H.R. 3322 makes major cuts and omissions to technology development 
programs, casting it as an antijobs and competitiveness bill. And by 
leaving DOE out all together, this is clearly a bill that is antienergy 
independence.
  On science issues, the chairman has argued eloquently, if 
erroneously, that the Federal Government should be focusing on basic 
research and leave the rest of the work to the private sector. In this 
bill, the Republicans make large cuts to applied and developmental 
research work and then seek the gratitude of the scientific community 
for making smaller cuts to the basic science funded in this bill.
  The Brown substitute to H.R. 3322 provides $170 million greater 
support for basic research than the Republican proposal. But, in 
addition to total funds authorized, there are important differences 
from H.R. 3322 in the details of the allocations made and in the 
policies applied to the agencies.
  The majority has expressed a preference for NASA space science 
through a more generous allocation than the substitute--so generous 
that the agency appears not to know what to do with the excess above 
its request. On the other hand, H.R. 3322 provides less than 1 percent 
growth for NSF, the premier basic research funding agency in the 
Science Committee's jurisdiction and the agency with the broadest 
charter for advancing research and education in science and 
engineering. The Brown substitute provides 3.3 percent growth for NSF, 
which will allow small growth above inflation, instead of the effective 
cut in the Republican bill, and this chart will show the differences in 
some of those areas.
  H.R. 3322 also totally ignores a major component of the Federal 
civilian basic research funding by excluding authorizations for the 
Department of Energy. DOE has the largest basic research budget, after 
NSF, in the Science Committee's jurisdiction. This negligence is hardly 
consistent with the majority's claim to champion and protect basic 
research in the Federal R&D budget. The Brown substitute by contrast 
includes the President's request for DOE.
  Further, unlike H.R. 3322, the substitute places no ban or 
restrictions on legitimate areas of scientific inquiry. The substitute 
presumes that the usual merit review process will be used by the 
agencies to select the most promising research directions to advance 
fundamental knowledge.
  This distinction between basic and applied research is at the heart 
of the Republican proposal, and yet it is a distinction entirely 
without relevance the real world. I have worked at science policy for 
decades and cannot find the seam between basic and applied research. 
The reality is that ideas move along a continuum from the lab to the 
market and removing support to any one part of this process will stop 
progress.
  What is more important in this bill is the overall funding level 
proposed. This bill, together with the DOE funding levels set during 
the debate on last year's omnibus bill, cuts fiscal year 1997 funding 
for the R&D programs under our jurisdiction $1.3 billion below this 
year's funding levels and is $2 billion under the President's request 
for fiscal year 1997. These cuts pose a grave threat to our civilian 
R&D activities. They are ill-advised and entirely unnecessary to 
achieved a balanced budget.
  In contrast, the Republican bill essentially eliminates EPA's ability 
to fund research related to global climate change, an area often 
characterized by the Members on the other side of the aisle as 
``liberal claptrap.'' H.R. 3322 also continues an oblique attack on 
NSF's support for the behavioral and social sciences through 
elimination of an NSF scientific directorate and specific guidance to 
the agency in the accompanying legislative report.
  Finally, the Brown substitute provides the resources needed to ensure 
NSF's ability to administer its research and education programs. H.R. 
3322, on the other hand, imposes cuts of nearly 6 percent below the 
current year appropriation for NSF salaries and administrative 
expenses. Such a cut applied to a lean organization--only 6 percent of 
the total budget goes for running the agency--will result in staff 
reductions that could reach 10 percent of authorized strength. The net 
result would be to impede virtually all business operations of NSF from 
payments to scientists to the timing and quality of research award 
decisions.
  As the green glow following Earth Day has faded, so has the 
Republican interest in the environment. The bill made major cuts to 
environmental programs when it was reported out of committee, cutting 
environmental R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Mission 
to Planet Earth Program at NASA, and the oceanic and atmospheric 
programs at NOAA. The cuts to NOAA reported by the committee are 
particularly ironic, since they cut the coastal zone program by 80 
percent the day after the House voted overwhelmingly to reauthorize the 
Coastal Zone Management Program as a manifestation of bipartisan 
concern for the environment. While these cuts, along with other damage 
to the NOAA programs, will be corrected by a manager's amendment to 
delete large sections of the bill to resolve the protests by the 
Resources Committee, the bill's antienvironmental slant remains evident 
in the remaining sections.
  For example, the bill bans specific areas of environmental research. 
After arguing for science-based regulatory decision making in their 
regulatory reform efforts last year, the Republicans have tried to ban 
environmental research that they find troubling. Examples of this are 
the ban on indoor air quality at EPA contained in this bill, and the 
ban on funding for the climate change action plan efforts.
  Continuing with the policy paradoxes found in this bill, I must raise 
again the anticompetitiveness bent of this legislation. The private 
sector Council on Competitiveness just issued a study on a U.S. R&D 
policy for competitiveness that pointed out the need for joint 
industry-government research programs. Over the past few months, we 
have heard from a number of industrial leaders who have argued in favor 
of the joint technology development programs and manufacturing 
extension programs at NIST. Yet the Republicans have left these 
programs out of this bill.
  Last year, the Technology Subcommittee of the Science Committee 
unanimously approved H.R. 1871, to authorize the external technology 
programs at NIST. That bill has never been taken up by the full 
committee. We have tried to offer this consensus legislation to the 
omnibus bill last year and again this year, but the Republicans have 
blocked our efforts. The omission of these technology development 
programs at NIST and cuts to applied and developmental R&D programs 
throughout this bill pose a great threat to our ability to compete in 
the world. While other countries are increasing their R&D, we are 
cutting ours. What is wrong with this picture?
  One last major point to be made is the signal being sent by not 
offering a DOE title to this bill. Initially, a DOE R&D authorization 
was to be included in this bill, but a number of committee Republicans 
apparently thought that the cuts went too far. As a result, the DOE R&D 
provisions were pulled from the bill with vague promises that such a 
bill may be considered someday by the committee. But Members need not 
wait for the committee to act to see what those proposals were, because 
they were incorporated into the report accompanying the budget 
resolution. The report calls for a radical reduction in DOE's energy 
research programs, including a call to phase out DOE's R&D directed at 
solar and renewable energy technologies, new fossil energy 
technologies, and energy conservation measures. Many of the committee's 
Republicans have written to the Budget Committee and the Appropriations 
Committee disagreeing with these priorities, but we find nothing in 
H.R. 3322 to give Members the opportunity to vote on these radical 
proposals.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing 
the procedural abuses in bringing this bill to the floor. The 
minority's dissenting views set out these concerns in some detail, and 
I will not repeat them all here. Suffice to say that no opportunity was 
missed to minimize the ability of Members to understand or challenge 
the bill. The legislative record is inadequate and nonexistent on many 
issues. Subcommittee markups were bypassed over the objections of the 
minority. No bill was introduced prior to markup, and Members first saw 
the chairman's mark on a Monday morning for a Wednesday morning markup, 
during a week in which no votes were scheduled until after 5 on 
Tuesday.
  Instead of a reasonable, deliberative, and collegial process, the 
committee's markup was reduced to rubberstamping the chairman's 
proposal. The quality of the committee's work product has, in my view, 
suffered as a result.
  Mr. Chairman, you don't need to take my word for this. I understand 
that the chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr. Young, vehemently 
objected to numerous provisions in his committee's jurisdiction, none 
of which had been reviewed by his committee, stating

[[Page H5577]]

``there is no reason to have our Members precipitously consider another 
flawed and controversial measure.'' As a result, we now have a 
manager's amendment which will delete a number of pages from the 
committee bill.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the traditional prerogatives enjoyed by the 
minority is the right to complain about its treatment at the hands of 
the majority. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, when he served as this 
committee's ranking minority member, knew no peer in that regard. It is 
interesting now to see what sparked his complaints.
  In 1992, Mr. Walker complained bitterly about the process by which 
the then-Democratic majority brought one bill--H.R. 5231, the National 
Competitiveness Act of 1992--to the committee for a markup. In that 
case, the subcommittee held over 25 hearings and heard from over 100 
expert witnesses. Copies of the bill had been sent to over 200 experts 
in the fields of science, technology, and trade for review and comment. 
On May 13, 1992, a draft of a bill was provided to the minority 
subcommittee staff, and to all members of the committee. The 
subcommittee chairman invited members to submit suggestions prior to 
the bill's introduction, and a number of members, including minority 
members, raised issues and concerns. The subcommittee met on June 24, 
1992. At the subcommittee markup, the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. 
Tom Lewis, stated, ``We have made considerable progress in working out 
our disagreements on the National Competitiveness Act of 1992, H.R. 
5231, since it is was introduced on May 21.'' While the subcommittee 
chair continued to express concerns and reserve final judgment on the 
bill, it was reported out of the subcommittee on a voice vote. The full 
committee met a week later, on July 1, 1992, and Mr. Walker was given 
an opportunity to offer and debate a substitute amendment which clearly 
could have been objected to as nongermane. We debated this single bill 
on the floor for over 3 days.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that our procedural complaints are often 
dismissed with the comment that the Republicans aren't doing anything 
that we didn't do to them when we were in the majority. I cannot speak 
for other committees and other former Chairs, but I will say that I 
tried to fully respect the rights and privileges of all members and the 
integrity of the committee process.
  This self-serving statement aside, these squabbles tend to divert 
attention from the more serious issue at stake: the traditional role of 
expert committees. As political power has become concentrated in the 
hands of a few at the top of the Republican leadership, committees have 
become increasingly marginalized. Bills have been brought to the floor 
which have never been reported by the committees of jurisdiction. When 
bills have been reported, the House leadership has arbitrarily changed 
them to its liking before the bill comes to the floor. The committee 
structure is being replaced by webs of personal influence that binds 
Members to their leadership, and weaken the value of their individual 
votes.
  The minority objects to these efforts to bypass the collective, 
considered judgment of committees through tactics that discourage 
members from obtaining information and participating in thoughtful 
discussion, negotiation, and compromise.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
voting against H.R. 3322.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from 
California, who is obviously opposed to this bill because this bill 
goes in a different direction than the ideology that has been promoted 
by this Congress now for 60 years.
  For 60 years the science programs moved more and more toward 
Washington decisionmaking, toward more and more big spending that drove 
us into deficit budgets, toward more and more pork barrel, and then 
toward the end of the process, toward funding corporate welfare in this 
country and calling it science spending.
  I understand that the gentleman's ideology forces him to stick with 
the status quo and not want to change anything in the direction that 
science has been going. This bill represents a real reform bill moving 
us in new directions, and the Democrats are determined to oppose those 
reforms and those new directions. But in the opinion of this Member, 
this is exactly the direction we have to go if we ultimately are going 
to balance our budgets.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff].
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, within H.R. 3322, my Subcommittee on Basic Research has 
jurisdiction over three titles of this bill, title I, the National 
Science Foundation, title III, the U.S. Fire Administration, and title 
VIII, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
  In the Basic Research Subcommittee, support for all three titles has 
traditionally been bipartisan. This is particularly true for the 
activities of the National Science Foundation.
  The National Science Foundation [NSF] is the principal supporter of 
fundamental research and education conducted at colleges and 
universities in the fields of mathematics, science, and engineering.
  NSF accomplishes this through grants and contracts to more than 2,000 
colleges, universities, and other research institutions in all parts of 
the United States. The Foundation accounts for approximately 25 percent 
of the Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
  As chairman of this committee and vice chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Walker, has voiced his strong support for basic 
research. I share those same views. There are provisions in this bill 
requiring financial disclosure of high level employees, protecting 
Reservist and National Guard personnel recalled to active duty, and 
tasking NSF to find ways to reduce costs.
  Title I authorizes $3.25 billion for NSF in fiscal year 1997. 
Research and related activities is funded at $2.34 billion. Unlike the 
administration's budget, which zeros out academic facilities 
modernization, H.R. 3322 provides $100 million for this account. The 
bill also continues full funding for the Laser Inferferometer 
Gravitational Wave Observatory [LIGO] and provides $25 million for the 
South Pole Safety project.
  In this tight fiscal climate, the committee has had to set priorities 
for the future in R&D funding. Realizing this fact, H.R. 3322 freezes 
the salaries and expenses account at $120 million. In an effort to 
reduce the bureaucracy and increase the focus on basic research, the 
bill directs NSF to eliminate at least one directorate. Further, H.R. 
3322 requires that NSF review its programs and directorates to 
determine whether they are organized to meet the needs of their 
customer--the research community--into the 21st century.
  The science community needs to understand that the Republican and 
Democrats in both the House and Senate, on both the Appropriations and 
Authorization Committees, have been supportive of basic research. 
Because Members understand that basic research is the economic 
foundation for our future, they have sheltered these programs when many 
others are being drastically reduced or eliminated altogether.
  There are many good provisions in this bill. As I have stated 
previously, members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have 
traditionally been strong supporters of NSF. This is partially true 
because NSF administers research that is merit based on peer reviewed. 
Other agencies should endeavor to emulate this model of success.
  Title III of H.R. 3322 authorizes $27.6 million, the administration's 
request, for the U.S. Fire Administration [USFA] and the National Fire 
Academy. This relatively small amount of money goes quite a distance 
toward protecting both people and property from the devastating effects 
of fire and arson, particularly, I might add at this tragic time in the 
Southeast, where I live.
  The Fire Administration was created over 20 years ago in response to 
an increasing number of fire-related deaths and injuries in this 
country. The programs, at the Fire Administration help to reduce loss 
of life and property to fires by educating the public, collecting and 
distributing data, conducting research into fire suppression 
technologies and techniques, and promoting firefighter health and 
safety. Since the Fire Administration was established, fire-related 
deaths have decreased from 9,000 per year to 4,300 per year; fire-
related injuries have decreased from 300,000 per year to 27,000 per 
year; and firefighter deaths have decreased from 250 per year to 100 
per year. This agency clearly deserves commendation for its success.

[[Page H5578]]

  In addition, the Fire Administers the National Fire Academy in 
Emmitsburg, MD. The Fire Academy is lauded by firefighters nationwide 
for the fire and emergency training it provides. Each year tens of 
thousands of firefighters and emergency service personnel are trained 
in the latest fire protection and control activities through both on- 
and off-campus programs.
  Over the past couple of months, in my home State of New Mexico, wild 
fires have been burning out of control because of dry weather 
conditions. Lives, property, and precious national monuments are 
threatened. The hundreds of firefighters who are out on the front 
lines, risking their lives, need the continuing support of an agency 
that helps them to do their jobs more safely.
  Finally, title VIII of H.R. 3322 reauthorizes the earthquake 
research, education, and mitigation programs of the Federal Government. 
Specifically, the bill provides $95.3 million for the National 
Earthquake Hazards Reduction program [NEHRP] for fiscal year 1997.
  NEHRP was established in 1977 in response to the catastrophic loss of 
life and property suffered during earthquakes, and to a growing 
consensus that a Federal research and development program might lead to 
a method for predicting an earthquake and/or at least reducing the 
devastating effects of one. While prediction has remained somewhat 
elusive, the program has greatly improved our knowledge of both the 
earth science and engineering aspects of earthquake risk reduction.
  NEHRP is administered by four Federal agencies, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency [FEMA], the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], the 
National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology [NIST]. FEMA is the agency charged with coordinating the 
program, and, in addition, is responsible for public education, 
earthquake hazards mitigation programs, emergency planning, and 
information gathering and dissemination. The USGS conducts research on 
earthquake risk and effect. The NSF performs fundamental earthquake 
studies, engineering research, and postearthquake investigations. NIST 
conducts applied engineering research and code development and 
distribution.
  Each of the NEHRP agencies has separate budgets. The funds in this 
title for NSF and NIST are from sums already authorized in previous 
titles for the two agencies.
  The $95.3 million authorized for NEHRP in this legislation is what 
the administration requested for fiscal year 1997.

                                  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my opening presentation to commend 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], our chairman, for 
bringing this bill to the floor. In my experience in 7\1/2\ years in 
having the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives, with 
several noted exceptions, I have seen authorizing committees being 
diminished in their real role in the U.S. House of Representatives. I 
believe that is because the authorizing committee have tried to avoid 
making the tough decisions that the Committee on Appropriations must 
always make.
  It is easier to authorize everything which in reality means 
authorizing nothing. Under Chairman Walker we are presenting a plan, a 
plan that can be and will be debated on the House floor but a plan that 
shows the Committee on Science is committed to promoting priorities in 
science and research development.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the 
merits of H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization for 
1996, one large portion of the bill is noticeably absent. Members 
interested in the authorization levels for the Department of Energy's 
programs will not find a title authorizing those programs in this 
legislation.
  Although programs relating to conservation, renewable energy sources 
and fossil energy are of obvious importance to the Nation, they will 
not be considered as a part of this omnibus bill.
  Under the language of the omnibus science bill considered during the 
last budget cycle, the authorizations for DOE programs for this fiscal 
year were included. This was accomplished through an amendment offered 
by Chairman Walker and agreed to by the full House by a voice vote.
  It is unfortunate that the House will not have the opportunity to set 
policy guidelines for the Department of Energy through this bill. A 
separate bill dealing with DOE is scheduled for subcommittee 
considerations, but I suspect that the full committee will never see 
the legislation, nor will the House as a whole. I find this process 
objectionable.
  With regard to the language of the bill that is before us, I will be 
supporting an amendment offered by Mr. Tanner and myself to provide 
authorization to the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership. These programs, which assist American companies 
in bringing new technologies to the marketplace, are critical for our 
economic development.
  Although the Science Committee leadership has been opposed to these 
programs in the past, calling them corporate welfare, the 
appropriators, and the Senate, have seen fit to fund both the ATP and 
the MEP. Many on the Republican side of the aisle have expressed their 
support for these programs, as a fine example of government-industry 
partnerships which help America stay competitive.
  Our overseas competitors have been continuing their investment in new 
technology, while America has moved away from this critical part of our 
economy. Large corporations which must constantly please stockholders 
are preoccupied with the bottom line, and are slow to invest in high-
risk technology which can often have long-term rewards.
  Small businesses often do not have the necessary capital to invest in 
high-risk technologies. The ATP and the MEP are programs which assist 
both large and small companies with high-risk investment.
  The ATP, for example, is a program which has assisted many small 
businesses with new technology. Forty-six percent of ATP awards have 
gone to small businesses, or to joint ventures led by a small business.
  Public-private partnerships are a viable and effective way to keep 
America competitive in the global economy, and our support of the ATP 
and MEP is one way for this Congress to assist American business in the 
global marketplace. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this 
issue, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentlewoman from Texas has mentioned again, as the chairman or as 
the Member from California did, the lack of an energy authorization in 
this particular bill.
  I would refer both Members to H.R. 2405, the blue engrossed version 
of the bill that passed the House last year which we have already sent 
to the Senate, for fiscal year 1997 numbers for the Department of 
Energy. If they will refer to page 93, lines 6 through 17, they will 
find that we have already done our work in that regard and the reason 
why it did not need to be included here.
  Mr. Chairman, as I made mention before, there may be a more detailed 
version of this to come out of the subcommittee at some later date, but 
the fact is the work of this committee has been completed, unlike past 
years when they were in control, when we hardly ever got anything done 
in that area.
  The Advanced Technology Program to which the gentlewoman referred is 
one of the largest corporate welfare programs that this Nation has ever 
created. Some of the biggest corporations in America have benefited 
from the taxpayers' largesse through that program. It is a definition 
of what the American people want to change. It is one of the true 
reforms in this bill that we have decided not to go ahead with that 
program and use corporate welfare as a way of what we call science 
spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner].
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to say you're in favor of 
balancing the budget. Congress has been saying it for years. But, until 
recently, those of us who are willing to

[[Page H5579]]

follow the words with actions have not had enough votes to bring the 
budget under control. Now, we do. Actions speak louder than words, and 
this body has proven it. We made the tough choices and passed a 
balanced budget resolution, only to be confronted with an 
administration that wants to put those choices off and some colleagues 
who say they want to balance the budget as long as they don't have to 
cut any programs.
  The majority of us still have responsibility for putting the 
Government on a path to fiscal responsibility. We still have to make 
those hard calls. In the area of civil science, H.R. 3322 does that. In 
our civil space program, this bill represents a savings of $308.7 
million dollars from the President's request. It preserves and 
strengthens NASA's historic focus and contributions in basic science 
areas, such as astronomy, astrophysics, aerodynamics, life, and 
microgravity sciences. It reduces those programs which amount to 
commercial welfare, and restructures programs, such as Mission to 
Planet Earth, that bust the President's own NASA budget in the 
outyears. The administration abdicated its responsibility to maintain 
programs consistent with available resources when he sent two sets of 
books up here last month. He left the tough choices for Congress to 
make. We made them.
  The bill fully funds the international space station and the space 
shuttle. The House passed a multiyear authorization of the station last 
year to put this program on a sound financial footing consistent with 
the balanced budget resolution. H.R. 3322 reaffirms the sound fiscal 
decisions we made last year. It also includes full funding for life and 
microgravity research, much of which will take place on the station and 
shuttle. This area of research is important in improving life on earth 
through new knowledge of materials and human physiology.

  H.R. 3322 increases the funding for space science. This area of NASA 
basic research has brought us amazing discoveries from programs such as 
the Hubble space telescope and the Galileo probe to Jupiter. This 
increase preserves space science as the bipartisan priority it has 
always been for the Science Committee and protects if from the 
disproportionate cuts inflicted by the administration's outyear budget. 
Most of the increases are dedicated to small, focused science missions 
that stimulate education and drive costs down. The space science 
community has made the greatest strides in increasing the bang 
taxpayers receive for their buck by redesigning missions to be faster, 
cheaper, better. We need to reward success and ensure that space 
science does not suffer disproportionately in the President' budget. 
This bill does that.
  The bill reduces the President's request for Mission to Planet Earth 
by $373.7 million, but still provides over a billion dollars and fully 
funds the AM-1, Landsat-7, and TRMM satellites; earth probes; and 
Mission to Planet Earth science, which alone accounts for $508 million. 
In 1992 the Science Committee concluded that Mission to Planet Earth 
was not a core NASA mission. Therefore, the Science Committee treated 
it as a discretionary program to be funded with whatever funds remained 
after NASA's core programs were funded. In NASA's fiscal year 1994 
authorization, the Science Committee reaffirmed Mission to Planet 
Earth's status as a ``level of effort program that accomplishes as much 
as possible with whatever resources can be provided.`` Since the NASA 
budget is coming down, so must this discretionary program.
  This year and last, several congressional witness testified that 
Mission to Planet Earth can be done at a lower cost by using new 
technology, exploiting commercial investments in earth observation, and 
leveraging existing environmental data bases which remain largely 
unanalyzed by scientists. The bill directs NASA to begin taking those 
steps that will shift the focus on Mission to Planet Earth to science 
instead of hardware.
  We provide full funding for basis research efforts in aeronautics but 
control the rate of increase in the Advanced Subsonic Technology 
Program to prevent it from mutating into corporate welfare. H.R. 3322 
saves $34 million from the President's request for this program within 
the aeronautics budget.
  We fully fund the new technology programs that are vital in taking 
our civil space program into the next century. These include new 
millennium spacecraft technology and the reusable launch vehicle. These 
programs will lower the cost of future government civil and national 
security space activities. They will also provide a boost to our 
commercial space industry as we transfer this technology into the 
private sector, making it more competitive with foreign space 
industries which receive huge, direct, operating subsidies from their 
governments.
  Balancing the/budget means making cuts and setting priorities, which 
we've done. H.R. 3322 builds on NASA's strengths and experience in 
basic research and fundamental science. It provides more than a billion 
dollars for studying this planet and the resources needed to bring the 
aviation industry into the next century. More importantly, it will 
continue NASA's accomplishments in revealing the wonders of the 
universe and set the stage for the future of human development of 
space. By passing H.R. 3322, we will enable NASA to continue achieving 
breakthroughs in science and keep the Government on the path toward 
balancing the budget.

                                  1500

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I 
hope this will be the last time I do it. If I take 1 minute to clarify 
everything the other side said, it would be using up too much of my 
time.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] cited the fact that we 
had an energy authorization bill from last year as the reason for not 
having it in this year's bill. Actually, we had an authorization for 
NSF in last year's bill, but we also have one in this year's bill. It 
is a little distingenuous on the part of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to use the argument with regard to energy 
that we had an authorization last year, when he did not mention that 
for the NSF.
  What has occurred, of course, is that the Department of Energy has a 
number of items in it which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] does not like and which he calls corporate welfare or liberal 
claptrap. All research is divided into three parts in his mind: basic 
research, which is good; and corporate welfare; and liberal claptrap, 
which he seeks to avoid.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], a member of one of our subcommittees.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the direction H.R. 3322, 
the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996, will take this 
Nation. It purports to support basic science and end corporate welfare, 
but I believe the policies advocated by the bill look to the past 
rather than to the future.
  The bill would kill programs that support small business and create 
good, high-paying jobs in this worldwide economy. First, it eliminates 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. MEP centers, as they 
are known in 42 States, assist small- and medium-size firms employing 
fewer than 500 workers to modernize in order to compete in the 
demanding global marketplace in the 1990's and beyond. This program has 
strong support of the business community, State and local governments, 
and the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about big, multinational 
corporations. There are 381,000 small manufacturers who are struggling 
to maintain their competitiveness. Their competitors are just as likely 
to be companies in Asia or Europe as another company down the street. 
The MEP is a highly successful program for small business and this 
Nation.
  Second, the chairman of the committee wants to terminate the Advanced 
Technology Program. Although large corporations do participate in this 
program, approximately half of the ATP awards have gone to small 
businesses. Not only businesses participate in this program, but more 
than 100 universities are working on 157 ATP projects.
  This type of industry-government-university partnership is what 
nonbiased outside experts are recommending as the trend for the future. 
As

[[Page H5580]]

 Brian Rushton, president of the American Chemical Society, stated:

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
     Advanced Technology Program is a vital component of our 
     nation's technology competitiveness portfolio. ACS strongly 
     urges Congress to continue to support ATP. ATP supports 
     market incentives and encourages companies to invest for the 
     long-term in high-risk, high-payoff technologies.

  Mr. Chairman, not alone in their view is the Council on 
Competitiveness. In its publication ``Endless Frontier, Limited 
Resources,'' it concluded as its central finding that R&D partnerships 
hold the key to meeting the challenge of transition our Nation 
now faces. Eliminating the ATM and the MEP program is not eliminating 
corporate welfare, it is just eliminating a commonsense approach to a 
comprehensive research policy.

  Although H.R. 3322 is supposed to be a comprehensive authorization 
for all civilian research and development science programs, it does not 
authorize the Department of Energy research. We have been told that we 
did that last year. They claim to have protected basic research; 
however, the DOE cuts in this bill damage all types of research. In 
Tennessee alone, the cuts to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the 
University of Tennessee, such programs as energy conservation and the 
things that enable our companies to compete, will be cut another 13 
percent in addition to what was done last year for a total of 45 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I am as serious about deficit reduction as any Member 
of Congress. As a member of the coalition, I worked hard with them to 
develop a plan balancing our budget in 7 years. Everyone says it does. 
But we look at these policies in this bill, and it reminds me of 1950 
rather than the year 2000.
  Finally, quoting from the Council on Competitiveness again, it said: 
Equally the report finds the United States has an urgent interest in 
resolving the polarized debate over the proper role, Federal role in 
research and development. Battles over the proper limits of Government 
activity have reinforced the outdated distinction between basic and 
applied research as the primary basis for decision making.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, Mr. 
Brown, the ranking member, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise, unfortunately, in opposition to the committee's 
bill. I have several concerns about this bill. One of those concerns I 
will raise in an amendment that I and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] will offer when we get to the NOAA section of the bill.
  The National Weather Service is undergoing a major modernization and 
will be closing offices all over the country. While I and other Members 
support that modernization, I do not want some Government bureaucrat 
determining that my weather service office will be closed. I want more 
protection than that, and I and other Members of Congress have fought 
very hard to make sure that we have that kind of protection, and we 
have been denied that so far.
  Mr. Chairman, currently a process exists in law to require the 
Secretary of Commerce to certify that such weather services will not be 
degraded. The committee's bill eliminates this requirement and, 
consequently, the committee's bill would allow weather service 
bureaucrats to close offices all over the country. Just this past 
weekend, my district there in Alabama suffered again from tornadoes, 
tornado warnings. Other sections of the country did, as well. Our 
section of the country was left out of the Weather Service's 
modernization plan, and we dotted i's, crossed t's, and now we are 
expected to be included in that modernization plan.
  However, I do not want, in the process of getting our NEXRAD radar up 
and in place, I do not want a bureaucrat determining that for some even 
temporary length of time that we will be without that kind of coverage.
  Mr. Chairman, another concern is that the committee's bill 
drastically cuts the operations budget for the Weather Service. That 
budget line cuts pay for the salaries of Weather Service employees in 
field offices across the Nation. The concern with that salary cut would 
be that it would eliminate midnight forecast shifts at all Weather 
Service offices. We simply cannot pay that kind of price, and we cannot 
go that far with this kind of funding. This bill would be devastating 
for other districts across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, another issue that I am concerned about within the bill 
itself would be NASA's issues. The bill cuts NASA's salaries by $81.5 
million. NASA has been downsized enough. This is not the time to cut 
additional salaries.
  Support the Brown substitute.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee on 
Science, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues of the Committee on Science in 
commending our Chairman, Mr. Walker, for the very fine work that has 
gone into the preparation of this legislation for floor action.
  Chairman Walker has consistently supported the concept of unifying 
the civilian science missions of the Federal Government under one 
policy umbrella, with the objective being greater consistency in the 
development and implementation of the research and development policies 
and activities of the Federal Government. Perhaps, one day, the 
Congress will take such a bold step as part of the effort to Re-
engineer Government and make it more responsive to the needs of America 
in the 21st century.
  But that day is not yet, and our chairman has worked faithfully to do 
the next best thing: Conduct an authorization process that genuinely 
looks at the budgetary constraints that we are faced with as we move 
toward ending annual operating deficits over a period of 7 years, and 
make reasoned judgments about our priorities for the national science 
programs taken as a whole.
  In this way, we hope to use the moneys available to us in the wisest 
way possible to expand the frontiers of knowledge and better our 
quality of life.
  The bill before the House provides strong support for our basic 
research programs: Fully funding the core laboratory programs of the 
National Institutes of Standards and Technology is just one feature of 
that support. I have worked closely with our chairman in the 
structuring of those provisions of the bill, as well as others, and I 
can vouch for his good faith and diligence in striving to work 
cooperatively with all members of the committee to develop a bill which 
is balanced: Acceptable on the one hand to all who are concerned about 
continuing strong support for the basic research activities of the 
Federal science establishment, while on the other hand, responsive to 
the rightful concerns of those Members who are determined that this 
Congress meet its obligations of fiscal responsibility to future 
generations.
  Of course, there are programs that I would like to see provided for 
in this legislation that do not presently appear, and I hope to work 
with the Chairman on amendments that might be found acceptable that 
would provide authorization for those programs, or increase funding for 
others which are authorized. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
Program, located within the NIST umbrella at Commerce, and enhanced 
funding for environmental research are two areas of particular concern 
to me. At the same time, I am cognizant of the great responsibility we 
have to manage our resources wisely for the benefit of all citizens.
  I believe that one of the oversight efforts which our committee could 
profitably undertake during the balance of this year would be to 
systematically explore the means through which priorities are set by 
individual agencies and recipients of national science research funds, 
and how well our research priorities match the technological, 
environmental, and health challenges that will

[[Page H5581]]

face us in the next century. I look forward to working with our 
chairman in that effort.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is 35 years ago this month, May 
5, 1961, that a young man named Alan Shepard became the first American 
to fly into space. His 15-minute suborbital flight was the first 
milestone in a journey that has taken Americans to the moon, has led to 
the development of the world's first reusable spaceship, the space 
shuttle, and will soon result in American scientists and engineers 
conducting important research on the international space station.

                                  1515

  Our citizens take great pride in what our Nation has achieved in the 
human space flight, and we look forward to what lies ahead.
  We have some concerns, of course, about what lies ahead. The U.S. 
space program is not just about men and women in space.
  I think ever since the dawn of the space age the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration has been pushing back the boundaries of 
knowledge and sending robotic spacecraft to almost every planet in the 
solar system, observing other stars and galaxies with space-based 
observatories and probing the very complexities of our own planet's 
atmosphere, our oceans, and our climate.
  I think all of these achievements have been very impressive, but 
NASA's world class capabilities did not just come out of thin air, they 
are the result of investments by the American people, and that is why I 
am troubled a little bit about the bill the Members have before us 
today.
  H.R. 3322 represents, in my opinion, a step backward in our support 
of the space program that has delivered so many benefits to our 
citizens.
  I think most of my colleagues know that I consider myself somewhat of 
a fiscal conservative who is willing to make some tough spending cuts 
when we have to. In past years, though, I have worked with the chairman 
and with the ranking Democrat to make these cuts and to streamline the 
program, and NASA has risen to that challenge.
  It had an outyear funding plan cut by over one-third over the last 4 
years. No one else that I know of has made those type cuts.
  I could give you examples, but time does not allow me to.
  I would just say that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will 
offer an amendment to fix the programs in the NASA authorization that I 
have outlined, and I think that the American space program is very 
vital to our future. We ought to give it the resources it needs to 
carry out the mission.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Hall]. This bill does not serve the space program well, and I therefore 
rise in strong opposition to this science bill.
  Here we are once again fighting dramatic and excessive cuts in 
important programs, cuts that will, I think, be flawed and misguided if 
we adopt them.
  The bill includes a $374 million reduction for NASA's Mission to 
Planet Earth.
  This equates to a 27-percent cut to the Earth observing system, the 
centerpiece of Mission to Planet Earth and NASA's contribution to the 
global effort to understand the Earth's climate. The science bill is a 
meat cleaver approach, in my opinion, and if Mission to Planet Earth is 
to remain viable, it cannot sustain these types of dramatic cuts.
  Mission to Planet Earth is an evolving program, and these cuts would 
be devastating. We should not walk away from our national commitment to 
a better understanding of our environment.
  This program is part of a substantial international effort. These 
cuts dramatically reduce our role in this cooperative structure and 
send the wrong message to our partners overseas. This should not be a 
partisan issue. President's Reagan and Bush both supported the program, 
and President Clinton counts Mission to Plant Earth as one of his top 
science priorities. Moreover, the scientific community has continued to 
validate the integrity of the program.
  Therefore, as I said, we should not walk away from our commitment to 
Mission to Planet Earth for it is our investment today that will reap 
innumerable and long lasting benefits for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker from Texas indicated that this had 
been a bipartisan effort in the past. It ought to be a bipartisan issue 
in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill and support of the 
substitute to be offered by the gentleman from California and thank the 
gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my strong opposition to this bill, I would be 
remiss as the cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, if I 
did not say that I am pleased the bill authorizes funds for the 
academy, equal to the President's request. This is a worthwhile 
investment in our Nation's fire safety and emergency medical 
activities. It provides the American people with the finest public 
education in fire prevention and control.
  Again, I want to reiterate my strong opposition to the Civilian 
Science Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. I believe the bill 
unfairly targets the Mission to Planet Earth Program. I want to express 
my strong disappointment with the committee's decision to reduce 
funding for this important scientific program which is crucial to a 
better understanding of the world in which we all live.
  The bill includes a $374 million cut for NASA's Mission to Planet 
Earth. This equates to a 27-percent cut to the Earth Observing System 
[EOS], which is the centerpiece of NASA's contribution to the global 
effort to the understand how the Earth's climate works.
  In 1990, President Bush, building upon the recommendations of the 
Reagan administration, recognized the importance of understanding the 
Earth's climate when he established the U.S. Global Change Research 
Program [USGCRP]. This program serves as our country's contribution to 
an international effort to develop the first integrated understanding 
of the Earth's processes and their effect on global climate change 
using remotely sensed and surface based data.
  The cuts adopted by the Science Committee unfairly target three 
components of EOS and will put our country in a position of being 
unable to obtain and maintain our international contribution to this 
vital program. The bill would essentially eliminate the EOS-PM 
spacecraft, EOS CHEM spacecraft, and lessen the capability of the EOS 
data information system. These three programs are critical to the 
viability of the program.
  The EOS-PM spacecraft is designed to enable fundamental advances in 
understanding the processes that govern weather and other climate 
phenomena. Over half of the critical measurements planned for all of 
EOS are included as part of this spacecraft. According to Dr. John 
Christy and Dr. Richard McNider of the Earth system laboratory at the 
University of Alabama, natural variations in the world's climate are 
real and have significant economic impact. Our current knowledge of the 
Earth's climate system is terribly inadequate. The Nation's present 
global change program is an appropriate place to begin to understand 
the Earth's climate system.

  The EOS-CHEM spacecraft will improve our understanding of pollution 
and the ozone processes. This is critical at a time when increasing 
amounts of global pollution are coming from nations other than the 
United States with profound regional and global effects. It is 
important that we have a better understanding of how and why this 
occurs, so we can do what is necessary to get this situation under 
control.
  The EOS data information system provides the means for controlling 
the satellites, processing data from the satellites into a usable form, 
storing and distributing that data to researchers and other users, and 
enabling data analysis. EOSDIS is the means by which NASA will transmit 
useful information to a variety of users. The program is currently on 
schedule and set to become operational in 1997. A 50-percent cut to 
this program would be devastating. A reduction of this magnitude will 
hinder our ability to control the orbits of the EOS satellites, 
schedule and maintain measurements of the instruments, and process 
store, and distribute the data. The benefits of the EOSDIS systems are 
enormous. It will establish for the first time an integrated, online, 
electronic library of geography based telemetry, synthetic aperture 
radar, and Landsat imagery. Moreover, NASA estimates that in addition 
to supporting Mission to Planet Earth scientists, EOSDIS will be used 
by thousands

[[Page H5582]]

of other scientists around the world, other researchers, and government 
officials. In addition, as the program continues to develop, it will 
eventually serve many commercial purposes.
  In 1991, the EOS Program had an estimated 15-year budget of $18 
billion. In just 5 years, the program has been significantly reduced 
and is now a $7 billion program. These decreases have resulted in fewer 
instruments, fewer measurements, and the elimination of vital areas of 
scientific research. NASA has shown its ability to cut the program over 
60 percent without compromising the integrity and future of the 
program. NASA has also indicated a willingness to further reduce the 
costs of the program by incorporating new technology and strengthening 
partnerships with commercial, agency, and international partners.
  In addition to the cuts in Mission to Planet Earth, the bill 
undermines the ability of NASA to carry out its functions by reducing 
the level of funding for salaries and expenses. The cut of $81.5 
million is not well thought out and will have devastating impact on all 
NASA centers. The net result will be either a NASA reduction in force 
totaling 1,400 employees by October 1, 1996 or an agencywide furlough 
for 12 to 14 days. This is unacceptable for one of the world's premiere 
science and technologically advanced institutions. NASA is already 
reducing its staff level to meet its zero based review. The levels they 
have achieved allow them to adequately meet the daily requirements 
necessary to efficiently carry out their operations. This is an unwise 
decision and it ought to be rejected.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to support the Brown 
substitute which is a better investment for our country and which will 
allow these important scientific programs to meet their mission.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  I want to commend Chairman Walker and the subcommittee chairs for 
reporting out a balanced bill that is supportive of science.
  In this time of budget cutting, the Science Committee has worked has 
to protect scientific research from undue hardship and to set 
priorities. I particularly want to thank Mr. Schiff for his amendment 
which will increase funding for the National Science Foundation by an 
additional $41 million. I should add that I hope some of that money 
would be put to use ensuring that the Nation is served by an adequate 
number of supercomputer centers.
  I am also pleased to see that the bill funds environmental research 
at healthy levels.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with every policy decision that is 
embodied in this bill. But overall, the bill has accomplished exactly 
what the Science Committee has committed itself to do: it protects 
basic research, the foundation of our Nation's future success.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to join my colleagues 
on the Committee on Science in bringing this well-constructed 
legislation to the House floor. The authorizations for National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA's Office of Research and 
Development will, as they did last year, fund all the vital research 
services of these important agencies and all the research they need to 
get their job done. At the same time we get budget savings by 
eliminating bureaucracy, by continuing privatization efforts endorsed 
by the administration and by eliminating earmarks that even the Clinton 
administration does not want.
  Title IV of this bill will give the National Weather Service 
Forecast, for example, an increase of almost $20 million from current 
funding to a total of $626 million. So for those who are criticizing 
that we have cut the National Weather Service, let us note that there 
has been an actual increase in funding. This represents full support 
for the Weather Service modernization program and allows for full 
funding for the installation and operation of the state-of-the-art 
Doppler radars.
  Title IV also authorizes completion of the computer software 
integration system known as AWIPS at a level the NOAA Administrator 
stated is sufficient to finish this pivotal component of the Weather 
Service modernization program.
  Title IV also provides level funding of both long-term climate 
research and seasonal interannual climate research.
  The Committee on Science has supported and will continue to support 
objective scientific research to improve our knowledge of weather 
phenomena such as El Nino.
  What we will not support are programs such as that in the EPA which 
assumes an apocalyptic global warming and then spend enormous sums on 
studies that will prove or disprove what the impact of this global 
warming will have on the planet.
  In title V of this bill, however, we do continue to support increased 
funding for research which supports the EPA's regulatory mission. Title 
V increases funding for research above the President's request for 
priority programs such as hazardous waste research, drinking water 
disinfection and air pollution caused by particulate matter. We stick 
to our balanced budget by eliminating corporate welfare programs such 
as the environmental technology initiative, research on indoor air 
which the EPA does not regulate, by the way, and climate programs which 
are legitimate climate programs rather than trendy scientific programs.
  Mr. Chairman, before my time is up I would just like to say a few 
things about the NASA title of this bill. I would like to commend the 
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] 
as well as my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
for the excellent product they have done.
  Of course, one of my chief concerns in this area is that we fully 
utilize America's potential in the future in space by making sure that 
we do the development of the reusable launch system today that will be 
used tomorrow.
  I have two concerns about the reusable launch program; first, we have 
never made an experimental flight test in this program based on only 
one vehicle, and the reusable launch vehicle program does not have 
enough money for a second copy for the X-33, and I would hope that we 
could do that, but obviously we are dealing with scarce funds and we 
have to set priorities.
  So I am not happy with that, and I would like to see that corrected, 
but I recognize that we are operating on the budget where we are 
looking for a balanced budget in the end. Second, from time to time 
there have been bureaucratic attacks on the X-33 project basically 
because we are not doing things the way we used to do them. But the 
reusable launch vehicle program is so important to our future because 
it will do what is absolutely necessary if we are to have a space 
program in the future, and that is to bring down the cost of getting 
into space. Once we do that, then we can have all kinds of other 
programs in space and accomplish all kinds of other goals in space 
because we will have brought down the fundamental cost of getting into 
space in the first place.
  So I am very happy that we have supported the X-33 program, which is 
the reusable launch vehicle program, in this bill. I would hope it 
would be a little stronger, but we are operating in a balanced budget 
concept here.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3322 is a fiscally sound bill, and I submit it is 
also a scientifically sound bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' for science and a balanced budget. We are not exempting 
ourselves on the Committee on Science from making tough decisions and 
setting priorities in order to make sure that future generations will 
have their own money to spend rather than having us spend all of their 
science and research money now.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, as I rise today to talk about H.R. 3322, 
the purported Committee on Science bill, I am reminded of a slogan that 
came out of the presidential campaigns in the 1980s; it was, ``Where is 
the beef?'' Well, in this bill it is where is the energy? Where is the 
renewables? Where is the solar? Where is the environmental aspect in 
this bill?
  Bringing this bill to the House floor without some of the most 
important components is like bringing the defense bill to the House 
floor without the Air Force components, or the education bill to the 
House floor without student loans, or the agriculture bill to the House 
floor without the dairy components.

[[Page H5583]]

  Now why is that? Why are we not allowed to have out say on the 
energy? It is a good question.
  We had a markup scheduled for May 15, and the distinguished chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Energy, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], and I, who worked together on offsets and on balancing 
the budget and trying to come up with cuts in programs, we were 
dissuaded or not allowed to have that committee markup, and I come 
here, Mr. Chairman, to do the people's business.
  Now, we may not win on our amendments in a subcommittee markup to go 
to the full committee, but we should have our opportunity and our say-
so in the democratic process to get our markup together after months of 
hearings and to have our input as the experts in the subcommittee to 
make recommendations to the full committee on renewables and energy 
concerns. We were not allowed to do that.
  Why? Maybe because last year's bill had a 50-percent cut to solar 
R&D, a 30-percent cut to renewable R&D, a 20-percent cut to fusion R&D, 
and a 10-percent cut to biological and environmental research. It is no 
wonder that these very important programs are conspicuously absent from 
this bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think when we begin to talk 
about science and the twenty-first century, all of us would like to 
come to the House floor and really propose the support of H.R. 3322 in 
a bipartisan manner.
  This disappoints me greatly that I have to rise and vehemently 
disagree with this legislative primarily because I am a strong 
proponent of science being the work of the 21st century, and this 
legislation has totally abdicated its responsibility to science.
  First of all, we have not had any extensive hearings to determine 
which direction this legislation should take.

                                  1530

  It disappoints me that we have the stewardship of responsibility over 
items such as space and science, research and development, and we have 
not done the job. It disappoints me that we have not recognized the 
National Institutes of Standards and their responsibilities for the NEP 
program and the ATP program.
  I have in my hand a letter from the Texas Department of Commerce, 
arguing vigorously that we should support the NEP program and the 
Advanced Technology Program, none of which are supported with any vigor 
in this legislation. We cut research and development some $2 billion. 
And then we come down to the lean and mean NASA; we cut jobs, we cut 
personnel some $81.5 million.
  I am just here to throw up my hands. That is why I will be offering 
an amendment to restore the $81.5 million to provide for the personnel 
in the centers throughout this Nation that have already, Mr. Chairman, 
suffered the greatest downsizing that we could imagine. If we do not 
restore that $81.5 million in the amendment that I am offering, we will 
see NASA employees in the centers being furloughed for 3 weeks.
  Are we addressing the issues of safety and the responsibility we have 
for the continuation of NASA's programs and certainly the space 
station? I hope we can come together in a bipartisan manner and look at 
the Brown substitute that fully responds to research and development; 
and then, as well, look at the amendments that I will be offering, in 
particular dealing with the environment, but more particularly the 
$81.5 million restoration that we need to ensure that NASA can do the 
job that the American people want them to do, and to create jobs for 
the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my opposition to this bill and some of 
the policies therein. Mr. Chairman, not only do I object to numerous 
provisions within the legislation, but also to the subversive process 
by which this bill has made it to the floor.
  As you know, the Science Committee has responsibility for our 
Nation's governmental space, science, research and development 
activities. These activities encompass enormous taxpayer dollars, 
thousands of researchers, graduate students and companies and hold 
within them, the future of our country's technological leadership and 
prosperity. However, under Republican leadership, our stewardship of 
these activities has greatly lapsed and over the past year and a half, 
the Science Committee has abrogated its responsibilities. This is 
evidenced by the paucity of public hearings we have held on many 
important issues, by the Republican dominated committee's approval to 
rely on what are private conversations as justification for policy and 
funding decisions, these bypassing subcommittees during the legislative 
process, and extensive partisan gamesmanship which the other side has 
engaged in.
  H.R. 3322 deals with all of the agencies under this committee's 
jurisdiction including NASA, NSF, parts of the EPA, and NOAA. With this 
in mind, one would think that the importance of these agencies, what 
they do, and the money we spend for them would warrant thoughtful 
consideration by the members of the committee, allowing for adequate 
debate and consideration. This has not occurred. In previous years, the 
subcommittees were given an opportunity to lend their expertise and 
ideas to legislation before it was brought to the full committee--not 
this year. In previous years, the committee spent many hours of debate 
and discussion on the programs we oversee--but not this year; we were 
forced to consider them all in 1 day. Mr. Chairman, what I would simply 
ask the chairman, what's our purpose when the chairman refuses to allow 
us to perform the job our constituents elected us for?

  Furthermore, when I received this bill, I found to my surprise that 
there was no Department of Energy title and an absolute absence of any 
funding for the external programs at the National Institute of 
Standards [NIST]. We were told that this year's DOE authorization 
numbers were included in a floor amendment offered by Mr. Walker last 
year. And during committee markup, the chairman said that an amendment 
regarding the MEP and ATP programs were not relevant to the NIST title. 
How can that be, NIST administers those programs.
  Finally, this bill continues the Republican war against effective 
public-private partnerships, environmental R&D, and whatever they 
happen to consider corporate welfare. We Members have been told over 
and over that for every dollar spent in the MEP and ATP programs, up to 
$8 is generated in the economy along with numerous jobs. Mr. Walker 
refuses to hear. We have been told that R&D is crucial to stay 
competitive and that time-to-market is what is driving profits and 
decisions. Again, Mr. Walker is in denial.
  Regardless of what the chairman says, this bill authorizes about 
$2.06 billion less than the President's budget for research and 
development programs under our jurisdiction. Period. This is a bad 
bill, brought to the floor and justified by secretive conversations, 
arbitrary financial and policy decisions and one man's myopic view of 
the world. It is with great pride that I vote nay, and fight to 
preserve my children's future.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute that he will 
offer to this bill later to restore some important NASA and EPA 
functions. I also rise in support of the amendments that my colleague, 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], will also offer. I also 
rise in strong support of the space station and in opposition to any 
amendments which would cut or eliminate funding altogether for the 
Space Station Program.
  Some have argued that it would be fiscally prudent to eliminate the 
space station. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it 
would be terribly imprudent to kill the program we have already 
invested more than $12 billion in. Our 12 international partners have 
spent more than $4 billion. Actual hardware is being built. To 
eliminate the program now, after so much of the investment has been 
made, would be the height of irresponsibility by allowing our 
investment to be waived.
  The Space Station Program is on track and on budget, and the first 
launch is just over a year from now in November 1997. American 
contractors have produced more than 80,000 pounds of flight hardware 
and our international partners have produced more than 60,000 pounds. 
The space station is no longer a dream but a reality, and it will soon 
be in orbit, producing tremendous dividends. This is a worthwhile 
investment and exploration in

[[Page H5584]]

science, an investment in jobs and economic growth, an investment in 
international cooperation, and most of all, an investment in improving 
life for all of us here on Earth.
  The American space program has already made remarkable contributions 
to technology and medical research during its 35-year history. The 
space station is the next logical step, a permanent orbiting laboratory 
capable of long duration research. Let us defeat these amendments to 
eliminate or cut the space station and keep the program on track.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], our most potent speaker, who I 
have reserved until last.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I will support the Brown substitute, but 
failing that I will vote for final passage of the bill. I want to thank 
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], for dealing with an issue in this bill, that NASA is now hit 
with the budget priorities, like every other program, and for including 
my language that would in fact urge NASA to look at underutilized 
facilities in depressed communities. It might be a chance for NASA to 
develop a political strategy. They have none. I think the ivory tower 
days are over. I would hope they would move out into other areas and 
develop a truly regional national base of political support. They are 
certainly going to need it in the future.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], I 
think overall he has done a good job, and the gentlemen from Texas [Mr. 
Hall].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, the charge was made that there were no 
hearings on this bill. The fact is that there were a number of hearings 
in the subcommittees on the content of this bill. Maybe Members did not 
get there for those hearings, but the fact is that hearings were held. 
We do know what policy direction we need to go.
  It was also suggested by the gentleman from California that there was 
something disingenuous about the nature of the bill. I would simply say 
that when they stand up and talk about energy bills not coming before 
the Congress, I spent 20 years on the committee, during which time I do 
not remember the Democrats ever bringing a comprehensive energy bill 
before the Congress. They brought pieces, but for the first time in the 
history of the committee since I have been here, we brought a 
comprehensive energy bill to the floor last year and, in fact, passed 
it for a 2-year program. That is the reason why it is not here today.
  Mr. Chairman, finally I would simply respond to the gentleman from 
California when he said that this gentleman had called some of the 
programs under our jurisdiction liberal claptrap. I would say to the 
gentleman, if he can find anywhere in the public or private record 
where this gentleman has ever made those statements, I would be happy 
to support his substitute, but I do not think he could ever find 
anything where this gentleman ever made such a statement. We might want 
to be somewhat accurate in all of this.
  With all that said, this is a very good bill that we bring before the 
floor. It is in strong support of science, and it is in a fiscally 
responsible climate. That is what is expected of us. We, on this 
committee, think we have a commitment to the 7-year balanced budget. We 
have to plan programs within that context. This bill does good science 
work in the context of a balanced budget. I would urge people to 
support it.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, today again, I wish to express my strong 
support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] to eliminate 
authorization for the space station.
  In 1984, the Reagan administration proposed to construct a manned 
space station that would be in service by 1994 at a cost of $8 billion. 
Today, after several redesigns, we have spent $11 billion and 
unfortunately have very little to show for it. Current cost projections 
now estimate that the total cost to build and operate the space station 
will be at least $70.8 billion.
  While I do not believe we can afford the space station at this time, 
I do believe we can, and must, afford to wisely invest Government 
resources in research and technology development. Unfortunately, the 
space station has taken funds away from many worthy projects such as 
the Earth Observing System, the National Aerospace Plane, as well as 
the unmanned space program. In this time of tight budgets, I believe we 
must invest Federal funds in cost-effective science and technology 
programs that produce real results--expanding our scientific 
understanding and increasing our commercial competitiveness in 
international markets.
  I would like to emphasize that a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan 
Roemer-Ganske amendment is not a vote against NASA. Quite the opposite, 
to support this amendment is to support valuable, cost-effective NASA 
space and science programs that have been starved by the space station. 
A vote for the Roemer-Ganske amendment is a vote against the space 
station--a project that is rapidly losing its scientific missions even 
as it continues to add billions to our deficit.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, on July 15, 1995, the Secretary of 
Agriculture wrote to the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget indicating that ``since many short- and long-term agricultural 
planning activities are weather dependent, there exists a need for 
timely meteorological information to support efficient and cost-
effective management decisions.'' On April 1, 1996, against the 
interests of the agricultural community, the Department of Commerce's 
National Weather Service terminated the Agricultural Weather Service. 
As it is currently drafted, I believe H.R. 3322 limits our ability to 
maintain the accuracy and reliability of weather information which is 
essential for American farmers.
  The collection, quality, and reporting of agricultural weather data 
should remain a Federal responsibility. Without Federal responsibility 
to collect and distribute weather data, the specialized forecasts and 
private sector agricultural weather services may not remain viable. 
Furthermore, I believe that the private sector has not yet properly 
demonstrated it is ready to assume responsibility for agricultural 
weather data collection and dissemination.
  The Department of Agriculture is familiar with farming and the 
collection and dissemination of agricultural weather data. Therefore, I 
believe that the Department of Agriculture is the most suitable agency 
for this service. The Department of Agriculture has ongoing 
relationships with the land-grant colleges and universities, and via 
the Extension Service can ensure that this information is made 
available to all producers. Therefore, I would encourage the National 
Weather Service to work cooperatively with the Department of 
Agriculture to explore ways to continue to provide agricultural weather 
data and ultimately transfer this responsibility to the Department of 
Agriculture.
  It is my hope that as Congress continues its work on H.R. 3322, and 
until such time that action can be taken to transfer the Agricultural 
Weather Service to the Department of Agriculture, that this important 
and essential service will be continued through the Department of 
Commerce. Additionally, funding for this service should continue 
through Commerce, State, Justice appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant to 
the rule, the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute rule by 
titles, and the first section and each title shall be considered read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-565 if offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Walker], or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, may amend portions of the bill not 
yet read for amendment, shall be debatable for 10 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.
  Following disposition of amendment No. 8, the Committee shall resume 
consideration of the bill pursuant to House Resolution 427.
  In addition, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone 
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
a request for a recorded vote on the aforementioned amendments or any 
amendment thereto and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time 
for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that 
immediately follows another vote by electronic device without 
intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 
15 minutes.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment.

[[Page H5585]]

  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it shall be in order 
after the disposition of the amendment by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], printed in House Report 104-565, to consider 
the following amendments or germane modifications thereto, which shall 
be considered in the following order and notwithstanding their amending 
portions of the bill not yet read for amendment: First, an amendment by 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] regarding National Science 
Foundation funding; second, amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas]; third, amendment No. 7 by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Thornberry]; fourth, amendment No. 22 by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Traficant]; fifth an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer] regarding endocrine disruptors; sixth, amendment No. 2 by 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]; seventh, amendment No. 14 by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]; and eighth, amendment 
No. 8 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER

  Mr. WALKER. 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. Walker:
       Page 3, in the table of contents, strike the items relating 
     to subtitle B of title IV.
       Page 3, in the table of contents, amend the line relating 
     to subtitle C of title IV to read as follows:


                      SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM SUPPORT

       Page 4, in the table of contents, amend the items relating 
     to subtitle D of title IV to read as follows:


                 SUBTITLE C--STREAMLINING OF OPERATIONS

Sec. 441. Programs.
Sec. 442. Reduction in travel budget.
       Page 4, in the table of contents, amend the line relating 
     to subtitle E of title IV to read as follows:


                       SUBTITLE D--MISCELLANEOUS

       Page 4, in the table of contents, strike the item relating 
     to section 453.
       Page 4, in the table of contents, amend the items relating 
     to title VII to read as follows:


 TITLE VII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 703. Research priorities.
Sec. 704. Research Advisory Committees.
Sec. 705. National aviation research plan.
       Page 7, lines 11, 13, and 15, strike ``(1)''.
       Page 7, lines 12, 14, and 16, strike ``scientific''.
       Page 12, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
       (1) in section 4(g) (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)), by striking ``the 
     appropriate rate provided for individuals in grade GS-18 of 
     the General Schedule under section 5332'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the maximum rate payable under section 5376'';
       Page 12, lines 5, 9, and 17, redesignate paragraphs (1), 
     (2), and (3) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
       Page 12, lines 17 through 20, amend paragraph (4), as so 
     redesignated, to read as follows:
       (4) in section 14(c) (42 U.S.C. 1873(c))--
       (A) by striking ``shall receive'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``shall be entitled to receive'';
       (B) by inserting ``, including traveltime,'' after 
     ``business of the Foundation''; and
       (C) by striking ``the rate specified for the daily rate for 
     grade GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the maximum rate payable under 
     section 5376''; and
       Page 12, lines 21 and 22, strike paragraph (4).
       Page 13, lines 19 through 21, amend subsection (d) to read 
     as follows:
       (d) Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act 
     Amendments.--(1) Section 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885b) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and persons with disabilities'' after 
     ``minorities in science'' in the section heading; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) The Foundation is authorized to undertake and support 
     programs and activities to encourage the participation of 
     persons with disabilities in the science and engineering 
     professions.''.
       (2) Section 36 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885c) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``persons with 
     disabilities,'' after ``minorities,'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by amending the second sentence to 
     read as follows: ``In addition, the Chairman of the National 
     Science Board may designate members of the Board as ex 
     officio members of the Committee.'';
       (C) by striking subsections (c) and (d);
       (D) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and 
     evaluating all Foundation matters relating to participation 
     in, opportunities for, and advancement in education, training 
     and research in science and engineering of women, minorities, 
     persons with disabilities, and other groups currently 
     underrepresented in scientific, engineering, and professional 
     fields.'';
       (E) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (F) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by subparagraph 
     (E) of this paragraph, by striking ``additional''.
       Page 17, line 1, strike ``develop'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``development''.
       Page 90, line 11, through page 93, line 13, strike subtitle 
     B.
       Page 93, line 14, redesignate subtitle C as subtitle B.
       Page 94, line 4, through page 97, line 13, strike 
     subsections (c) and (d).
       Page 97, lines 14 and 21, redesignate subsections (e) and 
     (f) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.
       Page 98, line 1, redesignate subtitle D as subtitle C.
       Page 98, lines 6 through 11, strike paragraphs (1) through 
     (4).
       Page 98, lines 16 through 21, strike paragraphs (8) through 
     (12).
       Page 99, lines 5 through 9, strike paragraphs (17) and 
     (18).
       Page 98, line 12, through page 99, line 10, redesignate 
     paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (13), (14), (15), (16), and (19) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively.
       Page 99, line 19, through page 100, line 7, strike 
     subsections (c) and (d).
       Page 100, line 8, strike ``LIMITATIONS ON APPROPRIATIONS'' 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``REDUCTION IN TRAVEL BUDGET''.
       Page 100, lines 9 through 15, strike ``(a) Maximum Amount'' 
     and all that follows through ``Travel Budget.--''
       Page 100, line 20, through page 103, line 24, strike 
     section 443.
       Page 104, line 1, redesignate subtitle E as subtitle D.
       Page 106, line 9, through page 116, line 9, strike section 
     453.
       Page 119, line 1, strike ``Environmental'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Environment''.
       Page 124, line 9, through page 129, line 3, strike sections 
     702 through 705.
       Page 129, line 4, redesignate section 706 as section 702.
       Page 130, line 10, insert ``and'' after ``activities;''.
       Page 130, lines 12 through 18, strike ''; and'' and all 
     that follows through ``Facilities and Equipment''.
       Page 130, line 19, redesignate section 707 as section 703.
       Page 131, line 9, through page 132, line 5, strike section 
     708.
       Page 132, line 6, redesignate section 709 as section 704.
       Page 133, line 1, redesignate section 710 as section 705.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that we had attempted to work out 
with everyone concerned, and allows us to expedite the process of 
deliberating the bill on the floor. The administration forwarded their 
draft authorization bill for the National Science Foundation to the 
committee the night before our markup. At that time we were not able to 
include several of the technical amendments in our bill.
  In consultation with the minority, amendments to NSF can be termed 
technical and administrative, and we know of no opposition to these 
amendments that are included in the manger's amendment that I offering. 
Further amendments in this particular manager's amendment relate to 
title IV, the NOAA authorization, which strike provisions of shared 
jurisdiction between the Committee on Science and the Committee on 
Resources. The removal of these provisions will help expedite the bill.
  Finally, we have language in this amendment which strikes several 
provisions in title VII, the FAA research, engineering, and development 
authorization. The gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Technology on the Committee on Science, 
is working with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to 
craft language relating to these provisions. Again, this actually 
allows the committee to move forward with H.R. 3322 on the floor.
  I wish to thank the subcommittee chairman and the chairmen of the

[[Page H5586]]

other concerned committees for their efforts to deal with these 
revisions and bring them before the House. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.


                  title i--national science foundation

  Conforms language to the reduction of directorates; corrects obsolete 
references to the GS-18 pay scale; allows members of the Science Board 
to decline their compensation; broadens the Engineering Equal 
Opportunities Act to include persons with disabilities; and allows the 
Chairman of the National Science Board to appoint ex-officio members to 
review committees.


       title iv--national oceanic and atmospheric administration

  Drops the following programs within the joint jurisdiction of the 
Committee's on Science and Resources: All National Ocean Service [NOS] 
programs authorization, including the Coastal Ocean Program; the Ocean 
and Great Lakes Program authorizations and terminations under the 
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research [OAR] including the 
termination of the National Undersea Research Program and the 
authorization of the National Sea Grant College Program; the 
authorization of the marine services account and the termination's of 
the NOAA Corps and the NOAA Fleet Modernization Program; language 
establishing the National Ocean Partnership Program; and language 
setting a cap on total appropriations for the Operations, Research and 
Facilities Account of NOAA.


 title vii--federal aviation administration research, engineering, and 
                              development

  The manager's amendment strikes the following sections/provisions 
from the bill: section 702, Findings--outlined committee findings 
regarding the FAA's delays in fielding new products and services, 
including long-standing internal management, organizational, and 
cultural impediments to improving its acquisition processes; section 
703, Definitions--defined acquisition management teams used in section 
704 of title VII; section 704, Management Principles (i.e., ``guiding 
principles'')--mandated guiding principles for conducting Federal 
Aviation Administration research, engineering, and development 
activities; section 705, Document of April 1, 1996--FAA's recently 
implemented acquisition management system; section 706, Authorization 
of Appropriations; item K--authorized such sums as may necessary for 
other research, engineering, and development activities conducted under 
the Engineering, Development, Test, and Evaluation activity of the 
Facilities and Equipment account; and section 708, Budget Designation 
For Federal Aviation Administration Research and Development 
Activities--Required that future FAA budgets include in a single budget 
category all research and development activities that would be 
classified as basic research, applied research, or developmental under 
the guidelines established by OMB in Budget Circular A-11.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair, do I 
have to be opposed to this amendment to claim this time?
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say I do not intend to oppose the 
chairman's amendment. He has consulted with us with regard to this 
amendment. I think the purpose of it clearly is to expedite the process 
of the committee this afternoon, plus correcting a few mistakes that 
were made in the original bill. I am more than happy to accommodate the 
chairman with regard to that.
  I did want to take a minute, however, Mr. Chairman, to apologize to 
the chairman if I accused him of using the term ``liberal claptrap.'' 
That was not my intention. That was the patented phrase of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. I thought I indicated that 
it was Members on the other side who used those two terms, but not 
specifically the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has patented the term ``corporate 
welfare.'' I propose to carefully distinguish between these two 
divisions in the Federal research and development budget whenever I 
can.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I plead guilty. I said that global 
warming at best is unproven, and at worst, liberal claptrap. I plead 
guilty.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I knew the gentleman would say 
that. He has been unabashed in his reference to these programs in those 
terms. I admire him for that, as a matter of fact. I think it is an 
artful phrase, as is the term ``corporate welfare,'' and it serves as a 
hook on which Members can say all sorts of things about programs that 
they do not like. First they can call them liberal claptrap, and then 
say why they do not like them.
  One other thing about the statement of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] at which I do take umbrage. He said he has 
been on the committee for 20 years. If he finishes this year, that will 
be correct. He then said that there had been no energy bills passed by 
the committee during that time. Then I think he qualified that by 
saying there had been occasional efforts at doing portions of a bill.
  I would remind the gentleman of the fact that in 1992 we had the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992, appropriately named, which was a 
comprehensive, although not absolutely all-inclusive, energy bill, 
and as a matter of fact, we are still being guided for many of the 
things done in the Department of Energy by that Energy Policy Act, 
which was an authorization bill of 1992.

  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
takes delight in disparaging the record of the committee before he 
became chairman, but if he will just stick to the facts I will be glad 
to agree with him. I am not particularly proud of the record that we 
have made, and with the help of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] we tried to remedy that many times. He understands the problems 
in getting an energy authorization bill passed.
  It had been my hope that under his leadership we would get an energy 
policy bill passed. We have not yet, and I would confidently predict we 
will not during the remainder of his term as chairman, but if there is 
a possibility, I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman, 
because I think we share a desire that the Committee on Science 
participate fully in the authorization of all programs under our 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on this amendment. I strongly support 
the manager's amendment, perhaps more than the manager himself.
  Mr. Chairman, during committee markup of H.R. 3322, Democrats 
expressed two fundamental concerns over the structure of this bill. 
First, the bill seemed designed to capture many programs that were not 
under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee. Second, the bill took 
great pains to avoid addressing some agencies that were under the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee.
  The most obvious problem with the bill in the first instance was its 
inclusion of the ocean, coastal, and fishery programs within NOAA. As 
was brought out in our markup, the bill did not attempt to authorize 
these programs, it attempted to deauthorize them. In particular, the 
bill sought to eliminate NOAA's role in the Coastal Zone Management Act 
that was coincidentally reauthorized the day before as a part of the 
Republican celebration of Earth Day. The bill also contained hostile 
provisions directed at the Sea Grant Program, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service and several other important programs. These were not 
programs that were addressed in any hearing before the Science 
Committee, yet extensive policy and detailed funding decisions were 
made a part of the bill.
  During the markup, Ms. Rivers of Michigan offered an amendment to 
remove these programs from the bill and provide the opportunity to the 
Committee on Resources to establish more acceptable funding levels for 
these programs. Her amendment was defeated along party lines. I would 
stress that every Republican on our committee that voted to authorize 
the Coastal Zone Management Act on the floor on April 23, voted to 
deauthorize the program on April 24. Members who spoke to House cameras 
in warm glowing terms about the Sea Grant Program, voted in committee 
to slash it. Members who spoke about the importance of the ocean 
sciences voted to virtually eliminate them.
  At the time of Ms. Rivers' amendment, Democrats were characterized by 
majority members of the committee in very unflattering terms and were 
accused of playing politics. I would only point out that our opposition 
to the structure of the bill was hardly rooted in partisan politics. 
Indeed, I strongly subscribe to the letter sent by the chair of the 
Resources Committee describing his perceptions of this state of 
affairs. He accurately described the absence of any attempt on the part 
of the

[[Page H5587]]

Chair to develop a consensus on these programs as a major factor in the 
state of legislative gridlock that befell last year's science 
authorization bill.
  What the manager's amendment does not do today is fix the other half 
of the problem--that is the absence of an authorization for other 
programs in our jurisdiction. The NIST extramural programs and the 
Department of Energy R&D programs are vital to many members of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle. Procedural manipulations were 
found to exclude these from the bill, but this does not make them less 
valuable and does not remove them from the responsibility of our 
committee. Later, Members will be given a chance to vote for these 
vital programs when they consider my amendment to H.R. 3322--an 
amendment that fully funds these programs at the President's request 
levels.
  I will close by again stating my support for this amendment. I 
believe it will improve the bill and provide a better chance for the 
programs in question to receive a fair treatment before the proper 
committees of jurisdiction.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my support for the chairman's 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe with that statement we can get past all the 
internal squabbles in the committee and so on and actually get to 
discussing real policy here on the floor with regard to science policy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                                  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus 
     Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                  TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Definitions.

         Subtitle A--National Science Foundation Authorization

Sec. 111. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 112. Proportional reduction of research and related activities 
              amounts.
Sec. 113. Consultation and representation expenses.
Sec. 114. Reprogramming.

                     Subtitle B--General Provisions

Sec. 121. Annual Report.
Sec. 122. National research facilities.
Sec. 123. Eligibility for research facility awards.
Sec. 124. Administrative amendments.
Sec. 125. Indirect costs.
Sec. 126. Financial disclosure.
Sec. 127. Educational leave of absence for active duty.
Sec. 128. Science Studies Institute.
Sec. 129. Educational impact.
Sec. 130. Divisions of the Foundation.
Sec. 131. National Science and Engineering Foundation.

        TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Definitions.

              Subtitle B--Authorization of Appropriations

                       Chapter 1--Authorizations

Sec. 211. Human space flight.
Sec. 212. Science, aeronautics, and technology.
Sec. 213. Mission support.
Sec. 214. Inspector General.
Sec. 215. Total authorization.
Sec. 216. Office of Commercial Space Transportation Authorization.
Sec. 217. Office of Space Commerce.

      Chapter 2--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

Sec. 221. Findings.
Sec. 222. Restructuring reports.

              Chapter 3--Limitations And Special Authority

Sec. 231. Use of funds for construction.
Sec. 232. Availability of appropriated amounts.
Sec. 233. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.
Sec. 234. Consideration of committees.
Sec. 235. Limitations on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 236. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
              expenses.

                Subtitle C--International Space Station

Sec. 241. Findings.
Sec. 242. Commercialization of Space Station.
Sec. 243. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 244. Space Station accounting report.

                  Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 251. Commercial Space launch amendments.
Sec. 252. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 253. Office of Space Commerce.
Sec. 254. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 255. Procurement.
Sec. 256. Additional National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
              facilities.
Sec. 257. Purchase of space science data.
Sec. 258. Plan for Mission to Planet Earth.
Sec. 259. Acquisition of earth remote sensing data.
Sec. 260. Shuttle privatization.
Sec. 261. Launch voucher demonstration program amendments.
Sec. 262. Privatization of microgravity parabolic flight operations.
Sec. 263. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.
Sec. 264. Use of abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and 
              facilities.
Sec. 265. Cost effectiveness calculations.
Sec. 266. Procurement ombudsman.
Sec. 267. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on 
              substantial evidence of fraud.

              TITLE III--UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 303. Fire safety systems in Army housing.
Sec. 304. Successor fire safety standards.
Sec. 305. Termination or privatization of functions.
Sec. 306. Report on budgetary reduction.

       TITLE IV--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Definitions.

        Subtitle A--Atmospheric, Weather, and Satellite Programs

Sec. 411. National Weather Service.
Sec. 412. Atmospheric research.
Sec. 413. National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
              Service.

                      Subtitle B--Marine Research

Sec. 421. National Ocean Service.
Sec. 422. Ocean and Great Lakes research.

                      Subtitle C--Program Support

Sec. 431. Program support.

                 Subtitle D--Streamlining of Operations

Sec. 441. Programs.
Sec. 442. Limitations on appropriations.
Sec. 443. Termination of the Corps of Commissioned Officers.

                       Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

Sec. 451. Weather data buoys.
Sec. 452. Duties of the National Weather Service.
Sec. 453. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.

                TITLE V--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Definitions.
Sec. 503. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 504. Scientific research review.
Sec. 505. Graduate student fellowships.
Sec. 506. Science Advisory Board.

        TITLE VI--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 601. Authorization of appropriations.

 TITLE VII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Findings.
Sec. 703. Definitions.
Sec. 704. Management principles.
Sec. 705. Document of April 1, 1996.
Sec. 706. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 707. Research priorities.
Sec. 708. Budget designation for Federal Aviation Administration 
              research and development activities.
Sec. 709. Research Advisory Committees.
Sec. 710. National aviation research plan.

       TITLE VIII--NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

Sec. 801. Authorization of appropriations.

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 901. Prohibition of lobbying activities.
Sec. 902. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 903. Eligibility for awards.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Schiff].


                    amendment offered by mr. schiff

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Schiff: Page 6, line 21, strike 
     ``$3,250,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$3,291,700,000''.
       Page 6, line 25, strike ``$2,340,300,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,381,500,000''.

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment, if adopted, 
would raise the authorization figure for the research and related 
activities account of the National Science Foundation by $41.2 million. 
At the time the

[[Page H5588]]

House Committee on Science was voting to pass H.R. 3322, the bill we 
have before us today, the House Committee on the Budget had not yet 
presented the proposed budget resolution to the full House of 
Representatives.
  On May 16 of this year, the Committee on the Budget proposed and the 
House of Representatives adopted a budget resolution for fiscal year 
1997. In that budget resolution, there was a raise in the same account 
by the same amount of $41.2 million. So, in other words, my amendment 
would raise the authorization for the research and related activities 
account of the National Science Foundation by exactly the amount that 
we passed in the budget resolution a short time ago.
  I want to personally commend Chairman Walker of the Committee on 
Science, who is also, of course, vice chairman of the House Committee 
on the Budget, who I know was instrumental in pressing for this 
increase in basic research authorization.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we should continue to seek all of the 
authorization for which we can be fiscally responsible, that is, for 
which the funds can be identified and found to support Federal 
research. Since we have accomplished that through the budget 
resolution, I would like to make our bill here today, H.R. 3322, match 
the budget resolution in the same account.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, although I anticipate much partisanship in the debate 
over H.R. 3322, I want to point out that the National Science 
Foundation enjoys strong bipartisan support. I want to thank Basic 
Research Subcommittee Chairman Schiff for the professional, nonpartisan 
manner in which he has conducted himself on all matters within Basic 
Research's jurisdiction, including the NSF.
  On the NSF budget generally, I hope that we will continue to maintain 
our history of bipartisan advocacy. The support that NSF provides in 
meeting a wide variety of challenges in math, science, and engineering 
education cannot be overstated. In my region, both Carnegie-Mellon 
University and the University of Pittsburgh rely heavily on NSF support 
to conduct important research in a number of areas.
  What concerns me enough to rise at this point, is the future of NSF's 
Supercomputing Program. The Basic Research Subcommittee has held two 
hearings relating to the Supercomputing Program, one on the high 
performance computing and communications initiative in general, and one 
on NSF's decision to recompete its Supercomputing Program. The common 
theme in these two hearings was that we are letting funding issues 
compromise the integrity of what has been recognized by Members in both 
parties as a model program.
  What especially disturbs me is NSF's decision to ``recompete'' its 
leading edge centers based upon the findings of the Hayes Report. The 
Hayes Report found that there needed to be greater emphasis placed on 
regional computing centers in order to ease the extreme burden being 
placed on the four leading-edge centers. I agree that the best way to 
help meet the demands for user time at the leading-edge centers is to 
increase the capabilities of the regional centers. If there are 
projects that require less capacity, or the merits of larger projects 
can be initially judged at the regional centers, then we should pursue 
it. What troubles me is that the only way anyone has chosen to enhance 
the regional centers is at the expense of the leading-edge centers. In 
other words, NSF has decided that the way to solve one problem is to 
create another, potentially more serious problem.
  We are confronted with a situation where, in order to enhance the 
ability to access a valuable research tool, we are going to reduce that 
tool's capacity. I know that this situation is of concern to Members on 
both sides of the aisle. During the hearing on the Supercomputing 
Program there were many Members in both parties who said that if money 
was the only force driving the downsizing of leading-edge centers, then 
we should find the money elsewhere and not deconstruct one of our 
Government's greatest success stories.
  I do not take issue with formalizing the relationships between 
leading-edge and regional facilities through the proposed partnership 
centers. However, witnesses at our hearing seemed quite clear that 
there was nothing about the reorganization that was leading to a 
potential downsizing of leading-edge centers. Rather, it was budgetary 
concerns that were driving this process.
  In response to a question posed by Congressman Boehlert, Dr. Ed 
Hayes, chairman of the task force on the Future of NSF Supercomputing 
Centers, stated:

       The concern is that . . . if these [Partnership] centers 
     come into being and the NSF budget did not grow at a rate 
     significantly above inflation for this program, you would not 
     be able to keep up with the recapitalization cycle that would 
     be necessary to keep the leading-edge sites at a level that 
     would be sufficiently interesting to draw the very best 
     researchers . . .

  Later, in response to a question I posed about why we were 
considering downsizing centers that were over subscribed, Dr. Hayes 
said:

       And if the NSF budget would support, with the 
     recapitalization I mentioned earlier, more than the minimum 
     of two [Partnership Centers] that we were strongly pushing 
     for, then within the concept of the partnership I think there 
     will be quite a comfort level and enthusiasm for doing that.

  Despite the assertions of NSF that funding is not the issue here, our 
committee's hearing record seems to indicate otherwise. Rather, it 
seems to me that the recompetition is based upon NSF trying to predict 
future funding decisions by the Congress. In this case, it seems like 
the analysis of the task force was done correctly, but they then went 
beyond the scope of their mission by presupposing future funding 
decisions by Congress.
  My admonition to the NSF is not to base policy decisions by guessing 
how the Science Committee is going to act. As we just witnessed with 
the Schiff amendment, preordained authorization caps have a way of 
changing around here. If current funding for the Supercomputing Program 
is not sufficient to keep the United States as a world leader in high-
speed computing, let us know, and we will act accordingly.
  I do not intend to offer an amendment at this point. But I do want to 
put the NSF on notice that there are many Members of Congress who are 
watching the recompetition with a watchful eye, and are not necessarily 
pleased with what they have seen so far.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico has described the 
situation in which we find ourselves with regard to this amendment. The 
budget did permit some additional latitude for some spending in the 
basic research accounts at the NSF, and so I am very much supportive of 
what the gentleman has decided to do here, because we are obviously 
then conducting this increase within the context of the balanced budget 
to which the House has agreed.
  I do want to point out that this amount of money would then actually 
increase the House-passed levels for basic science within the National 
Science Foundation to a level above that which the administration 
requested, and I think also that it indicates our commitment to 
continuing this.
  With regard to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania has just stated, 
I personally have visited the supercomputing center in Pittsburgh, and 
agree that those supercomputing centers are a valuable part of the 
network that we are establishing across the country and that NSF needs 
to be cognizant of that. While NSF has claimed that there are no 
particular money problems, that this is largely a policy-related issue 
that is being done, the fact is that this increase in the Schiff 
amendment does give them sufficient resources within this account to do 
a number of things, plusing up university accounts, dealing more 
meaningfully with supercomputers.
  There are a number of things that NSF has it within their capacity to 
do. I hope that they do resolve the problems with regard to 
supercomputers in a way that assures that the Nation has a strong 
foundation, because obviously the communication tools of the future 
have a great deal to do with the knowledge economy of the future.
  So I certainly would indicate that the gentleman has raised a 
legitimate issue. It is one that the committee will continue to watch 
from the standpoint of NSF. I thank the gentleman from

[[Page H5589]]

New Mexico for his amendment. I think it is a valuable addition to the 
bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would not normally belabor 
this point and delay action on this very meritorious amendment, but I 
always have the feeling that we are getting a certain spin attached to 
these amendments which kind of rankles me a little bit, and so I have 
to get up and give my own spin although I end up supporting the 
amendment likewise.
  As was the case with the authorization bill last year, the same is 
true this year. Each subcommittee was given a ceiling by the chairman 
of the full committee which was slavishly adhered to in the 
subcommittee. The result for NSF for last year, fiscal year 1996, is 
that the authorization passed last year by the House but not yet 
enacted into law, of course, is $94 million less than the actual 
appropriations bill. So now after our committee has reported the bill 
and following the results of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
process, which was just completed a few weeks ago, we are now adding 
$40 million to NSF's research accounts that was done in the Committee 
on Appropriations and we now have an amendment to raise our 
authorization level by a similar amount. This could have been avoided, 
of course, if the committee had been allowed to follow its own best 
judgment last year.
  This additional funding will provide enough growth to at least offset 
inflation as opposed to the 1-percent increase provided in the 
underlying bill as reported by the committee. Because of the strong 
sentiments that the majority has expressed in support of basic 
research, it was surprising to me that so little growth was provided in 
the core research activities of NSF. The Democratic substitute, which I 
offered in committee, of course, attempted to correct this miserly 
treatment of NSF's research account by providing growth of nearly 5 
percent above the fiscal year 1996 appropriation, but our proposal in 
committee was rejected on a party line vote.
  While I support the increase provided by the amendment, I am 
nevertheless disappointed that it is still $40 million below the level 
in the Democratic substitute which I am offering later today. This may 
seem like a relatively small difference, but it translates into a loss 
of 500 individual research grants to university researchers. Basically 
this amendment will only allow research project funding to stay even 
with inflation. It provides no real growth which advances fundamental 
knowledge and underpins the technological strength of the Nation.
  I am also disappointed that the amendment is limited to raising the 
authorization level just for the research account. No increase is 
proposed to raise the allocation for the internal operations of the 
agency which have been cut by $7 million below the 1996 appropriation 
level. This is an extreme cut for an agency which consumes only 4 
percent of its total budget on internal operations and which has 
maintained a constant work force for the past decade while the workload 
has doubled. NSF estimates that a cut of this magnitude translates into 
a loss of up to 120 staff positions, or about 10 percent of its work 
force.
  While I support this amendment, I do not believe it goes for enough 
to ensure the continuance of a vigorous and well-managed program at 
NSF.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas].


                     amendment offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. 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. Gekas: Page 87, after line 21, 
     insert the following new subsection:
       (h) Report.--Section 704 of the Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Report.--The National Weather Service shall conduct a 
     review of the NEXRAD Network radar coverage pattern for a 
     determination of areas of inadequate radar coverage. After 
     conducting such review, the National Weather Service shall 
     prepare and submit to the Congress, no later than 1 year 
     after the date of the enactment of the Omnibus Civilian 
     Science Authorization Act of 1996, a report which--
       ``(1) assesses the feasibility of existing and future 
     Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Doppler Weather 
     Radars to provide reliable weather radar data, in a cost-
     efficient manner, to nearby weather forecast offices; and
       ``(2) makes recommendations for the implementation of the 
     findings of the report.''.

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that I must precede 
the text of my amendment, an explanation of it, by a brief history of 
what brings us to the floor today.
  In recent history of the National Weather Service in our area, in 
central Pennsylvania, we learned several years ago, to our dismay, that 
the reorganization of the National Weather Service apparatus was going 
to include a transfer of the National Weather Service headquarter, from 
Harrisburg, the capital of the State, to State College, the home of 
Penn State, for its real nexus in the weather service planning that was 
then going on.

                                  1600

  We expressed our concerns, those of us who live in and represent the 
people of the central Pennsylvania area around Harrisburg, because we 
felt that any such move would create gaps in the coverage that 
historically was well covered by the Harrisburg center. Well, as it 
turned out, we were overruled, and the move was authorized and actually 
made.
  Now, what happened in 1994, a tornado hit in the city of Harrisburg, 
in the capital city, feet away, just yardage away as it were, from the 
former weather station, and it went undetected. Now, here is the 
weather station at State College, with NEXRAD capacity, state-of-the-
art, high velocity and high capacity weather service predictable 
apparatus, and the tornado in Harrisburg was missed.
  We believed then and we believe now that this was a kind of a gap 
that was created by the positioning of NEXRAD in State College, which 
by the rationale of the topography itself would overshoot the very site 
where this little tornado occurred.
  Well, if that was not enough, several other little incidents happened 
and episodes were not detected. So in 1995, a year ago, right in this 
Chamber, on a similar bill, we in the front of the subcommittee then 
chaired, still chaired, by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], we offered a simple amendment to try to remedy this gap 
situation. Then we learned that there were many other sectors of the 
country where similar gaps were occurring.

  When the committee held hearings on this same subject, many of our 
colleagues testified to the very same kind of gap. What we came up with 
in central Pennsylvania, through the auspices of some people who work 
for the National Weather Service and other experts, was that some of 
these gaps could be filled by simply piggybacking with the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the FAA, capacity at nearby airports.
  Harrisonburg International Airport, which is also at the footstep of 
the capital of the Commonwealth, was in operation and we felt that 
maybe we ought to contact them and see whether they could fill the gap 
in on some of these related episodes that the State College facility 
could not pick up.
  At any state, we offered an amendment to study the feasibility of 
such a piggybacking capability, and the committee and then the House 
passed this amendment and the bill to which it was attached, and so we 
were on our way, we felt, to solving this problem. Well, the bill never 
really became law, and then we found ourselves trying to fight the same 
battles.
  Now, what happened? The Secretary of Commerce, in response to a 
mandate, issued in 1995, in October 1995, a report on this very same 
subject, and in that report, ``The Secretary's Report to Congress on 
Adequacy of NEXRAD Coverage and Degradation of Weather Services Under 
National Weather Service Modernization for 32 Areas of Concern,'' that 
is the title of the report,

[[Page H5590]]

which acknowledges just in the title that there was a degradation of 
national weather services and also that there was a problem with the 
adequacy of NEXRAD coverage, in that they come up with a recommendation 
in this report, and I am reading directly from the report now, which 
says that the team, the team that works on these projects, finds that 
there is significant potential for weather data from these radars, 
meaning the FAA radars, to enhance the quality control of WSR-88-D data 
and to provide valuable additional viewing angle perspectives for 
particular storms, which is an exact composition to what we were 
averring back in 1994 and 1995 about filling in the gaps.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gekas was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GEKAS. So my amendment, Mr. Chairman, which I understand both the 
minority and the majority have agreed to incorporate into the 
legislation, simply follows through with the Secretary of Commerce's 
recommendations to have a biagency task force look into the further 
feasibility of what we have proposed now for 2 years. In this way we 
can begin to fill those gaps that, unfortunately, have been occurring 
too often, and in too many places across the Nation.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I want to compliment the gentleman for the assiduous way in which he 
has carried out the pursuit of trying to upgrade the Weather Service as 
it involves his particular area, and I am sure he would also want to do 
that for the other parts of the country as well.
  He has correctly reported the facts here, and any earlier objections 
I may have had to past amendments that the gentleman had were not based 
on their merits, but on the feeling that we would probably be able to 
accomplish these things by putting the pressure necessity on the 
various agencies that are involved. It turns out, of course, that the 
National Weather Service has been persuaded by his continued concern 
and by others' to follow essentially the path which he recommended, 
without the passage of any additional legislation.
  So I would urge other Members to be as diligent in pursuing such 
worthy objectives as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has, and that 
these objectives can frequently be obtained by such diligent effort 
without the necessity of passing additional legislation which can 
sometimes be misinterpreted.
  Now, part of my problem was I have Members from all over the country 
coming to me, complaining in the same way that the gentleman had about 
the inadequacy of the coverage and the problems related from this 
transfer that we are making to try to upgrade Weather Service 
capability. I have had to tell them I do not think we need a separate 
law to correct this, that we can correct it in the fashion that the 
gentleman has exemplified here, and I just want to commend the 
gentleman for what he has done.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the Gekas amendment encourages the National Weather 
Service to follow through on the Secretary of Commerce's recommendation 
to initiate a dialogue with the FAA to assist in the potential for the 
National Weather Service using FAA weather radar.
  This is a good amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I think we have put so much faith in this new system, NEXRAD, that we 
have overlooked some basics and I think we have put some communities at 
risk. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] very ably 
here articulates the fact of what happened in his community. There are 
other communities like mine that are waiting for some of these things 
to happen.
  We have gotten so sophisticated, I think we have lost a little 
commonsense. This is a good amendment and I am not quite so sure it 
even goes far enough. I think the Congress must review the lifesaving 
ability of having more eyes and ears and radar activities looking at 
volatile weather than we have the right now, and this is a step in that 
direction, but certainly will not be our final answer.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio poses an interesting 
question. I am wondering, too, whether or not we ought to be conducting 
a review of NEXRAD and how it has worked in its brief lifetime, because 
many of these problems were foreseen at the time that the 
reorganization was instituted, and now it is not enough for us to say I 
told you so.
  I believe that what the gentleman has said may prompt us to get 
together and see if there is some kind of easy review we can make of 
the NEXRAD capacity. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to work 
with the gentleman on that. I think he has very ably brought us to a 
position where maybe something might be done here that might help the 
country in a lot of areas that have not had some of the problems that 
he has had but might be waiting for those disasters to happen.
  With that, I support the amendment, and I want to compliment the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the chairman of the 
Committee on Science in a colloquy concerning authorization for NEXRAD 
radars for the National Weather Service.
  Is it not the case that this bill in the 1992 authorization, Public 
Law 102-567, authorized full funding for the administration's request 
for the NEXRAD line items?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, as the report indicates, the gentleman 
correctly states that the committee supports the administration's 
request for NEXRAD systems acquisition of $53,145,000 in fiscal year 
1997.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, the President's request includes funding 
for a new NEXRAD unit to be placed in the vicinity of Fort Wayne, IN, 
and new units in the southeast Tennessee/northern Alabama region, and 
in Arkansas, as recommended by the Secretary of Commerce. Is obligation 
of funds for these units in fiscal year 1997 consistent with the 
limitations contained in section 411(c) of the bill?
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will further yield, Mr. Chairman, my 
understanding is that the Secretary intends to make the certificate 
necessary under Public Law 102-567 in section 411 and has every 
expectation to be able to do so.
  The language in H.R. 3322, subject to the Secretary's certification 
and inclusion in the fiscal year 1997 National Weather Service 
implementation plan, enables the construction of the three units noted 
by the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his clarification 
and his leadership on this bill and in ensuring that areas vulnerable 
to severe weather receive adequate warning. This is a critical safety 
concern for northeast Indiana because our State ranks first in the 
Nation in tornado deaths. You might say we have twisted twisters. We 
very much appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Chairman Walker, and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Rohrabacher, on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment seven by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Thornberry].


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. THORNBERRY

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5591]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Thornberry: Page 87, after line 
     21, insert the following new subsection:
       (h) NEXRAD Operational Availability and Reliability.--(1) 
     The Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, shall take immediate steps to ensure that 
     NEXRADs operated by the Department of Defense that provide 
     primary detection coverage over a portion of their range 
     function as fully committed, reliable elements of the 
     national weather radar network, operating with the same 
     standards, quality, and availability as the National Weather 
     Service-operated NEXRADs.
       (2) NEXRADs operated by the Department of Defense that 
     provide primary detection coverage over a portion of their 
     range are to be considered as integral parts of the National 
     Weather Radar Network.

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the exact same as an 
amendment that was accepted by all sides on this bill last year and its 
seeks to deal with a subset of the problem that we have already heard 
some discussion of, and that is inadequacies of coverage in the new 
dopler radar system.
  Most of the country is protected by radar which are run by the 
National Weather Service. However, some of the country is protected by 
radars which are run by the Department of Defense, and it is those 
radars which feed into the National Weather Service system to provide 
coverage.
  For example, in a great part of my district, primary coverage is 
provided by a radar run by the Air Force near Frederick, OK and backup 
service for that area is provided by a radar by the Air Force out of 
Dyess Air Force Base near Abilene. Now, the difficulty arises because 
the radars run by the Department of Defense are not held to the same 
standards as the radars which are operated by the National Weather 
Service themselves. So what we have experienced in our area are that 
communication lines go down, power to the radar goes down, and often, 
when we most need these radars, they are simply unavailable.
  As a matter of fact, studies by the National Research Council and the 
GAO confirm that these DOD radar are simply not available as much as 
National Weather Service radar, and the effect is they simply do not 
offer the same level of protection as the National Weather Service 
radar.
  My amendment simply says that DOD radar in the system have to meet 
the same standards as the National Weather Service radars so that there 
will be no second class of coverage for anybody in this country.
  Now, since we have had this debate last year, I have to report that 
the situation in my particular region has gotten better. And I 
appreciate the efforts of the Air Force, the National Weather Service, 
and others involved in making sure the radar is available more of the 
time than it was the time before. In particular, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who has 
helped bring this problem to the attention of the relevant agencies and 
pressed them as we move forward for modernization to make sure nobody 
is left behind. The chairman of the subcommittee has been helpful as 
well.
  I know all Members share my determination to make sure that there is 
no second class of coverage and that those folks who are relying on the 
DOD radar get the same amount of coverage at least as the folks who 
rely on the National Weather Service radar.
  Mr. Chairman, hopefully, one of these days we will have a rain cloud 
in my district so that we can really put this system to the test. We 
look forward to that day, but in the meantime, I appreciate my 
colleagues supporting this amendment.

                                  1615

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Thornberry] is similar to an amendment adopted by the full House last 
year. It requires the Department of Defense to live up to its 
commitment to provide NEXRAD radar coverage in selected regions of the 
country.
  DOD's NEXRAD radar is an important component of our Nation's weather 
coverage. If DOD does not supply the National Weather Service with the 
NEXRAD it has agreed to supply, gaps in the coverage will occur.
  So the amendment of the gentleman from Texas addresses this, and I 
commend the gentleman for his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 22 by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: Page 137, after line 4, 
     insert the following new section:

     SEC. 904. BUY AMERICAN.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     any recipient of a grant under this Act, or under any 
     amendment made by this Act, should purchase, when available 
     and cost-effective, American made equipment and products when 
     expending grant monies.
       (b) Notice of Recipients of Assistance.--In allocating 
     grants under this Act, or under any amendment made by this 
     Act, the Secretary shall provide to each recipient a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take off on something 
that was mentioned by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  This is the last year here in Congress for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and I would like to say to the gentleman, if 
I can get his attention, I want to commend him for distinguished 
service to his district, to the Congress and to the country. He has 
been a Member that said ``no'' around here at the times he had to.
   Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I think everybody understands it. I 
would like to see more American products purchased with more of our 
procurement dollars, because American workers get a paycheck and pay 
the taxes for all of these ``Buck Rogers'' experiments that are not 
reality. I think it is very important.
   Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Walker, who could have raised 
points of order on a couple of appropriation bills on more significant 
buy American language, and he did not. I believe this is reasonable. 
This language affords an opportunity for recipients of grants to be 
encouraged, wherever feasible, to buy American-made products. They are 
to get a notice to that effect, and hopefully that will happen.
  In the year to come, I will be asking for a report, an investigation 
that would monitor the types of procurement and the dollars that are 
spent on products that may not be made in America, and if those 
products were available here, at a cost-competitive price.
  So finally, in also saying that, I urge the committee to also look 
forward to participatory moneys pledged by other nations and 
governments who are to explore space with us and make sure we just do 
not get another song and dance from them; that we actually get some of 
their yens and some of their deutsche marks and some of their cash.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words. As 
the gentleman knows, it is much easier to say yes around here than it 
is to say no, and I appreciate his comment.
   Mr. Chairman, I am not going to say no to the gentleman's amendment. 
I am going to agree with the gentleman's amendment and urge the House 
to adopt it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 18 by the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer].


           amendment 266, as modified, offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.

[[Page H5592]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 122, after line 9, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 507. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER RESEARCH PLANNING.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Endocrine Disrupter Research Planning Act of 1996''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) recent reports in the media have focused public 
     attention on a possible link between exposure to chemicals 
     that may mimic hormones and may have adverse biological 
     effects in humans and wildlife, including carcinogenic, 
     reproductive, neurological, and immunological effects, now 
     commonly referred to as endocrine disrupters;
       (2) given the significant scientific uncertainties 
     concerning the effects of such endocrine disrupters on humans 
     and wildlife, it cannot at this time be concluded whether or 
     not endocrine disrupters constitute a significant threat to 
     human health or the environment;
       (3) neither a conclusion that endocrine disrupters pose an 
     imminent and serious threat to human health and the 
     environment, nor a conclusion that the risks are 
     insignificant or exaggerated, is warranted based on the 
     present state of scientific knowledge;
       (4) additional research is needed to more accurately 
     characterize the risks of endocrine disrupters;
       (5) risk assessment principles should be used to guide the 
     development of a coordinated research plan to ensure that 
     research results are relevant and adequate to objectively 
     estimate risk to guide future public policy decisions;
       (6) research carried out by the Federal Government should 
     be done in a planned and coordinated manner to ensure that 
     limited resources are spent efficiently and that critical 
     information gaps are filled as quickly as possible; and
       (7) researchers from academia, industry, and Federal 
     laboratories should coordinate efforts to prioritize research 
     topics, identify capital needs, and, in general, develop a 
     comprehensive research plan to address important scientific 
     and policy questions surrounding the potential effects of 
     such chemicals.
       (c) Research Planning Report.--
       (1) Report.--The Administrator, in coordination with other 
     Federal agencies with scientific expertise in areas relevant 
     to assessing the human health and ecological risks of 
     endocrine disrupters, shall submit to Congress, along with 
     the President's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1998, a 
     plan for conducting research needed to objectively assess 
     and characterize the risk of endocrine disrupters on human 
     health and environment.
       (2) Contents.--The plan submitted under this section shall 
     include--
       (A) the role of each participating agency in the research 
     plan and the resources required by each agency to carry out 
     the research plan, including human and capital resources 
     needed to ensure that agencies have appropriate expertise, 
     facilities, and analytical capabilities to meet the goals of 
     the research plan;
       (B) the mechanisms by which each agency will carry out 
     research, including the use of Federal laboratory facilities, 
     extramural grants and contracts, and cooperative research and 
     development agreements with universities, research centers, 
     and the private sector, and mechanisms to avoid duplication 
     of effort and for appropriate peer review, including 
     independent and external peer review of Federal agency 
     intramural research;
       (C) specific research strategies and timeliness for 
     addressing the critical information gaps with respect to 
     hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and exposure 
     assessment; and
       (D) an assessment of the current state of scientific 
     knowledge concerning effects of synthetic and naturally 
     occurring endocrine disrupters on human health and the 
     environment, including identification of scientific 
     uncertainties unlikely to be capable of significant 
     resolution in the near term, studies which support or fail to 
     support conclusions of adverse public health effects, and the 
     opportunity for public comment on such assessment.
       (d) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section is intended to 
     alter, or otherwise affect any statutory authority of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or any other Federal 
     regulatory agency or regulate substances which may pose a 
     threat to the public health or the environment.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. ROEMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on endocrine 
disrupters. Before I get into what this amendment does and what we hope 
to accomplish with it, I think I should explain what endocrines are and 
what endocrine disrupters are.
  Endocrines are chemicals that control many functions of the human 
body, including our ability to reproduce, grow up, metabolize food, and 
fight diseases.
  Endocrine disrupters are chemicals in the environment that imitate 
these hormonal chemicals and potentially alter growth, reproduction, 
and other biological functions in animals and humans.
  Reports in many works of scientific literature, including ``Our 
Stolen Future,'' this book that I hold in my hand by Theo Colburn, 
among others, indicate that some man-made chemicals have endocrine 
effects in birds and other wildlife that result in abnormal development 
and potential reproductive problems. High levels of certain man-made 
endocrine disrupting chemicals have been associated with increased 
rates of breast cancer in some human beings.
  Thus, some endocrine disrupters are man-made chemicals. Others are 
naturally occurring substances.
  A wide variety of substances, including pesticides, ``plasticizers'' 
and breakdown products from detergents, have been shown to have the 
ability to act in some cases as endocrine disrupters.
  For example, the microwaving of food in plastic containers may 
transfer endocrine-disrupting chemicals from the plastic into the food. 
We all are very familiar with the process of putting some food in a 
plastic container, putting it in a microwave; and sometimes some 
literature has indicated that that might migrate from the plastic into 
the food. This might be a problem that we should be concerned about.
  Additional research is needed to understand how prevalent such 
endocrine-disrupting chemicals are in our daily lives and what impact 
they have on human health, wildlife, and the environment.
  The say we go about studying this, Mr. Chairman, is not to say, as 
some have said in the past, that we need to throw money at this problem 
and we need to get every Federal agency and bureaucracy studying it 
differently.
  It is also not, as some have indicated in the past, in the future to 
completely ignore this problem and to say there is no problem here, let 
us neglect this and see if people begin to get sick. We have said a new 
approach, a third way, a new idea.

  We say in this amendment there is neither a conclusion that endocrine 
disrupters pose an imminent threat nor that there is a conclusion that 
the risks are insignificant or exaggerated based on the percent state 
of scientific knowledge. Further research is required.
  Let us use the risk assessment principles that we have talked about 
in the last few years to better study this problem. Let us coordinate 
our Federal research bureaucracy and not have everybody begin to study 
it, but begin to concentrate a study in a few areas.
  That is what this amendment does. Let us study and research on a 
scientific basis, using risk assessment principles in a new way, 
whether we do have a problem with plastic, with detergents, with 
pesticides; and if we can do that, we may need to come before Congress 
in the future and study it further.
  This amendment does not require a new appropriation of money. It 
simply seeks to coordinate what we might be doing in the future as our 
budgets are declining. And as our budgets are restrained here in the 
U.S. Congress, let us try some new ideas to study some potentially 
very, very serious new problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the body will agree to this amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Environment. This issue has captured the attention of the press and 
public in recent weeks, but in fact research in this area has been 
ongoing for over 15 years now. I believe the gentleman is correct in 
assuming that this is more than a passing fancy. The issues raised by 
the release of the book, ``Our Stolen Future,'' are of concern and 
deserve the serious attention of this committee.
  The design and implementation of a good research plan is essential to 
gaining sound scientific information about the nature and scope of this 
problem. These efforts are already underway

[[Page H5593]]

within the Federal Government. It is Congress that now needs to 
participate in these efforts. The research report required under the 
amendment will provide us with a solid basis to make recommendations 
for future authorizations that may be needed.
  I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts in drafting an 
amendment that can be agreed to by people with varying opinions about 
the validity and seriousness of this issue. I have no doubt that we 
will have other opportunities to debate this issue before the close of 
this Congress. There is more that Congress could do in this area, but 
we should surely not do less than is provided for in this amendment. We 
may be asked to make tough policy choices in the future on this issue. 
We should make those choices from an informed position, that is what 
the Roemer amendment will help to ensure. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Boehlert amendment to 
require EPA to plan and coordinate endocrine disrupter research. The 
Committee on Science has strongly supported EPA research on endocrine 
disrupters, including more money in H.R. 3322 than the administration 
had requested. We have an $8 million total amount in this bill, which 
is 10 percent above the President's request of $7.1 million.
  The Roemer-Boehlert amendment helps us, though, to define that 
research and will require the Environmental Protection Agency to submit 
to Congress a plan for conducting research needed to objectively assess 
and characterize the risk of endocrine disrupters.
  Recent concerns have been raised about the broad array of both 
natural and synthetic compounds which have the capacity to mimic both 
human and animal hormones disrupting the body's natural state. These 
components, known collectively as endocrine disrupters, have been 
alleged to contribute to a wide variety of human and environmental 
maladies, including reduced sperm counts and increased instances of 
fetal abnormalities.
  While the media has widely reported as fact the hypothesis that 
synthetic compounds are causing human sperm counts to decline 
worldwide, credible scientific research on the issue is lacking. Even 
the premise that sperm counts are declining remains unproven.
  The amendment will go a long way toward establishing a scientifically 
sound research plan to address the potential impacts of endocrine 
disrupters. The research can then be used to do any necessary 
assessments of the best estimate of risk, based on the weight of the 
scientific evidence, and to pursue necessary cost-benefit analysis, 
should any regulatory mechanisms be proposed.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. I support it, and I thank the 
gentleman from Indiana for bringing it to the attention of the House.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
his support of this amendment, and look forward to working with the 
gentleman in the course of his remaining time here in Congress to see 
that we do come up with a new way of studying what could be a very 
significant problem.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Cramer].


          Amendment No. 2, as Modified, Offered by Mr. Cramer

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

       Amendment as modified, offered by Mr. Cramer: Page 87, 
     lines 1 through 21, amend subsection (g) to read as follows:
       (g) Weather Service Modernization.--The Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 706--
       (A) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Certification.--The Secretary may not close, 
     automate, or relocate any field office unless the Secretary 
     has certified to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of 
     the House of Representatives that such action will not result 
     in degradation of service to the affected area. Such 
     certification shall be in accordance with the modernization 
     criteria established under section 704.'';
       (B) by striking subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f); and
       (C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(c) Special Circumstances.--The Secretary may not close 
     or relocate any field office which is located at an airport, 
     if the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Committee, determines as a result of 
     an air safety appraisal that such action will result in 
     degradation of service that affects aircraft safety. This air 
     safety appraisal shall be issued jointly by the Department of 
     Commerce and the Department of Transportation before 
     September 30, 1996, and shall be based on a coordinated 
     review of all the airports in the United States subject to 
     the certification requirements of subsection (b). The 
     appraisal shall--
       ``(1) consider the weather information required to safely 
     conduct aircraft operations and the extent to which such 
     information is currently derived through manual observations 
     provided by the National Weather Service and the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, and automated observations provided 
     from other sources including the Automated Weather 
     Observation Service (AWOS), the Automated Surface Observing 
     System (ASOS), and the Geostationary Operational 
     Environmental Satellite (GOES); and
       ``(2) determine whether the service provided by ASOS, and 
     ASOS augmented where necessary by human observations, 
     provides the necessary level of service consistent with 
     the service standards encompassed in the criteria for 
     automation of the field offices.
       ``(d) Public Liaison.--The Secretary shall maintain for a 
     period of at least two years after the closure of any weather 
     office a program to--
       ``(1) provide timely information regarding the activities 
     of the National Weather Service which may affect service to 
     the community, including modernization and restructuring; and
       ``(2) work with area weather service users, including 
     persons associated with general aviation, civil defense, 
     emergency preparedness, and the news media, with respect to 
     the provision of timely weather warnings and forecasts.''; 
     and
       (2) in section 707--
       (A) by amendment subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Duties. The Committee shall advise the Congress and 
     the Secretary on--
       ``(1) the implementation of the Strategic Plan, annual 
     development of the Plan, and establishment and implementation 
     of modernization criteria; and
       ``(2) matters of public safety and the provision of weather 
     services relate to the comprehensive modernization of the 
     National Weather Service.''; and
       (B) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate--
       ``(1) on September 30, 1996; or
       ``(2) 90 days after the deadline for public comment on the 
     modernization criteria for closure certification published in 
     the Federal Register pursuant to section 704(b)(2),

     whichever occurs later.''.

  Mr. CRAMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the Weather Service Modernization Act, 
which was passed in 1992, established procedures for the modernization 
of the National Weather Service. A lot of us here today, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] included, and the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Wamp] as well, have fought long and hard to make sure that our 
areas of the country were included in that modernization plan.
  There were two points that we raised consistently about this 
modernization act. One was the requirement that no Weather Service 
office can be closed or automated without a certification that the 
closure would not result in degradation of service to the affected 
area.
  Let me repeat that in lay language. We do not want Weather Service 
offices closed without a certification that there is no degradation of 
service there.
  So as we proceed with the modernization plan, we are proceeding with 
a network of NEXRAD radars that will cover the entire country. A lot of 
us have talked about our concerns about

[[Page H5594]]

the NEXRAD radars, but we have not talked as much about the closure of 
the Weather Service offices.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the modernization plan, but I think there is 
a balance between no certification at all, which the committee bill 
stands for, and a streamlined certification process.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Walker and the staff of the 
committee for working with us, those of us that are concerned, to make 
sure that we develop the proper balance between cost savings and the 
protection of our citizens, because we are talking about the protection 
of lives when we are talking about the closure of the Weather Service 
offices.

                                  1630

  We need a certification process. There must be some specific 
accountability before we are going to say that we will not serve an 
area through the existing weather service office. It has taken many of 
us Members of Congress a few years to make sure that our areas were in 
fact given consideration for the modernization process. I know the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I, through the committee, on 
the floor, as well, have fought consistently and maintained that we 
were in gap areas, that the modernization plan did not in fact cover 
our areas and that our children, our families, people in church, people 
in schools, people in their homes would in fact be very vulnerable.
  Mr. Chairman, just this past weekend in my district we had another 
weather service pattern that moved in. We were glued to our TV's as we 
watched the NEXRAD coverage in my district from 100 miles south. We 
looked at the local weather service Doppler radar that we have in our 
area as well, all of that trying to see if we could be protected. So 
when we are talking about saving money, we have also got to be talking 
about saving lives and some built-in checks and balances in this 
process.

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would accomplish a streamlining of 
the certification process. As I said a few minutes ago, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania Chairman Walker, and thank him 
for working with us on making sure that we have at least a streamlined 
certification process. We will eliminate the costly and time-consuming 
requirement that each closing certification be published in the Federal 
Register for 60 days. We will eliminate by September one of the two 
current oversight committees involved in the process. This streamlining 
will save $35 million over 5 years and will eliminate redundancies that 
are currently in the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of streamlining the modernization 
process, but I am not willing to sacrifice the safety of people. This 
is a safety issue, and I thank the chairman for accepting my committee 
amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]. He and I have worked over the past 
4\1/2\ years, I believe, on the committee that we serve on together to 
try to make sure that public safety is not compromised when an office 
is prematurely closed.
  Let me just relate an instance of this concern to the people in this 
body and again salute the gentleman from Alabama for taking such a 
critically important lead role in this amendment. In Indiana right now, 
as the distinguished chairman over the whole body knows, being a Member 
from Indiana, we are seeing a host of tornados and floods hit our area. 
This is not only potentially endangering school children that may be 
getting on a bus to go to school for one of the last days of school in 
Indiana when they need not be if they had a sufficient warning out 
there from radar that covered our area, which the National Research 
Council says does not; we do not have adequate coverage in our area 
right now.
  So school children going out to get on a school bus at 6:30 in the 
morning may not have to take that risk, if we got the sufficient 
scientific data out there and then the warning on the radio that school 
was closed and we had a dangerous situation, inclement weather or a 
tornado in the area, right now do not have that good scientific 
coverage.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps protect our existing offices from 
premature closure until we get the new radar and technology put up in 
our area. We are hopeful that this new NEXRAD radar will be located 
somewhere in northern Indiana, based upon science and technology and 
where it is going to work best, whether that is in Saint Joseph County, 
whether that is in Elkhart County, whether that might even be in Allen 
County, or south of there, to make sure that we save the taxpayer 
money.
  As the chairman of the body knows today, too, our farmers are having 
a difficult time getting out in the fields to plant corn because of the 
weather. This technology would help us save lives from tornados and 
inclement weather, help us save billions of dollars in terms of the 
costs to farmers of trying to get good information out there before 
they get into the fields as to when they can get into the fields.
  This amendment is not only about public safety and concern for 
children and money for agriculture, which is a huge cost in our economy 
today, it is also about streamlining a bureaucratic process, doing it 
the right way, doing it the way that it will save money and not 
compromise our schoolchildren back home in Indiana or in Alabama.

  So I rise in strong support of this streamlining the bureaucracy but 
not compromising public safety and schoolchildren in the morning 
getting on a bus. I also would like to acknowledge and compliment the 
chairman of the committee for his support and his staff's support, 
working together on this amendment, and from what I understand, their 
acceptance of this amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Cramer] will partially restore the certification process for 
closure of old National Weather Service offices. H.R. 3322 as presently 
drafted currently eliminates the certification process entirely, saving 
the National Weather Service $35 million over the next 5 years. The 
gentleman from Alabama offered an amendment going in this same 
direction in the committee. We have since been able to work out some 
language between us. I want to thank the gentleman very much for 
working with us on this.
  We are told now by the National Weather Service that the amendment 
that he has crafted results in saving a similar $35 million over the 5-
year period with a dramatically scaled-back certification process. This 
is the kind of streamlining that should go on within Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I think between us we have come up with an acceptable 
solution here. It does save the taxpayer some money. It is the 
direction of reform that we need to be taking as a Congress and as a 
country. So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment. I am 
delighted to support it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Cramer amendment to streamline the weather office certification 
procedures.
  I would say that these certification procedures were developed in 
1992 at a time when the National Weather Service was in the early 
stages of a far reaching modernization program in which new 
technologies would be deployed and the geographic distribution of 
weather forecast offices would be vastly altered.
  There was widespread recognition in Congress that this modernization 
proposal would have far reaching benefits for public safety and would 
also reduce the cost to the taxpayer. The issue which dominated the 
debate, however, was how this would affect the local communities who 
had come to depend on the service that the local offices were 
providing.
  After a great deal of debate and discussion within the Science 
Committee, with many other Members of the House on both sides of the 
aisle, and with Members of the other body, and with the National 
Weather Service, a carefully crafted compromise was developed. That 
compromise was included in Public Law 102-567.
  Essentially, that compromise was a congressional commitment that no 
offices would be closed or consolidated

[[Page H5595]]

until there was a demonstration that there would be no degradation of 
service. Congress went to great lengths to ensure that the public had 
adequate input into this process that affected their personal lives so 
directly.
  It is no secret that some in the OMB, the Department of Commerce 
Inspector General, and some Members of Congress have felt that no such 
commitment was necessary. This point of view has been the basis of the 
existing bill language that does away with the certification 
procedures. I would only say to them that, from my perspective, this 
commitment was necessary in order to gain the support of Congress to 
undertake the modernization program at all. I would also say that the 
certification procedures that we are talking about had strong 
bipartisan consensus. It reflected the instincts of most Members to 
look out for the safety and well-being of his or her constituents.
  At this juncture, I am satisfied that the modernization program has 
been successful enough that we can consider a streamlining of the 
certification procedures as proposed by Mr. Cramer. I believe that the 
compromise language is fair and will still provide the necessary 
assurances to the public and allow for adequate public input and 
review.
  I support the Cramer amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I would like to express my 
strong support for Representative Cramer's amendment to streamline the 
certification process for eliminating a National Weather Service 
office.
  When the National Weather Service began developing this comprehensive 
modernization program, we heard a lot about the revolutionary 
improvements this would bring to our weather forecasting system. I 
don't doubt the quality of the NEXRAD system. However, I am concerned 
that in the rush to revamp the system, a few areas have the potential 
of literally falling through the cracks. In my own communications with 
the National Weather Service, I heard repeated justifications and 
explanations for those areas which are long distances between NEXRAD 
facilities. An independent scientific review confirmed my fears that 
some areas of our country will actually suffer a loss of service under 
NEXRAD.
  Last year, the National Research Council completed its study of 
NEXRAD coverage and the potential for a degradation in service due to 
the field office consolidation. While the NRC study found NEXRAD will 
offer services above and beyond the current weather forecasting system, 
it also noted concern for areas a long distance from a proposed NEXRAD 
facility. One of those areas of concern is Williston, ND, whose old 
radar is 120 miles from the nearest NEXRAD facility.
  Currently, a study is being undertaken for the Williston area to 
determine if a degradation of service would occur under the National 
Weather Service's modernization plan. Data is being collected from the 
existing Williston radar and the NEXRAD radars for comparison. If the 
certification process for office closure is eliminated, the National 
Weather Service could ignore the results of the study and move forward 
with its original plans, even if a degradation of service is proven.
  Even though the western part of my State is sparsely populated, those 
living there need and deserve the same quality of weather forecasting 
available to the rest of the country. In rural areas where long 
distances are often traveled as a matter of daily life, forewarning of 
severe weather is crucial to public safety.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the Cramer amendment and make 
sure the National Weather Service follows a streamlined certification 
process for weather office closures.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
protect the lives and property of millions of Americans. High quality 
weather service should be a basic guarantee. Unfortunately, this 
guarantee is in jeopardy today as we consider a bill that would let 
bureaucrats close weather stations without regard for degradation of 
service.
  Mr. Chairman, the certification requirement prevented the closure of 
the critical weather station in Key West. As the National Weather 
Service considered closing the facility last year, they were required 
to evaluate how they could serve the 80,000 residents and visitors of 
the Keys who live on 43 islands across a 120-mile stretch. The people 
of the Keys were grateful that the National Weather Service had to 
consider their unique situation. Without the certification requirement, 
the National Weather Service would have made a grave mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought we resolved this issue last year when we 
debated the exact same issue. Unfortunately, we did not. Congress 
should not cut corners when it comes to basic public safety, and I 
thank the Chairman for accepting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 14 by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].


                    amendment offered by ms. lofgren

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren: Page 7, line 6, strike 
     ``$120,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$129,100,000''.
       Page 7, lines 9 through 16, strike subsection (c).
       Page 19, lines 13 through 23, amend section 130 to read as 
     follows:

     SEC. 130. REORGANIZATION.

       (a) Plan.--The Director shall carry out a review and 
     analysis of the organizational structure of the National 
     Science Foundation for the purpose of developing a plan for 
     reorganization that will result in reduced administrative 
     costs, while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of the 
     Foundation's programs. The plan shall include one or more 
     options for reorganization of the Foundation, and one option 
     shall be an organizational structure having fewer than 7 
     directorates.
       (b) Report.--By February 15, 1997, the Director shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report containing the plan 
     required by subsection (a). The report shall document the 
     advantages and disadvantages of each option included in the 
     plan, provide an estimate of cost savings for each option, 
     and designate the Director's preferred option.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment corrects two provisions in 
the bill that will impede the internal operation of the National 
Science Foundation. First of all, the amendment restores funding for 
NSF salaries and administrative expenses to the President's request 
level in order to avoid ill-considered staff reductions.
  Second, it removes provisions which together eliminate funding for 
one of NSF's directorates and which would trigger perhaps inadvertently 
a reorganization of NSF's administrative structure.
  NSF is not a bloated bureaucracy. Between fiscal years 1983 and 1993, 
NSF's full-time staff positions remained constant while its budget 
nearly tripled and the workload measured by numbers of proposals 
processed more than doubled. In the current fiscal year, the cost of 
operating NSF is 4 percent of the total budget, which is a modest and 
reasonable level of administrative overhead. Due to the dedication of 
its workers and investments in infrastructure, NSF has improved its 
efficiency, resulting in increased productivity.
  H.R. 3322 proposes to cut the budget for salaries and administrative 
expenses by more than $7 million below the current fiscal year budget 
and 9 million below the request. NSF has determined that after taking 
into account fixed costs for rent and utilities, such a cut would 
translate into a reduction of 120 people, assuming the average 
compensation level across the agency.

  The science and engineering staff comprises about one-third of total 
personnel and one-half of the total payroll. NSF estimates that a 
budget cut of this magnitude will result in layoff of scientific and 
engineering personnel, the people who run the research programs, and 
would degrade the efficiency of operations. Moreover, this cut would 
result in a reduction of one to $2 million in the computer networking 
investment NSF is now making to streamline internal operations and 
improve communications with the university research community.
  These investments have been the basis of past productivity 
improvements and have helped NSF to meet the growing workload demands 
while avoiding staff increases. The net result of the cuts proposed by 
H.R. 3322 would be to impede virtually all business operations of NSF 
from disbursement of payments to university researchers throughout the 
Nation to the timing and quality of research award decisions. My 
amendment restores funding to a reasonable level for the internal 
operations of this already slimmed-down agency.

[[Page H5596]]

  In addition, my amendment removes the provisions of the bill that 
eliminate one NSF directorate. These provisions do raise a reasonable 
issue. That is what approaches can the agency take to further 
streamline its organization and reduce administrative expenses. 
Ideally, organizational changes will be found which will both reduce 
costs and improve the efficiency of the agency's operations.
  Mr. Chairman, my objection to H.R. 3322 is that it presumes that the 
way to achieve such improvements is through elimination of one of the 
agency's directorates. It may be that such a course of action is the 
best approach, but we cannot make that judgment in the absence of 
evidence. This Congress should not be making an arbitrary 
determination. No hearings have been held by the Committee on Science 
on this matter. NSF has developed no plan for reorganization that lays 
out the advantages nor provides an estimate of cost savings of such a 
change.
  I would also point out that section 111C of the bill on the one hand 
bans use of fiscal year 1997 funding to more than six directorates 
while section 130 specifies that the agency has until November 15, 1\1/
2\ months into the new fiscal year, to present a reorganization plan to 
Congress. This again suggests the agency is being forced into 
significant change prior to developing a realignment plan and that 
congressionally mandated cuts have more to do with our belief system 
and politics than with streamlining.
  Rather than impose a congressional mandate for a specific 
organizational change in NSF, it seems to me it would be more 
reasonable to mandate a thorough review of the operation with an 
accompanying plan to achieve administrative cost reductions and improve 
efficiency of operations. With such a plan in hand, the committee would 
be in a position to mandate useful changes. My amendment strikes the 
prohibition in fiscal year 1997 funding for more than six directorates, 
strikes the limitation of six assistant directors, imposes a 
requirement for NSF to submit by February 15, 1997, a reorganization 
plan with several options to improve operational effectiveness and to 
reduce administrative costs.
  My amendment stipulates that NSF evaluate as part of the plan the 
elimination of one directorate. The Congress will have time to consider 
the NSF recommendations through the hearing process prior to 
consideration of fiscal year 1998 authorization legislation. By 
following this procedure, we would be able to make an informed decision 
on necessary legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my 
colleague, Ms. Lofgren. I object to the amendment because, first of 
all, the majority in presenting this bill, H.R. 3322, has tried to put 
all of the money it possibly can into the research and related 
activities account and other accounts that actually go to grants for 
research, which is the major function of the National Science 
Foundation.
  We do not believe it is unreasonable to ask the National Science 
Foundation to help cooperate with us in terms of establishing this 
priority in getting the money out for research grants by tightening 
their belt somewhat in the area of their administrative overhead. In 
that regard, we have proposed a reduction in the salaries and expenses, 
as correctly identified by my colleague, from the current funding of 
$127 million a year for salaries and expenses to $120 million a year. 
That is a $7 million reduction.

                                  1645

  And we believe although the NSF will have to make some difficult 
choices, as other agencies have made difficult choices, as this 
Congress made difficult choices when we reduced the number of 
committees in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in 
my memory and, I think, virtually anyone's memory in the House of 
Representatives.
  Now, we think the National Science Foundation should be willing to 
undergo that same prioritization and decisionmaking, but there is 
another reason why I oppose the Lofgren amendment, and that is the 
gentlewoman from California says that we should adopt the President's 
budget on the salaries and expense account, and indeed the President' 
budget would go up from this year, fiscal year 1996, to next year, 
fiscal year 1997, in the salaries and expense account for the National 
Science Foundation. It would go up.
  Here is fiscal year 1996 right now showing the $127 million per year 
amount funded for this account. Here is the proposed budget in H.R. 
3322. It goes down in the next fiscal year, but it does not go down 
after that. It stays level for each of the next 4 fiscal years all the 
way to fiscal year, to and including fiscal year, 2000. We proposed 
that it stay at an annual appropriation of $120 million.

  It is not true of the President's budget. The President's budget goes 
up in this account in fiscal year 1997, but what happens after that? It 
drops precipitously. It drops immediately below the $120 million that 
has been authorized in H.R. 3322. It drops in the next fiscal year to 
$118 million. It drops in the next fiscal year to $107 million. It 
drops again in the next year to $101 million. Now I wonder what the 
effects on the National Science Foundation will be if those cuts take 
effect?
  We are proposing a one-time reduction and then a stabilization. The 
administration is proposing a raise and then a big drop. What would be 
the same effect as outlined by the previous speaker if that bigger drop 
occurs than we are recommending?
  I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that what is reflected here, the 
comparison of budgets, is what I have seen in many accounts. The fact 
of the matter is this diagram, although it is one account of one 
agency, it is the salaries account of the National Science Foundation, 
this account illustrates almost every comparison I have seen between 
the congressional proposed budget and the administration's budget. They 
propose increases in fiscal year 1997. Well, we vote on fiscal 1997 
this year in calendar year 1996. That is a Presidential election year, 
and so there is a proposed artificial boost for 1 year and then a big 
drop after that.
  And I want to say I have numerous constituent groups who rely upon 
appropriations and grants from the Federal Government who are handed 
material from the administration, and they bring it over to my office, 
and I am sure my colleagues from both parties have seen this, and they 
say, ``I'd like you to support the President's request for fiscal year 
1997 for the agency in which we have an interest.''
  And I say to them, ``Well, if I do, what is the administration's 
request for the agency you're interested in in fiscal year 1998, 1999 
and so forth, down to the year 2002, since both sides have agreed we 
are going to attempt to balance the budget by that year,'' and frankly 
I get a blank stare most of the time.
  Well, we do not know that the administration is proposing for our 
agency. Well, I suggest that all people interested in Federal 
appropriations better find out, because this is an artificial election 
year bump, and after that, to make the books balance, there is a big 
drop, far worse than anything that is proposed by the Congress in my 
estimation.
  The point is both sides have now agreed publicly that we will attempt 
to balance the budget in 7 years, by fiscal year 2002. This chart only 
goes to fiscal year 2000, so there is even two more years not 
illustrated here in the chart before us.
  With that in mind, I think that what the committee here proposes in 
H.R. 3322 is reasonable and should be adopted and the amendment 
rejected.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague's 
amendment, and I want to make a few points. I do believe that H.R. 3322 
just goes too far with regard to the National Science Foundation. Let 
us remember this is one of the most efficient Federal agencies. Less 
than 4 percent of its budget supports its own internal operations. In 
the past decade its budget has tripled, the workload has doubled, but 
yet the work force has remained constant. So I think the gentlewoman's 
amendment has focused on a problem in NSF that H.R. 3322 does not in 
fact address, and so consequently I support this amendment and urge my 
colleague to do the same.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5597]]

  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to further add that in 
the discussion had by my well-respected colleague from New Mexico [Mr. 
Schiff], I think it is really a diversion from the issue before us. The 
funding actually authorized for NSF's internal operation for 1997 is 
what is before us, and differences in funding projections for the NSF 
beyond 1997 in the President's balanced budget plan versus the Gingrich 
budget plan really are not particularly relevant to this discussion. 
The outyear budget estimates for individual agencies, let alone 
specific budget categories such as the salaries and expense account of 
NSF, are not cast in stone by the proposed funding envelope of the 
President's budget plan any more than they are by the Republican budget 
resolution.
  For example, last year's House budget resolution assumed a total 
funding level of $3.17 billion for NSF for fiscal year 1997, which is 
$120 million, or 4 percent, below the estimate for fiscal year 1997 in 
this year's budget resolution. Also, we are assured in this year's 
budget resolution that $120 million for NSF salary and expense account 
for 1997, it will be followed by an equal amount in the next 5 years. 
However, last year's budget resolution assumed this account would 
decline by $5 million.
  The point is that the additional years will be subject to additional 
authorization and appropriation, and these are made on a year-by-year 
basis. The budget estimates for NSF beyond 1997 are not relevant to 
this year's authorization, and I would just make this point: I know 
that the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] supports NSF, as do I. 
I know that he believes in their research, as do I, and respects the 
organization. But if we allow them to be reduced so far 
administratively that they cannot adequately review the grants and get 
the funding out to our fine universities, we will have hobbled really 
something that is a star in our country, and I know that my colleague 
agrees that the NSF is a star in our country.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to briefly point 
out that H.R. 3322 will eliminate one NSF directorate, and yet we do 
not know the effect of that on the agency. So I think we are imposing 
an organizational change on that agency before we hear from that 
agency, and this agency is too efficient to treat that way, and so I 
applaud the gentlewoman for accomplishing that through her amendment as 
well.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to strongly support the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] and as a matter of fact 
have included similar provisions in the substitute which I will offer 
at the appropriate time. It seems to be highly unwise to take an 
agency, which all of us recognize the value of, it is very high on the 
priorities of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and other 
Members of the majority. There is no criticism that it is engaged in 
waste, fraud, or abuse. It has a very lean organization and one which 
works extremely effectively in moving grants out to the best 
researchers in this country on the basis of thoroughly peer-reviewed 
applications for these grants.
  So I think it smacks of being punitive to arbitrarily cut even a 
small figure like $7 million, which is only about 6 percent of their 
budget, for this particular category of activities. It smacks of a 
certain degree of punitiveness to seek to do this particularly when we 
have had no hearings on the need for it, we have not asked the agency 
in for comments on it, we have not asked the research community for 
their views on it. We are merely told repeatedly, over and over again, 
that we have to engage in belt tightening, we have to make tough 
choices, we have to be willing to accept a little pain. Of course, what 
is not mentioned here is that this suffering, belt tightening, and pain 
is aimed at securing a balanced budget.

  Mr. Chairman, nobody is arguing about a balanced budget. The 
President's budget is in balance, or close to in balance. The budgets 
which I have consistently supported in prior years, including last 
year, were in balance. The argument is not over the question of 
balancing the budget, and $7 million is not going to balance the budget 
particularly. It is over how we get to the balanced budget.
  Now, obviously, there is some objection to the fact that in the 
President's budget he does not have these cuts, but that there are cuts 
later on down the road. This is a question of judgment. It is in the 
eyes of the majority, this is a flagrant example of trying to buy the 
election by keeping up another $7 million for personnel over at NSF. I 
doubt very seriously if $7 million going to the personnel over at NSF 
is going to buy the election for anybody. I think it is a reflection of 
the President's commitment to science and trying to keep the funding 
for the most respected scientific program this country has at a more 
equitable level, not to make drastic cuts in it, and I think that this 
is why we should adopt the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Now, what really is happening here is that there is a difference in 
values. I do not mean to berate this. The gentlemen on the other side 
who are willing to cut $7 million out of NSF are willing to add $13 
billion to the Defense Department budget, or whatever the appropriate 
number is. Frankly, because in their view, the views of the majority, 
or most of the majority; I will not characterize all of them; it is 
more important to exceed the President's budget by $12 or $13 billion 
than it is to maintain the level of support for our basic research in 
this country, and if our colleagues have that sort of values, fine, but 
do not disguise the argument by saying that they are trying to balance 
the budget. Both budgets are balanced. They are trying to cut programs 
in order to add money to the Defense Department or other programs that 
they favor.
  That is the honest to God truth as to what is going on here, and it 
will recur in many debates as they attack the President's budget for 
whatever reasons they can think of and then proceed to go ahead and 
propose additions to it for those programs that they happen to like. So 
let us be honest about this. Let us adopt the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] and protect this most 
important program that we have for the support of science in this 
country.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment to debate because I think it 
does draw the contrasts between where the two parties are coming from 
on some of these issues.
  First of all, this is about bureaucracy. This is whether or not we 
are going to reform the bureaucracies of Washington in order to give 
more money to the country.
  Now, we give more money to the country in a variety of forms. We have 
chosen, in the case of NSF, to give more money in terms of actual 
research, and I will show a chart here in a moment that indicates that. 
That is where we have put our issue. In other words, get the moneys out 
to the universities, get them out to the people out in the country, and 
so on, rather than do it with bureaucracy in Washington.
  Second, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] talks about the 
fact that the balanced budgets are similar. As my colleagues know, the 
balanced budgets are not at all similar. We include in our balanced 
budget a tax cut for middle-class America. Their budgets do not include 
tax cuts, and so indeed we have to cut more in spending because we 
intend to cut taxes for middle-class working families in this country.

                                  1700

  So the fact is that they want to continue to spend, spend, spend, 
keep the taxes high and spend people's money here in Washington for 
more and more bureaucracy. We have specifically said that we want to do 
something different. We want to balance the budget while cutting the 
taxes for middle-class working families. So our budgets do reflect a 
desire to reduce bureaucracy so tax cuts can be given to middle-class 
working families in this country.
  That is what we are talking about here, whether or not we actually 
want

[[Page H5598]]

to begin the process of cutting bureaucracy, or whether or not we want 
to play a shell game in terms of budgets, as is suggested on the chart 
shown by the gentleman from New Mexico. What we have is a shell game 
here. They raise the budget for personnel and for bureaucracy in the 
first year, and then all of a sudden they drop it way off.
  We actually asked the question of NSF: If you go along with what the 
President has requested in his budget, which these 1997 numbers 
supposedly endorse, how many full-time Federal employees could we lose 
by 1998 when the account goes down not to $120 million that we are 
talking about, but down to $118 million? And then how many more 
employees do we lose when, under the President's numbers, we go to $107 
million? Or how many more do we lose when we go to $101 million? That 
is what the President's budget does.
  Guess what? Having asked that question of the NSF, the letter got 
hung up in OMB. NSF wanted to reply to us, but somewhere down in OMB 
they do not want us to know the answer to that particular question, 
because the fact is the answer to that question will probably reveal 
exactly the shell game going on here.
  If we are going to be cutting money for bureaucracy, should we be 
putting the money into some real research? We cut the money for 
bureaucracy and then flatten the line into the outyears under a 
balanced budget over 7 years. What does the administration do? The 
administration, not according to me but according to the AAAS, whose 
studies on academic science were widely touted on this floor last year, 
they took a look at the NSF budgets. What did they find? The red line 
is the President's budget. They find that the President's budget for 
NSF goes out here fairly flat for a couple of years and then drops off 
terrifically, while they also find that the House-passed budget 
continues to climb in the outyears. We take money out of bureaucracy 
and put it into real science. The President in those outyears takes it 
out of bureaucracy, but takes it out of research too. Everything drops 
and the entire enterprise is left with no support and, in this case, no 
science.

  Mr. Chairman, in my view, that is a bad deal. It seems to me that 
what we want to do is reject the gentlewoman's amendment that suggests 
that more money for bureaucrats is what we need in Washington. We think 
it is time for reform in Washington. Let us eliminate the bureaucracy.
  We have been criticized because in our report language we say that 
one of the directorates should be cut as a way of eliminating the 
program. The fact is that there are a number of options available to 
the NSF that the minority does not seem to recognize. For example, the 
minority, in saying that 120 positions would have to be cut, ignores 
the fact that one of the things we might be able to do is to reduce 
travel budgets at NSF, or we might be able to reduce administrative 
overhead expenses. There are all kinds of ways we could lower this 
account.
  They simply assume that what NSF would do is fire people. That is 
what their numbers do. I do not necessarily think that that is the way 
NSF would deal with this. We think one of the ways we can reduce some 
of that administrative overhead is by reducing the number of 
directorates. We suggest they reduce it by one. Mr. Chairman, in our 
report we suggest a specific directorate because that was the most 
recent one adopted. It is also one where the science was spread out 
through the agency before, and now we are reducing a directorate. 
Perhaps that is the way to go.
  But it is up to NSF. It is up to the director. How does he want to 
reduce this money, is what we are saying. We are going to give them 
discretion. But we do want to eliminate the spending. We do want to 
bring it down and then keep it in a flat line, as this chart 
represents.
  The administration has a shell game going here: Increase it, as the 
gentlewoman suggests, and then drop it like a rock, so we do not have 
the kind of support that the agency needs in the outyear. I do not 
think that is a good deal. I suggest we vote with the committee's 
position. Keep the money out of bureaucracy, put it toward real 
science, reject the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOYLE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
I just wanted to make a few brief comments on the amendment and what we 
are talking about here.
  We are talking about a reduction in this year's funding for staffing 
the NSF. I am a new Member of Congress. I have been here only about 18 
months, but I have yet to hear in my 18 months in Congress any hint 
from any Member of this body that this is a highly politicized 
organization.
  In fact, quite to the contrary, I have heard from both sides of the 
aisle a great deal of comment about the excellent work done through the 
auspices of the NSF, the fine science they have produced. So I have a 
sense that this is a good organization and that we ought to listen to 
the director of the organization. So I would like to quote the 
director, Neal Lane, who has commented on the bill, and which I think 
my amendment speaks to.
  He says that he is very disappointed with the proposed reduction, and 
says, ``Our analysis of the committee's reduction in this area shows 
that it would require the elimination of 120 FTE's, roughly 10 percent 
of our work force--in 1 year.'' He goes on to say that:

       A reduction of this kind would demoralize our highly 
     talented and dedicated work force. If we fail to provide 
     sufficient resources to adequately staff and support NSF, the 
     result will be less coordination, less oversight, less 
     efficiency, and a real degradation in the integrity of the 
     merit review process and the quality of our programs and 
     operations.

  This is a lot of money where I come from, $7 million, but I also 
think it needs to be put in the broader context of the overall budget 
for science and the overall budget for the Federal Government. Mr. 
Chairman, I think it would be pennywise and pound foolish to make a 
reduction of 10 percent of the scientists in HSF, as the director 
suggests would be the result, that would preclude them from adequately 
managing the remainder of the budget that we are providing for in the 
budget, and augmented, I might add, by the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].
  This is not a question of bureaucracy, it is about good management, 
in making sure that the resources that we are investing in science are 
wisely managed and prudently overseen and that there is a good 
interface between our higher education community and the National 
Science Foundation.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking at some length on this because I think we 
know that failure to adequately invest in science is really a blow to 
our future. Although there may be sit-ins or demonstrators talking 
about the National Science Foundation, it may not be on the talk radio, 
really, the constituency for investment in science is the next 
generation. Failure to do the prudent thing in this regard is really a 
failure for the next generation, my children and others in their age 
bracket. The 10- and 11- and 12-year-olds will be reaping the problems 
that we sow here through a misstep.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
appreciate the gentlewoman's explanation. Again, she makes the point 
that they fundamentally believe on the minority side that if in fact we 
can concentrate power in Washington and if in fact we can put power 
into the hands of bureaucrats, that, in fact, the country will be made 
better; that somehow, science and research will be expanded by having 
$9 million more or $7 million more spent for more bureaucrats. That is 
precisely what we disagree with.
  Neal Lane's letter, and I have it before me here, does not suggest 
they are

[[Page H5599]]

going to cut scientists. He suggested they would eliminate 120 FTE's, 
roughly 10 percent of the work force. That is not just scientists, that 
is all kinds of people that might be employed at the Science 
Foundation.
  As I said before, the question here is why did they choose to only 
deal with the work force? No wonder morale would be low at the National 
Science Foundation. When a cut is suggested, what the National Science 
Foundation says immediately is let us cut employees. The fact is he 
could cut travel budgets, he could cut administrative overhead, he 
could cut all kinds of things. Instead, he chooses in his letter to 
suggest that the only place, the only place they are prepared to make 
cuts is to take it out of the hide of their work force. No wonder they 
have low morale over there. No wonder the situation is so bad.
  That is the reason why, in my view, we need to have this cut. We need 
to get that in a stable position so it can in fact operate within a 
balanced budget for the next several years, and do so in a way which 
equitably treats the science community while increasing the amount 
actually spent for science and getting it out to the country.
   Mr. Chairman, I think this is a bad amendment. It does in fact 
increase spending. It should be rejected.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to add another point of view. That is, 
again, to the fact that the President's budget, and that is what we are 
being offered here, we are being offered the President's budget for 
fiscal year 1997, and although it goes up in fiscal year 1997, it goes 
down each fiscal year after that. In fiscal year 1998, only in the next 
year, at $118 million, the same account we are talking about will be $2 
million less than the Republican proposal on the floor today. The 
administration's proposal keeps going down every year after that.
  The point is, even from the point of view being expressed by the 
gentlewoman offering the amendment, the $120 million funding every year 
that remains stable will be better for the National Science Foundation 
than the administration's budget. I recognize the gentlewoman stated 
that, well, budgets in future years are not in concrete. But they are 
becoming made in concrete. That is because both sides, the 
administration and the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have agreed 
to a common goal of balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002.
  Therefore, if we are going to adopt a House Republican budget or a 
House Democratic budget, or in this case, the proposal for the 
administration's budget, we have to understand what all of the years 
mean, because the books have to balance somewhere. If the 
administration in this election year is going to propose an increase in 
any account, then they have to make the books balance somewhere. They 
do it by taking the money away in the larger dimension in future years.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked for this opportunity, despite the fact that I 
have spoken before, because I am beginning to see the beginnings of an 
outline of what the real differences are here. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
has sought to put it in terms of a difference between eliminating the 
bureaucrats and sending the money out to the people. That is one way to 
phrase it.
  I had earlier indicated that I felt that the people on the majority 
side were willing to cut the program at NASA, at NSF and at NASA also, 
as far as that is concerned, so they could spend more money on defense. 
The gentlemen from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], has correctly pointed out 
that that is not exactly all they want to do. They also want to propose 
a very substantial tax cut for what he calls the middle class, which, 
as I understand it, is basically those who earn $200,000 a year or 
more.
  Mr. Chairman, we could go even further in clarifying this difference 
in philosophy. We could point out also that it is necessary in the 
Republican budget that they generate a few more cuts in order that they 
can also take care of not only the tax cut for the rich middle class 
and for the military, but they also think that it is necessary to 
reduce the rate of growth in benefits for welfare, for Medicaid, people 
on Social Security and so forth.

  What we are seeing emerge here is a classic difference in philosophy 
between the Democrats and the Republicans. There is some overlap, of 
course. There are Members on the Republican side who do not always 
agree with the priorities that the majority over there have. As I read 
in the paper, some of these differences are becoming fairly overt at 
this point. Not all democrats agree to the same concepts, what I have 
described as the democratic core values that the President has tried to 
enunciate, and which I occasionally try to enunciate. But I think it is 
fairly clear that the majority, in this bill, are trying to pile up 
cuts which can be used to offset some of these other core values that 
they have: a bigger military, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and so 
forth.

                                  1715

  Recognizing as I say this that this will probably polarize the debate 
and bring every loyal Republican to the floor to vote against this 
amendment, I want to see that happen, because I want to see these core 
values clearly set forth and voted for in a way that will be clear to 
all the American people.
  I may be totally wrong and the American people are going to say, 
``George, Bob Walker correctly described you as a bureaucrat-loving, 
tax-and-spend liberal,'' and they are going to vote against me. But I 
want them to have the chance to see this laid out so that we will know 
what it is that we are voting for, and it is with this point in mind 
that I am supporting this amendment which protects a program which we 
all agree is a valuable program but it is run by bureaucrats, I do not 
know who else could run it, and so we are going to cut the bureaucrats 
out.
  I hope that the amendment will pass. If it does not pass, I hope 
everybody will be on record as to which side that they are on.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUDDS. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, the National Science Foundation employs 
almost exactly the same number of people in 1994 as it did in 1984, 
that despite a 2.5 times increase in the amount of work that they have 
had to do. So I do not think it is correct to say that we want to build 
an empire.
  In fact, this is an agency that cut its overhead and staff from 6 to 
3.9 percent between 1982 and today. It is a reducing agency. It is an 
agency that is becoming more efficient, but it takes some staff to 
administer the program. I think we all agree that it has been 
administered efficiently and well and to the benefit of our Nation and 
to the scientific future of our country. I ask that the amendment be 
supported.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I would just like to say, in response to the ranking minority 
member's comments, the tax reductions that we were trying to get 
through the House last year, which I think were vitally needed, 
provided tax cuts to families with children. The data on this is very 
clear. Young families trying to raise kids today now send a quarter of 
their income to Washington, DC, whereas 40 years ago they sent about 5 
percent. It is many of those young families that are under the most 
stress.
  We also had a capital gains relief package that was going to provide 
very, very badly needed jobs in my district, which has been hard hit by 
defense cuts as well as 2,000 jobs that were eliminated at Kennedy 
Space Center between 1990 and 1994 when about $1 billion was taken out 
of the shuttle program. So I think the Republican budget priorities are 
sound priorities.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5600]]

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize the point the 
gentleman is making. Every high technology entrepreneur that I have 
talked to has told me that one of the fundamental things that we should 
do for high technology in this country is cut the capital gains taxes. 
They need long-term risk investment in high technology industries in 
this country, and so therefore the capital gains tax cut that we have 
proposed is in fact one of the best things we can do for science and 
technology in this country, if we believe in the entrepreneurial spirit 
that is going to drive that technology.
  Second, the gentleman is absolutely correct. We are not talking about 
$200,000 a year families. If anybody had bothered to read the budget 
that we passed in the House the other day, it went to families who made 
less than $100,000 a year. That is where the money is going. Those are 
middle-class Americans out there who are in fact the people who would 
benefit the most from the tax cut that we have.
  So yes, indeed we want to cut taxes as a part of reforming 
Government, but fundamental to this amendment is, this amendment is 
about bureaucracy. The President increases bureaucracy for 1 year, but 
then if all the things the other side is saying are true about the need 
for these people in the agency, the fact is that by the next year his 
numbers are lower than our numbers. So what will people come back and 
do next year? Say, ``Well, the President is wrong now. Now we need to 
increase it.''

  How do we get to a balanced budget if all we are doing is increasing 
spending? The fact is the President's numbers only get to balance 
because he is willing to make massive cuts in the out years in 
discretionary spending. That is what the other side will not 
acknowledge.
  The fact is on this floor we ought to acknowledge the realities of 
the situation. We ought not put up with shell game budgets. We ought to 
be willing to say that if something has to last for 7 years, we ought 
to have a plan for it going 7 years, not the kind of thing that shows 
up in the President's budget where we increase things in the election 
year and then drop them off a cliff in the years afterwards.
  That would be extremely damaging to NSF. That is what is being 
proposed by this amendment, and I think that it should be rejected out 
of hand.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ``noes'' appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
today, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from California [Mr. Lofgren].
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 8.


    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. brown of 
                               california

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Brown of California:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Science and Technology 
     Investment Act of 1996''.
                  TITLE I--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Science Foundation $3,325,000,000 for fiscal year 1997, which 
     shall be available for the following categories:
       (1) Research and Related Activities, $2,472,000,000, which 
     shall be available for the following subcategories:
       (A) Mathematical and Physical Sciences, $708,000,000.
       (B) Engineering, $354,300,000.
       (C) Biological Sciences, $326,000,000.
       (D) Geosciences, $454,000,000.
       (E) Computer and Information Science and Engineering, 
     $277,000,000.
       (F) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, 
     $124,000,000.
       (G) United States Polar Research Programs, $163,400,000.
       (H) United States Antarctic Logistical Support Activities, 
     $62,600,000.
       (I) Critical Technologies Institute, $2,700,000.
       (2) Education and Human Resources Activities, $619,000,000.
       (3) Major Research Equipment, $95,000,000.
       (4) Salaries and Expenses, $129,100,000.
       (5) Office of Inspector General, $4,700,000.
       (6) Headquarters Relocation, $5,200,000.
        TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 201. FISCAL YEAR 1997 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1997 the 
     following amounts:
       (1) For ``Human Space Flight'' for the following programs:
       (A) Space Station, $1,802,000,000.
       (B) United States/Russian Cooperation, $138,200,000.
       (C) Space Shuttle, $3,150,900,000, including for 
     Construction of Facilities relating to the following 
     programs:
       (i) Replacement of LC-39 Pad B Chillers (KSC), $1,800,000.
       (ii) Restoration of Pad B Fixed Support Structure Elevator 
     System (KSC), $1,500,000.
       (iii) Rehabilitation of 480V Electrical Distribution 
     System, Kennedy Space Center, External Tank Manufacturing 
     Building (MAF), $2,500,000.
       (iv) Restoration of High Pressure Industrial Water Plant, 
     Stennis Space Center, $2,500,000.
       (D) Payload and Utilization Operations, $271,800,000.
       (2) For ``Science, Aeronautics, and Technology'' for the 
     following programs:
       (A) Space Science, $1,857,300,000.
       (B) Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, 
     $498,500,000.
       (C) Mission to Planet Earth, $1,402,100,000.
       (D) Aeronautical Research and Technology, $857,800,000, of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be for the identification and 
     upgrading of national dual-use airbreathing propulsion 
     aeronautical test facilities.
       (E) Space Access and Technology, $725,000,000
       (F) Academic Programs, $100,800,000.
       (G) Mission Communication Services, $420,600,000.
       (3) For ``Mission Support'' for the following programs:
       (A) Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance, 
     $36,700,000.
       (B) Space Communication Services, $291,400,000.
       (C) Construction of Facilities, including land acquisition, 
     including the following:
       (i) Modernization of Electrical Distribution System, Ames 
     Research Center, $2,400,000.
       (ii) Modification of Aircraft Ramp and Tow Way, Dryden 
     Flight Research Center, $3,000,000.
       (iii) Restoration of Hangar Building 4801, Dryden Flight 
     Research Center, $4,500,000.
       (iv) Modernization of Secondary Electrical Systems, Goddard 
     Space Flight Center, $1,500,000.
       (v) Restoration of Chilled Water Distribution System, 
     Goddard Space Flight Center, $4,000,000.
       (vi) Modification of Refrigeration Systems, Various 
     Buildings, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, $2,800,000.
       (vii) Rehabilitation of Electrical Distribution System, 
     White Sands Test Facility, Johnson Space Center, $2,600,000.
       (viii) Rehabilitation of Utility Tunnel Structure and 
     System, Johnson Space Center, $4,400,000.
       (ix) Replacement of DX Units with Central Chilled Water 
     System, Logistics Facility, Kennedy Space Center, $1,800,000.
       (x) Rehabilitation of Central Air Equipment Building, Lewis 
     Research Center, $6,500,000.
       (xi) Modification of Chilled Water System, Marshall Space 
     Flight Center, $6,700,000.
       (xii) Rehabilitation of Condenser Water System, 202/207 
     Complex (MAF), $2,100,000.
       (xiii) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at Various 
     Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project, 
     $57,900,000.
       (xiv) Minor construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities at various locations, not in excess of 
     $1,500,000 per project, $3,400,000.
       (xv) Facility planning and design, not otherwise provided 
     for, $18,700,000.
       (xvi) Environmental compliance and restoration, 
     $33,000,000.
       (D) Research and Program Management, $2,078,800,000.
       (4) For ``Inspector General'', $17,000,000.

     SEC. 202. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 
                   AMENDMENT.

       Section 102(d)(1) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act 
     of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(d)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and 
     its climate and environment,'' after ``knowledge of the 
     Earth''.
                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Energy Research and 
     Development Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 302. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) Federal support of research and development in general, 
     and energy research and

[[Page H5601]]

     development in particular, has played a key role in the 
     growth of the United States economy since World War II 
     through the production of new knowledge, the development of 
     new technologies and processes, and the demonstration of such 
     new technologies and processes for application to industrial 
     and other uses;
       (2) Federal support of energy research and development is 
     especially important because such research and development 
     contributes to solutions for national problems in energy 
     security, environmental protection, and economic 
     competitiveness;
       (3) the Department of Energy has successfully promoted new 
     technologies and processes to address problems with energy 
     supply, fossil energy, and energy conservation through its 
     various research and development programs;
       (4) while the Federal budget deficit and payments on the 
     national debt must be addressed through cost-cutting 
     measures, investments in research and development on key 
     energy issues must be maintained;
       (5) within the last two years, the Department of Energy has 
     made great strides in managing its programs more efficiently 
     and effectively;
       (6) significant savings should result from these measures 
     without hampering the Department's core missions; and
       (7) the Strategic Realignment Initiative and other such 
     efforts of the Department should be continued.

     SEC. 303. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``Department'' means the Department of Energy; 
     and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Energy.

     SEC. 304. ENERGY CONSERVATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for energy conservation research, 
     development, and demonstration--
       (1) $99,721,000 for energy conservation in building 
     technology, State, and community sector-nongrant;
       (2) $159,434,000 for energy conservation in the industry 
     sector;
       (3) $221,308,000 for energy conservation in the 
     transportation sector; and
       (4) $28,350,000 for policy and management activities.

     SEC. 305. FOSSIL ENERGY.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for fossil energy research, development, 
     and demonstration--
       (1) $102,629,000 for coal;
       (2) $52,537,000 for petroleum;
       (3) $103,708,000 for gas;
       (4) $4,000,000 for the Fossil Energy Cooperative Research 
     and Development Program;
       (5) $2,188,000 for fuel conversion, natural gas, and 
     electricity;
       (6) $60,115,000 for program direction and management;
       (7) $3,304,000 for plant and capital improvements;
       (8) $15,027,000 for environmental restoration; and
       (9) $5,000,000 for mining.

     SEC. 306. HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for high energy and nuclear physics 
     activities of the Department--
       (1) $679,125,000 for high energy physics activities;
       (2) $318,425,000 for nuclear physics activities; and
       (3) $11,600,000 for program direction.

     SEC. 307. SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for solar and renewable energy research, 
     development, and demonstration--
       (1) $263,282,000 for solar energy;
       (2) $35,600,000 for geothermal energy;
       (3) $11,012,000 for hydrogen energy;
       (4) $17,301,000 for policy and management;
       (5) $36,050,000 for electric energy systems and storage; 
     and
       (6) $5,700,000 for in-house energy management.

     SEC. 308. NUCLEAR ENERGY.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for nuclear energy research, 
     development, and demonstration--
       (1) $137,750,000 for nuclear energy, including $40,000,000 
     for the Advanced Light Water Reactor program;
       (2) $79,100,000 for the termination of certain facilities;
       (3) $12,704,000 for isotope support; and
       (4) $18,500,000 for program direction.

     SEC. 309. ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY, AND HEALTH.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for research, development, and 
     demonstration--
       (1) $73,160,000 for the Office of Environmental Safety and 
     Health; and
       (2) $39,046,000 for program direction.

     SEC. 310. ENERGY RESEARCH DIRECTORATE.

       (a) Authorizations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 1997--
       (1) $379,075,000 for biological and environmental research 
     activities;
       (2) $255,600,000 for fusion energy research, development, 
     and demonstration;
       (3) $653,675,000 for basic energy sciences activities, of 
     which $1,000,000 shall be for planning activities for neutron 
     source upgrades; and
       (4) $158,143,000 for computational and technology research.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Before May 1, 1997, the Secretary, 
     after consultation with the relevant scientific communities, 
     shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report detailing 
     a strategic plan for the operation of facilities that are 
     provided funds authorized by subsection (a)(3). The report 
     shall include--
       (1) a list of such facilities, including schedules for 
     continuation, upgrade, transfer, or closure of each facility;
       (2) a list of proposed facilities to be provided funds 
     authorized by subsection (a)(3), including schedules for the 
     construction and operation of each facility;
       (3) a list of research opportunities to be pursued, 
     including both ongoing and proposed activities, by the 
     research activities authorized by subsection (a)(3); and
       (4) an analysis of the relevance of each facility listed in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) to the research opportunities listed 
     in paragraph (3).

     SEC. 311. SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR ENERGY SUPPLY RESEARCH AND 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     for fiscal year 1997 for support programs for Energy Supply 
     Research and Development--
       (1) $2,000,000 for Energy Research Analyses;
       (2) $28,885,000 for the Multi-Program Energy Laboratory 
     program;
       (3) $14,900,000 for the Information Management Investment 
     program;
       (4) $42,154,000 for program direction;
       (5) $19,900,000 for University and Science Education 
     programs;
       (6) $12,000,000 for the Technology Information Management 
     Program; and
       (7) $651,414,000 for Civilian Environmental Restoration and 
     Waste Management.
       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 1996''.

     SEC. 402. POLICY AND PURPOSE.

       It is the policy of the United States and the purpose of 
     this title to--
       (1) support and promote continuing the mission of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to monitor, 
     describe and predict changes in the Earth's environment, 
     protect lives and property, and conserve and manage the 
     Nation's coastal and marine resources to ensure sustainable 
     economic opportunities;
       (2) affirm that such mission involves basic 
     responsibilities of the Federal Government for ensuring 
     general public safety, national security, and environmental 
     well-being, and promising economic growth;
       (3) affirm that the successful execution of such mission 
     depends strongly on interdependency and synergism among 
     component activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration;
       (4) recognize that the activities of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration underlie the societal and 
     economic well-being of many sectors of our Nation; and
       (5) recognize that such mission is most effectively 
     performed by a single Federal agency with the capability to 
     link societal and economic decisions with a comprehensive 
     understanding of the Earth's environment, as provided for in 
     this title.

     SEC. 403. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out the operations and research 
     activities of the National Weather Service $471,702,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 404. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SYSTEMS ACQUISITION.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Commerce to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to improve its public warning 
     and forecast systems $68,984,000 for fiscal year 1997. None 
     of the funds authorized under this section may 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).
       (b) AWIPS Complete Program Authorization.--(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for all fiscal years beginning 
     after September 30, 1996, an aggregate of $271,166,000, to 
     remain available until expended, to complete the acquisition 
     and deployment of the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing 
     System and NOAA Port and to cover all associated activities, 
     including program management and operations and maintenance 
     through September 30, 1999.
       (2) No funds are authorized to be appropriated for any 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1) unless, within 60 days after 
     the submission of the President's budget request for such 
     fiscal year, the Secretary--
       (A) certifies to the Congress that--
       (i) the systems meet the technical performance 
     specifications included in the system contract as in effect 
     on August 11, 1995;
       (ii) the systems can be fully deployed, sited, and 
     operational without requiring further appropriations beyond 
     amounts authorized under paragraph (1); and
       (iii) the Secretary does not foresee any delays in the 
     systems deployment and operations schedule; or

[[Page H5602]]

       (B) submits to the Congress a report which describes--
       (i) the circumstances which prevent a certification under 
     subparagraph (A);
       (ii) remedial actions undertaken or to be undertaken with 
     respect to such circumstances;
       (iii) the effects of such circumstances on the systems 
     deployment and operations schedule and systems coverage; and
       (iv) a justification for proceeding with the program, if 
     appropriate.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 102(b)(2) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 405. WEATHER SERVICE MODERNIZATION.

       (a) Weather Service Modernization.--The Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 706--
       (A) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Certification.--The Secretary may not close, 
     consolidate, automate, or relocate any field office unless 
     the Secretary has certified to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Science of the House of Representatives that such action 
     will not result in degradation of services to the affected 
     area. Such certification shall be in accordance with the 
     modernization criteria established under section 704.'';
       (B) by striking subsections (c), (d), and (e);
       (C) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (d); and
       (D) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) Special Circumstances.--The Secretary may not close 
     or relocate any field office which is located at an airport, 
     unless the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation and the Committee, first conducts an air 
     safety appraisal, determines that such action will not result 
     in degradation of service that affects aircraft safety, and 
     includes such determination in the certification required 
     under subsection (b). This air safety appraisal shall be 
     issued jointly by the Department of Commerce and the 
     Department of Transportation before September 30, 1996, and 
     shall be based on a coordinated review of all the airports in 
     the United States subject to the certification requirements 
     of subsection (b). The appraisal shall--
       ``(1) consider the weather information required to safely 
     conduct aircraft operations and the extent to which such 
     information is currently derived through manual observations 
     provided by the National Weather Service and the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, and automated observations provided 
     from other sources including the Automated Weather 
     Observation Service (AWOS), the Automated Surface Observing 
     System (ASOS), and the Geostationary Operational 
     Environmental Satellite (GOES); and
       ``(2) determine whether the service provided by ASOS, and 
     ASOS augmented where necessary by human observations, 
     provides the necessary level of service consistent with the 
     service standards encompassed in the criteria for automation 
     of the field offices.''; and
       (2) in section 707--
       (A) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Duties.--The Committee shall advise the Congress and 
     the Secretary on--
       ``(1) the implementation of the Strategic Plan, annual 
     development of the Plan, and establishment and implementation 
     of modernization criteria; and
       ``(2) matters of public safety and the provision of weather 
     services which relate to the comprehensive modernization of 
     the National Weather Service.''; and
       (B) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Termination.--The Committee shall terminate--
       ``(1) on September 30, 1996; or
       ``(2) 90 days after the deadline for public comment on the 
     modernization criteria for closure certification published in 
     the Federal Register pursuant to section 704(b)(2),

     whichever occurs later.''.
       (b) Sense of Congress Regarding Additional Modernization 
     Activities.--It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary 
     of Commerce should plan for the implementation of a follow-on 
     modernization program aimed at improving weather services 
     provided to areas which do not receive weather radar coverage 
     at 10,000 feet. In carrying out such a program, the Secretary 
     should plan for a procurement of Block II NEXRAD radar units.

     SEC. 406. BASIC FUNCTIONS AND PRIVATIZATION OF NATIONAL 
                   WEATHER SERVICE .

       (a) Basic Functions.--The basic functions of the National 
     Weather Service shall be--
       (1) the provision of forecasts and warnings including 
     forecasts and warnings, of severe weather, flooding, 
     hurricanes, and tsunami events;
       (2) the collection, exchange, and distribution of 
     meteorological, hydrologic, climatic, and oceanographic data 
     and information; and
       (3) the preparation of hydrometeorological guidance and 
     core forecast information.
       (b) Prohibition.--The National Weather Service shall not 
     provide any new or enhanced weather services for the sole 
     benefit of an identifiable private entity or group of such 
     entities operating in any sector of the national or 
     international economy in competition with the private weather 
     service industry.
       (c) New or Enhanced Service.--If the Secretary determines, 
     after consultation with appropriate Federal and State 
     officials, that a new or enhanced weather service is 
     necessary and in the public interest to fulfill the 
     international obligations of the United States, to enable 
     State or Federal emergency or resource managers to better 
     perform their State or Federal duties, or to carry out the 
     functions of the National Weather Service described in 
     subsection (a), the National Weather Service may provide such 
     new or enhanced service as one of its basic functions if--
       (1) each new or enhanced service provided by the National 
     Weather Service will be limited to the level that the 
     Secretary determines necessary to fulfill the requirements of 
     this subsection, taking into account the capabilities and 
     limitations of resources available, scientific knowledge, and 
     technological capability of the National Weather Service; and
       (2) upon request, the National Weather Service will 
     promptly make available to any person the data or data 
     products supporting the new or enhanced service provided 
     pursuant to this section, at a cost not greater than that 
     sufficient to recover the cost of dissemination.
       (d) Federal Register.--The Secretary shall promptly publish 
     in the Federal Register each determination made under 
     subsection (c).
       (e) Privatization Review.--The Secretary shall, by February 
     15, 1997, conduct a review of all existing weather services 
     and activities performed by the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration in order to identify those 
     activities which may be transferred to the private sector. 
     Such review shall include a determination that activities 
     identified for privatization will continue to be disseminated 
     to users on a reasonably affordable basis with no degradation 
     of service. The Secretary shall, by March 15, 1997, provide 
     to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
     President of the Senate a plan for transferring these 
     identified services to the private sector.

     SEC. 407. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Commerce to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its climate and 
     air quality research activities $122,681,000 for fiscal year 
     1997.
       (b) GLOBE.--Of the amount authorized in subsection (a), 
     $7,000,000 are authorized for fiscal year 1997 for a program 
     to increase scientific understanding of the Earth and student 
     achievement in math and science by using a worldwide network 
     of schools to collect environmental observations. Beginning 
     in fiscal year 1997, amounts appropriated for such program 
     may be obligated only to the extent that an equal or greater 
     amount of non-Federal funding is provided for such program.

     SEC. 408. ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out its atmospheric research 
     activities $43,766,000 for fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 409. SATELLITE OBSERVING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DATA 
                   MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary of Commerce to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its satellite 
     observing systems activities and data and information 
     services, $348,740,000 for fiscal year 1997, and, in 
     addition, such sums as may be necessary to continue planning 
     and development of a converged polar orbiting meteorological 
     satellite program. None of the funds authorized in this 
     subsection may be used for the purposes for which funds are 
     authorized under section 105(d) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567).
       (b) Repeal.--Section 105(d)(2) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 410. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

       (a) Executive Direction and Administrative Activities.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out executive direction and 
     administrative activities, including management, 
     administrative support, provision of retired pay of National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration commissioned officers, 
     and policy development, $64,694,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Acquisition, Construction, Maintenance, and Operation 
     of Facilities.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce for acquisition, construction, 
     maintenance, and operation of facilities of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration $37,366,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       (c) Aircraft Services.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     aircraft services activities, including aircraft operations, 
     maintenance, and support, $10,182,000 for fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 411. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

       The Secretary of Commerce may conduct educational programs 
     and activities related to the responsibilities of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the 
     purposes of this section, the Secretary may award grants and 
     enter into cooperative agreements and contracts with States, 
     private sector, and nonprofit entities.

[[Page H5603]]

                TITLE V--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Environmental Research, 
     Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 502. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title, the term--
       (1) ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency;
       (2) ``Agency'' means the Environmental Protection Agency; 
     and
       (3) ``Assistant Administrator'' means the Assistant 
     Administrator for Research and Development of the Agency.

     SEC. 503. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Administrator $580,460,000 for fiscal year 1997 for the 
     Office of Research and Development for environmental 
     research, development, and demonstration activities, 
     including program management and support, in the areas 
     specified in subsection (b).
       (b) Specific Programs and Activities.--Of the amount 
     authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated the following:
       (1) For air related research, $88,163,200.
       (2) For water quality related research, $26,293,800.
       (3) For drinking water related research, $26,593,700.
       (4) For pesticide related research, $20,632,000.
       (5) For toxic chemical related research, $12,341,500.
       (6) For research related to hazardous waste, $10,343,900.
       (7) For multimedia related research expenses, $300,837,000.
       (8) For program management expenses, $8,184,700.
       (9) For research related to leaking underground storage 
     tanks, $681,000.
       (10) For oil pollution related research, $1,031,000.
       (11) For environmental research laboratories, $85,358,200.
       (c) Contingent Authorization for Research Relating to the 
     Cleanup of Contaminated Sites.--To the extent that the 
     Hazardous Substances Trust Fund is authorized to receive 
     funds during fiscal year 1997, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated for that fiscal year $42,508,000 from such Fund 
     to the Administrator for research relating to the cleanup of 
     contaminated sites.
                          TITLE VI--TECHNOLOGY

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Technology Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 602. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Under Secretary for Technology.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
     activities of the Under Secretary for Technology/Office of 
     Technology Policy $9,531,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (b) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology for fiscal year 1997 the following amounts:
       (1) For Industrial Technology Services, $450,000,000, of 
     which--
       (A) $345,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technology 
     Program under section 28 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n); and
       (B) $105,000,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnerships program under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l).
       (2) For Scientific and Technical Research and Services, 
     $270,744,000, of which--
       (A) $267,764,000 shall be for Laboratory Research and 
     Services; and
       (B) $2,980,000 shall be for the Malcolm Baldrige National 
     Quality Award program under section 17 of the Stevenson-
     Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a).
       (3) For Construction of Research Facilities, $105,240,000.

     SEC. 603. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 271 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 25(c)--
       (A) by striking ``for a period not to exceed six years'' in 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) by striking ``which are designed'' and all that follows 
     through ``operation of a Center'' in paragraph (5) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``to a maximum of \1/3\ Federal 
     funding. Each Center which receives financial assistance 
     under this section shall be evaluated during its sixth year 
     of operations, and at least once each two years thereafter as 
     the Secretary considers appropriate, by an evaluation panel 
     appointed by the Secretary in the same manner as was the 
     evaluation panel previously appointed. The Secretary shall 
     not provide funding for additional years of the Center's 
     operation unless the most recent evaluation is positive and 
     the Secretary finds that continuation of funding furthers the 
     purposes of this section''; and
       (2) in section 28--
       (A) by striking ``or contracts'' in subsection (b)(1)(B), 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``contracts, and, subject to 
     the last sentence of this subsection, other transactions'';
       (B) by inserting ``and if the non-Federal participants in 
     the joint venture agree to pay at least 50 percent of the 
     total costs of the joint venture during the Federal 
     participation period, which shall not exceed 5 years,'' after 
     ``participation to be appropriate,'';
       (C) by striking ``provision of a minority share of the cost 
     of such joint ventures for up to 5 years, and (iii)'' in 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), and inserting in lieu thereof ``and'';
       (D) by striking ``and cooperative agreements'' in 
     subsection (b)(2), and inserting in lieu thereof ``, 
     cooperative agreements, and, subject to the last sentence of 
     this subsection, other transactions'';
       (E) by adding after subsection (b)(4) the following:

     ``The authority under paragraph (1)(B) and paragraph (2) to 
     enter into other transactions shall apply only if the 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, determines that 
     standard contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements are not 
     feasible or appropriate, and only when other transaction 
     instruments incorporate terms and conditions that reflect the 
     use of generally accepted commercial accounting and auditing 
     practices.''; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) and 
     subsection (d)(3), the Director may grant extensions beyond 
     the deadlines established under those subsections for joint 
     venture and single applicant awardees to expend Federal funds 
     to complete their projects, if such extension may be granted 
     with no additional cost to the Federal Government and it is 
     in the Federal Government's interest to do so.''.
              TITLE VII--UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Fire Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 702. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 17(g)(1) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control 
     Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2216(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (F) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) $27,560,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997.''.
TITLE VIII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 801. AVIATION RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Not more than the following amounts'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``For fiscal year 1997, not more 
     than $195,700,000 for Research, Engineering, and 
     Development'';
       (2) by inserting ``40119, 44912,'' after ``carry out 
     sections''; and
       (3) by striking ``of this title'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``of this title''.

     SEC. 802. RESEARCH PRIORITIES.

       Section 48102(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by striking ``Availability for Research.--(1)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``Research Priorities.--(1) The 
     Administrator shall consider the advice and recommendations 
     of the research advisory committee established by section 
     44508 of this title in establishing priorities among major 
     categories of research and development activities carried out 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration.
       ``(2)''.

     SEC. 803. RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 44508(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) annually review the allocation made by the 
     Administrator of the amounts authorized by section 48102(a) 
     of this title among the major categories of research and 
     development activities carried out by the Administration and 
     provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator on 
     whether such allocation is appropriate to meet the needs and 
     objectives identified under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 804. NATIONAL AVIATION RESEARCH PLAN.

       Section 44501(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``15-year'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``5-year'';
       (2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) The plan shall--
       ``(i) provide estimates by year of the schedule, cost, and 
     work force levels for each active and planned major research 
     and development project under sections 40119, 44504, 44505, 
     44507, 44509, 44511-44513, and 44912 of this title, including 
     activities carried out under cooperative agreements with 
     other Federal departments and agencies;
       ``(ii) specify the goals and the priorities for allocation 
     of resources among the major categories of research and 
     development activities, including the rationale for the 
     priorities identified;

[[Page H5604]]

       ``(iii) identify the allocation of resources among long-
     term research, near-term research, and development 
     activities; and
       ``(iv) highlight the research and development activities 
     that address specific recommendations of the research 
     advisory committee established under section 44508 of this 
     title, and document the recommendations of the committee that 
     are not accepted, specifying the reasons for 
     nonacceptance.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``, including a 
     description of the dissemination to the private sector of 
     research results and a description of any new technologies 
     developed'' after ``during the prior fiscal year''.
        TITLE IX--NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

     SEC. 901. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 12 of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 
     (42 U.S.C. 7706) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(7) by striking ``and $25,750,000 for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``$25,750,000 for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, and $18,825,000 for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``and $50,676,000 for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1996'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``$50,676,000 for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1996, and $46,130,000 for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``There are authorized to be appropriated, out 
     of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the 
     National Science Foundation, $28,400,000 for fiscal year 
     1997, including $17,500,000 for engineering research and 
     $10,900,000 for geosciences research.''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``There are authorized to be appropriated, out 
     of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology, $1,932,000 
     for fiscal year 1997.''.

  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am 
offering is in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3322 and its contents 
have been alluded to in earlier debate. We will refer to this 
substitute as a Democratic substitute but I believe that it also 
represents the views of most moderate Republicans in the House and in 
the other body. It also seeks to preserve many investments in research 
and development initiated under the past Republican administrations of 
George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
  Mr. Chairman, the key feature of this substitute is that it provides 
sustaining funding this year for valuable science and technology 
programs within an overall balanced budget plan, the plan submitted by 
the administration on March 19. The Congressional Budget Office has 
certified that this plan does balance the budget by the year 2002.
  The substitute I am offering, like H.R. 3322, is a 1-year bill. This 
is a critical year, however, in the long-range context. There are now 
no real differences between the Democrats and Republicans over the 
commitment to cut spending and balance the budget. The question is one 
of priorities and of process, as I tried to describe a few minutes ago. 
How do we achieve this balanced budget and at the same time maintain 
critical levels of investment in the very things that have been the 
source of and necessary to continue to stimulate our economy?
  In reducing the size of Government, it is imperative that we 
recognize that this is not simply an accounting exercise. We must take 
a good hard look at the programs we want to preserve and provide the 
necessary funding to transition them to more efficient technologies 
while restructuring them in a sensible way. The Democratic substitute 
does this.
  We recognize that some agencies, such as NASA, have made heroic 
strides in downsizing and we have made an effort to meet their request 
levels to continue on this track. We have not rewarded them with 
additional cuts in personnel and programs as has H.R. 3322, an action 
that will only make it all the more difficult for them to achieve what 
we all want.
  This substitute also establishes priorities within R&D that best 
address some of our most pressing challenges in the future. This bill 
provides funding for technology partnerships in the Manufacturing 
Extension Program and the Advanced Technology Program. These efforts 
will increase the productivity of American industry to allow them to 
compete in the future world economy. In a more direct sense, these 
programs will provide jobs both today and in the future. However, these 
programs have fallen within the purview of what the chairman of our 
committee calls corporate welfare and they are scheduled to be 
eliminated by this legislation.

  The substitute also provides funding for energy conservation 
programs, solar and renewables, fossil energy programs, and fusion 
energy research. Some of these are in what I have described, either the 
liberal claptrap or corporate welfare category. At a time when our 
national attention is fixed on rising energy prices and our dependence 
on fluctuating world markets, it is imperative that we continue the 
drive for energy independence.
  In the environmental area, the substitute provides funding to develop 
a full understanding of key environmental issues such as ozone 
depletion and climate change in order to provide a basis for any future 
policy, regulation, or international agreement. Democrats strongly 
believe that the fundamental approach to risk-based regulations is 
sound R&D. We have not banned any research in this substitute as does 
H.R. 3322, nor have we taken the position that these problems will go 
away if we simply kill the research.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the substitute bill provides a balanced set of 
R&D priorities that include both basic and applied research. We believe 
that the concept of basic versus applied research are inseparable and 
both are valuable contributors to our long-term economic growth and 
intellectual leadership. We believe that a rigid ideological approach 
to restricting the Federal role only to basic research is profoundly 
misguided, and that position is one supported by the Council on 
Competitiveness.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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. We found in our markup before the Committee 
on Science that the authors of H.R. 3322 have a fundamental 
misconception of what basic research is. The categories of research 
they have defined as basic do not comport with any other definitions 
used by the OMB, by the American Association for the Advancement of 
Science, or by any other group that we know of. Yet the definitions 
that have been fabricated for the purpose of this bill constitute the 
underlying science policy and budget policy that the authors intend to 
guide the science establishment.
  We found, when examining the actual figures in H.R. 3322 and the 
substitute I am offering, that the Republican bill is virtually 
identical in fiscal year 1996 levels for overall basic research. My 
substitute represents an increase of about 3 percent over fiscal year 
1996 levels. Thus, contrary to the assertions of its authors, H.R. 3322 
offers no increase in basic research over the President or over my 
substitute. In fact, just the opposite is true.
  The most significant budgetary problem however, is represented by the 
nonbasic research programs that include such important activities as 
weather forecasting, aeronautical research, environmental research as 
well as personnel levels of scientists and engineers. The Republican 
bill cuts these accounts by over 7 percent in nominal terms, close to 
10 percent with inflation. My substitute provides enough to keep pace 
with inflation this year.
  I will close by acknowledging today that an even greater personal 
concern of mine is how these science programs will fare over the next 
decade. Although there has been an intense debate between the 
Republicans and the White House over how much to reduce discretionary 
spending as a part of any overall budget agreement, I personally 
believe that civilian R&D has suffered too much, especially in NASA. I 
hope that both sides can take a more enlightened look at the importance 
of our R&D investments over the long term and reassess our budget needs 
in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, I am enclosing with this statement a summary of the 
specific actions my substitute takes to address some of the 
shortcomings of H.R. 3322 and provide a more reasoned approach to R&D 
priorities this fiscal year. The Democratic substitute is better for 
the environment, better for job creation and competitiveness, better 
for education, and better for science. I ask all my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this amendment.

[[Page H5605]]

Comparison of H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act 
                   of 1996, and the Brown Substitute


                               background

       H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act 
     of 1996, was reported by the Science Committee on April 24, 
     1996. The bill authorizes research and other programs in FY 
     1997 for the National Science Foundation (NSF), National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Fire 
     Administration, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
     Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 
     Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Earthquake 
     Hazards Reduction Program. H.R. 3322 does not include the 
     Department of Energy (DOE), whose FY 97 research programs 
     were authorized by the House on October 12, 1995 (H.R. 2405). 
     It also does not include authorization for the Advanced 
     Technology Program (ATP) or the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership (NEP)--two NIST programs that are considered 
     high-priority by the Clinton Administration.
       A Democratic Alterative to H.R. 3322 which tracks the 
     President's FY 97 budget request was offered by Rep. George 
     Brown at Committee markup and was voted down 27-21 on a 
     straight party-line basis. Although the bill and the 
     Alternative are both described as consistent with a balanced 
     budget, they differ sharply on policy and funding.


              policy & funding provided by brown amendment

       For NSF: Adds $74M (4.4%) to overall budget, a 3% increase 
     over FY 96 versus less than 1% in H.R. 3322; restores $9M in 
     Salaries & Expenses account to avoid delays in processing 
     proposals; allows NSF to maintain the Directorate for Social, 
     Economic, and Behavioral Sciences; and eliminates $100M in 
     Facilities Modernization account to fund research instead of 
     bricks in accord with Director's request.
       For NASA: Adds $308M (2%) to overall budget; restores 
     funding to personnel account to avoid additional furloughs at 
     NASA centers; restores $374M (27%) cut from Mission to Planet 
     Earth and $34M (18%) cut from Advanced Subsonics Research; 
     fully funds President's request for Space Sciences account; 
     and gives a clear mandate to study the climate and 
     environment of Earth.
       For NOAA: Retains but streamlines the ``certification'' 
     process for closure of weather stations; Outlines policy for 
     promoting public and private roles in weather forecasting; 
     and Restores the bill's cuts in weather forecasting 
     activities and environmental research.
       For EPA: Restores $92M (16%) for environmental R&D 
     authorizes Superfund R&D and eliminates bans on climate, 
     indoor air and environmental technologies research.
       For NIST: Restores funding for the Technology 
     Administration ($10M), Advanced Technology Program ($345M), 
     and Manufacturing Extension Partnership ($105M)--all 
     eliminated by H.R. 3322 and funds Labs at the President's 
     request.
       For FAA: Consolidates scattered research accounts into a 
     single R&D account.
       For DOE: Restores deep cuts in Solar & Conservation (50%), 
     Renewables (30%), Biological and Environmental (10%), Fusion 
     (20%), and Fossil Research (30%) accounts, as required by the 
     House-passed H.R. 2405.


                                summary

       The Brown substitute supports ``basic research'', as 
     defined by the research agencies themselves, more generously 
     than the Republican bill ($6.02 vs. $5.85 billion). Brown 
     supports applied research and development much more 
     generously than H.R. 3322.
       The Brown substitute supports technology partnerships, 
     which are critical to creating high-wage jobs, as recommended 
     by the recent Council on Competitiveness report ``Endless 
     Frontier, Limited Resources: U.S. R&D Policy for 
     Competitiveness.''
       The Brown substitute supports important environmental 
     research initiatives, rather than screening these programs 
     through an ideological filter.

                                         BUDGET SUMMARY COMPARISON TABLE                                        
                                            [In millions of dollars]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Fiscal     Fiscal   H.R. 3322/    Brown   
                              Agency                                year 1995  year 1996     2405    alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF...............................................................      3,264      3,220      3,250       3,235 
NASA..............................................................     14,464     13,885     13,496      13,804 
USFA..............................................................         34         28         28          28 
NOAA\1\...........................................................      1,349      1,324      1,308       1,463 
EPA...............................................................        588        525        487         579 
Technology Administration.........................................          8          7          0          10 
NIST..............................................................        701        620        386         826 
FAA...............................................................          0        186        186         196 
NEHRP.............................................................          0         95         95          95 
DOE...............................................................      5,281      4,578      4,001       4,797 
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
      Total.......................................................     25,689     24,468     23,237      25,123 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NOAA funding figures reflect the status of the bill upon adoption of a Manager's amendment which removes    
  programs within the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. The bill as reported cuts an additional $170     
  million from these programs.                                                                                  

  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute.
  I do so for many reasons. The underlying bill is based upon a false 
premise and is basically an abdication of Federal participation in 
research and development.
  When I came to Congress I wanted to serve on the Science Committee 
because I recognize that, in addition to regulatory reform and 
balancing the budget, we need a sound research and development policy 
to achieve economic security.
  I can not begin to describe my disappointment over the way the 
Science Committee dealt with its authorization. Basically, we have 
abandoned any debate over policy in favor or partisanship. You will 
hear much rhetoric about how much the Science Committee contributed 
towards balancing the budget.
  The truth is that our committee was presented with alternative 
budgets for most of our accounts, all of which fell within the 
constraints of a balanced budget plan--the one put forward by the 
Senate Budget Committee, and here in the House by the coalition.
  Were these considered on their merits? No. Instead, Members were told 
that there was only one vision, the vision the chairman put forward 
about how much each Appropriations subcommittee 602(b) allocations 
would be dedicated to our accounts. This was not reality, and a further 
examination shows the fiscal year 1996 budget eventually turned out to 
be very much like the levels of the alternative proposals that had been 
based on balanced budgets put forward by both parties.
  Since last year's omnibus science bill did not accomplish much, we 
tried a different approach this year. What kind of improvements did we 
make?
  Well, the two most noticeable changes are that we skipped 
subcommittee markup, and also that we decided to consider a number of 
our programs outside Science Committee jurisdiction, while ignoring 
some major responsibilities.
  The Brown substitute is a much more realistic approach to meeting our 
Nation's research and development needs while still maintaining our 
commitment to a balanced budget. It is a vast improvement over the 
underlying bill in numerous ways, but the one I want to focus on is it 
includes something the manager's amendment does not--a title covering 
the Department of Energy's research and development programs.
  Last October, when the House considered H.R. 2405, an amendment 
offered by Chairman Walker was adopted which raised authorization 
levels for fiscal year 1996 to meet the previously appropriated level, 
but also set fiscal year 1997 levels.
  This amendment was clear evidence of how irrelevant the Science 
Committee has been in the area of energy research. The fiscal year 1996 
levels in the Walker amendment merely reflected what the appropriations 
had already done with these programs, and the fiscal year 1997 levels 
were not the result of Science Committee action.
  In the debate action over the inclusion of fiscal year 1997 
authorization in the Walker amendment, Science Committee Chairman 
Walker  stated, ``I never contended that I brought this matter before 
the committee. I brought it to the floor as my own amendment.''
  Since the House acted on H.R. 2405, there have been several 
developments which warrant reconsideration of these numbers.
  For instance, the Congressional Budget Office has revised its 
economic assumptions, resulting in greater flexibility in making 
discretionary spending decisions. Also, the Energy and Environment 
Subcommittee has held a series of hearings on energy research and 
development, which have proven to be very helpful in our ability to 
judge the value of the various programs in question.
  While I am grateful to Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman 
Rohrabacher for scheduling these hearings, they will be for nothing if 
the committee is unable to act on this hearing record in a timely 
manner.
  The need to revisit DOE R&D funding is apparently shared by Chairman 
Walker and Subcommittee Chairman Rohrabacher, who, when we marked up 
the bill we have here today, publicly pledged their willingness to move 
a fiscal year 1997 DOE R&D authorization bill.
  While I supported this approach, it is now becoming apparent that the 
markup of a separate DOE authorization will occur too late to influence 
this year's process.

                                  1730

  Mr. Chairman, a previous colleague of mine asked the question where 
is the beef. In western Pennsylvania, we would say this bill is all 
foam and no beer.

[[Page H5606]]

  Member's who are concerned about our energy security, and what we are 
doing to further it, should support the Brown substitute. Leaving it up 
to appropriators or the other body is not a responsible way to 
represent your constituents.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute which has been 
offered by the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill, which has been offered by the 
Committee on Science, the so-called Walker bill, I believe is a direct 
attack on America's investment in the future. The business, academic, 
and scientific communities all ought to be outraged by the legislation 
in the form that it has been offered. It does not take much of a look 
at this bill, Mr. Chairman, to see that it is the Brown substitute that 
is in the best interest of continued economic growth.
  We hear so much talk on the other side of the aisle how cutting taxes 
for the wealthy will lead to job growth, meanwhile this bill pulls the 
rug out from under the efforts to create whole new industries. One 
minute our Republican colleagues insist that we do away with 
regulations that supposedly stand in the way of job growth and the next 
minute they are cutting opportunities for new high paying jobs.
  Civilian R&D, in my view, has been over the years, and will continue 
to be, about a lot more than just jobs, just the jobs that are involved 
in the research itself. The new technologies that offer potential from 
that R&D include:
  More effective law enforcement; the reduction of environmental 
pollution; efficient environmental cleanups; increased national 
security; and more disposable income that we, as Americans, need from 
the savings that can be made through energy conservation.
  That is naming a very few of those available.
  Civilian R&D is probably the best way of ensuring that America 
remains competitive in the global economy, yet the underlying bill 
here, the Walker bill, reduces our chance to remain preeminent in 
science and technology, a preeminence which testifier after testifier 
said we were in danger of losing if we did not keep up our input and 
our commitment to our research base.
  What we will end up with here is the need to import those new 
technologies from elsewhere if we lose the preeminence that we have had 
over a long period of time and our trade imbalance will now become a 
trade imbalance on the very thing that we have been the leaders on over 
decades, ever since the Second World War, really, in those areas of the 
development of new technologies and the wonderful research and 
development programs that we have maintained in this country over a 
period of at least 50 years.

  Mr. Chairman, I think it is irresponsible and shortsighted for the 
Congress to cut funding for energy conservation and to cut funding for 
renewable energy research. It is a wipeout of the funding for energy 
conservation research and a wipeout of the research into renewable 
energy sources. This bill erases any semblance of a national energy 
policy. Gone. Simply gone. Nonexistent with this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is the way we should be preparing 
for the 21st century, as critical as the use of energy is in this whole 
society of ours.
  Now, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric on the other side about 
defending basic research. In the underlying bill the Republican 
proposals are seriously less supportive of basic research than the 
substitute from the gentleman, the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California. The Republican explanations, which claim a more generous 
level for basic research funding, are based on an arbitrary 
classification of basic versus applied definitions, which we can all 
argue about, but it is an arbitrary definition which is not the 
definition of the standard classification as has been used by the OMB 
and which is also the classification used in all of the historical data 
for baseline comparisons on Federal investments in research.
  For the NSF, which has been our premier basic research agency, 
support agency for everything but the biomedical sciences, the 
substitute bill by the gentleman from California provides growth of at 
least $70 million more than the underlying bill. For research project 
support, the difference in growth is $82 million greater on the part of 
the Brown substitute than from the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, these differences stand out in light of the many times 
we have heard Republican claims about the high priority that they place 
on basic research in the Federal R&D budget.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Olver was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the cold war is over, a fact which has 
changed our economy, so that civilian research is key to meeting our 
challenges under the new economy. We should be working to develop new 
technologies that will provide new opportunities to high-tech workers 
in civilian industries. And though the cold war may be over, the 
technological war has just begun.
  America should be on the verge of a new technological frontier and 
making certain that we maintain our preeminence in both science and 
technology in this world. Yes, we have a budget deficit. Yes, we should 
eliminate waste. Yes, we should be extremely careful in how we expend 
every dollar that is spent, but the Brown substitute is in line with a 
balanced budget without retreating from scientific and technological 
excellence in this country. The underlying bill, I believe, is 
irresponsible as a scientist, and America deserves better.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the substitute from the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute, and I want 
to take a moment to say something about it. It is the right thing to 
do.
  What I mean by that is that the Federal Government is fulfilling its 
proper role when it encourages technological research and development. 
It is fulfilling its proper role when it encourages us to look beyond 
our atmosphere for the answers to the questions we face.
  Most of us can agree that the very nature of the Federal Government 
is changing. The functions that the Government has had throughout our 
lifetimes are changing--this is as it should be. The Federal Government 
needs to be much smaller and more responsive to the American people. 
And we are beginning to move in that direction.
  For example, NASA should concentrate on reducing costs and 
encouraging greater involvement by the private sector. In conversations 
I have had with Administrator Goldin, I know that he is eager to 
continue the agency's trends in this direction.
  But I believe fundamentally that the United States should maintain 
its position as the leader in science and space research.
  Two weeks ago in this room we met to debate the 1997 budget 
resolution. The Blue Dogs submitted their budget plan which would have 
set us on a path to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. It would have 
forced all of us to tighten our belts a notch or two and get our fiscal 
house in order. In fact, our plan borrowed $137 billion less than the 
majority version. Unfortunately our budget plan was defeated.
  But Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog budget, which garnered significant 
bipartisan support, specifically endorsed the funding levels for 
science and technology contained in this substitute. We did this 
because we believed that America must continue to be a leader. H.R. 
3322 is a step away from the cutting edge. That is not a direction I 
want to go.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that I do not endorse 
increased spending lightly. We have to think about the return on our 
investments. Keeping these programs properly funded is an investment we 
can count on. I urge my colleagues to support the Brown substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the bill in favor of the 
gentleman's substitute amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

[[Page H5607]]

  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown 
substitute to H.R. 3322. This so-called omnibus bill has several 
missing pieces.
  This omnibus bill does not contain an authorization for the 
Department of Commerce's technology programs housed at the National 
Institute of Science and Technology. These programs are designed to 
help industry develop new technologies. They provide medium-sized 
companies with scarce matching funds and necessary manufacturing 
information.
  H.R. 3322 cuts personnel accounts at the National Weather Service. 
Coming from Florida where hurricanes are a major weather threat, I feel 
that these cuts are unjustifiable. This action leaves many areas of the 
country at risk from severe weather events.
  But this measure does not stop there. It also takes shots at another 
major presence in Florida, NASA. The funding levels proposed in the 
bill translate into personnel layoffs at the NASA facilities in 
Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I could go on, but these few examples are proof enough 
that his bill needs fixing. I urge opposition to this bill and support 
the Brown substitute.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3322 seeks to create the 
impression that we are considering an omnibus civilian science 
proposal, but we are not. Noticeably absent are the energy research and 
development [R&D] programs at the Department of Energy [DOE]. How do we 
explain the absence of about $4.7 billion in authorizations for the 
civilian science programs at DOE?
  Federal support for R&D is the quintessential investment in our 
Nation's future. Unfortunately, despite 50 years of strong bipartisan 
support, the Republican leadership now treats R&D as a low priority. 
The overall reduction would be $711 million below this year's funding 
and nearly $800 million below the President's proposal. Solar and 
renewable energy research would be cut 34 percent. Conservation energy 
R&D would be slashed 43 percent. Fuel Cell research would be cut 66 
percent. And I would remind my colleagues that this is all being done 
in 1 year, not over 5 years or 7 years.
  We cannot let stand congressional proposals that endanger our ability 
to create more high-income jobs in developing industries as well as to 
promote safer, more cost-efficient and environmentally sensitive energy 
technologies.
  R&D is responsible for approximately one-half of the productivity 
improvements in the Nation's economy. Technological innovation is the 
single most important source of long-term economic growth, and the 
total economic return on investment in R&D is several times as high as 
for other forms of investment.
  While Republicans seek to make political hay out of the gas price 
spike we are currently suffering, they are cutting the research at DOE 
that moves us away from dependence upon gasoline. While Senator Dole 
proposes a cut in the gas tax, House Republicans propose to cut DOE's 
transportation energy research budget by $66.8 million below this 
year's funding, a 38 percent cut.
  We don't know when or if the Republicans will make good on these 
threats to cut DOE. For the sake of my home State of California, I hope 
they do not. The Department of Energy calculated that California 
received about $722 million in energy R&D funding in fiscal year 1995. 
We are heavily involved in programs like energy conservation research, 
and research on fusion energy development, both of which are hit 
heavily in the Republican proposals. I mentioned fuel cell research as 
an area being targeted and as one that is important to a state seeking 
to sustain our economic recovery while maintaining our air quality. In 
the Third District, we have the University of California at Davis, 
which ranks in the top 20 universities in Federal research grants and 
is responsible for managing three DOE laboratories. All of these 
programs are at risk if the Republican committee proposal prevails.
  The substitute offered by Mr. Brown today contains all of the 
programs that should be in an omnibus bill, including the DOE programs. 
And it funds them at the President's request level. If you are 
concerned, as I am, about our energy future you will support Mr. Brown. 
If you want energy security in the future, as I know the residents of 
my State do, you will support the Brown substitute.

                                  1745

  So I certainly wish today to go on record in support of my 
colleague's substitute amendment, and in strong opposition to the bill 
as it has been reported out of the Committee on Science.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown substitute to the 
Omnibus science bill. The substitute provides, in my opinion, more 
adequate funding levels and makes a better investment in environment, 
science, and technology.
  Mr. Chairman, like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] who rose, 
I was a strong supporter of the so-called blue dog budget each time it 
has been offered. That budget reached balance within 6 years. It 
reached balance by cutting more spending, frankly, than any of the 
alternatives that were offered on this floor, and it reduced the 
deficit more quickly than any other alternative on this floor.
  But as the gentleman from Texas, who is in my opinion the premier 
balanced-budget individual on this floor in either party, said so 
correctly, that budget provided for adequate funds to fund the space 
and science programs addressed by this bill more adequately than are 
provided in this bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the Brown amendment authorizes funding 
for Mission to Planet Earth at the President's requested level of $1.4 
billion. The restoration of the President's request would eliminate the 
27-percent cut to the Earth observing system which is the centerpiece 
of NASA's contribution to the global effort to understand how the 
Earth's climate works and to use that technology to improve our lives.
  I personally consider Mission to Planet Earth to be one of NASA's and 
America's most promising and important undertakings. I am pleased of 
course that Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, has the lead 
responsibility for implementing the critical research program which 
helps us as a Nation and as a people to understand the Earth's global 
environment.
  A perspective from space, Mr. Chairman, is critical. Only from above 
is it realistically possible to observe distant parts of the world's 
oceans, deserts, and polar regions, using a macro approach. But most 
importantly, it allows people to be more informed about what is 
happening in their own State or their own region.
  Mission to Planet Earth will further the understanding of the causes 
of natural disasters, and how to respond to them. The Earth observing 
system, the core component of Mission to Planet Earth, will 
dramatically improve agricultural and natural resources productivity. 
In fact, it is likely to allow climate predictions a year or more in 
advance.

  Not only will this serve as a scientific benefit, but it will result 
in substantial benefits and saving to policymakers, the taxpayers, 
farmers, and busnesspeople alike. I might say, Mr. Chairman, as an 
aside, to golfers as well.
  Mission to Planet Earth is still an evolving program. Reducing the 
funding level does not take into account the substantial reductions the 
program has already undergone. It also sends the wrong message to our 
international partners who have invested in this globally integrated 
program.
  Over the last 5 years, NASA has reduced funding for the program 
through the year 2000 by 60 percent while still maintaining the 24 
critical science measurements endorsed by the greater science community 
and preserving critical launch schedules.
  In addition, NASA has committed to further reducing costs and 
duplicate tasks through incorporation of technology and stronger links 
with commercial interagency and international partners.
  If Congress wants to keep the program viable, we must realize that 
enough is enough. We have cut, but if we cut more, we will cut very 
deeply and seriously into the effectiveness of a critical program. I 
believe we must continue this investment in understanding the planet.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I will say that the salary and expense 
levels provided in the Brown substitute will preclude substantial 
numbers of layoffs

[[Page H5608]]

and/or RIF's, which will further undermine the effectiveness of this 
program. I regret very seriously that the bill itself has proposed such 
serious cuts in salary and expense levels.
  If the programs are to continue, we need to provide for the 
appropriate level of funding for those who will continue that program.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Brown 
substitute, which provides funding for Mission to Planet Earth at the 
President's requested level. I plan to work with the Committee on 
Appropriations to ensure that objective as well.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown substitute. 
Unlike the underlying bill, the amendment authorizes the energy program 
of the Department of Energy at appropriate levels for 1997.
  Last year's authorization bill contained a 2-year authorization for 
the Department of Energy, and the bill before us today makes no mention 
of these programs. That leaves us with the authorization levels from 
last year's bill, and that is not good policy. Mr. Chairman, by 
allowing these authorization levels to stand, we are giving away our 
responsibility to provide program directions.
  The amendment makes the tough choices we need to fund energy 
programs. Fossil energy programs are scaled back while the overall 
level for energy R&D is funded at a higher level than the House budget 
resolution.
  The amendment provides full funding for fusion energy research and 
development on a bipartisan basis. Over 65 Members of the House signed 
letters to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], requesting full funding of 
these programs.
  The amendment also enhances basic research at the Department of 
Energy. This amendment provides almost $60 million more for high energy 
and nuclear physics research than the current authorization levels.
  The amendment also provides full funding for such crucial programs as 
the Environmental Technologies Initiative, the U.S. Global Change 
Research Program, and high-performance computing programs at the 
Department of Energy.
  These sensible authorization levels do not bust the budget. The 
figures of the Brown substitute are consistent with a balanced budget 
by year 2002 as presented by both the President and the Coalition, the 
blue dog's budget.
  I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for a reasonable energy policy.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this substitute offered by Mr. Brown tries, I think, to 
achieve a balance between short-term, medium-term and long-term 
research goals in the Federal Government, and has done so in a sound, 
fiscally responsible manner.
  The bill represents a best effort to develop a research and 
development policy that reflects today's economic realities and the 
need to balance the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, our Government needs to be an ally of business, not an 
adversary, and the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] tries to make that truly come to pass. The amendment follows the 
advice of the recently released Council on Competitiveness report 
entitled ``Endless Frontier, Limited Resources.'' The report's central 
finding is that research and development partnerships hold the key to 
meeting the challenge of transition that our Nation now faces.
  Included in this definition of partnerships are the Partnership for a 
New Generation Vehicle, the Advanced Technology Program, and 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. H.R. 3322 moves in a 
direction that is counter to the council's recommendations, and in my 
opinion, has potentially devastating consequences for our country's 
future.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill itself maintains the outdated distinction, 
again quoting the Council on Competitiveness report, between basic and 
applied research; and based on this distinction, eliminates funding for 
applied research and government-industry-university partnerships, which 
almost everyone who has studied this equation from a nonbiased point of 
view thinks is a shortsighted way to go in the future, and is not going 
to be at all helpful for the scientific community in this country.
  The Brown substitute authorizes at a level consistent with balancing 
the budget as has been stated in the blue dog coalition budget and, in 
my judgment, goes in the direction we need to go.
  Over and over again today we see business, because of the vagaries in 
the marketplace, unable to invest in ``blue sky'' research; that 
research that does not have in its immediate vision a way to bring a 
product to market and manufacture and market it commercially, in other 
words, get a return on investment.
  These partnerships then become all the more important for our country 
to maintain its technological and scientific base. With these 
partnerships, not giveaways and grants, but partnerships where industry 
working with government can both reap a reward from breakthrough, new 
technologies.

  This is serious business. The Brown substitute, in my judgment, is 
much more responsible to maintain and enhance on the scientific and 
technology base that exists in business, industry, and universities, 
and Federal laboratories across the country, and I would urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons why the substitute offered by 
the gentleman from California ought to be approved by this House, but 
let me just name two.
  First, at a time when this Nation should be marching boldly into the 
information age, the Science Committee has reported a timid bill that 
is wholly inadequate to the technological challenges that confront us.
  This bill reported by the Science Committee cuts $1.2 billion from 
the President's science and technology request. Basic research alone is 
$170 million below the President's request.
  This bill is plainly not the best we can do. It will make it harder 
for us to harness the enormous promise of the information age, to 
conduct the basic research that will make America more productive, and 
to improve the scientific proficiency of American schoolchildren.
  Second, this bill is a slap in the face to the dedicated Federal 
workers who administer our research portfolio. This includes employees 
of NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation. For the NSF alone, 
it actually cuts $7 million from the agency's salaries and expenses.
  This cut is made despite the fact that the NSF has one of the best 
records in Government of holding its costs down. Only 4 percent of the 
NSF's budget goes to internal operations. During the past decade, the 
NSF work force has remained constant in the face of a doubling of its 
workload.
  How does the Science Committee propose to reward this outstanding 
record? With a cut in salaries and expenses that will cause the loss of 
as many as 120 positions from the agency, that's how. The Brown 
substitute restores these cuts and assures that the NSF and other 
agencies will have the resources they need to administer the agency's 
enormous research program effectively.
  Mr. Speaker, when the leadership of this House closed the Government 
down at Christmas, there was a picture that appeared in many 
newspapers. It showed the mailroom of the National Science Foundation 
piling up with research proposals.
  When we finally ended that shutdown and reopened American Government, 
the scientists and engineers at the NSF went quietly back to work, 
cleared out the backlog, and got our civilian science program back on 
its feet. It's just plain wrong to now cut what has plainly been an 
exceedingly well-run agency.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Brown substitute.

                                  1800

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon in opposition to H.R. 3322 and in 
strong support of the Brown substitute. We have been lulled into 
complacency by the last few years of ample energy supplies. It should 
not take a dramatic

[[Page H5609]]

rise in the price of gasoline for Congress to remember our 
responsibilities to the energy supply and to the security of this 
Nation.
  Unless we pass the Brown substitute, this Congress will only 
perpetuate the type of complacency that we cannot accept. We need only 
look to the Middle East to see how our energy security and national 
security are intimately related. We fought the Persian Gulf war in 
large part over a threat to our oil supply. The Department of Energy is 
forecasting that we will become even more dependent on this volatile 
source of energy during the next 20 years.
  Our only insurance policy against future energy security problems, 
like more gas hikes, further pollution and degradation of the 
environment, is energy research and development. Yet the bill before us 
today continues extreme cuts to energy research and development that 
were passed last year by this Chamber in a truncated process and are 
again a part of this year's budget resolution. In fact, this year's 
cuts in renewable and solar research and development are an additional 
30 percent from last year, which was cut 30 percent from 1995. Thus, 
this bill represents a 50-percent cut from the President's request.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority must believe that the American people will 
not notice that Congress is cutting energy efficiency and renewable 
research and development. Perhaps they think the American people will 
not care. However, poll after poll shows that the American people not 
only know about these programs but overwhelmingly support them. Every 
single day, the American people appreciate the lower electricity and 
heating bills that Federal energy research and development has brought 
to them because of energy efficient refrigerators and new window 
technologies. With each new breakthrough in renewable fuels, this 
country moves closer to the day when we can significantly reduce our 
dependence on imported oil and become more self-sufficient in all forms 
of energy. It will also increase our chronic trade deficit problem. 
Roughly 50 percent of our trade deficit is caused by the imports of 
foreign oil. That also augers well for our national security, enabling 
us to become less vulnerable to interruptions in supply from foreign 
oil sources.
  Expanding the development of renewable energy is beneficial to our 
national economy. Exports of these new energy technologies on the world 
market are a significant opportunity. American entrepreneurs and 
national labs in our country represent the cutting edge of this 
industry. We must not pull the plug on the small businesses that are in 
this field and lose out on this untapped potential.
  Mr. Chairman, renewable energy technologies provide a boost in 
economic benefits to our rural communities. Farmer-owned ethanol plants 
have brought new jobs to many declining rural communities that depend 
on corn production, not to mention the benefit of displacing imported 
oil. Wind energy is another cutting edge technology that holds promise 
throughout the windy Great Plains States, yet the committee's budget 
zeroes out wind energy research and development funding just when the 
industry is on the verge of production cost competitiveness.
  We must not overlook the environmental benefits that renewable energy 
technologies provide. As clean technologies like wind, biomass, solar, 
geothermal, and hydro continue to displace coal and oil, the air we 
breathe will improve.

  I would also like to point out, as have several other speakers, that 
the Brown substitute is compatible with the Blue Dog balanced budget. 
Do not believe the complaints from the other side that say that support 
for the Brown substitute will bust the budget. It is not true. The 
American public understands that we have too much at stake in energy 
security, in curbing pollution, and creating and capturing high 
technology markets. Let us show the American people that Congress has 
gotten the message.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Brown substitute that would fully 
fund energy research and development activities and oppose H.R. 3322.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago, I arrived in the U.S. 
Congress and had the pleasure of being able to be assigned to the House 
Committee on Science, a committee that I thought had as its message and 
mission the creation of work for the 21st century. It is in this 
committee's responsibility or amongst its responsibilities to be the 
guiding force and partner with the private sector as it relates to 
research and development, space and environmental research, as well. 
But at the same time, I have argued vigorously for an inner-city 
district, like the 18th Congressional District, that our support of 
science creates opportunities for our young people as we move toward 
the 21st century.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is with great sadness that I rise, as I have 
indicated, in opposition to the present H.R. 3322 and vigorously 
support the Brown substitute, hoping that we will have an opportunity 
to support this amendment in a balanced and bipartisan manner, for this 
is in fact a representative of a balanced approach to science as we 
move toward the 21st century. It recognizes the responsibility that we 
have for fiscal integrity. But, at the same time, it acknowledges what 
role we have on the world arena in terms of supporting science.
  The Brown amendment, in fact, restores cuts in salaries and expense 
accounts, preventing delays in the processing of scientific grant 
proposals throughout the country for the National Science Foundation, 
one of the premier institutions that helps to carry the message of 
science across this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition, it allows the National Science Foundation 
to maintain a directorate for the social, economic, and behavioral 
sciences. It restores the $2 billion that is so needed to make our 
science mission a real mission.
  As it relates to NASA, the Brown substitute protects the President's 
request for Mission to Planet Earth but, more important, allows us to 
study the environmental impact on all that is occurring around us. It 
gives us long-range planning opportunities, and it provides a clear 
mandate from NASA to study the climate and environment of the Earth, 
something that I would imagine none of us would disagree with.
  In particular something that I am very concerned about, having 
visited several of our NASA centers around the Nation and, in fact, 
watched NASA over the last year and a half almost reduce itself to a 
lean, mean operating machine, and yet we are cutting some $18.5 million 
in salaries, which will drastically cut into the NASA centers and 
jeopardize NASA's ability to safely deliver its programs. That is a 
reduction in force totaling 1,400 employees by October 1, 1996, a 
physical legal impossibility, or an agencywide furlough of 21,000 
employees for 12 to 14 days. Someone would simply ask the question: How 
much more can we take? Are we really serious about our commitment to 
science and research in this Nation?

  Then might I add, in my dismay as I looked at this legislation for 
the Department of Energy and the research and technology research that 
it provides, it is not listed. And I would like to bring to the 
attention of the chairman a letter that I received from my department 
of commerce in the State of Texas, acknowledging the importance of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology and the MEP Program in 
particular. The kind of small- and medium-sized companies that benefit 
from MEP employ nearly 12 million people, roughly 65 percent of the 
manufacturing work force. This amendment and substitute restores that 
funding.
  Last year over 25,000 of these small businesses benefited from the 
MEP support, and more than 1,300 letters of support were sent to 
Congress from small businesses. Are we for the small business 
community? I do not know about that.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation that is on the floor does not seem to 
suggest that we are prepared to provide small businesses the 
opportunity for science and research. The Brown amendment does. Then we 
want to close out on the Advanced Technology Program. I am shocked when 
we begin to look at this country's role on the international arena. 
This should be a bipartisan, unified effort to support a program that 
provides a partnership.

[[Page H5610]]

  We are not asking for Government dominance, but we are asking for the 
Government to recognize they have a real role in research and 
development with the private sector. We are abdicating that 
responsibility. I support the Brown substitute because it clearly 
acknowledges that.
  Mr. Chairman, European nations are accelerating investment in 
commercial technology. Japan has plans in the works to double the 
government's science program. China plans to triple its investment in 
R&D. Korea has considerably boosted its R&D efforts. Mr. Chairman, it 
is important that we respond to the international arena of science in a 
bipartisan way. Support NASA with the personnel funding. Support these 
science programs as well as these research and development efforts. Let 
us support the Brown substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before us for our consideration, the Brown 
substitute to H.R. 3322. This substitute has what H.R. 3322 does not 
have--a balanced and thoughtful approach to this Nation's research and 
development, science, and space enterprises. The Democrats on the 
committee felt that too many changes were necessary to make the 
chairman's bill a satisfactory piece of legislation and that the 
only way to address many of the problems was to offer a complete 
substitute. Although this committee has oversight responsibilities, it 
has been my experience that only disaster can result when people 
without expertise or experience begin to micromanage what they do not 
know, as in the case of H.R. 3322. This legislation continues to 
attempt to force the Republican ideological and personal viewpoints 
upon not only the rest of the Nation, but the futures of our children 
as well. They criticize EPA and environmental regulations, but won't 
allow the agency to conduct the research to answer important questions.

  Among the many problems contained within the chairman's bill which 
the Brown substitute fixes are:
  The Republican's personal and lonely vendetta against NASA's Mission 
To Planet Earth Program, reducing the administration's request by more 
than $300 million, eliminating spacecraft and restructuring the program 
even though he has never actually had to operate or run a multibillion 
dollar space program. The President has made this program a NASA 
priority, the Senate has strongly supported this program, and the 
chairman's own National Research Council evaluation validated it.
  The substitute includes the $81.5 million requested by the 
administration for NASA salaries and personnel, but cut by the 
chairman. If this substitute fails I will offer a separate amendment to 
add back this $81.5 million. While this may not seem like much to the 
Republicans, they still have their jobs and are not threatened with a 
layoff or reduction in force [RIF]. A cut of this magnitude will mean 
that the hardworking employees of the Johnson Space Center in Houston 
will have to forgo pay that they have earned and deserve.
  The substitute supports the basic research components of the 
administration's multiagency research initiatives in important areas to 
the Nation's economic future: high performance computing, and 
communications, environment and natural resources, and advanced 
manufacturing techniques.
  The substitute includes a Department of Energy title, which the 
chairman's bill does not and it reverses the deep Republican cuts in 
fossil R&D, solar and renewables R&D conservation R&D and fusion energy 
R&D, the MEP and ATP.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Brown substitute as an attempt 
to reach a moderate approach consistent with a balanced budget to our 
national science and technology policy. As we review the activity, to 
the extent there has been any in this Gingrich Congress with reference 
to science and technology, I think it has to be conceded that the major 
accomplishment of the House Committee on Science over this Congress 
occurred on the first day of Congress. That was the day that the name 
of the committee was changed. Since the time of the name change, other 
than that, the activity of the committee has been pretty downhill.
  After embracing some of the Gingrich agenda to hamstring Federal 
health and safety regulation and pursuing a technology policy that 
basically said, if our research has any immediate application, then we 
do not want to fund it, we only want to fund the most theoretical 
research, the committee basically has done very little. For over 4 
months, it did not meet at all. Last year it has as its monument, as a 
committee of this Congress, it has one committee report. It did not 
manage to get a single thing written into law during all of 1995. And 
today the do-little approach of this do-little committee is projected 
through the legislation that is offered tonight as an alternative to 
the Brown substitute. It says we ought to do the same thing with 
reference to the future of this country in science and technology. You 
see, instead of the kind of dispassionate, bipartisan, moderate 
approach of moving forward that occurred not just in prior Democratic 
administrations but in prior Republican administrations of people 
working together realizing that, if there is any subject that ought to 
be bipartisan, it is science and technology policy.
  We have substituted the scoring apparently of political points for 
that kind of moderate approach and substituted arrogance for reasoned 
discourse. Let me give just a few examples of how the Brown substitute, 
an alternative, proposes to deal with these problems. First in the area 
of the National Science Foundation, as my colleague from Virginia 
pointed out, this is a fairly small agency. All this talk about 
bureaucracy, it has a very efficient program. About 4 percent of its 
budget of the tax dollars are spent on administration. To be sure, we 
are getting a return on our research dollars. The other 96 percent is 
spent on research, going out mainly to university research: Yet, it is 
that agency that the proposal that is before us tonight would do 
substantial damage to. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] seeks 
to minimize the amount of that damage, not really to extend and advance 
significantly the fine work of the National Science Foundation, but at 
least to mitigate the damage.
  A second example is with reference to the environment. Now, I know 
that the real monument of this Gingrich Congress has been its attempt 
to cut Medicare. But ranking right up there with the effort to cut 
Medicare surely is the effort to aid every polluter in the country with 
reference to the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, we remember last year the enactment in this House of 
the Dirty Water Act that would end 20 years of the national cleanup of 
pollution of our streams and lakes and rivers, a proposal that the New 
York Times succinctly described as one that would make it easier for 
polluters to pollute; but that is no surprise because polluters wrote 
the bill.

                                  1815

  Then all of last fall we had all these antienvironmental riders that 
would get tacked on without a hearing that would propose to hamstring 
first one Federal agency after another in protecting the public health 
and safety with reference to our environment, and we have had one thing 
after another, and this year the only thing different was some memo 
that came out from the Republican House conference that suggested 
Republican Members go out and hug trees and go to zoos and pet animals 
to indicate they really were not as antienvironmental as appeared to be 
the case.
  And so now we come to the science budget, and the continuation of 
this extremist agenda is to simply say that certain types of research 
will be off limits. We do not want to know what the good science will 
show with reference to these areas, we want to prohibit research 
altogether.
  For example, long-term climate change research at one Federal agency, 
indoor air research at another agency, and cut renewable energy 
research by 50 percent, some restricted, some significantly reduced, 
and I suppose that that is consistent with the comment of one of the 
House Republican leaders that a scientist, a distinguished chemist who 
got an award, the Nobel Prize, for his work in chemistry in discovering 
the link between chlorofluoro- carbons and ozone depletion in our 
atmosphere, he was referred to as having received the Noble appeasement 
award.
  It is that kind of extremist endeavor that is carried on in this bill 
that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] proposes to ameliorate, 
and I heartily support his effort to do that.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute amendment offered 
by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  One of the serious problems with H.R. 3322 is the omission of 
research

[[Page H5611]]

conducted by the Department of Energy. This substitute restores funding 
for these programs. We made tremendous progress and received Noble 
prizes for the research conducted in labs funded under research 
programs by the Department of Energy. The Thomas Jefferson National 
Accelerator Facility in Virginia is the Department of Energy facility 
that supports a national subatomic particle research. This facility 
provides the Nation a unique tool for exploring the structure of the 
nucleus of an atom and for dramatically increasing our understanding of 
how the basic building blocks of nature work. The Transfer Technology 
Program funded by the Department of Energy includes the very best 
scientific research facilities in the Nation. Under the guidance of the 
Laser Processing Consortium, which includes 22 laboratories and 
universities on three continents, we have developed cutting-edge 
technologies that will be critical in our future health and national 
economic well-being. As a nation we must retain our edge to meet the 
coming international competition.

  Another program, Mr. Chairman, funded under this substitute is the 
Mission to Planet Earth project under NASA. Two satellites not funded 
under the base bill are essential to determining how climate changes. 
Not the impact of weather changes; we know how floods and tornados and 
droughts and snow affect our climates, but we need the information that 
will be collected by CHEM-1 and P.M.-1 satellites which will help to 
establish early warning systems, provide information on natural 
irrigation channels and assist in recognizing the power of wind, water, 
and natural vegetation on our home planet.
  I am also pleased to see the restoration in the substitute of the 20-
percent funding cut in H.R. 3322 of the NASA advanced subsonic program. 
This funding is vitally important to maintaining this Nation's 
longstanding leadership on subsonic research. We need the studies on 
aging aircraft used in the newer economy airlines, we need the 
improvement of safety of our air traffic control systems, and we need 
the research and development of the quieter, more fuel efficient and 
environmentally safe aircraft.
  I acknowledge and support the need to cut Government spending where 
appropriate in order to meet our budget responsibilities, but such a 
cut to NASA's aeronautics program are extremely counterproductive to 
our shared goals of creating a stronger economy and a stronger America.
  I ask that we support the Brown substitute.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Science, I rise today 
in strong support of the Brown substitute and against H.R. 3322.
  Over the shoulders of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] in 
the Committee on Science hearing room is a biblical quotation which 
reads, ``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' In my view, 
H.R. 3322 is a bill without vision. Because of its shortsighted cuts to 
civilian R&D our Nation's leadership position on science and technology 
issues may very well perish in the not too distant future.
  The Brown substitute offers a much different vision of the Federal 
Government's role in research and development. It represents a vision 
that Government can and should be a partner with industry as we move 
into the 21st century. Its enactment is critical for our future.
  A key difference between the Brown substitute and H.R. 3322 is the 
treatment of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. This important program 
will provide us with a better scientific understanding of global change 
and directly stimulate American interests around the globe.
  As an example, Mission to Planet Earth-generated data will help 
scientists answer key questions about our planet's changing climate and 
will help farmers understand and predict El Nino positions, allowing 
them to plant their crops accordingly.
  Unlike the Brown substitute, which funds Mission to Planet Earth at 
the administration's requested level, H.R. 3322 dramatically slashes 
the program by $374 million in fiscal year 1997. This cut flies counter 
to the National Research Council's comprehensive review of the program, 
a review requested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
himself.
  The review was clear, the science underlying the Mission to Planet 
Earth Program is fundamentally sound. The PM-1 and CHEM-1 mission 
should be implemented without delay. Dr. Ed Frieman, who chaired the 
study, testified before the Committee on Science that postponing PM and 
CHEM would not only cause delay, but also would increase costs.
  At a March Committee on Science hearing on global climate change in 
the Mission to Planet Earth Program, not a single witness advocated 
canceling the PM and CHEM mission. No one urged the committee to chop 
$374 million from the program. Even renowned global warming skeptics 
agreed that more data on climate change was a necessity.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to be doing more, not less research into 
difficult scientific questions like climate change. Good science is 
good business. We must be visionary, not reactionary. I urge Members to 
support the Brown substitute, a strong vision for our Nation's science 
and technology future.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] 
for her words about restoring the funding to the NASA personnel 
account. That was a cut that should not have been made, and, as I think 
we noted when we marked up H.R. 3322 at full committee, these personnel 
funding cuts would cause a very severe hardship on the very hard-
working men and women at NASA centers, something that was confirmed in 
writing by the NASA comptroller some time ago.
  I certainly rise in support of the Brown substitute and particularly 
the provisions relating to the NASA administration. As I mentioned in 
the general debate, while H.R. 3322 maintains full funding for the 
space station and biomedical research; I am grateful for that; I like 
that part of it; I have been troubled by some of the other cuts to NASA 
though in the bill, and I am pleased that the Brown substitute would 
correct these problems.
  First, the substitute funds NASA at the level of the President's 
request, $13.8 billion. It is a reasonable funding level, maintaining 
our commitment to NASA's programs and its dedicated personnel while at 
the same time continuing our commitment to deficit reduction. It is not 
a budget buster, and in fact the level of NASA funding contained in the 
Brown substitute and in the President's request is almost $100 million 
below the fiscal year 1996 appropriation for NASA.
  Second, the Brown substitute fully funds the space station as well as 
the biomedical research that I believe will develop and develop into 
very important benefits to all of our citizens, young and old.
  So I am pleased that NASA and the National Institutes of Health are 
working together effectively on a wide range of cooperative research 
activities, and the Brown substitute will allow that significant 
research to continue.
  Third, the Brown substitute will restore funding that was cut from a 
number of critical accounts. In addition to the funding for Mission to 
Planet Earth, which I am sure other Members have addressed or will 
address, the Brown substitute restores funding for the Advanced 
Subsonic Aeronautical Research Program. The funding will allow NASA to 
continue several things, among them research to address safety concerns 
relating to aging aircraft, collaborative initiatives with the Federal 
Aviation Administration to improve the safety and efficiency of the 
Nation's air traffic management system, R&D to develop the technologies 
for quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft, R&D for general aviation 
commuter aircraft.
  Mr. Chairman, the Brown substitute also restores the funding that was 
cut from NASA's personnel account, and I have addressed that, and it 
was very well addressed, and the NASA comptroller had already stated 
that the proposed cuts to the salaries and expense accounts would 
result in furloughs at the NASA centers, something that I believe no 
Member of Congress wants to impose on the hard-working employees of the 
space agency.

[[Page H5612]]

  Further, the Brown substitute restores the funding for facilities and 
maintenance facilities at the center. That is very important. The one-
third cut to the maintenance budget contained in H.R. 3322 would hurt 
the ability of the centers to carry out their missions in a safe and 
timely manner. So we should not really be making cuts that lead to 
higher costs down the road, as is usually the case when we cut the 
deferred maintenance.
  All in all, Mr. Chairman, the Brown substitute maintains our historic 
support of the U.S. space program and provides the responsible level of 
funding for NASA and its activities. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Brown amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] for offering his substitute, and I also wish to thank the 
approximately 16 or so Members from the minority who have spoken in 
favor of it and given all the details of why the substitute is so much 
better than the original bill.
  The original bill that is before us, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
House, is one of the worst bills that I have ever seen; is the worst, 
not one, is the worst that I have ever seen come out of the Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology in my 20 years here.
  I had served under, on the Committee on Science, under illustrious 
chairmen such as Don Fuqua and Bob Rowe and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown]. I now serve under the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. The distinct difference between those and the one I 
presently have is that they were interested in promoting science in 
this country. They were interested in basic research in this country. 
They were not interested in getting rid of programs that benefit this 
country in the name of balancing the budget when it is really in the 
name: I do not like the programs, I am not in favor of the programs, 
therefore we are going to get rid of them no matter how good they are 
for the country.

                                   1830

  What does this all relate to? It all really gets back to a 
philosophy, and a philosophy of government, and the difference between 
the majority, led by the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], the radical Republican extremists, that want to remove the 
Federal Government from all sectors of society and say let the free 
market take care of it.
  If we had done that in the past, we would not have all of the 
benefits that this country presently has, especially from basic 
research that we will find from NSF. We would not have the development 
of the small businesses and large businesses throughout this country, 
and our ability to be in the forefront in the economic sector of this 
world, because it is that partnership that was spoken of earlier 
between government, industry, and individuals that has made this 
country great.
  Yet, the radical right of the majority would like to tell us that the 
role of the Federal Government is just to defend out shores and that is 
it, and get out of the way of everybody else. That is what they say. If 
we stop and think about that, it is a little bit scary, folks. It 
scares me that the Federal Government should only defend the shores and 
not have anything else to do with the rest of mankind in this country.
  Our Constitution not only provides for defending the shores, but also 
says that the Federal Government must care for the general welfare of 
the people. That is basically what some of us are about. That is the 
basic difference. And when Members look at this bill that we have 
before us, the unnecessary cuts, because we do not need them, as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] pointed out; under the coalition 
budget we reached a balanced budget in the same time period that the 
Republicans did, and yet we even cut more spending in that timeframe. 
Our deficits are smaller, the debt is less in 2002, and yet we could 
take the Brown substitute and fit it in and provide the basic research, 
the partnership programs with business and industry and small 
businesses. We can do all of that.
  So this is a clear case not of doing it to balance the budget, but it 
is a clear case of reducing NSF funding, reducing basic research into 
energy supplies solely for the purpose of getting rid of it because we 
do not like it. The Republicans will tell you they do not believe in 
these programs. I daresay that if we would have been down this road 
when I first was here 20 years ago, we would not have many of the 
benefits that we have today, that we in this country enjoy today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that there are very many 
scientists in this country who do the research, that does benefit 
everybody in this country, who feel that we should do away with basic 
research programs. I maintain that there are people out there that are 
dedicated scientists willing to take on the task of trying to find 
knowledge for the sake of knowledge, so that knowledge, once it proves 
out, can lead to such things as getting rid of many diseases that we 
presently have, many illnesses that we presently have; getting us a new 
way to manufacture products, new materials for products.
  I can remember back when I was a youngster, and things have changed 
dramatically up to the present time. A lot of that is because of 
research that was done on behalf of the Federal Government, and in 
cooperation with university professors and scientists, industrial 
scientists. It is that basic research that has gotten us where we are.
  Now to say that we no longer need to do these things to the extent 
that the gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, has provided in the 
substitute tells me very clearly that the majority, under the 
leadership of the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, clearly is on 
the road to eliminating these programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from California, and I commend him for offering it. I 
strongly oppose the bill as offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
bill H.R. 3322 and in support of the Brown substitute. This bill seeks 
to create the impression that we are considering an omnibus civilian 
science proposal, but we are not. Noticeably absent are the energy 
research and development [R&D] programs at the Department of Energy 
[DOE]. How do we explain the absence of about $4.7 billion in 
authorizations for the civilian science programs at DOE?
  Federal support for R&D is the quintessential investment in our 
Nation's future. Unfortunately, despite 5 years of strong bipartisan 
support, the Republican leadership now treats R&D as a low priority. 
The overall reduction would be $711 million below this year's funding 
and nearly $800 million below the President's proposal. Solar and 
renewable energy research would be cut 34 percent. Conservation energy 
R&D would be slashed 43 percent. Fuel cell research would be cut 66 
percent. And I would remind my colleagues that this is all being done 
in one year, not over 5 years or 7 years.
  We cannot let stand congressional proposals that endanger our ability 
to create more high-income jobs in developing industries as well as to 
promote safer, more cost-efficient and environmentally sensitive energy 
technologies.
  R&D is responsible for approximately one-half of the productivity 
improvements in the Nation's economy. Technological innovation is the 
single most important source of long-term economic growth, and the 
total economic return on investment in R&D is several times as high as 
for other forms of investment.
  While Republicans seek to make political hay out of the gas price 
spike we are currently suffering, they are cutting the research at DOE 
that moves us away from dependence upon gasoline. While Senator Dole 
proposes a cut in the gas tax, House Republicans propose a cut DOE's 
transportation energy Research budget by $66.8 million below this 
year's funding, a 38 percent cut.
  We don't know when or if the Republicans will make good on these 
threats to cut DOE. For the sake of my home State of California, I hope 
they do not. The Department of Energy calculated that California 
received about $722 million in energy R&D funding in fiscal year 1995. 
We are heavily involved in programs like energy conservation research, 
and research on fusion energy development, both of which are hit 
heavily in the Republican proposals. I mentioned fuel cell research as 
an

[[Page H5613]]

area being targeted and as one that is important to a State seeking to 
sustain our economic recovery while maintaining our air quality. In the 
Third District, we have the University of California at Davis, which 
ranks in the top 20 universities in Federal research grants and is 
responsible for managing three DOE laboratories. All of these programs 
are at risk if the Republican committee proposal prevails.
  The substitute offered by Mr. Brown today contains all of the 
programs that should be in an omnibus bill, including the DOE programs. 
And it funds them at the President's request level. If you are 
concerned, as I am, about our energy future you will support Mr. Brown. 
If you want energy security in the future, as I know the residents of 
my State do, you will support the Brown substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, further 
proceedings on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 14, offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Lofgren] and amendment No. 8, offered by the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    amendment offered by ms. lofgren

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Lofgren] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170, 
noes 243, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 196]

                               AYES--170

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--243

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Chapman
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Dingell
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gunderson
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     McHugh
     Molinari
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Roukema
     Solomon
     Studds
     Torricelli
     Young (FL)

                                  1855

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Conyers for, with Mr. Young of Florida against.

  Mr. CLINGER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. STOKES, BENTSEN, and MONTGOMERY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. brown of 
                               california

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown] on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment in the nature of a substitute.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 235, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H5614]]

                             [Roll No. 197]

                               AYES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bilbray
     Chenoweth
     Coleman
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Dingell
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gunderson
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     McHugh
     Molinari
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Roukema
     Studds
     Torricelli
     Young (FL)

                                  1902

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Conyers for, with Mr. Young of Florida against.

  Mr. FORBES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WALKER 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. 
Dreier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burton of Indiana, 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. 
3322, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for civilian 
science activities of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________