[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 77 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5674-H5724]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3322.

                              {time}  1325


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on 
Wednesday, May 29, 1996, title II was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title II?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before we started the debate today, I thought it would 
be useful maybe to explain the reason for the debate sequence and the 
way it took place yesterday on the Democrat substitute. Our side simply 
decided that it was appropriate to allow the Democrats to present, in 
any way they wished to do and as broad as they wished to present it, 
their substitute to our bill.
  We think that our legislative product stands on its own, that it is a 
good science bill, it is good for the environment, it is a good long-
term bill. The Democrats were obviously proud of their work. We have 
them the opportunity to fully describe that work before going to a 
vote, and we thought that was the right way to accommodate the debate 
in the House.
  I do regret that in the course of that debate there were a couple of 
inaccuracies particularly represented by the gentleman from Texas when 
he referred to the work of the committee. At one point he referred to 
the work of the committee as only producing one report last year. I do 
wish to get that corrected be in the Record, and I will submit for be 
the Record a list of 16 reports filed by this committee over the year 
last year that indicates that this committee was working.

  I do think that there is a need to produce quality rather than 
quantity as the mark of a legislative committee, and that is what we 
have been doing both legislatively and in terms of the oversight 
hearings that we have been conducting. I just want to make certain that 
any inaccuracies that were stated during that time are in fact 
corrected, but I hope that we did see that there is a contrast of views 
when the Democrats present their side and we present our side.
  Now we will proceed ahead with the bill and we will go through the 
amendment process here, and I hope that that amendment process will in 
fact produce the result of a bill that can be supported on a bipartisan 
basis on both sides of the aisle.


           amendment no. 24 offered by mr. weldon of florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. 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. Weldon of Florida: Page 26, line 
     12, strike ``$2,167,400,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$2,107,400,000''.
       Page 30, line 11, strike ``$1,957,850,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,017,850,000, of which $1,594,550,000 shall 
     be for personnel and related costs, $35,000,000 shall be for 
     travel, and $388,300,000 shall be for research operations 
     support''.


       modification of amendment offered by mr. weldon of florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be replaced with a new amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida: 
     Page 26, line 12, strike ``$2,167,400,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,107,400,000''.
       Page 28, line 2, strike ``$410,600,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$405,600,000''.
       Page 28, line 3, strike ``$95,500,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$92,500,000''.
       Page 28, line 11, strike ``$281,250,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$276,250,000''.
       Page 30, line 11, strike ``$1,957,850,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,030,800,000, of which $1,611,000,000 shall 
     be for personnel and related costs, $31,500,000 shall be for 
     travel, and $388,300,000 shall be for research operations 
     support''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, we have not had an opportunity to review this amendment, and we 
are looking to determine the offset that has been represented by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] at this time.
  Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon] to explain his particular amendment.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, I believe the 
gentlewoman will agree my amendment is a good amendment.
  The bill on the floor of the House has a shortfall for NASA personnel 
funding. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,

[[Page H5675]]

Chairman Walker, and I, as well as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Stockman, have worked hard to find a way to overcome the shortfall. My 
amendment would avoid possible furloughs of NASA employees, which would 
adversely affect every NASA center and every NASA program by restoring 
all of the funding shortfall. It provides for full offsets so there is 
no impact to the budget.
  Specifically, my amendment increases funding for NASA program 
management by $81.5 million. It fully offsets the increase by 
decreasing funding in space science by $60 million, cutting $8.5 
million from NASA's travel account, and cutting $13 million from 
various other accounts.
  Even with my amendment, the space science account, which I know is an 
important account for the ranking minority member, still receive a net 
increase of $250 million above NASA's fiscal year 1997 request.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have referred to 
the need to fix the shortfall, and my amendment would do just that. I 
urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his original amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I object. Mr. Chairman, I 
object and I have an amendment that has been prefiled at the desk as 
No. 13.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is the original amendment of the gentleman from 
Florida. He is entitled to 5 minutes to speak on his amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Are we back to the original amendment, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it was preprinted in the Record. 


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of ascertaining 
on what basis the Chair is making recognition, I would like to inquire 
as to who was recognized for the last amendment to this bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] 
was, but it is at the discretion of the Chair to determine which Member 
gains recognition, and both Members who sought recognition at the 
beginning of the bill today are members of the committee. The Chair has 
that discretion and the Chair chose to recognize the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, may I further continue my 
inquiry? Has it not been the practice to alternate recognition between 
the two sides of the aisle, particularly if both Members rose at the 
same time, both members of the committee?
  The CHAIRMAN. In this case the Chair is exercising discretion 
properly.
  Mr. BROWN of California. In other words, the Chair is utilizing his 
unfettered power to recognize whomever he wishes, and does he intend to 
continue in that practice?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that in this case he is exercising 
proper discretion.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Then we may expect that we will have 
disregarded the precedent of alternating between the two sides, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair always tries to be fair.
  Mr. BROWN of California. We appreciate that very much and hope the 
Chair is correct.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to do a little bit of 
explanation as to what has been going on here.
  I think we all, on both sides of the aisle, share a desire to see 
this account restored to avoid any possibility of any furloughs and any 
significant financial shortfall on the part of NASA in terms of paying 
their employees.
  The issue and the debate that has been going on is how do we do this 
in a fashion that is consistent with our responsibility to stay within 
the budget to fulfill our obligation to get the budget balanced, the 
commitment that we have made to the American people, and in that sense 
come up with appropriate offsets that do not adversely affect any other 
accounts in excess, and something that is consistent with the overall 
philosophy of the committee in terms of what our investment in future 
science and technology is.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
for his amendment and his good work out on the floor to attempt to 
correct the situation that rose largely because the administration was 
unable to provide us with good figures from the very outset.
  We had an $81.5 million reduction in program management largely 
because NASA told us those were the projected levels for employment 
back in March. They have since come back and said that this is an 
unacceptable cut and that we were, in fact, cutting the numbers below 
what they thought were prudent.
  We are attempting to, in good faith, change that situation on the 
floor, and the gentleman from Florida has agreed to try and help in 
this regard. I am as disappointed as I can be that the gentlewoman from 
Texas has been stopping us. We are trying to add back the 81.5 million 
she was in favor of doing and she has objected to an amendment to do 
just that.
  Given that situation, the fact is what the gentleman from Florida, if 
I understand it correctly, is attempting to do is to find offsets for 
this money in other places.
  One of the things that we had increased substantially in our budget, 
which means that we really are keeping our commitment to good 
environment, good science, all of the things that we have said, is to 
plus up the space science accounts. The No. 1 priority of the program 
as defined some years ago by the Augustine report, we have put $250 
million more, even after the gentleman's amendment, into that account.
  It is one of the real commitments we have made to the future of the 
NASA science programs. The gentleman protects that space science 
account. It takes some money out of it, but protects it in many ways. 
The gentlewoman comes here and she wants to strip all of the money out 
of the space accounts and put it all back into personnel.
  We simply think this is a better approach. I am disappointed she 
objected. It makes the job more difficult if we cannot get cooperation 
on this, but I think what the gentleman is doing is an excellent 
amendment.
  It is my understanding that the gentleman from Wisconsin will offer 
an amendment to the amendment here that will get us back to the right 
place, and I personally want to thank the gentleman for all the hard 
work he has put in that is moving us in the right direction.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman, and let me just reiterate that I think we all share a desire 
to have the proper level of funding in this important account which 
pays the staff for NASA. They are a very, very hard-working work force, 
very, very dedicated to the future of our space program.
  I know in my particular district, I have Kennedy Space Center, the 
launch center for NASA, and we have the shuttle program there, we have 
a very, very dedicated work force. By restoring these funds, I think we 
are sending a message that we support the staff, we support the 
personnel and we recognize them for the outstanding job that they have 
been doing.


amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                           Weldon of Florida

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida: After the item relating to 
     page 26, line 12, insert the following:
       Page 28, line 2, strike ``$410,600,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$405,600,000''.
       Page 28, line 3, strike ``$95,500,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$92,500,000''.
       Page 28, line 11, strike ``$281,250,000'' and insert in 
     lieu there ``$276,250,000''.

[[Page H5676]]

       Strike ``$2,017,850,000, of which $1,594,550,000 shall be 
     for personnel and related costs, $35,000,000 shall be for 
     travel,'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$2,030,800,000, of 
     which $1,611,000,000 shall be for personnel and related 
     costs, $31,500,000 shall be for travel,''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that makes the 
personnel account whole. It adds a total of $81.5 million to the 
personnel account, $73 million comes as a result of reductions in other 
accounts, and there is a transfer of $8.5 million from travel into 
personnel.
  The biggest reduction in the other accounts is space science, which 
is reduced by $60 million, mission communications by $5 million, 
academic by $3 million, and space communications by $5 million. This, I 
think, is the proper way to go about making sure that the personnel 
account is enough to avoid furloughs. It is done in a fiscally 
responsible manner in providing offsets to other accounts.
  I would urge the adoption of the amendment to the amendment, which 
would bring the amendment of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] 
back in the shape that he wanted it in prior to the objection to his 
request to modify it.


 amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas as a substitute for the 
               amendment offered by mr. weldon of florida

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Florida: For the amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Weldon of 
     Florida. In lieu of the matter proposed in amendment No. 24 
     insert:
       Page 30, line 11, strike ``$1,957,850,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$2,039,350,000''.

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
substitute.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to hear my 
colleagues debate about now their recently obtained concern about the 
personnel at NASA and the various centers around the Nation. I 
appreciate my colleague from Florida and his sincerity. We have had 
discussions, but I might note that my amendment was prefiled much 
earlier than those who have now offered both amendments and perfecting 
amendments.
  Let me first say to the chairman that the head of NASA does not want 
the $300 million in space science, would prefer to continue the 
progress that he has made in downsizing, but, most importantly, is 
concerned about the untimely abuse that will come through this 
legislation of NASA personnel that have been downsized and outsized.
  The amendment that I offer will restore $81.5 million to ensure to 
the personnel account that we have the most responsible and safe staff 
to do the mission of NASA. It is not an increase, it is in recognition 
of the administration's budget, and is, as well, in recognition of the 
work that has been done by NASA already.
  I think it is important to note that we have had a NASA restructuring 
process going on since fiscal year 1993. We started with civilian 
service employees of 24,900, at a 5-to-4 ratio in supervisors. We are 
now at a civilian service of 21,000, going to a 7-to-8 ratio. We now 
will move forward in the future to 17,000 civil service with a ratio of 
11 to 1. NASA is already a lean, mean operating machine.
  With the amendment presently on the floor, it does not in any way 
consider what NASA has already done. When Mr. Goldin set forth to 
restructure NASA, he began a trip down a path of personnel reduction 
which had at its center a logical and employee-caring philosophy. That 
is why we will result in the number of only 17,000 employees with a 
supervisory ratio of 11 to 1.
  Mr. Chairman, that is real progress. NASA has demonstrated its 
commitment to this process in achieving these personnel levels. But let 
me say to my colleagues what will happen if we follow the present 
amendment on the floor, that of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon]. To put it bluntly, the salaries and expenses reduction is 
impossible to achieve, according to NASA, without drastic action. 
Unless a miracle occurs, and we have both buyout legislation and a lot 
of takers, there is simply no feasible way to implement this reduction 
without resorting to furloughs, and that furlough would be an estimated 
time of 10 to 12 days.
  I ask my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, what does that do to both the 
loyal employees at NASA and, more importantly, what about the many 
calls I get into my office about the questions of safety. We have 
already begun the process of downsizing. Why would this legislation 
pointedly go at the personnel and not respond to what has already been 
occurring by Dan Goldin?
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my Republican colleagues to join me on this 
amendment. I appreciate the sincerity with which they have attempted to 
modify what I have already done. We need to go forward with restoring 
the $81.5 million that says to NASA we applaud what you are doing, we 
recognize the sacrifice that has already been taken by your employees, 
and, yes, we are concerned about the safety and the lives of both our 
employees but as well those astronauts that take their lives in their 
hands on behalf of the American people and on behalf of American 
science.

                              {time}  1345

  It is my intent, Mr. Chairman, to offer this amendment and to be able 
to say that we expect that NASA will RIF a total of 1,400 employees by 
October 1, 1996. Why are we forcing them to do even more and then 
furloughing for now from 12 to 14 days?
  This is an outrageous cut. I ask my colleagues to join me in 
providing for an $81.5 million restoration to allow NASA to do the job 
that it has to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment to correct a problem within this 
legislation which, if it goes uncorrected, will fall upon the backs of 
the thousands of loyal, hardworking NASA employees across this country. 
Mr. Chairman, I am referring to language in H.R. 3322 which will result 
in an $81.5 million reduction in the NASA personnel account, from what 
the President has requested.
  I do not understand why an agency which has been at the forefront of 
streamlining itself and lowering its cost to the American taxpayer 
should be punished for its accomplishments. Under Mr. Goldin, the NASA 
Administrator, the agency has taken extraordinary steps, without 
congressional prodding, to reinvent itself into an organization which 
is more focused on its mission and the people it serves.
  When Mr. Goldin set forth to restructure NASA, he began a trip down a 
path of personnel reduction which had at its center logical and 
employee-caring philosophy. When this restructuring began, NASA had 
24,900 civil servants with a supervisor ratio of 5.4 to 1. Now, the 
agency has 21,325 civil servants and when it is all said and done, the 
agency will have a mere 17,488 employees with a supervisor ratio of 11 
to 1. Mr. Chairman, that is real progress. NASA has demonstrated its 
commitment to this process and achieving these personnel levels, but we 
must allow it to do so in an orderly and caring fashion for its 
employees. Many in this Chamber have assailed the way many corporations 
are throwing aside their loyal and valuable employees for the sake of 
Wall Street and quarterly returns. I call upon these same Members to 
practice what they preach and help NASA treat its employees fairly.
  NASA has accomplished all of this through the use of buyouts, hiring 
freezes, redeployment, privatization, and outplacement, to name a few. 
It has a plan and a schedule. I encourage my colleagues to allow it to 
continue.
  If this egregious cut should become law, there will be serious 
repercussions for the men, women, and families of NASA. The agency will 
be forced to furlough, for up to possibly 3 weeks, most of its 
employees. When was the last time anyone in Congress went without pay 
for such an extended time? This $81.5 million cut in salaries and 
expenses is ill-conceived, cannot be achieved without drastic action 
affecting all NASA centers, and it jeopardizes NASA's ability to safely 
deliver its programs. The impacts envisioned by the agency are a 
reduction in force [RIF] total 1,400 employees by October 1, 1996, a 
physical and legal impossibility or an agencywide furlough of 
approximately 21,000 employees for 12 to 14 days.
  In addition a $34 million cut, as some have proposed will still put 
an unacceptable strain on implementation of the zero-based review 
recommendations, including major changes in center roles and missions 
and consolidation of center capabilities; NASA needs the full amount of 
requested funding to accomplish

[[Page H5677]]

the complex agency restructuring currently underway.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this little tiff should develop. 
There is a mistake in the bill, and an effort is being made to correct 
it. That mistake was pointed out by the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Hall], when the bill was in the subcommittee. It was pointed out when 
the bill was in markup in the full committee, and an amendment was 
offered to correct it in the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, that amendment to correct the problem in the full 
committee was resisted by both the chairman of the full committee and 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] and all of the Republicans 
together, who at that point did not feel that they had made a mistake.
  Now they have come to realize that a mistake was made, I think, when 
they saw that the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] had filed an 
amendment which would have corrected the error and might be recognized 
to present that amendment and the case for adopting her amendment would 
have been overwhelming.
  But, Mr. Chairman, that led then to undoubtedly some strategic 
discussions on the other side. Should those on our side who had pointed 
out the problem at the subcommittee level, the full committee level, 
and by filing an amendment to correct it on the floor, be allowed to 
correct it, or should the majority now in their new-found wisdom be 
allowed to correct the mistake?
  Apparently, they decided that in their new-found wisdom they would be 
allowed to correct the mistake, and they are riding roughshod over the 
normal processes of the House and over the position of the minority 
that this is something which ought to be corrected in the simplest 
possible way.
  So, Mr. Chairman, they have presented an amendment which, though 
slightly flawed in its original aspect, will be attempted to be 
corrected by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. The 
flaws in the original amendment, including finding a whole series of 
offsetting cuts which would do, if not equal, at least considerable 
damage to the program at NASA, and I think they hope to avoid this 
possibility. But the whole point of this is really a game-playing 
operation.
  The NASA budget has been cut by several hundred million dollars. It 
has been plussed up in order to substantiate the chairman's frequently 
reiterated position that he is a strong proponent of science. It has 
been plussed up to add money that the agency did not ask for and will 
find difficulty spending, and then they have made this terrible cut, 
which will have the effect of causing a layoff or furlough of a 
substantial number of employees. And, as I say, in their wisdom they 
have finally recognized that this is not the right way to go.

  But since I offered the amendment to correct this in the full 
committee and I offered it in my substitute yesterday, I take 
considerable umbrage at the aura of sanctimoniousness that is now 
enshrouding the majority which they seek to correct a mistake of their 
own making, and I ask that the amendment of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Weldon] be rejected and the substitute of the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] be adopted.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the difference between the substitute amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and the 
Sensenbrenner-Weldon amendment shows the difference between the two 
parties in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee substitute is an add-on. There are no 
offsets. It adds on $81.5 million to make the personnel account whole. 
They do not look at reordering priorities. They do not look at keeping 
the total appropriation or total authorization for NASA the same. They 
just want to spend some more money and not offset any of the accounts, 
even those that they think have been set at too high a level by the 
majority on the committee.
  The Weldon amendment, as amended by my amendment, provides the same 
amount of money for the NASA personnel account as the Jackson-Lee 
amendment, $81.5 million to stop all of those terrible things that the 
gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from California say will 
happen.
  But what the Weldon and Sensenbrenner amendments do is to offset 
other parts of NASA, so that our amendment is budget neutral. It does 
not increase the total amount of money that will be spent on NASA. It 
is budget neutral.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if Members are for just plussing up the NASA 
account without making offsets, vote for the Jackson-Lee amendment. If 
Members are not for that, vote to reject it and vote for the 
Sensenbrenner amendment and then the Weldon amendment, as amended by 
the Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to enter this debate or this conversation here 
and say first, as I enter it, I respect the opinions of both sides and 
I know that we have all worked together very hard to make sure that we 
find a way to make NASA the kind of organization that NASA needs to be. 
Most of us here today have given long years doing that; many people 
much longer than I have. However, I am concerned about the direction 
that we are talking.
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, represent the Marshall Space Flight 
Center, and those Marshall employees there are certainly concerned 
about where they fit into NASA's budget picture.
  I want to say in behalf of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee], I know that she represents the Houston Johnson Space Flight 
Center, or at least parts of that area down there. I want my Marshall 
NASA employees to know that we respect them, that we are working for 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that with the offsets that will be 
occurring under the Sensenbrenner-Weldon approach to this same issue, 
that we are having to raid other parts of NASA's budget. I wish, in 
fact, we could have a more complete NASA budget so that we did not have 
the raid those things. But I do want to say that I support the Jackson-
Lee amendment and would encourage the Members to support it as well.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama for his comments. I think both of us have had the opportunity, 
along with our Republican colleagues, to talk about the effectiveness 
of what has already occurred with NASA in terms of the downsizing and 
the impact that has occurred on our respective centers, Marshall, 
Kennedy, Johnson, and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to certainly emphasize that the key point 
and distinction between the Weldon-Sensenbrenner amendment proudly 
shows that we are restoring moneys that do not impact negatively on 
other programs. Their amendment includes some deletions from the ROS 
accounts, which provides for safety measures and other operational 
needs in our various centers.
  This amendment emphasizes the NASA staff, the work they have done, 
the safety necessities that we need to have in terms of keeping the 
appropriate amount of staff. It also reaffirms, if you will, already 
the RIF program that is in place where we will be seeing some 1,400 
employees go by October 1996.
  This causes NASA to be able to continue its mission without the 
tragedy of a furlough of some 2 weeks. How disruptive that will be for 
that to occur in the business of what NASA has to do. It will allow for 
the opportunity for travel for monitoring the cooperation between 
Russia and our space station partners.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I think that with respect to what has been offered 
by the Republicans, after my amendment was offered on May 8, I believe 
the restoration of $81.5 million, which is not an increase but a 
restoration of funds that would meet the needs of these NASA employees 
with the downsizing occurring, is a more appropriate direction to

[[Page H5678]]

take, and I would ask my colleagues to support wholeheartedly this 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. This conversation from the other side 
dealing wih the budget and no offsets is really sort of a shell game, 
which we all know. The majority has cut the President's budget by 
several hundred million dollars. This would partially restore that, 
this amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Appropriations has 
already marked this bill up and has a larger figure in it than the 
majority has in their authorization bill.
  So, whatever discussion of budget impact that is being made here, and 
I hear it all too frequently, is in the mind of the chairman of the 
committee, nothing more, because the Committee on Appropriations has 
already moved to correct the problem that is represented here, and we 
are not adding to or subtracting from the budget in the slightest.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on behalf of the Weldon 
amendment. My dear friend and colleague who is in the district right 
next to mine, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], and I are 
very good friends and we try to work together and ensure, Mr. Chairman, 
that we have a safe and sound NASA.
  My dear friend and colleague from Texas made a statement that we are 
cutting funds from the safety program. I want to reiterate and clarify 
that we are not doing that.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit concerned about the fact 
that when we offered this amendment to restore the money, the 
gentlewoman objected. I think what we are trying to do here is to make 
sure we have a balanced budget and we have a space station.
  Frankly, my belief is if we do not balance the budget and have a 
space station, then we will not have a space program. This is a 
reasonable accommodation on both viewpoints. What we have done is 
restructured it so that we can fully employ the people of NASA.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to speak from my heart because my wife currently 
works there, and I saw the pain and the suffering when our President of 
the United States cut Space Station Freedom. I went to a party in which 
they were saying good-bye to Space Station Freedom. And I more than 
anyone else want to see space station be completed. I want to see NASA 
whole again. And I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes 
NASA whole again, and it protects the people.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a great concern for the integrity and the 
people down in our district. They are very hard-working people that 
have a vision, and that vision of America is a first-class space 
program. We look around the world, and, Mr. Chairman, as we are looking 
around the world, we see Japan and we see Russia. Everybody is going 
into space. But, Mr. Chairman, without this amendment, we are not going 
to have a space program, because we need to make sure we are 
responsible to our grandchildren and our children that the budget is 
balanced so that we can pay for the space program.
  Mr. Chairman, I come home at night and on weekends, and I meet my 
wife and she tells me of the passion and love with which people work at 
NASA. Mr. Chairman, you may not know this, but the engineers that work 
at NASA could go out in other sectors of this country and get more 
money, but they are doing it because they love NASA and they love this 
Nation. They are taking pay cuts. And they took RIF's. That is true. 
And we want to make sure that it is a sound financial planning.
  Let me say something to you, Mr. Chairman, when we sit around the 
table and we discuss our budget, we have to make decisions. We have a 
fixed income in what we get every time. And this amendment which the 
gentleman from Florida has offered is the same thing as American 
families do. They sit around the table and make those hard decisions. 
We are incorporating the money that was inadvertently taken out and put 
it back there to ensure the viability of the space program.
  And I know one day when I grow old and look back and look at my 
tenure here, Mr. Chairman, serving in this fine institution, I will 
know we did the right thing by supporting this amendment because what 
we are doing is we are looking out for the budget and we are looking 
out for the space program. And we are going to see a great and glorious 
space program.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the committee and also 
my chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for coming down to 
the district and telling the folks firsthand just what it means to us 
in Congress that we are dedicated to restoring those funds.
  On behalf of the people in my district, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
thank the gentleman for the consideration of this amendment and also 
like to say that I give my full support for it, and I am also going to 
tell my wife that we fought for the people of Texas and also for the 
people of NASA.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOCKMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas. Feeling his passion, I would want him to do the right thing. But 
I do have to emphasize to the gentleman from Texas that he might want 
to reconsider his facts. Here we are, on the House floor, complaining 
about $81.5 million straight up for the NASA personnel. The Committee 
on Appropriations has already authorized some $600 million more than 
what the authorizing committee has done, which has Republican 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues that the question your wife 
will ask you, have they cut the ROS? And you have cut the ROS by $34 
million. That does not go to the safety issue. It takes away from 
safety. The right way to go is to support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I know my friend from Texas would want to be on the 
right mark by supporting the right amendment.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Texas for yielding. More importantly, I thank him because he has been 
certainly a hard worker on the issues involving Texas and Texas 
economic opportunities and the needs of working Texans.
  This bill is for working Americans. Particularly as it relates to 
NASA, I cannot seem to get my Republican colleagues to understand that 
this is a restoration, some $81.5 million, so much less than the 
authorization already appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations. 
When we begin to look at the Weldon-Sensenbrenner, we begin to see the 
chipping away to what NASA has already accomplished. It has 
accomplished a sufficient and efficient downsizing. By October, we will 
find some 1,400 who will be RIF'd.
  If we do not pass the Jackson-Lee amendment, we will begin to see 
undercutting of safety issues by the undercutting of ROS. We also are 
going to see cutting of academic programs, space communications, the 
inability to work with our foreign space station partners, like Japan 
and Russia, because we will have no travel budget and, of course, 
science.
  I think we really have to maintain a truth in speaking here, and that 
is that we are simply trying to restore the $81.5 million, one for 
safety and one for the responsible carrying out of NASA's mission with 
the right kind of personnel.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, this entire bill that is 
before us, including the NASA part, is built on this gigantic fiction 
that we have to do this in order to influence the Committee on 
Appropriations and in order to keep the budget, to balance the budget, 
neither of which are true. We do not

[[Page H5679]]

have to cut the President's budget by several hundred million dollars 
in order to balance the budget because his budget is balanced.
  We are not influencing the appropriators. They have already acted to 
appropriate, to recommend the House appropriate an amount roughly what 
was in my substitute, may be a little bit more. Now the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] and others can keep harping on this fact that this bill, 
their bill is absolutely essential to balancing the budget and to 
influence the appropriators. The facts belie their statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members on the other side to try looking at 
the facts for a change instead of the figments of the imagination of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. COLEMAN. If I might, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, only add 
that I think it is time for all of us to wake up and recognize that a 
good deal of the downsizing that went down at NASA went on long before 
the new majority became the new majority in the Congress. Indeed, this 
President and Vice President, Al Gore, had done a great deal in 
attempting to make Government work for the United States and for its 
citizens.
  I think that what we have done at NASA is a shining example of what 
can be done when we all agree to put our shoulder to the wheel. I would 
hope that my colleagues in the majority would not walk about and 
continue to talk like they are the ones who invented economy in 
government. After all, a lot of us know that much of this began in 
1993. Many of us, when this administration came into office, said it is 
about time.
  We want very much, Mr. Chairman, to not harm the employees at NASA. 
We want very much, Mr. Chairman, to not harm the issue of science for 
the United States. We think that, without the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Houston, that could occur.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute and 
move to strike the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating discussion. First of all, 
again I am disappointed that the gentleman from California, a ranking 
member of the committee, feels it necessary as part of these debates to 
personalize them and attack me as though this is all being done 
personally. The fact is that what we are attempting to do is make some 
changes in the direction of government.
  Now, listen carefully to what the other side is telling us. The 
amendment that I am opposing here, and it has been presented by the 
gentlewoman from Texas, increases spending by $81.5 million in this 
bill. Now, what we keep hearing from the majority is we can increase 
spending, increase spending, increase spending, increase spending, 
increase spending, increase spending, increase spending, and balance 
the budget. Now, if anybody has ever figured out a way to do that in 
their own household, I congratulate them. I would love to think that we 
can continue to increase spending, increase spending, increase 
spending, increase spending and end up balancing our budget at the end 
of the day. But that is exactly what we are being told, that somehow 
money just drifts out of nowhere, that the American people will just 
continue to ante up, empty their pocketbooks to give to Government so 
that people in Washington can increase spending. That is what the 
gentlewoman does with her amendment.
  Now, the gentleman from Florida has offered another amendment, 
combined with the gentleman from Wisconsin. What they say is, yes, let 
us make NASA whole, where a mistake was made by the administration in 
what they submitted to the Congress. But let us do it by taking out of 
some other accounts.
  Now, we have heard from the other side that, well, that is an 
irresponsible approach; you cannot take it out of other accounts. Well, 
why not? Let us think of the other accounts we are taking it out of. 
First of all, we are taking it out of an account that he other side 
said in their debate is an account that the administration does not 
even want.
  Now, I happen to disagree with the administration on that. I think 
plussing up space science is in fact a good thing for the country. In 
fact, I have a letter from Carl Sagan and some other members of the 
Planetary Society that endorse the numbers in our bill because they 
feel very strongly that plussing up those numbers is the right way to 
go. But we have lowered them a little bit in order to accommodate this 
mistake that was made.
  The other side does not want to do that. The other side does not want 
to plus up that account for space science. Stick with the President's 
budget. The President's budget, which over the period of 7 years drops 
over a cliff and drops into a valley. That is what they support. That 
is what they are out here defending. But there is one other place where 
we take a good deal of money. We take a good deal of money out of the 
travel accounts. Now, what they are claiming is that NASA needs $45 
million for travel.
  We say that perhaps that NASA could get along with $31 million for 
travel. I guess that is one of those things where we can have a debate. 
Is it 31 or is it 45? We think that, in order to preserve the integrity 
of the personnel process at NASA, maybe they can get by with $31 
million for travel. That is the main difference here, whether or not 
you want to cut the space science account some to accommodate this and 
whether or not you want to cut the travel accounts. The rest of them 
are minor matters.
  The gentlewoman from Texas does not want to cut at all. She just 
wants to spend the money. Just plus up the accounts, and live with the 
fiction that by spending more and more and more and more and more and 
more you can truly balance budgets and stop us from having deficits. I 
just do not believe that that works anymore. I just think that is the 
old way of doing things. That is the old status quo argument. We have 
had that for 40 years in the House of Representatives of spending more 
and more and more on every bill and somehow not ending up with balanced 
budgets, ending up with huge deficits.
  Mr. Chairman, now we have started a new day. We have decided that we 
are going to set priorities for real. I know the gentleman from Texas 
resents that idea. He thinks it is a terrible thing our committee has 
had to live with, setting priorities. But it is a good thing for us as 
a country to set real priorities to make real decisions and 
fundamentally making the direction of this country back toward balanced 
budgets and toward giving the American people back more of what they 
earn for themselves.
  That is what we should be about here, not adding spending but doing 
the right thing and doing it within the context of what we can afford.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am always deeply challenged when the chairman of the 
committee ups and makes one of his great orations. I will be very 
brief, actually.
  The gentleman is talking to the wrong audience. He should be 
addressing his remarks with regard to balancing the budget and keeping 
spending down to his Republican colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations, who have already marked up a bill that spends at least 
$600 million more than his bill authorizers. Now, maybe he wants it 
that way. I do not know. But I suggest he may need to make that speech 
to some of those on the Committee on Appropriations and get them to go 
back and bring their bill down to what he has in this bill.
  Now, is this a good bill? He cited the commendations he received from 
Carl Sagan. Here is a letter which each Member got from the National 
Space Society, which is the recognized premier civilian organization in 
this area. It says as follows:

       The administration is seeking to fund NASA in 1997 at $13.8 
     billion, a $400 million reduction from the current year's 
     budget. The House science authorization bill would cut that 
     down to only $13.5 billion, a $300 million cut. Members of 
     the National Space Society strongly object to the proposed 
     reduction in NASA's budget and believe the cuts in funding 
     undermine America's leadership in advanced technology and 
     lessen our Nation's ability to create economic opportunities.

  Obviously their point came across very well to the appropriators, 
because the appropriators proceeded to appropriate even more than is in 
the authorization bill and even more than was in

[[Page H5680]]

my substitute. I am establishing my record as a conservative Member of 
Congress by the fact that I went below the appropriators in my 
substitute.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there are two important aspects of this debate. 
The first is how much money can we add to various spending proposals 
and at what point. I would like to point out that this is still the 
beginning of the process, not the end of the process. In fact, an 
amendment that I offered yesterday with respect to the National Science 
Foundation increased spending for the National Science Foundation in 
its research and related activities account without an offset, because 
the Committee on the Budget, which is working on this same issue, along 
with us and along with the Committee on Appropriations, had found a 
means to pay for its within the House-passed budget resolution.
  As we proceed through the system, if the different committees of 
responsibility find ways to increase spending, in this particular case 
on civilian research and development, which I very much support, then I 
personally could at that point certainly support that.
  At this point, however, dealing with the bill before us, therefore, I 
intend with regret, because I understand the gentlewoman's motivation, 
to vote against the Jackson-Lee amendment, in favor of the 
Sensenbrenner amendment and Weldon amendment.
  However, I would like to say there is a larger debate here. Our 
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], referred to 
the fact that we do not need to make any changes from the President's 
proposals because the President's budget is balanced. Although we are 
now talking about NASA, I think the same subject comes up again, as we 
discussed yesterday with respect to the National Science Foundation, 
and which will come up with respect to almost every spending proposal I 
could think of. That is, Mr. Chairman, that the President proposes in 
almost every account more spending for the next fiscal year, which is 
fiscal year 1997, beginning October 1 of this year.
  But the point is we are voting on fiscal year 1997 now, during 1996, 
which is the calendar year of the election year. Therefore, there is a 
proposed bump in spending almost everywhere by the administration, 
frankly to enhance their posture in the election. The point I want to 
make, I think this is going to be paid for elsewhere by the 
administration by deeper cuts than proposed by the majority in Congress 
in later years.
  I know that is the case with respect to the National Science 
Foundation's salaries accounts, because we debated that yesterday. I 
know the administration proposed a bump up, followed by a steep decline 
in spending, well below congressional majority proposals.
  So far as I know, that is correct with respect to the 
administration's NASA proposals for spending in subsequent fiscal years 
as rated by the Congressional Budget Office, that both sides have 
agreed to use to monitor spending and evaluate spending, would have 
deeper cuts in future years than is proposed in the House-passed budget 
resolution. If I am wrong on that, I would appreciate the figures being 
submitted during this debate. But so far as I know, this is a proposal 
for higher spending at one point to be followed by a lot deeper 
spending cuts elsewhere.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the majority's proposal is best here for 
NASA, as well as for other Government agencies.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that when AAAS did 
their evaluation and compared what we did to the administration's plan 
that they are now defending, the AAAS, the authority on all this, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, in their R&D 
analysis said that NASA would fare slightly better under the House's 
plan, losing 23 percent instead of 29 percent in the administration's 
projections.
  So when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman] a few minutes ago when 
he spoke said that the President and the Vice President have slashed 
NASA employees, he is absolutely right, and now when we look out into 
the future, as the gentleman points out, the AAAS says in their report 
that we are better in our House plan than the administration is in 
their plan, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is directing his comments toward. We are 
talking about real numbers, we are talking about what is occurring now 
and not prospectively, and what is happening now is that real numbers 
are $81.5 million being eliminated with additional cuts from ROS of $34 
million, which does not allow us to respond to already downsize NASA in 
its present form.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time very briefly, I 
want to say that we are all proposing to add the money back right now, 
but what is more important is the gentleman from California, the senior 
member of the Committee on Science and former chairman, made a specific 
reference to the President's budget, and my only point was to show that 
the President's budget means all of the President's budget, just like a 
congressional budget means all of the congressional budget.
  We have both agreed to try to reach a balanced budget, and it is not 
accurate to refer to 1 year of any budget and not show what the other 
effects would be.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern is not whether or not we bust the budget. My 
concern is not that we are cutting the budget; it is how we are cutting 
the budget. It does not add up when we say we are protecting the 
personnel and we take away all their tools. It does not do anything but 
cause for more inefficiency. It is a problem being created by this 
amendment of Mr. Weldon's, and that is why I think that the more 
sensible way is with the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  For example, when he cuts the travel budget by 30 percent, he will 
then jeopardize the ability of NASA civil service personnel to perform 
necessary project-related travel, like the trips to Russia to monitor 
Russian progress on the space station program, space station-related 
trips between Kennedy Space Center and the Johnson Space Center, travel 
to support launch operations of scientific payloads et cetera. I just 
do not think it makes sense the way that he is cutting.
  As my colleagues know, we can cut the budget, but if it does not 
coordinate, if we leave NASA without utilities, without money for 
custodial services, then we really have not done anything to improve 
operations; we have simply cut without thinking. And that is exactly 
what the Weldon amendment does. I do not think it makes sense.
  I think it does make sense to have a orderly downsizing, as they are 
doing now, that they have already accomplished, and they are continuing 
to accomplish. But when they say that they are protecting the 
personnel, they take away all their tools, then how irresponsible is 
that? I do not believe that we want to go that irresponsible way.
  I believe that the way we must go, and it does not bust the budget, 
it does not exceed what the Committee on Appropriations has 
recommended, is to adopt the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. So if I am to understand, the gentlewoman from Texas 
thinks that NASA should spend $45 million for travel rather than $31 
million for travel; is that correct?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I think that we need to 
coordinate the real basic needs for what travel it is and look at those 
figures rather than deciding we just want to slash something.
  Mr. WALKER. Just so I understand, the decision here is between $45 
million for travel and $31 million for travel. The gentlewoman 
mentioned traveling

[[Page H5681]]

to Russia. We do not understand why they would have to do that since we 
already have a full-time NASA office in Russia. But nevertheless what 
she is saying is that what she believes is that we ought to be spending 
more money for travel rather than saving that money.
  Is that correct?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me say that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania can make a simplistic argument like that, and it 
might sound like it makes sense, but it does not make sense unless the 
gentleman can relate it to reality, relate it to basic needs of a 
program.
  We can all pay with numbers. But unless those numbers make sense in 
reality, we are wasting other dollars.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman from Texas would continue to yield, 
she is the one that mentioned travel to Russia. She says that is one of 
the things this money was used for.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am saying exactly 
what it would cut. If the gentleman would tell me exactly what the 
dollars he is talking about would pay for, then we can relate. But I am 
talking about cutting essential travel to carry out the duty of NASA.
  Mr. WALKER. And the gentlewoman does not think they cay do that on 
$31.5 million.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I think we ought to look back in 
that testimony and see. I do not know that they can do it with $31 
million. It might not make sense.
  I think that the gentleman from Pennsylvania ought to be the one 
explaining to me why they can make all these trips with $31 million 
rather than talking about and trying to excite the public.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield, I am 
perfectly willing to have them do it on $31 million.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is making the point that my colleagues want 
to engage in profilgate spending and he wants to save this 15 or 
whatever million dollars it is. We discussed that yesterday, and we 
came to the conclusion that this money was not being saved, and we know 
it is not, but it is going to be spent in other directions. He wants to 
spend it to increase the military budget by $12 billion or $14 billion, 
and I said that, and then he added also we want to make a very 
substantial tax cut for what he calls middle-income America.
  It is not a matter of saving, never has been. It is a matter of 
priorities. If my colleagues' priority is spending more for defense and 
for tax cuts for the wealthy, they want to cut it any way they can, and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], living in this land that 
he does, it is time to make the case that what he is doing is prudent 
when he is merely asserting his values, with which I strongly disagree.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield? Do I understand 
the gentleman from California is opposed to tax cuts for the middle 
class?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Chambliss). The time of the gentlewoman 
from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson has expired.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the Jackson-
Lee amendment for a few minutes, and I think the Members who are here 
and who are watching it now realize that we are talking about 
authorization bill here. The Committee on Appropriations has already 
appropriated $600 million more than this bill authorizes, and what we 
are trying to do with my colleagues from Houston, Ms. Jackson-Lee's 
amendment, is to provide $81.5 million in additional authorization to 
make sure we do not have as much as 3 weeks' furlough of the employees 
there. That is really not a way to run a government, a business, or an 
airline, or a railroad, or anything else where we plan to authorize 
less than what we are going to spend so we can lay off those workers 
there because we are not planning for it.
  Again, it does not make any sense because all we are doing is 
authorizing, we are not spending a penny with this bill today. The 
Committee on Appropriation and the appropriations bill will spend the 
penny; we are just authorizing them to do it. And since they have 
already come up with $600 million more, again my colleagues may 
disagree with that, well, then let us talk to the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  But NASA has already downsized and done everything they can. NASA has 
already downsized, and they have become leaner, meaner. In fact, 
whether it be the administration or those of us in Congress who have 
made them provide a better value for the American taxpayer, they have 
cut 4,000 civil service jobs since 1993 and plan to continue to cut 
another 4,000 by the fiscal year 2000. And the reduction in work force 
will not generate the savings for this coming year because NASA cannot 
technically execute a reduction in work force or a RIF, one early 
enough to generate that savings even if it is not authorized.
  That is what I think we need to go back to, and from what I 
understand, this $81.5 million that is needed for the authorization to 
make sure that we do not have that furlough of those employees, these 
are full-time NASA employees where planning but not authorizing funding 
for them, to furlough them for 10 to 12 to 21 days sometime during the 
year. Again that is not the way anybody should run their business, and 
we should not expect the Government to run that way either because we 
are just authorizing it today.
  The future of our work force depends on the high-skilled and the 
skilled jobs that the space station, the aerospace industry provides, 
and again we should not treat those employees, whether they are NASA or 
whether they are contract, in saying, ``Well, we've sorry we're going 
to lay you off for 21 days because we don't have the authorization to 
spend the money even though one hand we could do it, but on the other 
hand we are not giving it to you.''
  That just does not make any sense.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. With regard to this money that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is pointing to that he now wants to save 
the difference in the transportation items, I would like to point out 
that the figure which is referred to here, the amount for 
transportation, was in the bill at the subcommittee level, it was in 
the bill when it was marked up at the full committee level, it was in 
the bill yesterday, as a matter of fact. And now Mr. Walker has 
decided, without hearings, I might say, or any other indication, that 
that is really too much and it is wasted. So he is going to cut $15 
million out of it in order to correct this waste.
  Now my real question to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
is:
  Why did he suddenly find that this money is being wasted instead of 
at the subcommittee level, which he did not allow markups in, or the 
full committee level, which he did allow markups in, or even smaller in 
the debate?
  If they were wasteful expenditures, he should have proposed in his 
manager's amendment that all this waste be removed. But, no he did not 
find out about it until it was necessary to correct the mistake which 
he also should have corrected in the full committee level and did not.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Since the Committee on Appropriations has come up, I 
think we should clarify, before we get too much misinformation on the 
floor: In our appropriation bill we cut $309 million out of essentially 
the operating accounts of NASA. The appropriators cut $542 million out 
of the operating accounts of NASA and in their bill. Now their total is 
higher, in large part because there are some fixed asset accounts that 
they count into their numbers, but if we look at the operating accounts 
that NASA has to spend before

[[Page H5682]]

going out to brag about what has happened in the appropriation 
committee, take a look, folks, because the fact is there is $558 
million in a fixed asset account that is counted in there, and we 
actually----
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we are 
talking about the Jackson-Lee amendment, $81.5 million. The Committee 
on Appropriations has authorized $600 million. that $81.5 million could 
come out of that $600 million, and I could be corrected, but that is 
what I have been told. I do not know about the fixed asset part of this 
amendment.
  We are talking about saving employees from having a reduction in work 
force for 10 to 12 to 20 days by having some reasonable planning in the 
authorization, and that is what authorizations are supposed to be 
about, Mr. Chairman, that we plan for those employees to do their work 
full-time.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned as I have listened now, this is the 
second day I have listened to this debate in the Committee on Science 
and here on the floor, and I am just a little bit surprised that one of 
my dear colleagues from Florida really wants to cut personnel in such a 
way that it will affect Florida employees and citizens of Florida.
  But I am concerned about all of the appropriations. I am concerned, 
first of all, to say that any time we are dealing with personnel, we 
cannot just jump without some studies. I do not think any one has ever 
looked at the negative impact of this particular issue that would cut 
money out of personnel.
  First of all, the question I would like to ask is: Has anybody looked 
at the inflationary increase that these people will have to use to live 
by?

                              {time}  1430

  Have Members looked at the benefits that will be due to them in this 
forthcoming budget which we are trying to authorize here? If we are 
arguing about figures, we had better think about some of the things 
that influence figures. Things that influence figures are not just the 
way we feel philosophically. What influences figures should be what 
impact will this have on the employees who make up the personnel of 
NASA. That is the first thing we are going to think about.
  Then, if we are just thinking about budget cutting, we could cut any 
budget that each committee has put on. If we are just going to do that, 
then just wantonly cut the budgets, instead of going into a personnel 
budget and reducing it by so many million dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have this argument with what the President's 
budget is. I am talking about the policy of authorizing something that 
will give the personnel of the NASA a chance to operate like personnel 
of other industries.
  All the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is asking, and I am 
here to support her amendment, all she is asking is that we restore the 
NASA personnel account to the level that was requested by the 
President. I am hearing different things on that, standing here, but 
that is what her amendment is asking. I agree with that.

   Mr. Chairman, if we do not pass her amendment, according to what is 
currently going on on the floor now, these personnel members, these are 
human beings, just like us in the Congress. We do not want our benefits 
cut, we do not want our salary cut due to the whims and whimsical ideas 
that people have. We want to be sure that if they are cut, there is a 
sound reason.
  Think about what this will do, Mr. Chairman. What this will do is put 
them on a furlough. Have we not had enough furloughs here in the 
Federal Government? Have we not had enough Government employees and 
contractors of Government, to cause their personnel benefits and cause 
their pay to be cut? Have we not had enough of that? When will we learn 
our lesson?
  Another thing, in dealing with the agency, I am hoping that somebody 
spoke to this agency, to NASA, and said, how can we best cut the 
personnel that will not negatively impact on you? I am not sure that 
this was ever done, because we are dealing pretty much with the budget 
here. We are not dealing with how these agencies should be run. I do 
not think any of us know that much about what is going on back in these 
agencies. I am not sure they even talked to them before they decided to 
bring up these cuts.
  I am only talking about commonsense administration, commonsense, 
humane things that a government should not be doing; that is, cutting 
personnel without consulting the agency and saying to the agency, these 
are our objectives, these are our goals, how can we best reach that? 
That has not been done because, as I understand it, there was no 
consultation with the agency and there is no basis for this sharp 
reduction.
  I close, Mr. Chairman, by saying if there is going to be a sharp 
reduction, particularly in personnel, it should be thought through, it 
should go through the authorizing committee, and then submit it, 
naturally, as we have to do to appropriations, but think about the 
impact, first. I beg the Members to support the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. It is a humane amendment. 
It is based on the future of the personnel of NASA. They are dedicated 
people in that agency, Mr. Chairman. I would appeal to the House to 
pass the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida. I think it is extremely important.
  Let me indicate that the Sensenbrenner-Weldon amendment simply robs 
from Peter to say Paul. That is the clarification we need. Though they 
are belatedly offering to restore these funds, which the Jackson-Lee 
amendment does straight up, they then gut academic programs, they gut 
the space communications, they gut travel, so we cannot relate to our 
foreign space partners in the space station, and they gut science.
  And NASA has indicated that we will see no savings with their 
reductions in 1997, fiscal year 1997, none whatsoever, because they 
cannot move that quickly. They are already downsizing, cutting jobs, 
cutting employees, as of October, 1996. The gentlewoman is absolutely 
right that Florida, Texas, and Alabama will be hurt drastically.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I just think we ought to have a 
clarification from the last set of remarks we just had. The gentlewoman 
from Florida accused my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon], of seeking to slash personnel. Thank goodness the gentlewoman 
from Texas tried to make a clarification on that.
  The fact is that both of these amendments put back in the full money 
for personnel accounts. The only question here is whether or not we are 
going to save some money out of travel accounts and out of some other 
accounts in order to pay the personnel, or whether or not we are going 
to do simply an add-on that adds on deficit spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to clarify that. There was very little 
good information in that last set of remarks, because it simply did not 
relate to the topic before us. Again, the gentleman needs to be 
congratulated. He is doing the responsible thing here of plusing up 
those personnel accounts, but doing so in a way that we can afford it 
and the taxpayers do not end up having it taken out of their 
pocketbook.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman. I will try to make my 
comments briefly.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a lengthy debate. I think it has been 
fairly productive. I just want to explain a little to my colleagues how 
we got into this situation. Our staff on the committee sat down with 
the NASA officials and were given figures on the amount of money they 
needed for the support of their staff, the full-time equivalents. Then 
2 days before we went to committee markup, they came in with a whole 
new set of numbers and said they needed $81.5 million more.

[[Page H5683]]

  It is true that the ranking member did seek in his substitute to 
restore that money, and I commend him for that. But he also sought 
about $1.5 billion additional of spending that we did not have. It 
would amount to borrowing more money from our children to pay for what 
we are doing now. I think that was irresponsible, and his substitute 
was defeated in committee, as it was on the floor. Nobody on the 
minority side presented an amendment that would exclusively restore 
this account.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been working diligently with the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], with the 
full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], 
as well as with the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies, the gentleman from California, Mr. Jerry Lewis, 
to make sure these funds are restored.

  I think my amendment, with the perfecting amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], is a good, reasonable, 
responsible way to accomplish the goal. And we all agree on the goal, 
we just disagree on how we do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of the 
Weldon-Sensenbrenner amendment.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I really do not like to 
belabor this, but sometimes it seems necessary to keep saying the same 
thing over again to get it across.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is acting properly here to 
restore funding that, whether as he claims, it is the fault of the 
administration, or as I claim, it is the fault of the committee 
chairman himself, we both realize it needs to be corrected.
  Then we repeat the mantra, that if we do not take away from some of 
these other things, travel and so forth, the budget is not going to be 
balanced. What does that means? That means that it does not conform to 
the Republican budget. The Democratic budget, which the President 
offered, it is still below that, and it is still in balance. They are 
going to contend, of course, that the President's balanced budget is 
phony and all that sort of stuff, so maybe it is. But it has been 
certified by the Congressional Budget Office as being in balance in 
2002.
  What is the difference? The President's budget, has been pointed out, 
is higher for both NASA and for the entire discretionary research and 
development account up to year 2000. It is substantially higher than 
the Republican budget over that same period of time by an amount of 
roughly $2 billion per year. Then it takes a sharp cut. That has been 
pointed out. It has been claimed, of course, that that is political 
manipulation, that the President is keeping the R&D budget artificially 
high, that the only true budget handed down from heaven itself is the 
Republican budget, which is roughly $2 billion per year less than the 
President's budget.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I noticed that when the President's 
budget came up on the floor of the House, it was overwhelmingly 
rejected, and only 10 of the 23 Democrats on the Committee on Science 
voted for the President's budget. The gentleman was one of them, I give 
him credit for consistency, but evidently the gentleman was less 
persuasive then than he is today.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
pertinent comment. I have said many times that in the 7-year runout, I 
do not like either the Republican budget or the President's budget. I 
have also said that since the main differences occur in the year 2000, 
and nobody can predict what is going to happen in the year 2000, and 
that will be in the first administration of President Gore, I am going 
to let President Gore worry about that problem when we get to it.
  In the meantime, I am going to support the budget, which is $2 
billion a year higher for R&D, and I urge my friends on that side to 
think carefully before rejecting it, because it will be an issue. I am 
spending most of my time trying to make the votes in support of a 
reasonable R&D program for this country an issue in this campaign.
  The gentleman may think his position will stand up better than mine, 
and we will let the voters decide.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much for his kindness in yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me clear up several points. Let it be perfectly 
clear, as one of President used to say, that this side of the aisle is 
not against a balanced budget. We have voted time and time again, and 
as a freshman I can say I have voted for a balanced budget. The 
misnomer we have here is that we are against giving middle-income tax 
cuts.
  That is not accurate. We are against bashing middle-income workers at 
the NASA centers around this Nation by borrowing from Peter to pay 
Paul, as the Weldon-Sensenbrenner amendment has. It may restore 
belatedly $81.5 million, but it guts other programs, and we do not know 
if we are going to have any savings by cutting other programs and 
requiring NASA, that has already downsized, to not be able to 
communicate with its foreign space station partners, to not be able to 
have space communications, and taking away from the science program.
  I am not sure where they are trying to go, but I would solicit my 
colleagues to do the right thing and support the Jackson-Lee amendment 
that is a restoration, not an increase, a restoration of $81.5 million, 
that gives to our NASA employees the ability to downsize appropriately, 
without safety factors being damaged, as well as putting them on a 2-
week or more furlough where they cannot work and they cannot continue 
the mission of NASA, and cannot continue the mission of this Nation 
with respect to space exploration and science.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this discussion here today on the two amendments really 
is no different than the discussion yesterday concerning the substitute 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and the original 
bill sponsored by the chairman of the committee. I could say the same 
remarks about them, because basically what it is a question of funding 
programs that need to be funded, and still balancing the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, the majority, which emphasizes balancing the budget, 
will lead us to believe that if we do not make these cuts in the TDRSS 
and other parts in order to fund back the personnel money for NASA, 
that we are not going to have a balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, it ain't 
so. It really ain't so. That amount of money, to begin with, is not 
going to make the difference in the next 7 years.
  Second, under the coalition budget, which very few of their Members, 
the vast majority, did not support, this program for the personnel is 
fully funded, and so is the TDRSS and the research and development 
fully funded as is necessary, and we have a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  As has been pointed out earlier today by the gentleman from 
California, our ranking minority member, it is a question of 
establishing priorities: What do we really want? There is no question 
in my mind that the radical right, under the leadership of the 
majority, does not want research and development. It is clear and 
simple. Why else are they cutting the program in this amendment, in the 
amendment of the gentleman from Florida? Why else?
  I would also like to know from the gentleman from Florida, who 
offered the original amendment, what are they going to do about the 
TDRSS contract as presently existing, and we have a TDRSS contract to 
replace the present TDRSS that are in orbit, when we cut these funds? 
Where are we going to get the money? They are not going to get the 
money, so we are in violation of a contract. But so what? To them it 
does not mean anything. It is all in the name of balancing the budget.
  That is a lot of baloney. It is not in the name of balancing the 
budget. It is

[[Page H5684]]

in the name of following, basically, what the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], feels is his 
straitjacket; and his straitjacket is that this is the only amount of 
money we are going to spend. I do not think it makes a difference to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania whether we have the money there or not. 
If he does not want to spend it, he is not going to spend it.

                              {time}  1445

  It does not make any difference about balancing the budget. I will 
say it again and again. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget. 
It has all to do about the whims of the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
how he feels about programs.
  And, lo and behold, all the rest of the Members over there, they 
follow him down the road just like the rest of the body, the vast 
majority follows the Speaker right down the road. They just keep 
following him down that road, and I am sure that the American public is 
going to take a good look at the road that they are taking this country 
down: a road that leads to very little research and development, basic 
research, a road that makes mistakes now and then, as the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania made the mistake, why else are we having the original 
amendment? And later on we will have other amendments to clean up the 
bills that came out of committee.
  It is not necessary to make those mistakes. The mistakes are 
basically made when they try to follow that straitjacket that is self-
imposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the actions of the 
committee.
  As I said yesterday, I will say it again. As I have looked at this 
legislation, the original bill that came out of committee, in 
comparison to all the other ones we have had in the 20 years I have 
been here, it is the worst one and it is not necessary to be that way. 
It is only that way because of the dictates of the leadership of the 
Republican Party. It can be a good bill. It could be one that has 
positive features instead of negative features, but it is not going to 
be a good bill because they do not want it to be one.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. They would like the American public to believe that 
somehow through the authorization process, not even the appropriation 
process but in this authorization process, they are going to lead us 
down, this Congress, down to a balanced budget. A lot of baloney. 
Nothing further from the truth.
  Lo and behold, we will wait until we see what the appropriation 
process brings along. That is where the money is really spent in this 
whole area. This bill only authorizes. If the gentleman wants to really 
save money, I would suggest, the gentleman from Florida, if he really 
wants to save money, that he can cut this program when we get to the 
appropriation bill.
  He can cut back NASA if he wants to. There is no reason that he 
cannot. He can cut it back. We do not have to have a space station. He 
can vote against the space station. He can do that. He can vote against 
the operation of the shuttle. He can do that and save a lot of money. 
It is easy to do. Instead of cutting back on other things, why does he 
not cut back on those things that are important to his district? That 
really shows self-sacrifice. I would recommend the gentleman think 
about it.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment. The 
Brown substitute would have corrected this but we failed on that. We 
think this is a cut that should have never been made in the first 
place. We have talked about this in committee, we have talked about it 
on the floor earlier. I think to put it succinctly and to the point I 
need to quote Mr. Peterson, who is the NASA comptroller, who says:

       To put it bluntly, the S&E reduction is impossible to 
     achieve without drastic action. Unless a miracle occurs and 
     we have both buyout legislation and a lot of takers, there is 
     simply no way feasible to implement this reduction without 
     resorting to furloughs. At $81.5 million, we estimate a 10-
     to-12 day furlough would be necessary to make this number.

  We do not want furloughs. I know no one on the other side wants 
furloughs. I believe that this comptroller knows what he is talking 
about, and submit this to Members for their consideration. I urge the 
adoption of the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XXIII, the Chair may 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time for any vote by 
electronic device, if ordered, on the pending amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 271, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               AYES--142

     Abercrombie
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--271

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim

[[Page H5685]]


     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Chabot
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Wise

                              {time}  1511

  Messrs. HOLDEN, SMITH of Michigan, MASCARA, BORSKI, COYNE, and 
BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts and Mr. STUDDS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 354, 
noes 60, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               AYES--354

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--60

     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bonior
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Olver
     Owens
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tanner
     Torres
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Chabot
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Wise

                              {time}  1519

  Mr. McDERMOTT and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   vacating passage of gekas amendment no. 3 and amendment no. 3, as 
                     modified, offered by mr. gekas

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
proceedings of yesterday, wherein my amendment No. 3 was adopted, be 
vacated and a new amendment also titled No. 3 be inserted in its place 
in lieu of the amendment yesterday. We had the wrong language 
submitted.
  Mr. Chairman, I checked with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] and he indicated that he has no objection.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modified amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 3, as modified, offered by Mr. Gekas. Page 
     87, after line 21, insert the following new subsection:
       (h) Bi-Agency Working Group.--The National Weather Service 
     is encouraged to follow through on the recommendation 
     contained in the document entitled ``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'', dated October 12, 1995, to 
     initiate a dialogue with the Federal Aviation Administration 
     to form

[[Page H5686]]

     a bi-agency working group to further assess the potential for 
     National Weather Service operational use of Federal Aviation 
     Administration weather radar data, and to define engineering 
     considerations that would be involved in implementing a data 
     sharing link between the Federal Aviation Administration and 
     the National Weather Service.

  Mr. GEKAS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record communications and related 
articles on the subject of my amendment.
                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 1995.
     Elbert W. Friday, Jr.,
     Assistant Administrator, National Weather Service, U.S. 
         Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.
       Dear Mr. Friday: Throughout the implementation process of 
     the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) system by the 
     National Weather Service (NWS), serious concerns were raised 
     regarding deficient coverage of the Harrisburg metropolitan 
     area. Unfortunately, my concerns were repeatedly rebuffed by 
     the NWS with claims that Harrisburg weather coverage was 
     appropriate. Now that the NEXRAD system has been fully 
     implemented it is clear that my earlier cautions and 
     predictions have become reality.
       While the NEXRAD radar beam projects a further distance 
     than traditional radar, due to the earth's curvature coverage 
     originating from 120 miles north of Harrisburg in State 
     College creates a gap from the earth's surface to a level 
     16,000 feet above Harrisburg, completely missing the city. 
     Physical limitations of the NEXRAD radar beam have left open 
     an unmonitored area which is densely populated and prone to 
     flooding.
       At the time this concern was raised, I was told by the NWS 
     that coverage would be adequate. I content that coverage of 
     the area is not sufficient. A NWS employee submitted to me 
     the enclosed sampling of documented cases illustrating severe 
     weather conditions which went undetected by the NEXRAD 
     system.
       Unfortunately, while some areas of the country may enjoy 
     improved radar services, Central Pennsylvania has been 
     diminished service due to the lack of attention to this flaw 
     in the NEXRAD coverage. I believe the most significant 
     responsibility entrusted to the NWS is to ensure the public's 
     safety. I urge you once again to reconsider this situation 
     which the NWS has created and confirm that your job of 
     ensuring public safety has been satisfied.
       Thank you for your consideration; I look forward to your 
     response.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  George W. Gekas,
     Member of Congress.
                                                                    ____


                         Case 1--April 30, 1994

       Attachment 1: Summary of Severe Weather Reports. The 
     station log sheets from NWS Harrisburg were not available for 
     this event. However widespread severe weather occurred over 
     central Pennsylvania during the evening of April 30. As noted 
     on Attachment 1, damage from a severe thunderstorm was 
     reported in uptown Harrisburg at 10:46 pm. This damage was 
     later determined by the National Weather Service to be caused 
     by a tornado. Although forecasters in the State College 
     office had called the Harrisburg office about severe weather 
     appearing on their NEXRAD in other areas of the state prior 
     to that time, they made no mention of severe weather in the 
     Harrisburg area at the time of the tornado. The Harrisburg 
     Weather Service office issued a severe thunderstorm warning 
     for this storm based on the radar at Harrisburg.
       Substantial damage occurred in uptown Harrisburg and near 
     the State Hospital that evening.
                                                                    ____


                         Case 2--July 20, 1994

       Attachment 2: Note from person on duty at Harrisburg 
     describing a severe thunderstorm event in Huntingdon County. 
     (The NEXRAD radar site is in Centre County; Huntingdon County 
     is adjacent to Centre County). Harrisburg radar showed this 
     storm to be severe, and the person on duty at Harrisburg 
     issued a severe thunderstorm warning based on the Harrisburg 
     radar (after being advised by State College personnel that 
     their NEXRAD did not indicate any severe weather in 
     Huntingdon County.)
       Attachment 3: The severe thunderstorm warning issued by 
     Harrisburg.
       Attachment 4: Station log documenting the report of damage 
     from the storm. The report was received by NWS Harrisburg 
     from Emergency Management officials in Huntingdon County. EMA 
     officials indicated 20 to 30 trees down and damage to homes.
       Comments: The NEXRAD radar has the ability to archive paper 
     copies of its radar display. I requested archive copies of 
     the radar display for the time of the storm in Huntington 
     County. Apparently the NEXRAD did not show anything alarming 
     in Huntingdon County at that time, because State College 
     personnel did not start to archive until 7:40 pm that day, 
     the damage occurred at 6:50 pm.
       The damage in Huntingdon County occurred less than 40 miles 
     from State College. Harrisburg, York and Lancaster are more 
     than twice that distance from State College.
                                                                    ____


 Bulletin--Immediate Broadcast Requested, Severe Thunderstorm Warning, 
 National Weather Service, Harrisburg PA, 6:31 p.m. EDT Wed, July 20, 
                                  1994

       The National Weather Service in Harrisburg has issued a 
     severe thunderstorm warning effective until 7:15 p.m. EDT for 
     people in the following location:
       In south central Pennsylvania: Huntingdon County.
       At 6:30 p.m. Harrisburg radar showed a severe thunderstorm 
     between the town of Huntingdon and the Mifflin County line. 
     This storm was moving toward the northeast at 10 miles an 
     hour.
       This is a dangerous storm. If you are in its path you 
     should prepare for damaging wind in excess of 55 mph, large 
     hail, and deadly lightning. People outside should move to a 
     shelter, preferably inside a strong building but stay away 
     from windows.
                                                                    ____


                          Emergency Action Log

       Date/Time, July, 20, 1994 Information Received, city/town/
     time of event, source/event. Action Taken, calls made, 
     warnings, etc. Initials, DM.
       6:05 p.m.--Bob Fenner called--quarter-size hail in State 
     College, Warning issued 6:05 PM--DM.
       6:10 p.m.--CTP called--dime-size hail at the office in 
     State College--DM.
       9:15 p.m.--Rich Moore (Huntingdon County) called--20 to 30 
     large trees blown down; trees blown onto houses causing an 
     estimated $2,000 damage; \1/2\ mile by \1/2\ mile patch of 
     wind damage in Mill Creek at 6:50 p.m.; (DVIP 5 to 270 top 
     55,000 ft shown on WSR-74c radar just before warning 
     issuance) (I also called CTP about the storm just before 
     warning issuance. According to this the storm was not showing 
     severe characteristics)--DM.

                         Case 3--August 4, 1994

       Attachment 5: Entry from Harrisburg's station log book. At 
     5:28 pm, the weather observer at the Middletown International 
     Airport issued a weather observation reporting a wind gust of 
     50 knots (58 mph). A wind gust of 50 knots warrants a severe 
     thunderstorm warning according to the severe weather criteria 
     used by the National Weather Service. The person on duty at 
     Harrisburg sent State College a message through the NWS 
     computer system pointing out the observation. The weather 
     office in Mt. Holly, New Jersey sent a similar message to 
     State College at approximately the same time.
       At 5:55 pm, the person on duty at State College called the 
     Harrisburg office to ask if the Harrisburg radar showed any 
     severe weather in the vicinity of the airport (because their 
     radar showed no strong storms in that area). By that time (25 
     minutes after the report), the Harrisburg radar showed the 
     storm was well below severe warning criteria.
       No warning was ever issued by the State College office for 
     this event.
                                                                    ____


                           Emergency Log Book

       July 29, 1994, 3 p.m.--Pit's 88D is down and 57 is up until 
     sometime Saturday (7/30/94). They will be taking radar 
     observations until then--GC.
       July 29, 1994, 11 p.m.--Left HAR radar on overnight per 
     request by Art Krause (PHL)--GC.
       August 4, 1994--At 5:30 p.m. the observer (MDR) issued an 
     observation reporting a windgust to 50 kts. I sent them a 
     message pointing that out. At 5:55 p.m., State College called 
     and ask if the Harrisburg radar showed a strong cell in that 
     area. By that time (30 minutes after the report) the cell was 
     down to 25,000; VIP 5 to 8,000. No warning was issued by 
     State College.--GC.
       August 4, 1994, 10:35 p.m.--Left the radar on overnight per 
     request by PHL (Tony Gigi).
       August 12, 1994, 10:35 p.m.--Art K. wanted radar left on--
     DPM.
       August 13, 1994--Radar left on--DPM.
                                                                    ____


         [From the Harrisburg (PA) Patriot-News, May 14, 1996]

                    It's Official: It Was a Tornado

                            (By Mike Feeley)

       National Weather Service investigators confirmed yesterday 
     that a small tornado touched down Saturday at a truck-parts 
     manufacturing shop along Cameron Street in Harrisburg and 
     danced along the treetops for a half-mile before dissipating.
       Relying mostly on witness accounts and damage to the Dayton 
     Parts plant, weather service officials said the tornado--
     which never showed up on radar--lasted less than a minute.
       But in that time, it reduced part of the Dayton plant at 
     Cameron and Herr streets to rubble, ruptured a gas line, 
     toppled trees and forced the evacuation of a city housing 
     project.
       The tornado was coupled with a thunderstorm that dumped an 
     inch of rain on the area in less than 30 minutes.
       Either the tornado or severe winds blew over a 16-ton 
     caboose on the Conrail yards in Harrisburg, said Mayor 
     Stephen R. Reed. In all, the storm caused $5 million worth of 
     damage in the city.
       About 150 people in the Harrisburg and Camp Hill areas 
     still were without phone service this morning, said Shirley 
     Risoldi, spokeswoman for Bell Atlantic. Risoldi said service 
     should be restored to all homes by the end of the day.

[[Page H5687]]

       Saturday's twister followed a path roughly 200 yards from 
     that of a tornado that hit in 1994, Reed said. These types of 
     tornadoes are not uncommon for the region, investigators 
     said.
       Radar maps used by the weather service to declare weather 
     warnings showed no signs of tornadoes in Dauphin County, said 
     Bruce W. Budd, NWS meteorologist-in-charge in State College.
       Dauphin County was under only a severe thunderstorm warning 
     when the tornado hit. The radar maps showed the potential for 
     a twister in Schuylkill County, however, and that county was 
     under a tornado warning.
       ``The indicators show a strong outflow of wind [in 
     Harrisburg],'' said Budd, as he reviewed radar maps of the 
     area. ``What we don't have is any indication of a tornado. 
     But this type of light tornado is not easily detected. Any 
     severe thunderstorm can produce a brief tornado.''
       Budd and meteorologist Richard W. Winther came to 
     Harrisburg yesterday to investigate the report of a tornado. 
     Most of the damage indicated a ``straight-line'' storm--
     similar to that of a severe thunderstorm.
       But witnesses--including a motorcyclist who was knocked off 
     his bike by a piece of debris--told the investigators they 
     saw a funnel cloud touch down at the Dayton plant. And 
     wreckage at the plant was strewn in such a way as to indicate 
     a tornado had struck, Budd said.
       There's evidence the tornado spent much of its short life 
     moving along 20 or 30 feet off the ground, doing damage to 
     larger trees in its path but leaving the smaller trees 
     relatively undamaged.
       The tornado will be classified as an ``F-1,'' or light 
     tornado, capable of winds of between 73 and 112 mph. 
     Saturday's winds were in excess of 100 mph, Winther said.
       `It's amazing that there were about 30 kids around an ice-
     cream truck and with trees on both sides of the truck 
     damaged, no one was hurt,'' he said.


                    Recent Tornadoes in the Midstate

       May 1996: A small tornado cuts through Cameron Street in 
     Harrisburg, reduces part of a truck-parts manufacturing shop 
     to rubble, ruptures a gas line and forces the evacuation of a 
     housing project.
       May 1995: A weak tornado touched down in Millersville, 
     Lancaster County, destroying a barn, toppling trees and other 
     structures.
       July 1994: A tornado hits the Delwood Manor housing 
     development in northern York County, tossing sheds and 
     blowing off pieces of roofs.
       April 1994: In uptown Harrisburg, a tornado rips parts of 
     roofs off four row homes and shatters school windows.
       August 1992: Winds of 80 to 90 mph swoop into Locust Grove 
     Trailer Park on Route 22 in Lebanon County, displacing a 
     mobile home and uprooting trees.
                                                                    ____



                                        Lower Paxton Township,

                                     Harrisburg, PA, May 11, 1996.
     Hon. George Gekas,
     Member of Congress, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gekas: As I write this, the thunder is 
     still rumbling in the distance from a severe storm that has 
     just slammed Dauphin and Cumberland counties with no warning 
     from the National Weather Service.
       As a former weathercaster in the nation's tornado alley and 
     through my own interest in meteorology, I can see no excuse 
     for the lack of warning before this storm struck. There was 
     not even a severe thunderstorm watch. All this despite the 
     fact that an hour before the storm hit, radar was showing a 
     line of intensifying storms west of Harrisburg.
       Storm warnings had been posted for Juniata and Franklin 
     counties, then there was nothing until the storms had already 
     passed through Dauphin County and were entering Lebanon 
     County. At that time a warning was issued for Lebanon and 
     Lancaster counties.
       My police and fire radio is alive with communications 
     regarding severe damage to private homes, apartment 
     buildings, even a school . . . several of the incidents 
     involving possible injury or entrapment.
       It appears Lower Paxton Township has escaped the brunt of 
     the storm. The city of Harrisburg seems to have experienced 
     serious damage.
       This is another glaring example that the realignment of the 
     National Weather Service, especially in closing its 
     Harrisburg office, is not providing adequate coverage of this 
     meteorologically dynamic area. As competent and well-equipped 
     as the meteorologists at the Weather Service Office in State 
     College might be, standing barefoot on my front steps in 
     Lower Paxton Township I could tell there was a severe storm 
     imminent.
       How many more times must the safety of the residents of my 
     township and all other communities in this region be 
     compromised before something is done to end this threat to 
     public safety?
       I urge you to employ whatever avenues available to rectify 
     this situation. If I may be of any assistance, I would 
     welcome contact from your office.
           Respectfully,
                                                        Jay Purdy,
                                Supervisor, Lower Paxton Township.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the initial request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title II?


                     amendment offered by mr. scott

  Mr. SCOTT. 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. Scott: Page 27, line 14, strike 
     ``$823,400,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$857,800,000''.
       Page 27, line 19, strike $152,800,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$187,200,000''.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to restore 
funding for NASA's Advanced Subsonic Aeronautic Research Program to the 
level contained in the President's budget. H.R. 3322 cuts the advanced 
subsonic program by 34.4 million, money that is vitally important to 
maintaining NASA's longstanding leadership in subsonic research.
  For those not familiar with subsonic research, let me briefly outline 
the kinds of activities being affected. Activities such as research and 
development to address aging aircraft, safety concerns, and aging 
aircraft are the kinds of aircraft popular with the newer economy 
airlines and the aging airframes used by the United States military.
  Subsonic research in jeopardy also includes cooperative activities 
with the FAA to improve safety and efficiency in the Nation's air 
traffic management system so we do not lose control of the increasing 
volume of commercial and military air traffic.
  Also in jeopardy is R&D on advanced technologies that could result in 
quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft and an understanding of how 
aircraft operations affect the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge and support the need to cut Government 
spending where appropriate in order to meet our budget 
responsibilities. However, a cut in NASA's aeronautic authorization 
program is extremely counterproductive to our shared goals of 
increasingly stronger economy and a stronger America.
  Mr. Chairman, the American aeronautics industry has an annual sales 
of over $60 billion and is responsible for this country's greatest 
positive balance of trade.
  Without the research and support of NASA, the U.S. aeronautics 
industry would not be competitive in the global marketplace. This was 
in fact the purpose for which Congress created NASA in the first place. 
It is important to remember that in 1917 Congress created NASA's 
predecessor for the express purpose of regaining America's 
competitiveness in aviation at a time when dominance in this area had 
been lost to the Europeans.
  Now at a time when the Europeans are in high gear, supporting the 
research and development of the Airbus, we are poised to shoot 
ourselves in the foot again by cutting the very programs that kept the 
United States aeronautics program competitive. This amendment will 
enable these subsonic programs to continue at a reasonable level.
  Mr. Chairman, recently I had the chance to see firsthand how this 
program works and the results of this program because I had the 
opportunity to participate in celebrations commemorating the production 
of the new Boeing 777, and also another program commemorating the 
McDonnell Douglas C-17. Both programs use the wing design and composite 
materials developed more than a decade ago by NASA. These aircraft, one 
commercial, one military, are now on the cutting edge of aircraft 
technology and greatly advance the competitive position of the United 
States in the world marketplace. Without the research under the 
advanced subsonic program, we are in jeopardy of losing our competitive 
edge 5, 10, and 15 years from now.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not contribute to any effort which might lead 
to the loss of U.S. preeminence in aeronautics. I urge Members on both 
sides of the aisle to support this amendment and therefore support this 
country's economy.

[[Page H5688]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 1994, this program was funded at $106 
million. The bill before us has a funding level for this program at 
$152.8 million for fiscal year 1997. Now, that is an increase of about 
45 percent over a 3-fiscal-year period.
  I believe that that increase is generous enough in light of the 
extreme fiscal situation that we are facing and the bipartisan drive to 
try to balance the budget.
  Also, the amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia, while well-intentioned, is an add-on without corresponding 
offsets. We went through that entire issue in the last amendment, and 
the House voted very strongly in favor of, where we do have add-on, to 
have a corresponding offset so that the bill will maintain its fiscal 
neutrality.
  This amendment does not maintain fiscal neutrality. It ends up 
increasing the authorization by $34 million-plus, and that means $34 
million-plus of deficit spending should the Committee on Appropriations 
match the authorization level.
  In summation, I do not think that we need this additional money. I 
think that it is important that there be on offset, not an add-on. I 
believe that this program has been given generous increases over the 
last 3 fiscal years under both Democratic and Republican-controlled 
Congresses and the amount that is in the bill unamended is enough.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this amendment. I think it is a 
vitally necessary amendment. Of course, my critiera is whether or not 
it was in my substitute, and it was in my substitute; or it must be a 
very good amendment.
  I am not quite sure how to deal with the arguments on the other side. 
Of course, part of the argument is maybe that this is corporate welfare 
and we do not fund corporate welfare. If it benefits corporations, we 
do not do it. So they want to keep the program considerably below the 
level that is being recommended by the administration.

                              {time}  1530

  Well, maybe it is just that they do not want to do anything the 
administration wants, no matter how good it is. Of course, they are 
raising again the subject of the budget; it does not have any offsets 
in it. Now, that was the same argument that we heard on the previous 
amendment and on various other amendments.
  It is quite obvious that on the majority side, they have a great deal 
of wisdom, shared by almost every one of them, as evidenced by the fact 
that they all, in that wisdom, decided to vote against the prior 
amendment. So, I do not want the belabor these things too much.
  It is my contention, of course, that this is one of the crucial 
programs in NASA's portfolio. It is doing something that specifically 
helps a major U.S. industry, which is faced with intense competition 
from around the world, specifically from Europe and the Airbus 
consortium. If we cannot do something to provide an adequate level of 
support for U.S. industry engaged in this competition, we are going to 
lose to the Europeans where the Airbus is a government-funded 
consortium.
  We can argue that we want to be pristine in this. If there is a 
healthy aircraft industry, they ought to be taking up the whole cost 
for this. That has not been the case for the last 75 years. They know 
it, and part of their revolution is to change things that have been 
going on for the last 75 years, even though it was this program of 
working cooperatively with the industry that made us the preeminent 
supplier of aircraft to the world, preeminent because we were the best.
  Mr. Chairman, now we have decided that we no longer need to continue 
that path for subsonic aircraft research. Now, I do not see a similar 
attitude toward the hypersonic aircraft research. It appears that this 
is not quite as much corporate welfare, although it is the same basic 
type of research. Maybe the reason is that we know that there will not 
be a commercial market for hypersonic planes. Even though this is 
applied research, the hypersonic, on behalf of American corporations, 
and this normally is the criteria for corporate welfare, in this case 
we will not call it corporate welfare for some reason or another.
  I have not quite figured that out, but the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] will have a good explanation which he will 
give you shortly, I am sure.
  Now, it is my view, and I take delight in pointing this out, that the 
position taken by the majority in these situations is full of 
contradictions. They, for example, have language in their report which 
provides certain direction to NASA with regard to applied research. It 
says the committee encourages NASA to review funding levels for polymer 
matrix composite programs to achieve a balance between composite and 
metallic technologies. Aluminum has been the material of choice for all 
significant commercial aircraft structures and continues to offer 
opportunities for cost-effective improvements in aircraft structural 
performance.
  Now, this sounds to me an awful lot like a recommendation to pursue a 
particular line of advanced subsonic research because it has a more 
direct application to existing commercial aircraft design. Is that a 
good idea? Possibly. Or is this an example of corporate welfare, 
telling the government how to spend its money in support of certain 
technologies which are already well developed and have a large base in 
industry?
  Apparently, if they like the program, it is not corporate welfare. If 
they do not, it is corporate welfare. I urge support for the Scott 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Virginia. I think that clearly again I emphasize the creation of work 
for the 21st century, and I think we are doing a disservice by 
eliminating those dollars for that direction. So I rise to support the 
Scott amendment.
  I would also like to add a comment regarding the amendment that I 
would offered, Mission to Planet Earth, and would ask if I could enter 
into a colloguy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  As the gentleman knows, I had considered offering this amendment and 
had raised this with the committee on NASA's Mission to Planet Earth 
Program. But instead I would like to take the time to ask a few 
questions about the National Research Council's review of the Earth 
Observing System and how the Brown recommendation is compared to the 
actions taken in this bill. It is true that last year the chairman of 
the Committee on Science asked the well-respected National Research 
Council to undertake a review of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Program 
and the Earth Observing System? In fact, I believe we discussed that in 
committee.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely 
correct in her statement.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will continue to yield, is 
it also true that the National Research Council panel validated the 
scientific goals of Mission to Planet Earth and recommended, and I 
quote: NASA should implement most of the near-term components of 
Mission to Planet Earth/Earth Observing System, including Landsat 7, 
AM-1, PM-1 and the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission without delay in 
reduction in overall observing capability, and the Chemistry-1 mission 
should not be delayed?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would 
continue to yield, she is absolutely correct in the citation that she 
has made. In addition, the National Research Council went on to 
conclude, and I quote: Based on a series of reviews, a series of 
reviews, the program has evolved from its original plans to a reshaped 
program that is more responsive to the science, more resilient, more 
open to the introduction of new technologies. There has been a shift 
from a fixed series of large vehicle missions to a mixed fleet 
exploiting small- to medium-class spacecraft. However, any further 
structural changes to the near-term EOS missions would cause severe

[[Page H5689]]

program dislocations. Further budgetary reductions or imposed 
constraints on technical options would require the elimination of key 
sensors, slips in schedule, loss of data continuity and the elimination 
of all advanced technology development that could enhance future 
research and lower cost, end of quotation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
take from that statement that that was nothing but a clear and strong 
message from the National Research Council, I might add, an independent 
council, that assessed the Mission to Planet Earth and the Mission to 
Planet Earth directives in H.R. 3322 consistent with the 
recommendations of that National Research Council's independent review, 
a review that was in fact, as we understand it, requested by the 
chairman of the Committee on Science?
  Mr. BROWN of California. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
the gentlewoman is correct. That review was requested by the chairman 
of the Committee on Science. The legislation before us would actually 
cancel the PM-1 and Chemistry-1 spacecraft, cut the funding available 
for the Mission to Planet Earth Program by 27 percent and would 
fundamentally unravel the integrated scientific program that has been 
put in place.
  The actions taken in H.R. 3322 fly in the face of the conclusions and 
recommendations of the National Research Council's review. I might 
point out that the chairman of the committee, when he asked for advice 
from the scientific body, has a tendency to ignore it unless it 
conforms with his own preestablished conclusions. I noted that the 
gentleman referred favorably to the AAAS report when he thought it 
substantiated his conclusions. Normally he does not agree with the 
report that they make each year with regard to R&D funding and the 
budget.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, it is interesting as we 
discuss this, and that is why I think the amendment would have been 
appropriate, but I wonder if the gentleman shares the view of at least 
one of our Republican colleagues that indicated that money spend on 
global change research is money down a rat hole.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, is this the same Member who 
says it is liberal claptrap also?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, sounds familiar. Very much 
so.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I do not share that view. In my opinion, 
such research is imperative if we are to truly understand the planet on 
which we live including the complex interactions that determine our 
climate and develop the policy options that offer the most benefit to 
all our citizens.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], and I would certainly agree with him. I 
hope that we will be able to pursue this through conference and be able 
to ensure that what we do have is the reasoned response to the National 
Research Council's review and be able to comply with that most timely 
study. I thank the gentleman and I yield back my time.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott 
amendment to restore $34.4 million in funds to NASA's Advanced Subsonic 
Program. This increase would bring funding back to the requested level 
and reinvest vitally needed resources in maintaining NASA's 
longstanding global leadership in aeronautics research.
  While advanced subsonic technology may seem like science fiction to 
some, this research does in fact help address safety, fuel efficiency, 
and environmental impact concerns for today's and the next generation 
of commercial aircraft. For anyone who has ever expressed concern about 
the aging aircraft used by some domestic airlines and the U.S. 
military, subsonic research is not just a smart investment, it is peace 
of mind.
  And, although I fully recognize the need to cut the budget deficit, 
aeronautics research and technology spending has a tremendous net 
beneficial impact on our national economy and international balance of 
trade. The aeronautics industry has annual sales of over $60 billion 
and produces a positive balance of trade of $25 billion. In Ohio alone, 
the aerospace industry is responsible for approximately 300,000 jobs 
and injects some $13.5 billion into the State's economy.
  While a $34 million cut from the request level may not seem like a 
lot of money, it is about 20 percent of the program's funds. I believe 
such a deep cut in this important program is unwarranted and 
exacerbates the overall funding cuts suffered by the Agency since 1993.
  Our trading partners throughout the world are increasing their 
investments in research and technology and are consequently snatching 
markets away from our domestic companies. Faced with intense 
competition in a growing global aerospace market, we should do all we 
can to promote our aerospace industry and maintain NASA's preeminence 
in aeronautics.
  I urge Members to support this important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 250, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--157

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--250

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon

[[Page H5690]]


     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     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
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Ackerman
     Chabot
     Chapman
     Clyburn
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Kennelly
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Roukema
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1601

  Mr. BEREUTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCHUMER and Mr. BEILENSON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by Mr. roemer

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

                    amendment offered by Mr. roemer

       Page 24, line 20, insert ``and'' after ``Administration;''.
       Page 24, lines 21 through 24, strike paragraph (2).
       Page 25, line 1, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       Page 25, lines 13 and 15, and page 26, lines 4 and 6, 
     redesignate paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) 
     through (4), respectively.
       Page 26, line 14, strike ``$498,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$230,700,000''.
       Page 27, line 4, strike ``$711,000,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$679,400,000''.
       Page 38, line 14, through page 43, line 6, strike subtitle 
     C.
       Page 43, line 7, redesignate subtitle D as subtitle C.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 1 hour, with 
the time equally divided between the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess I ask for the patience of this body, since we 
seem to go through this argument on eliminating the space station a 
couple of times a year. Certainly people on both sides could dust off 
their talk from 1992 or 1994 and virtually give almost the identical 
talk for cutting the space station or for supporting it.
  I am not going to give the previous speech, because it seems that we 
on the opposing side of the space station continue to get more and more 
arguments in favor of cutting the space station, especially from the 
scientific community. So let me give some background as to why this is 
not good science. This is not in the interests of the scientific 
community or in the interests of taxpayers in America today.
  Mr. Chairman, Scientific American, which is one of the most 
distinguished periodicals written in the United States today, the June 
issue, has a very interesting article on the space station this month. 
Let me quote from it: ``Scientific panels, such as the National 
Research Council's Space Studies Board, have warned that, although some 
interesting research will be possible on the station, the expected 
returns cannot, cannot justify the facility's overall cost.''

  Another quote from this ``Science in the Sky'' article in the 
Scientific American, dated June 1996: ``To date, no large companies are 
planning major research or manufacturing efforts on the Space 
Station.''
  We hear from a host of proponents of the space station that this is 
going to solve everything from cancer to AIDS, to making, 
manufacturing, and testing new crystals. This is absolutely not what 
Scientific American says. They go on to look at what is good in the 
space station and what, out of the eight original missions that the 
space station had, what are we going to do now, in 1996, from when it 
was first designed in 1984.
  With regard to high-technology products, it says in Scientific 
American: ``No larger companies are currently interested in 
manufacturing in space.'' Astronomy, remote sensing for different 
platforms put on the space station, those are certainly gone now since 
1984, but there is no research currently planned from inside or outside 
or anywhere on the space station.
  On biotechnology, it says that ``NASA and its partners are planning 
some experiments, but the commercial interest is limited only to 
subsidized research.'' So these claims that there is all this private 
sector interest and big manufacturing interests in the space station, 
and they are going to help the taxpayers pay for this, is just not 
accurate, not according to the latest article in Scientific American.
  Members might say, as we approach some very, very difficult 
circumstances in reaching a balanced budget over the next 5 or 6 years, 
that we have to make some tough choices around this body. Based on 
science and merit, the space station is the most logical choice to 
eliminate.
  When President Reagan first came up with the idea in 1984, he said 
the space station would cost us $8 billion. Does anybody in this body 
have any idea about the projected cost today? It is not $18 billion, it 
is not even $58 billion, it is close to $90 billion when we add in the 
costs of what we have spent, of what the space shuttle will cost us to 
put these different platforms up into the atmosphere, the cost of 
protecting it, the cost of maintaining it for the 10 or 12 years it is 
up there in space.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about $90 billion. Some may argue, well, 
Members of Congress, we have already spent about $12 billion or $13 
billion, we might as well finish it. Do Members want to justify an 
expense of $70 or $75 billion more of the taxpayers' money because we 
have spent $12 billion or $13 billion bad dollars? I do not think that 
makes a whole heck of a lot of sense. That does not make sense to 
people who are working so hard for so long for their tax money to pay 
their bills and to try to insist on a fair cost here in Washington, DC, 
when we do expend a dollar.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for people on the other side 
of this issue, including the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who was elected the same year and 
serves with me on the Committee on Science, and Members on the other 
side of the aisle. But we have to have the courage in this body to make 
some tough spending cuts to get to a balanced budget.
  If Members look at science and look at merit, this space station just 
does not pass the test of what hardworking American families will ask 
in terms of return on their tax dollar. It is not going to return good 
science. It is surely not going to return any kind of good return for 
these high-tech objectivity measures that people do not even have 
interest in at the manufacturing level, according to Scientific 
American, and we definitely have to make some of these tough choices to 
get to a balanced budget.
  Citizens Against Government Waste endorses this amendment offered by 
myself and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] and a host of other 
groups do as well, too, that I will list in the next few minutes. I 
urge the body to support this elimination of the space station, in the 
interests of science and in the interest of balancing the budget.

[[Page H5691]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going through one of the annual rites of spring 
in Washington. The tulips bloom, the dogwoods become very beautiful, 
and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] introduces his amendment to 
kill the space station.
  Let me say that I will match my record on spending issues against 
that of the gentleman from Indiana and anybody else in this House, and 
I support the space station. The Citizens Against Government Waste has 
given me their Taxpayer Hero Award consistently. The National Taxpayers 
Union has named me the tightwad of the decade in terms of my votes on 
taxes and spending, and I am proud of that, and I support the space 
station.
  I am not going to belabor this point very much, but I do wish to make 
two points for the committee's consideration. The first is that the 
United States taxpayers have already put $12 billion into designing the 
space station and building 50,000 pounds of hardware. If the amendment 
of the gentleman from Indiana is adopted, that $12 billion investment 
will just evaporate. We just chalk that up to experience, and this vote 
is really a vote on whether or not to stiff the taxpayers the $12 
billion that they have invested in this.

  The space station is on time, it is on budget. We have settled on a 
design. We are not redesigning it. We are building the hardware now and 
we are looking forward to the launches of the first elements sometime 
next year.
  The second point is that America's credibility is on the line, 
because we are the leaders of an international consortium that includes 
Russia, the member nations of the Russian space agency, Canada, and 
Japan. Should the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana be adopted, 
the United States will unilaterally cancel the space station, and the 
investments that have been made by the taxpayers of all those other 
countries will similarly be waived. That is about 4 billion U.S. 
dollars.
  So if we end up stiffing our international partners and our allies, 
we are going to make sure that they are not going to want to get 
together with the United States, either on scientific endeavors or on 
any other endeavor, for fear that the Congress will change its mind and 
pull the rug out from underneath them.
  Let us stay the course. Let us vote against the Roemer amendment. Let 
us build the space station, and then let us operate the space station 
and benefit from the scientific research that goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], coauthor of this bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not surprisingly, since I have 
cosponsored this amendment, in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this should not be an annual rite of spring. We should 
eliminate this funding. James van Allen, a respected scientist at the 
University of Iowa, and many other scientists have said that we will 
get much more bang for our buck by funding unmanned scientific 
explorations. The space station's spending is already $43 million over 
budget, or, as NASA would say, the expenses have experienced cost 
growth.
  Despite these higher expenditures, NASA has fallen behind in the 
construction schedule. According to the GAO, we will sink $94 billion 
into this orbiting erector set before it is over, if NASA does not go 
any further over budget.
  Our share of the price tag is not the only problem. The space station 
is supposed to be international, so let me speak to comments made by my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin. The memoranda of 
understanding between NASA and the space agencies of our partners has 
not been finalized. We have no definitive agreements with any of our 
partners, whose contributions are necessary for the completion of this 
space station.
  NASA insists that Russia has made commitments to the project. 
However, none of these agreements are in writing. NASA must know 
something that Russia does not know. For example, NASA states that an 
American will always be in command of the space station. The Russians, 
however, say that question has not been settled.
  The fact that we have no written agreement with Russia I think is 
particularly problematic. Russian Presidential elections will be held 
this June, and it is uncertain who the successor to Yeltsin will be.

                              {time}  1615

  Should Mr. Yeltsin lose, it is likely that Mr. Zyuganov will be the 
President of Russia. As most Members know, he hates the West, and I 
would doubt that we would see any cooperation with the space station.
  Another ally, Canada, will not decide whether they will pay for 
completion of the robotic arm until 1997. What if they decide not to? I 
suppose NASA will be back here in Congress asking for another chunk of 
change.
  While NASA's overall budget has been declining and will continue to 
decline, the space station seems to be immune to scrutiny. NASA has 
consolidated control of the entire space station budget with the 
program manager, giving him an additional $300 million per year. These 
funds were previously controlled by various research offices 
responsible for scientific experiments to be conducted on the space 
station. This consolidation has made it possible for funds allocated 
for research to be used for construction of the space station.
  What good will building the space station do if we spend all of the 
research money building the space station? Mr. Chairman, I am afraid 
that well-intentioned but misguided efforts to complete this project 
will not give us what we want. These concessions cost millions of 
dollars. We have the delay of completion of scientific projects in 
other areas. This is a black hole. The money goes in, nothing comes 
out.
  For example, our offer to launch Russia's science power platform will 
upset the station construction schedule by causing a 5-month delay in 
launching Japan's science module and an 8-month delay in launching the 
centrifuge which some say is essential for life sciences research. I 
think we just should not throw more good money after bad. It is time to 
cut our losses. I believe that we should face reality, we should stop 
the money vacuum known as the space station now. Vote ``yes'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, like all the other Members who will speak 
and who have spoken, have the highest regard for the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and those who support him. We just differ with 
him. We just think he is still wrong and probably will be wrong in the 
next Congress and in the Congress after that and the one after that. 
Because he is a fine young man, he will be reelected, and he will be 
here when I am in the corner room of the Rockwall Nursing Home, but I 
will still be calling out to save the space station for us old folks.
  As I mentioned to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] at the 
recent full committee markup of the bill, the space station amendment, 
as the gentleman has said, is one of the endearing traditions here. I 
respect his convictions.
  Mr. Chairman, the value of research today is already demonstrated in 
a lot of ways, but in a limited way by experiments that are being 
conducted on the space shuttle. In previous sessions, we have held 
hearings and we have held a number of hearings where we heard from some 
of the leading medical researchers of our day.
  Dr. Michael DeBakey walked these halls 3 days, going in to visit with 
Members to tell them of the value of the space station and the hope 
that the space station holds out; in his early 80's, Dr. Mickey 
LeMaistre, head of M.D. Anderson, who knows the attacks that cancer 
makes on the citizenry, and all of us have someone in a cancer ward.
  I think there is one word that the space station holds out and that 
one word is so important to people that are wasting away in the cancer 
wards. It is so important that we are even talking about 
revolutionizing the FDA because of that one word, and that one word for 
people is hope. They have hope that

[[Page H5692]]

there is medication for them. They have hope that there is a 
breakthrough. We have not found that here in this environment. We hope 
and they hope that we will find it in the weightless environment of 
space.
  Yes, it is a large expenditure of money, but the American people have 
cried out that they want this station, and if you really want to hear a 
hue and cry all across the universities of this country, from children 
in the first grade on up to the senior colleges, do something to the 
space station.
  We almost lost the space station several sessions ago but we have 
never lost it. This body has always said yes, that this gives that one 
thing called hope. And when we talk about Russia and whether or not 
they are going to stay hitched, it has been certainly my finding in 
Russia itself that they seem not to have money for other things, but 
for educational pursuits and for the space station they seem to 
allocate and have money to set aside for it.
  Both sides requested that Al Gore give us some assurance as to what 
their intentions were and what they thought the Russian intentions 
were. I read to you a letter from Al Gore addressed to us dated May 9. 
It says:

       As you are aware, I recently wrote to Prime Minister 
     Chrnomyrdin regarding the status of funding for the Russian 
     Space Agency's cooperative activities with NASA on the 
     international Space Station program. In response, the Prime 
     Minister has firmly pledged that Russia will meet its 
     commitments to the ISS program in full.

  It goes on to say other things. Members all have copies of this 
letter. I invite them to read it. But its assurance to us that the 
leaders of this country, the leaders of that country, certainly the 
investment that Japan and other countries have made ought to cry out to 
us: Save this space station and give these people hope.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the distinguished 
Member from Texas that he certainly will probably never be in a nursing 
home. As talented and as fired up as he is, he will probably be on the 
space station if it is built some day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the hardworking gentlewoman from 
New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Roemer amendment to eliminate funding for the space station.
  Just 3 weeks ago, we debated a bill that drastically cut housing aid 
to lower income Americans. In the name of deficit reduction, this body 
eliminated housing assistance for hundreds of thousands of Americans. 
The argument we heard was that, as a nation, we simply could not afford 
it.
  But today, many in this Chamber are singing a different tune. This 
bill is definitely not about reducing spending. This bill continues the 
foolish proposal to spend billions of dollars for an orbiting public 
housing project, for just a few astronauts.
  How can we tell millions of homeless people that there isn't enough 
money to put a safe roof over their heads, and then, continue to fund 
the space station? It is unconscionable to pour billions of dollars 
into this science fiction experiment, when we cannot afford to take 
care of our own citizens.
  My colleagues, the real question before us today is whether millions 
of Americans will be forced to go without the most fundamental of 
needs--housing--in favor of an expensive space toy. Spending cuts to 
balance the budget must be applied to all domains, not just to the 
social programs. It is wrong to place this burden on the backs of the 
defenseless poor, without asking others to pay as well.
  Let us not pour any more of our scarce funds into building a luxury 
hotel in the sky--especially after we just demolished public housing 
for the needy down here on Earth.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Roemer amendment to 
cancel funding for the space station.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to 
rebut the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez].
  There is a cut in the NASA budget. It is a pretty significant cut. We 
went through all of that in terms of the debate on the personnel. But 
just to set the record straight, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 
1997 this bill cuts the total NASA budget by $325 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this traditional rite of spring, 
to oppose the Roemer amendment and speak out in support of the future, 
in support of our children, in support of the space station. I would 
like to address several of the arguments that have been made by the 
people who would favor killing our space station.
  One of them is that they bring out articles and quotations from bench 
researchers that say, no, do not spend the money on space station, 
spend the money on my research. I have done bench research. I have done 
life sciences research. I can tell my colleagues they could go into any 
university anywhere in the United States and say, ``Would you rather we 
spend $17 billion on the station or on more bench research?'' And they 
would gladly say, ``Give us the money for more bench research.'' The 
question before us is, is that the more appropriate use of our 
resources?
  Another point that is being made by the opponents of the space 
station is this $90 billion figure. The space station is costing $17 
billion to construct. The $90 billion figure comes from a GAO study 
where they added in the cost of running the shuttle program for those 7 
years and the cost of all the research on the space station.
  This would be equivalent, in my opinion, to saying to go out to 
dinner with your wife and see a movie does not cost $30, you have to 
factor in the cost of paving the roads to get back and forth from the 
restaurant and the cost of heating or cooling your house while you are 
in the restaurant. This kind of accounting is very, very deceptive.
  The truth is the space station is on time and on budget, and there 
are very, very few programs run by this Federal Government that can 
make that claim. The space station program has been through downsizing. 
NASA has been through downsizing, and they have learned to be able to 
be lean, mean and efficient. This program is on time and it is on 
budget.
  What this program is about is about the future. When we look at the 
cost of the space station and compare it to what we are going to spend 
over the next 7 years on defense, on health care, on roads and 
highways, this comes out to be less than 0.1 percent. I think it is 
about 0.01 percent of what we as a Nation are going to spend. The 
American people have said over and over again over the past 5, 6, 7 
years, yes, we want to make this investment in the future, because that 
is what this is all about, the future.
  I am told by teachers in my district that there is nothing that we 
can get children more excited about in the area of math and science 
than talking about space and manned space and the future. Support the 
station, vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], who used to serve on the 
Committee on Science and was a strong supporter and coauthor of this 
amendment in the past.
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago when the gentleman from Indiana and I were 
freshmen and both rookie members of what was then the Science, Space 
and Technology Committee, we took the well of this House to warn that 
the space station was going to be an orbiting white elephant, that it 
was going to be a black hole in space that would suck up billions of 
tax dollars and radically expand the deficit, and we said that it 
simply was not worth the money.
  Now, 5 years later, I wish I could say that we were wrong, but every 
day provides us with new evidence that we were right. In a period of 
declining NASA budgets, the space station, which is now estimated by 
the GAO to cost more than $94 billion, has already begun to cannibalize 
more valuable programs in space.
  Bill Clinton's proposed NASA budget drops from $13.8 billion next 
year to $11.6 billion in the year 2000, and when inflation is factored 
in, the cut is even deeper. The Republican budget provides somewhat 
more money for NASA, but even so, the amount of available funds

[[Page H5693]]

is drastically less than we thought it would be just a few years ago. 
There is simply not enough money to build the space station and to meet 
the Nation's more pressing needs for scientific research in space and 
on Earth.
  According to this month's Scientific American, NASA's research and 
development outlay, bloated by the space station, represents almost 40 
percent of the Nation's total nonhealth, nonmilitary research and 
development budget. The huge annual costs of the space station are 
sucking the life out of more cost effective programs of NASA, such as 
our magnificent orbiting observatories, unmanned interplanetary 
missions, the mission to planet Earth, as well as the development of 
cheaper launch systems which will make it possible for us someday to 
have an affordable space station.
  This spring NASA has already used reserve funds to cover $144 million 
in cost growth of the space station program, $100 million is 
attributable to the program being behind schedule, and $44 million is 
due to the cost growth in some of the contracts. The Congressional 
Research Service reports that NASA officials are worried because these 
increases are occurring so early in the construction phase of the 
program.

                              {time}  1630

  There is one aspect that I think deserves particular attention this 
spring, and that is our relationship with Russia as a partner in the 
space station. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore proposed the Russian 
partnership, it generated greater support in this body because it 
seemed like a diplomatic coup. A symbol of the cold war was becoming a 
symbol of international cooperation.
  But, unfortunately, it looks like our partnership with Russia is 
turning out to be a colossal mistake. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Hall], says Russia always comes up with money when it is needed for 
space, and he refers us to a letter from the Vice President and 
promises from the Prime Minister of Russia. But the Russian Government 
has already delayed funding for its service module, a critical 
component of the space station, and work on the service module has 
fallen 5 months behind because the prime contractor has received only 
$10 million of the $55 million that has been requested.
  The Russian Government still has not approved a timetable for making 
these payments. The Russian service module is scheduled for launch in 
1998. If it is not delivered on time, it could devastate the schedule 
and the budget of the space station. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has 
said, ``If we do not have the service module, we cannot complete 
construction of the space station.
  If Russia withdraws from the station, NASA estimates that assembly 
would be delayed by 18 months and would cost the United States an 
additional $2 billion. Additionally, the United States and our 
remaining international partners would have to develop and fund a new 
escape vehicle.
  Now, regardless of who wins the upcoming elections for President in 
Russia, it is clear we will be dealing with a nation that is 
characterized by internal political strife, by ultranationalism, 
authoritarianism, and perhaps insurgent imperialism as well as 
tremendous corruption. While we should, obviously, support Russia's 
struggle to become a democratic, capitalistic nation, we cannot afford 
to gamble $94 billion on it.
  We just can not be certain that there is going to be a happy ending 
to the Russian melodrama. It is not too late to cut our losses on this 
space station. We should support the Roemer-Ganske amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I again rise in opposition, 
strong opposition, to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer].
  This is, in fact, getting to be an annual ritual, I say to my 
colleague. I feel like one of those toys kids buy for Christmas, where 
you pull the back of the toy and the conversation comes out ``Save 
Space Station'', ``Save Space Station'', ``Kill Space Station'', ``Kill 
Space Station.''
  There have been 10 votes on the floor of the House since 1991 over 
this issue. As I count it, there have been 32 total votes both in the 
committee and on the floor on this very issue. I think we have had a 
fair fight and I think, I say to my colleague, it is time for us to get 
off of NASA's back.
  There is not an agency that has been under more scrutiny than NASA 
has been over the space station project. They have redesigned it since 
1991, they have cut the budget, they have cut their personnel, they 
have come to Congress, they have dealt with us in an open, direct way, 
and yet we keep saying every year now is the time to turn our back on 
it.
  We have invested billions of dollars. Our international partners have 
their partnership with us at stake in this project. They have invested 
billions of dollars. Now is not the time to turn our back on it.
  I want to echo some of the comments that my colleague from Florida, 
Mr. Weldon, made about children and mathematics and science. We happen 
to have the international space camp there at the Marshall Space Flight 
Center, there in Huntsville in my district, and I get to go out there 
two or three times a year and see all these young people come in from 
all over the world with their parents, young people that are inspired 
by NASA and by the space program, young people that want to commit 
their careers to mathematics and science, young people that are using 
NASA as their image of what they want to do with their education and 
their careers. Let us not tell those young people that we are the kind 
of country that can in fact turn our back on this kind of investment, 
that can turn our back on the space station program.
  Space station is the centerpiece of what NASA is all about. We have, 
in fact, many scientific projects that our doctors are planning to 
conduct on the space station. In my first year here I sat down with my 
colleague from Texas and a number of Texas doctors that were here that 
had joined with doctors from all over the world, and again they said 
the advances we had made in NASA technology that has given them 
benefits of robotics and surgery benefits and valves for artificial 
hearts, that we would lose our ability to complete those technologies 
if we, in fact, turn our back on the space station.

  So I say we have had a fair fight. It is the irresponsible thing to 
do to turn your back on this project at this particular point. Let us 
kill this killing amendment and let us also kill the amendment that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will offer next, which intends to 
maim the NASA space station program. Let us stop this and let us get on 
with it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman].
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have only been here a few short months, 
but I already feel like I know the gentleman from Indiana like a 
brother. We voted on this so many times now that I am being called an 
old bull in the Committee on Science.
  This is something that we apparently do around here as a ritual, but 
let me tell my colleagues what this is really all about. When I was a 
child I looked at the TV and I watched us go up in Apollo to the Moon. 
I believed and saw and realized America was about something greater 
than I could ever imagine; that was America has a vision for the 
future.
  America is a country and a nation seeking out new places. We were 
founded by a man that had that vision, and we continued throughout, as 
we looked to the West to develop, to search and look for new solutions, 
and to go, as they say in ``Star Trek,'' boldly where no one else has 
ever gone.
  What we are saying here is if we eliminate space station, we 
eliminate the vision for America. We will not hear anybody coming up 
here and saying we will have a new solution. This is what we are going 
to do.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the money we spend in Government research, I 
submit this is the most important thing we do: Create new cures for 
illnesses and develop new processes to which we can feed the world.

  We are obligated. We do not have a choice in this. We have to build 
the space station, because up there in the skies are the solutions to 
here on

[[Page H5694]]

Earth. Mr. Chairman, there is no other purpose for the United States in 
this greatest quest.
  Right now we look at the movies and the different things across the 
country and we know that Americans want a space station. We voted on 
this many times, and I submit to my friends that it is the wisest use 
of money. In fact, it has been researched that for every dollar we 
spend in space we get $7 back. That is not an expense, that is an 
investment.
  As an accountant, I look and see things differently, and if my wife 
and I have trouble with our budget, we do not say, ``Honey, let us cut 
the bonds''; ``Honey, let us cut the investment.'' No, we say let us 
cut the expense, but do not cut the investments.
  Space station is an investment in our future. It is an investment in 
the next generation for work. If we cut research and development, 
tomorrow's jobs will be in Japan and in Germany because they are 
continuing their space program. I submit we have to support this not 
for us, but for the next generation.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has 13 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes to just reply to 
some of the questions and comments that have been made.
  Mr. Chairman, certainly this vote is a tough one. It is a tough one 
to eliminate the space station because people think that they do not 
want to make any votes in this body to move toward a balanced budget. 
There are some Democrats here in the House of Representatives that do 
not want to vote to cut anything. There are some Republicans in this 
body that will vote to cut everything but defense and the space 
station. We here, a bipartisan group, have come together and tried to 
put together an amendment based upon science and merit and the 
taxpayers' interests.
  Now, this question is asked over and over and over, why do we keep 
doing this? Why do we keep making us go through this ritual every year 
of voting on the space station? It is because groups like the National 
Taxpayers Union support this amendment; Citizens Against Government 
Waste support this amendment; Citizens for a Sound Economy support this 
amendment; Taxpayers for Common Sense; the Concord Coalition. A 
bipartisan group of people dedicated to balancing the budget support 
this amendment.
  This is not a bunch of Members of Congress running around trying to 
devise some way of balancing the budget on their own and taking away a 
vital project to the United States' research interests. These are grass 
roots organizations that feel that we should not be building this.
  Now, again, I hear over and over from my colleagues this is great 
science. Again, I refer to Scientific American. High-tech products: Who 
is going to build them? Who is the company? According to this article, 
no large companies are currently interested in manufacturing in space. 
Where are they? How much money are they putting up? I want to know. 
That is a fair question.
  Astronomy: No research currently planned, according to this article. 
Subsidies are required in biotechnology. They are not going to do it on 
their own. More taxpayers' money.
  And when we talk about more taxpayers' money, we are coming back to 
the American taxpayer over and over and over again, with this budget 
going from $8 billion to $90 billion, whereas our taxpayers are sending 
the Russians $100 million of our hard-earned money, yet that is not 
going down. On the same hand, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] said we are cutting NASA. Well, we are cutting NASA in 
all the wrong places to protect the space station.

  The space station is cannibalizing, it is eating up these other 
programs, like Mission to Planet Earth, like new construction, like 
shuttle upgrades. These programs are being cut back and displaced. That 
is not in the best interest of good science.
  So we have the space station within the science and the NASA project 
that is eating up more and more of our available good dollars to do 
good programs when NASA is doing some good things in areas like the 
Clementine project and the Hubble and the Galileo that went to Jupiter. 
We are doing some marvelous things in NASA, but we will not be doing 
anything in NASA before long if the space station continues to gobble 
up all these moneys.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues that we are not going to be 
disappointing the American taxpayer when we say that $14 billion 
already spent is going to be chased by another $70 billion before this 
is over. Let us save the taxpayer that $70 billion now.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the key vote on the space station this year. I 
would hope that the committee will stay the course. I ask the 
membership to vote no on the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127, 
noes 286, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               AYES--127

     Ackerman
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blute
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--286

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam

[[Page H5695]]


     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Chabot
     de la Garza
     Doolittle
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Wise

                              {time}  1704

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Chabot for, with Mr. Gutknecht against.

  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, on recorded vote No. 205, I was incorrectly 
recorded as voting ``aye.'' Please let the Record show it was my 
intention to vote ``no.'' I have been and continue to be a strong 
supporter of the space station.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 25, line 12, strike 
     ``$1,840,200,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$1,765,200,000''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, with the agreement of the gentleman 
from Indiana, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and 
all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes equally divided between 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the House has spoken on eliminating the 
space station in that last amendment. They do not think that we should 
eliminate the space station. This amendment that I offer now for the 
consideration of this House is not the elimination of the space 
station. It is very, very different than eliminating the space station. 
All this amendment offered by myself and the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Ganske] does is to cut $75 million out of a $2.1 billion allocation for 
the space station every single year. They get $2.1 billion. We are just 
saying in this year's budget cut 3 percent, $75 million out of $2.1 
billion.
  Now, when everything else is being cut around here, when we argued 
about a cut in Head Start for a month and a half, when we argued about 
cuts in Medicare, when we have been arguing about cuts, some of the 
safety nets for some of our senior citizens and some of our 
schoolchildren, certainly a space station that gets $2.1 billion each 
year should be a part of balancing the budget.
  Now, the other side, Mr. Chairman, is going to say this is a killer 
amendment, this is going to kill the space station. A 3-percent cut? 
Three percent, $75 million out of $2.1 billion, is not going to cut 
this space station. It is not going to eliminate the space station. 
This is just a way of saying what is fair is fair in terms of getting 
to a balanced budget.
  So in conclusion, before I yield a few seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas, I urge Members to consider voting not for an elimination of 
the space station but for a 3-percent cut in a $2.1 billion budget. 
This is what would be fair to the American people.
  This is the fairest way to get to a balanced budget in the next 6 
years. This is fair to NASA when they are cutting the shuttle, when 
they are cutting new construction and a host of other important 
programs. Do not let the space station continue to cannibalize the 
other programs in NASA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] who is going to argue against me.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. There is not a person on the Committee on Science 
that I do not have the greatest respect for, like the gentleman and his 
integrity on this issue. But just like I disagreed with the gentleman 
on the previous vote and the previous effort to eliminate the space 
station, let me argue vigorously against the decrease because I would 
simply say that we cannot do any more.
  The space station has already done as much cutting back through a 
series of restructuring and redesigns. We do not have any more slack in 
the program. What we have done is we have got a $2.1 billion program 
that will see us launch in about a year and a half. We have got a 
privatization program going on that efficiently uses both the civilian 
employees as well as our private sector employees or our civil service 
employees.
  I will simply say to the gentleman from Indiana that we know that 
there are priorities, and those priorities have to be that we share 
with the American people. But I do believe that the space station 
creates jobs for the 21st century. I would ask my colleagues to vote 
against the gentleman from Indiana and support the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost in respect for my fellow committee 
member and Democratic colleague, Mr. Roemer, but I happen to believe 
that his position with regard to the space station is patently wrong. 
The Nation has always expanded its horizons and explored all its 
frontiers and the international space station Alpha continues in the 
tradition of American know-how and fortitude. Alpha has had a long and 
tortuous history, and finally, after many years, several redesigns, 
numerous congressional votes and several administrations, this Nation, 
along with its international partners are on the cusp of beginning the 
constant human presence in space; our final frontier. With the first 
momentous launch of Alpha hardware almost upon us, hardware is being 
cut, tested, and assembled even as we speak.
  Alpha will allow us to do research that cannot be done here on mother 
Earth. The station will provide opportunities for research in the areas 
of materials, life sciences, physics, astronomy, and many other 
sciences. In addition, the very effort of designing and building the 
space station has created new building and engineering techniques, 
light-weight materials, and many new technologies.
  NASA has accepted the funding cap Congress has held it to and has 
testified and pledged that barring unforeseen acts of God, they will 
complete the project on time and on budget. Period. Our international 
partners have promised their full economic and operational support, and 
NASA has a strong record of working with them to solve problems that 
arise as the program progresses.
  I have always supported the space station, and I continue to do so, 
as evidenced by my vote today. I support the project, its goals, and 
its efforts. I also support the motivated and hard working employees of 
NASA, its many contractors, and all those involved in putting this 
project together. Let's honor them and

[[Page H5696]]

their efforts by voting against the Roemer amendments, one to eliminate 
the space station and the alternative to reduce its funds.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very deceptive amendment because it says 
that, if we just take a little bit of money out of a $2.1 billion 
program, we will be able to save some money and nothing is going to 
happen to it. That conclusion is absolutely false.
  One of the reasons why NASA brought itself into disrepute in the last 
decade is that both NASA and Congress decided to reduce costs in many 
of the accounts. The reduced costs saved money in the next fiscal year, 
but it ended up resulting in projects not being completed and projects 
were completed late and cost overruns. All of the engineers stayed on 
the payroll to complete the project when the meter is ticking.
  NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, who I believe has done a marvelous job 
in making NASA faster, better and cheaper, has written me a letter. I 
want to quote it in part. It says, simply put, an arbitrary reduction 
of $49 to $100 million means a slowdown of work. A slowdown of work 
means a schedule slip, and schedule slip means increased cost. 
Analytically, the impact to the station schedule is up to 3 months, 
referring to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
and the increased cost as much as $200 million, or at least twice the 
amount saved by the proposed amendment.
  This is an unacceptable risk to our careful balance of hardware 
elements and payroll deployment. What the gentleman from Indiana is 
doing here today in the name of saving money is to set this House and 
NASA up for a complaint that the station experiences cost overruns 
because of the stretch-out and the schedule slip that is caused by the 
gentleman from Indiana's amendment. Then he will be back next year when 
the dogwood bloom and the tulips sprout saying NASA has not been able 
to hold to its schedule; there has been a cost overrun; let us kill the 
Space Station.
  Well, the way to prevent the gentleman from making that argument is 
by rejection of his amendment today because the $75 million he proposes 
to save now will cost the taxpayers $200 million according to the NASA 
Administrator, who says he works for the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, heaven is not reached by a single bound. 
But we build the ladder by which we rise.
  Mr. Chairman, the international space station has, and will continue, 
to provide Americans with substantial benefits in areas including 
medicine, the environment, transportation, and even communications. And 
the benefits don't just stop there. Since the inception of the U.S. 
space program, the secondary applications of space technology have 
yielded $9 to the economy for every tax dollar spent. The returns are 
clearly well worth the investment.
  The partnerships created through the space station serve as an 
exceptional model for future international ventures. The partners of 
this program have already contributed billions of dollars to the space 
station, demonstrating their commitment to completing the largest 
cooperative science program in history.
  The international space station will be a world-class orbiting 
laboratory, which will serve as a test-bed for hundreds of science and 
technology experiments that could not be conducted on this planet. We 
will learn new research techniques for growing tissue samples outside 
of the human body, for use in cancer research and bone injuries. There 
will be new understandings of the aging process, with subsequent 
developments in counteracting the effects of aging.
  Imagine the possibilities of academic involvement in the space 
station's activities. Through the cooperative efforts of NASA and 
academic institutions throughout the world, the space station will 
launch future generations into a brand new dimension of learning about 
space science.
  Author J.G. Holland said, ``Heaven is not reached by a single bound. 
But we build the ladder by which we rise.'' We are currently building 
that ladder, in a series of bounds. What we find at the top of this 
ladder will inspire future generations to imagine, explore, and 
actually see, first-hand, the unprecedented advances that the space 
station will provide. We must retain funding for the space station. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Roemer-Ganske amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 146, 
noes 269, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 206]

                               AYES--146

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Evans
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--269

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Petri
     Pickett

[[Page H5697]]


     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Chabot
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn

                                   1733

  Mr. SAWYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. MARKEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows.

              TITLE III--UNITED STATES FIRE ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 302. 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.''.

     SEC. 303. FIRE SAFETY SYSTEMS IN ARMY HOUSING.

       Section 31(c)(1)(A)(ii)(II) is amended by inserting ``, or 
     in the case of housing under the control of the Department of 
     the Army, 6 years after such date of enactment'' after ``date 
     of enactment''.

     SEC. 304. SUCCESSOR FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS.

       The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 29(a)(1), by inserting ``, or any successor 
     standard thereto,'' after ``Association Standard 74'';
       (2) in section 29(a)(2), by inserting ``or any successor 
     standards thereto,'' after ``whichever is appropriate,'';
       (3) in section 29(b)(2), by inserting ``, or any successor 
     standards thereto,'' after ``Association Standard 13 or 13-
     R'';
       (4) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(i), by inserting ``or any 
     successor standard thereto,'' after ``Life Safety Code),''; 
     and
       (5) in section 31(c)(2)(B)(ii), by inserting ``or any 
     successor standards thereto,'' after ``Association Standard 
     101,''.

     SEC. 305. TERMINATION OR PRIVATIZATION OF FUNCTIONS.

       The Administrator of the United States Fire Administration 
     shall transmit to Congress a report providing notice at least 
     60 days in advance of the termination or transfer to a 
     private sector entity of any significant function of the 
     United States Fire Administration.

     SEC. 306. REPORT ON BUDGETARY REDUCTION.

       The Administrator of the United States Fire Administration 
     shall transmit to Congress, within three months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, a report setting forth the 
     manner in which the United States Fire Administration intends 
     to implement the budgetary reduction represented by the 
     difference between the amount appropriated to the United 
     States Fire Administration for fiscal year 1997 and the 
     amount requested in the President's budget request for such 
     fiscal year. Such report shall be prepared in consultation 
     with the Alliance for Fire and Emergency Management, the 
     International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International 
     Association of Fire Fighters, the National Fire Protection 
     Association, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the 
     National Association of State Fire Marshals, and the 
     International Association of Arson Investigators.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
       TITLE IV--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 411. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

       (a) Operations and Research.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the operations 
     and research duties of the National Weather Service, 
     $445,668,000 for fiscal year 1997. Such duties include 
     meteorological, hydrological, and oceanographic public 
     warnings and forecasts, as well as applied research in 
     support of such warnings and forecasts.
       (b) Systems Acquisition.--(1) There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the public 
     warning and forecast systems duties of the National Weather 
     Service, $64,991,000 for fiscal year 1997. Such duties 
     include the development, acquisition, and implementation of 
     major public warning and forecast systems, including the 
     upgrade of computer facilities. None of the funds authorized 
     under this subsection shall be used for the purposes for 
     which funds are authorized under subsection (e). None of the 
     funds authorized under this subsection shall be used for the 
     purposes for which funds are authorized under section 102(b) 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-567). None of the 
     funds authorized by such section 102(b) shall be expended for 
     a particular NEXRAD installation unless--
       (A) it is identified as a National Weather Service NEXRAD 
     installation in the National Implementation Plan for 
     modernization of the National Weather Service, required under 
     section 703 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-
     567); or
       (B) it is to be used only for spare parts, not as an 
     installation at a particular site.
       (2) Of the amounts authorized under paragraph (1), 
     $42,935,000 shall be for NEXRAD program management, 
     operations, and maintenance.
       (c) New NEXRAD Installations.--No funds may be obligated 
     for NEXRAD installations not identified in the National 
     Implementation Plan for 1996, unless the Secretary certifies 
     that such NEXRAD installations can be acquired within the 
     authorization of NEXRAD contained in section 102(b) of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Authorization 
     Act of 1992.
       (d) ASOS Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in 
     subsection (b)(1), $10,056,000 for fiscal year 1997 are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, for the 
     acquisition and deployment of--
       (1) the Automated Surface Observing System and related 
     systems, including multisensor and backup arrays for National 
     Weather Service sites at airports; and
       (2) Automated Meteorological Observing System and Remote 
     Automated Meteorological Observing System replacement units.

     and to cover all associated activities, including program 
     management and operations and maintenance.
       (e) AWIPS 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
       (B) submits to the Congress a report which describes--

[[Page H5698]]

       (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.
       (f) Construction of Weather Forecast Offices.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     construction, repair, and modification activities relating to 
     new and existing weather forecast offices, $11,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997. Such activities include planning, design, 
     and land acquisition related to such offices.
       (g) Streamlining Weather Service Modernization.--
       (1) Repeals.--Sections 706 and 707 of the Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) are repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--The Weather Service 
     Modernization Act (15 U.S.C. 313 note) is amended--
       (A) in section 702, by striking paragraph (3) and 
     redesignating paragraphs (4) through (10) as paragraphs (3) 
     through (9), respectively; and
       (B) in section 703--
       (i) by striking ``(a) National Implementation Plan.--'';
       (ii) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), 
     respectively; and
       (iii) by striking subsections (b) and (c).

     SEC. 412. ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH.

       (a) Climate and Air Quality Research.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its 
     climate and air quality research duties, $99,272,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997. Such duties include internannual and 
     seasonal climate research and long-term climate and air 
     quality research.
       (b) Atmospheric Programs.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its atmospheric 
     research duties, $43,182,000 for fiscal year 1997. Such 
     duties include research for developing improved prediction 
     capabilities for atmospheric processes, as well as solar-
     terrestrial research and services.

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

       (a) Satellite Observing Systems.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out its 
     satellite observing systems duties, $308,473,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997, to remain available until expended. Such duties 
     include spacecraft procurement, launch, and associated ground 
     station systems involving polar orbiting and geostationary 
     environmental satellites, as well as the operation of such 
     satellites. None of the funds authorized under this 
     subsection shall be used for the purposes for which funds are 
     authorized under section 105(d) of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Authorization Act of 1992 (Public 
     Law 102-567).
       (b) POES Program Authorization.--Of the sums authorized in 
     subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary $147,664,000 for fiscal year 1997, to remain 
     available until expended, for the procurement and launch of, 
     and supporting ground systems for, Polar Orbiting 
     Environmental Satellites, K, L, M, N, and N\1\.
       (c) Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites.--Of 
     the sums authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator $70,757,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997, to remain available until expended to 
     procure up to three additional Geostationary Operational 
     Environmental NEXT Satellites (GOES I-M clones), instruments, 
     and supporting ground systems.
       (d) National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental 
     Satellite System Program Authorization.--Of the sums 
     authorized in subsection (a), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, for fiscal year 1997, 
     $39,500,000, to remain available until expended, for the 
     procurement of the National Polar-Orbiting Operational 
     Environmental Satellite System, and the procurement of the 
     launching and supporting ground systems of such satellites.
       (e) Environmental Data and Information Services.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     its environmental data and information services duties, 
     $44,898,000 for fiscal year 1997. Such duties include climate 
     data services, geophysical data services, and environmental 
     assessment and information services.
                      Subtitle B--Marine Research

     SEC. 421. NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE.

       (a) Mapping and Charting.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out mapping and 
     charting activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law 
     involving those activities, $36,500,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Geodesy.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out geodesy activities under the Act 
     of 1947 and any other law involving those activities, 
     $20,163,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (c) Observation and Prediction.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to carry out observation and prediction 
     activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
     those activities, $11,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (2) Ocean and earth sciences.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out ocean and earth 
     science activities, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (d) Estuarine and Coastal Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to support estuarine and coastal assessment 
     activities under the Act of 1947 and any other law involving 
     those activities, $2,674,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (2) Ocean assessment.--In addition to amounts authorized 
     under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration to carry out the National Status 
     and Trends Program, the Strategic Environmental Assessment 
     Program, and the Hazardous Materials Response Program, 
     $21,925,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (3) Damage assessment program.--In addition to amounts 
     authorized under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Damage 
     Assessment Program, $1,200,000 for fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 422. OCEAN AND GREAT LAKES RESEARCH.

       (a) Marine Prediction Research.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine prediction 
     research activities under the Act of 1947, the Act of 1890, 
     and any other law involving those activities, $14,808,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997.
       (b) National Sea Grant College Program.--(1) Section 212(a) 
     of the National Sea Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1131(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Grants and Contracts; Fellowships.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 205 and 
     208, $34,500,000 for fiscal year 1997.''.
       (2) Section 212(b)(1) of the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1131(b)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``an amount'' and all that follows through ``not to exceed 
     $2,900,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``$1,500,000 
     for fiscal year 1997''.
       (3) Section 203(4) of the National Sea Grant College 
     Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1122(4)) is amended by striking 
     ``discipline or field'' and all that follows through ``public 
     administration)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``field or 
     discipline involving scientific research''.
       (c) Coastal Ocean Program.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out the Coastal Ocean 
     Program, $17,300,000 for fiscal year 1997.
                      Subtitle C--Program Support

     SEC. 431. PROGRAM SUPPORT.

       (a) Executive Direction and Administrative Activities.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to 
     enable the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to 
     carry out executive direction and administrative activities 
     under the Act of 1970 and any other law involving those 
     activities, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Central Administrative Support.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out central 
     administrative support activities under the Act of 1970 and 
     any other law involving those activities, $33,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997.
       (c) Retired Pay.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary, for retired pay for retired commissioned 
     officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration under the Act of 1970, $7,706,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997.
       (d) Marine Services.--
       (1) Service contracts.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the 
     Secretary shall enter into contracts, including multiyear 
     contracts, subject to paragraph (3), for the use of vessels 
     to conduct oceanographic research and fisheries research, 
     monitoring, enforcement, and management, and to acquire other 
     data necessary to carry out the missions of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Secretary shall 
     enter into these contracts unless--
       (A) the cost of the contract is more than the cost 
     (including the cost of vessel operation, maintenance, and all 
     personnel) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration of obtaining those services on vessels of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
       (B) the contract is for more than 7 years; or
       (C) the data is acquired through a vessel agreement 
     pursuant to paragraph (4).
       (2) Vessels.--The Secretary may not enter into any contract 
     for the construction, lease-purchase, upgrade, or service 
     life extension of any vessel.
       (3) Multiyear contracts.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), and 
     notwithstanding section 1341

[[Page H5699]]

     of title 31, United States Code, and section 11 of title 41, 
     United States Code, the Secretary may acquire data under 
     multiyear contracts.
       (B) Required findings.--The Secretary may not enter into a 
     contract pursuant to this paragraph unless the Secretary 
     finds with respect to that contract that there is a 
     reasonable expectation that throughout the contemplated 
     contract period the Secretary will request from Congress 
     funding for the contract at the level required to avoid 
     contract termination.
       (C) Required provisions.--The Secretary may not enter into 
     a contract pursuant to this paragraph unless the contract 
     includes--
       (i) a provision under which the obligation of the United 
     States to make payments under the contract for any fiscal 
     year is subject to the availability of appropriations 
     provided in advance for those payments;
       (ii) a provision that specifies the term of effectiveness 
     of the contract; and
       (iii) appropriate provisions under which, in case of any 
     termination of the contract before the end of the term 
     specified pursuant to clause (ii), the United States shall 
     only be liable for the lesser of--

       (I) an amount specified in the contract for such a 
     termination; or
       (II) amounts that were appropriated before the date of the 
     termination for the performance of the contract or for 
     procurement of the type of acquisition covered by the 
     contract and are unobligated on the date of the termination.

       (4) Vessel agreements.--The Secretary shall use excess 
     capacity of University National Oceanographic Laboratory 
     System vessels where appropriate and may enter into memoranda 
     of agreement with the operators of these vessels to carry out 
     this requirement.
       (5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out marine 
     services activities, $56,292,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (e) Aircraft Services.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration to carry out aircraft services 
     activities (including aircraft operations, maintenance, and 
     support) under the Act of 1970 and any other law involving 
     those activities, $9,153,000 for fiscal year 1997.
       (f) Facilities Repairs and Renovations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     facilities repairs and renovations, $7,546,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997.
                 Subtitle D--Streamlining of Operations

     SEC. 441. PROGRAMS.

       (a) Programs.--No funds are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the following programs and accounts:
       (1) The National Undersea Research Program.
       (2) The Fleet Modernization, Shipbuilding, and Construction 
     Account.
       (3) The Charleston, South Carolina, Special Management 
     Plan.
       (4) Chesapeake Bay Observation Buoys.
       (5) Federal/State Weather Modification Grants.
       (6) The Southeast Storm Research Account.
       (7) National Institute for Environmental Renewal.
       (8) The Lake Champlain Study.
       (9) The Maine Marine Research Center.
       (10) The South Carolina Cooperative Geodetic Survey 
     Account.
       (11) Pacific Island Technical Assistance.
       (12) VENTS program.
       (13) National Weather Service non-Federal, non-wildfire 
     Fire Weather Service.
       (14) National Weather Service Regional Climate Centers.
       (15) National Weather Service Samoa Weather Forecast Office 
     Repair and Upgrade Account.
       (16) Dissemination of Weather Charts (Marine Facsimile 
     Service).
       (17) The Southeast United States Caribbean Fisheries 
     Oceanographic Coordinated Investigations Program.
       (18) National Coastal Research and Development Institute 
     Account.
       (19) Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the 
     Environment program.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report certifying that all the programs listed in 
     subsection (a) will be terminated no later than September 30, 
     1996.
       (c) Repeal of Sea Grant Programs.--
       (1) Repeals.--(A) Section 208(b) of the National Sea Grant 
     College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1127(b)) is repealed.
       (B) Section 3 of the Sea Grant Program Improvement Act of 
     1976 (33 U.S.C. 1124a) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 209 of the National Sea 
     Grant College Program Act (33 U.S.C. 1128(b)(1)) is amended 
     by striking ``and section 3 of the Sea Grant Program 
     Improvement Act of 1976''.
       (d) Additional Repeal.--The NOAA Fleet Modernization Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 851 note) is repealed.

     SEC. 442. LIMITATIONS ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Maximum Amount.--No more than $1,765,359,000 are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal 
     year 1997, by this Act and any other Act, to enable the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out 
     all activities associated with Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities.
       (b) Reduction in Travel Budget.--Of the sums appropriated 
     under this Act for Operations, Research, and Facilities, no 
     more than $20,000,000 may be used for reimbursement of travel 
     and related expenses for National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration personnel.

     SEC. 443. TERMINATION OF THE CORPS OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.

       (a) Number of Officers.--Notwithstanding section 8 of the 
     Act of June 3, 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853g), no commissioned 
     officers are authorized for any fiscal year after fiscal year 
     1996.
       (b) Severance Pay.--Commissioned officers may be separated 
     from the active list of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration. In lieu of separation pay, officers so 
     separated shall be eligible only for severance pay in 
     accordance with the terms and conditions of section 5595 of 
     title 5, United States Code, and only to the extent provided 
     in advance in appropriations Acts.
       (c) Transfer.--(1) Subject to the approval of the Secretary 
     of Defense and under terms and conditions specified by the 
     Secretary, commissioned officers subject to subsection (a) 
     may transfer to the armed services under section 716 of title 
     10, United States Code.
       (2) Subject to the approval of the Secretary of 
     Transportation and under terms and conditions specified by 
     the Secretary, commissioned officers subject to subsection 
     (a) may transfer to the United States Coast Guard under 
     section 716 of title 10, United States Code.
       (3) Subject to the approval of the Administrator of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and under 
     terms and conditions specified by that Administrator, a 
     commissioned officer subject to subsection (a) may be 
     employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration as a member of the civil service, if the 
     Administrator considers that individual to be the best 
     available candidate for the position. No new civil service 
     position may be created pursuant to this paragraph.
       (4) The Administrator shall, before December 1, 1996, 
     transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report listing all officers 
     employed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration under paragraph (3), a description of their 
     responsibilities as members of the NOAA Corps, and a 
     description of their responsibilities as civil service 
     employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (d) Repeals.--(1) The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (A) The Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' 
     Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853a-853o, 853p-853u).
       (B) The Act of February 16, 1929 (Chapter 221, section 5; 
     45 Stat. 1187; 33 U.S.C. 852a).
       (C) The Act of January 19, 1942 (Chapter 6; 56 Stat. 6).
       (D) Section 9 of Public Law 87-649 (76 Stat. 495).
       (E) The Act of May 22, 1917 (Chapter 20, section 16; 40 
     Stat. 87; 33 U.S.C. 854 et seq.).
       (F) The Act of December 3, 1942 (Chapter 670; 56 Stat. 
     1038.
       (G) Sections 1 through 5 of Public Law 91-621 (84 Stat. 
     1863; 33 U.S.C. 857-1 et seq.).
       (H) The Act of August 10, 1956 (Chapter 1041, section 3; 
     70A Stat. 619; 33 U.S.C. 857a).
       (I) The Act of May 18, 1920 (Chapter 190, section 11; 41 
     Stat. 603; 33 U.S.C. 864).
       (J) The Act of July 22, 1947 (Chapter 286; 61 Stat. 400; 33 
     U.S.C. 873, 874).
       (K) The Act of August 3, 1956 (Chapter 932; 70 Stat. 988; 
     33 U.S.C. 875, 876).
       (L) All other Acts inconsistent with this subsection.
     Following the repeal of provisions under this paragraph, all 
     retirement benefits for the NOAA Corps which are in existence 
     on September 30, 1996, shall continue to apply to eligible 
     NOAA Corps officers and retirees.
       (2) The effective date of the repeals under paragraph (1) 
     shall be October 1, 1996.
       (e) Abolition.--The Office of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration Corps of Operations and the 
     Commissioned Personnel Center are abolished effective 
     September 30, 1996.
                       Subtitle E--Miscellaneous

     SEC. 451. WEATHER DATA BUOYS.

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

     SEC. 452. DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--To protect life and property and enhance 
     the national economy, the

[[Page H5700]]

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

     SEC. 453. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Required.--(1) Subtitle C of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding after chapter 663 the 
     following new chapter:

       ``CHAPTER 665--NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

``Sec.
``7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
``7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council.
``7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group.
``7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel.

     ``Sec. 7901. National Oceanographic Partnership Program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of the Navy shall 
     establish a program to be known as the `National 
     Oceanographic Partnership Program'.
       ``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program are as 
     follows:
       ``(1) To promote the national goals of assuring national 
     security, protecting quality of life, and strengthening 
     science and education through improved knowledge of the 
     ocean.
       ``(2) To coordinate and strengthen oceanographic efforts in 
     support of those goals by--
       ``(A) identifying and carrying out partnerships among 
     Federal agencies, academia, industry, and other members of 
     the oceanographic scientific community in the areas of data, 
     resources, and education; and
       ``(B) reporting annually to Congress on the program.

     ``Sec. 7902. National Ocean Research Leadership Council

       ``(a) Council.--There is established a National Ocean 
     Research Leadership Council (hereinafter in this chapter 
     referred to as the ``Council'').
       ``(b) Membership.--The Council is composed of the following 
     members:
       ``(1) The Secretary of the Navy, who shall be the chairman 
     of the Council.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration, who shall be the vice chairman of 
     the Council.
       ``(3) The Director of the National Science Foundation.
       ``(4) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration.
       ``(5) The Deputy Secretary of Energy.
       ``(6) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       ``(7) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
       ``(8) The Director of the Geological Survey of the 
     Department of the Interior.
       ``(9) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research 
     Projects Agency.
       ``(10) The Director of the Minerals Management Service of 
     the Department of the Interior.
       ``(11) The President of the National Academy of Sciences, 
     the President of the National Academy of Engineering, and the 
     President of the Institute of Medicine.
       ``(12) The Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology.
       ``(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(14) One member appointed by the Chairman from among 
     individuals who will represent the views of ocean industries.
       ``(15) One member appointed by the Chairman from among 
     individuals who will represent the views of State 
     governments.
       ``(16) One member appointed by the Chairman from among 
     individuals who will represent the views of academia.
       ``(17) One member appointed by the Chairman from among 
     individuals who will represent such other views as the 
     Chairman considers appropriate.
       ``(c) Term of Office.--The term of office of a member of 
     the Council appointed under paragraph (14), (15), (16), or 
     (17) of subsection (b) shall be two years, except that any 
     person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the 
     expiration of the term for which his predecessor was 
     appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.
       ``(d) Responsibilities.--The Council shall have the 
     following responsibilities:
       ``(1) To establish the Ocean Research Partnership 
     Coordinating Group as provided in section 7903.
       ``(2) To establish the Ocean Research Advisory Panel as 
     provided in section 7904.
       ``(3) To submit to Congress an annual report pursuant to 
     subsection (e).
       ``(e) Annual Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, 
     the Council shall submit to Congress a report on the National 
     Oceanographic Partnership Program. The report shall contain 
     the following:
       ``(1) A description of activities of the program carried 
     out during the fiscal year before the fiscal year in which 
     the report is prepared. The description also shall include a 
     list of the members of the Ocean Research Partnership 
     Coordinating Group, the Ocean Research Advisory Panel, and 
     any working groups in existence during the fiscal year 
     covered.
       ``(2) A general outline of the activities planned for the 
     program during the fiscal year in which the report is 
     prepared.
       ``(3) A summary of projects continued from the fiscal year 
     before the fiscal year in which the report is prepared and 
     projects expected to be started during the fiscal year in 
     which the report is prepared and during the following fiscal 
     year.
       ``(4) A description of the involvement of the program with 
     Federal interagency coordinating entities.
       ``(5) The amounts requested, in the budget submitted to 
     Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31 for the 
     fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the report is 
     prepared, for the programs, projects, and activities of the 
     program and the estimated expenditures under such programs, 
     projects, and activities during such following fiscal year.

     ``Sec. 7903. Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating Group

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Council shall establish an entity 
     to be known as the `Ocean Research Partnership Coordinating 
     Group' (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 
     `Coordinating Group').
       ``(b) Membership.--The Coordinating Group shall consist of 
     members appointed by the Council, with one member appointed 
     from each Federal department or agency having an 
     oceanographic research or development program.
       ``(c) Chairman.--The Council shall appoint the Chairman of 
     the Coordinating Group.
       ``(d) Responsibilities.--Subject to the authority, 
     direction, and control of the Council, the Coordinating Group 
     shall have the following responsibilities:
       ``(1) To prescribe policies and procedures to implement the 
     National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
       ``(2) To review, select, and identify and allocate funds 
     for partnership projects for implementation under the 
     program, based on the following criteria:
       ``(A) Whether the project addresses critical research 
     objectives or operational goals, such as data accessibility 
     and quality assurance, sharing of resources, or education.
       ``(B) Whether the project has broad participation within 
     the oceanographic community.
       ``(C) Whether the partners have a long-term commitment to 
     the objectives of the project.
       ``(D) Whether the resources supporting the project are 
     shared among the partners.
       ``(E) Whether the project has been subjected to adequate 
     peer review.
       ``(3) To promote participation in partnership projects by 
     each Federal department and agency involved with 
     oceanographic research and by prescribing guidelines for 
     participation in the program.
       ``(4) To submit to the Council an annual report pursuant to 
     subsection (i).
       ``(e) Partnership Program Office.--The Coordinating Group 
     shall establish, using competitive procedures, and oversee a 
     partnership program office to carry out such duties as the 
     Chairman of the Coordinating Group considers appropriate 
     to implement the National Oceanographic Partnership 
     Program, including the following:
       ``(1) To establish and oversee working groups to propose 
     partnership projects to the Coordinating Group and advise the 
     Group on such projects.
       ``(2) To manage peer review of partnership projects 
     proposed to the Coordinating Group and competitions for 
     projects selected by the Group.
       ``(3) To submit to the Coordinating Group an annual report 
     on the status of all partnership projects and activities of 
     the office.
       ``(f) Contract and Grant Authority.--The Coordinating Group 
     may authorize one or more of the departments or agencies 
     represented in the Group to enter into contracts and make 
     grants, using funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization 
     for the National Oceanographic Partnership Program, for the 
     purpose of implementing the program and carrying out the 
     Coordinating Group's responsibilities.
       ``(g) Forms of Partnership Projects.--Partnership projects 
     selected by the Coordinating Group may be in any form that 
     the Coordinating Group considers appropriate, including 
     memoranda of understanding, cooperative research and 
     development agreements, and similar instruments.

[[Page H5701]]

       ``(h) Annual Report.--Not later than February 1 of each 
     year, the Coordinating Group shall submit to the Council a 
     report on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program. The 
     report shall contain, at a minimum, copies of any 
     recommendations or reports to the Coordinating Group by the 
     Ocean Research Advisory Panel.

     ``Sec. 7904. Ocean Research Advisory Panel

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Council shall appoint an Ocean 
     Research Advisory Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred 
     to as the `Advisory Panel') consisting of not less than 10 
     and not more than 18 members.
       ``(b) Membership.--Members of the Advisory Panel shall be 
     appointed from among persons who are eminent in the field of 
     marine science, or related fields, and who are 
     representative, at a minimum, of the interests of government, 
     academia, and industry.
       ``(c) Responsibilities.--(1) The Coordinating Group shall 
     refer to the Advisory Panel, and the Advisory Panel shall 
     review, each proposed partnership project estimated to cost 
     more than $500,000. The Advisory Panel shall make any 
     recommendations to the Coordinating Group that the Advisory 
     Panel considers appropriate regarding such projects.
       ``(2) The Advisory Panel shall make any recommendations to 
     the Coordinating Group regarding activities that should be 
     addressed by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program 
     that the Advisory Panel considers appropriate.''.
       (2) The table of chapters at the beginning of subtitle C of 
     title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part IV 
     of such subtitle, are each amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to chapter 663 the following:

``665. National Oceanographic Partnership Program...........7901''.....

       (b) Initial Appointments of Council Members.--The Secretary 
     of the Navy shall make the appointments required by section 
     7902(b) of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a)(1), not later than December 1, 1996.
       (c) Initial Appointments of Advisory Panel Members.--The 
     National Ocean Research Leadership Council established by 
     section 7902 of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a)(1), shall make the appointments required by 
     section 7904 of such title not later than January 1, 1997.
       (d) First Annual Report of National Ocean Research 
     Leadership Council.--The first annual report required by 
     section 7902(e) of title 10, United States Code, as added by 
     subsection (a)(1), shall be submitted to Congress not later 
     than March 1, 1997. The first report shall include, in 
     addition to the information required by such section, 
     information about the terms of office, procedures, and 
     responsibilities of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel 
     established by the Council.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--No funds are 
     authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the National 
     Oceanographic Partnership Program for fiscal year 1997.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IV?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wamp

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wamp: Page 83, line 1, strike 
     ``$445,668,000'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$450,668,000''.
       Page 83, line 10, strike ``$64,991,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``68,984,000''.
       Page 85, line 10, insert ``of which up to $116,483,000 may 
     be available for fiscal year 1997,'' after ``available until 
     expended,''.
       Page 88, line 18, strike ``$308,473,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$287,997,000''.
       Page 89, line 22, strike ``$39,500,000'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``$19,024,000''.

  Mr. WAMP (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, as we move into this title, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, my amendment would add $20.5 
million to the National Weather Service budget. Specifically, it 
increases the local warnings and forecast budget by $5 million. It 
increases the computer facility upgrades budget by $4 million. It 
increases the advanced weather interactive processing system budget by 
$11.5 million, for a total of $20.5 million.
  The entire increase is offset by a reduction of $20.5 million in the 
polar convergent satellite program, which is a cost-shared program with 
the Defense Department. Since the defense authorization bill recently 
passed by this body only authorized $19 million for this program, yet 
the Committee on Science's mark still continued $39.5 million, we are 
reducing that amount to offset this increase, so that this increase is 
fully accounted for by spending reductions in other areas.
  Why would we do this? The importance of the National Weather 
Service's modernization effort. We know great work has been 
accomplished through the Department of Commerce upgrading our National 
Weather Service system, implementing the NEXRAD radar system, in next 
generation radar nationwide.
  Many outstanding Members of this body, like my friend, the gentleman 
from Huntsville, AL [Mr. Cramer], have been very active in this effort. 
We are installing new, more powerful Doppler radars and state-of-the-
art satellite across the Nation.
  However, there are some areas that have been identified as being 
deficient, where the service is degraded because of soft spots in the 
system, and the Department of Commerce actually recognized that three 
of those areas exist in southeast Tennessee and northeast Alabama, one 
area, actually two congressional districts, the gentleman from Alabama, 
Mr. Cramer's, and mine, but one area; plus Indiana and Arkansas.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] and the gentleman from 
Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] are affected as well, and we have Doppler 
radar needs that the Department of Commerce has certified to build 
these radars in our region, because the radars that are part of the 
NEXRAD system are too far from our area and are too high up in the air 
to cover the storms that blow through our region.
  Specifically, this last weekend, again, tornadoes touched down in 
Bradley County, TN that were not detected from Morristown, TN because 
the radar is too high, so new Dopplers that are programmed in the 
system for these three areas have been approved and certified by the 
Department of Commerce.

  Mr. Chairman, one of the best nonpartisan things we do here is the 
health and safety of the citizens of this country, and local weather 
forecasting is as close to the ground as it gets. It is important that 
we come together in a bipartisan way. I did not just want to increase 
spending, so we offset it. We worked with the chairman of the Committee 
on Science. We hope that the committee, the full committee here will 
support this reasonable increase in funding, since it is offset with 
another program that obviously does not need the money, based on our 
latest defense authorization bill.


 amendment offered by mr. brown of california as a substitute for the 
                     amendment offered by mr. wamp

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Wamp: Page 83, 
     line 1, strike ``$445,668,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$471,672,000.''

  Mr. BROWN of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment 
to the amendment in order to fully restore funding for the critical 
personnel of the National Weather Service. H.R. 3322 proposes a $26 
million reduction from this account which I believe will seriously 
jeopardize the safety and well being of every American.
  We have been informed by the National Weather Service that in order 
to implement this reduction, they would have to consider elimination of 
midnight shift personnel in every weather forecast office and eliminate 
rush hour forecast products nationally. In addition they would have to 
close planned warning and forecast offices and would have to defer the 
opening of any additional NEXRAD sites that were recently identified as 
necessary by the National Research Council. There is no question that 
the proposed cuts in H.R. 3322 would endanger public safety.
  As reflected in the President's request, the National Weather Service 
is already committed to permanent reductions of over $25 million in 
base operations. They need, however, to make the transition to the 
modernized weather office system in order to realize these savings. 
Without the necessary operational infrastructure and personnel in 
place, the National Weather Service will not be able to utilize the 
full operational capabilities envisioned by the modernization plan.
  My amendment does not attempt to numerically offset this increase 
with any reduction

[[Page H5702]]

elsewhere in the bill. I want to point out that the bill we are 
considering today already seriously underfunds NOAA and the National 
Weather Service. The bill already reduces NOAA's programs in our 
jurisdiction by $155 million and will lead to great difficulty in 
carrying out critical satellite, weather forecasting, and research 
activities. To propose an offset would only legitimize this ill 
conceived plan to distort our national priorities.
  I also point out that yesterday on this same bill, Mr. Schiff offered 
an amendment to raise funding for the National Science Foundation by 
$40 million with no offset. This had the full backing of the 
Republicans and passed easily. I make this point to illustrate the 
fiction we are being asked to participate in by pretending there is 
some magic number that in some way limits us in this authorization. 
This fiction seems to be only enforced when it is convenient.
  I will close by reminding my colleagues that the serious nature of 
this problem we are trying to address here has been clear since this 
bill was first brought before the committee. I have tried on several 
occasions now to offer a substitute that addresses this and a number of 
other problems in the bill. These attempts have failed along party 
lines.
  I commend the gentleman from Tennessee for his attempt at this late 
date to fix this problem. However, my fear is that his amendment does 
not fully address the problem. If his amendment passes in its current 
form, the National Weather Service will still face the necessity to 
reduce service to the public. In addition, the gentleman may only be 
compounding the problem by cutting elsewhere in the bill. I urge my 
colleagues to support my substitute to his amendment. Lets fully fund 
the Weather Service Operations.
  Mr. Chairman, at the risk of appearing to be cynical, let me try and 
interpret what has been happening in connection with this legislation.
  The bill before us, which was reported out of the full committee with 
little or no change from the chairman's recommendations, contained a 
number of problems. I sought to offer a substitute in the full 
committee, which was rejected on basically a party line vote, which 
corrected all of the problems that have been brought up here, and which 
we are now acting on.
  Yesterday the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff] found a little 
problem in the National Science Foundation budget, and he offered a $40 
million add-on which we had offered in the full committee and it had 
been rejected. He did not have an offset to it, but he admitted that we 
really did not need an offset, so we proceeded to adopt that.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] offered this morning an 
amendment to add $81.5 million back for NASA personnel, when they 
finally discovered that the President's budget provided the funding 
that was needed, and if they cut $81 million out of it, it would result 
in layoffs and furloughs, which would be bad for a lot of people's 
health.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] now has discovered that the 
$26 million which I recommended be put back in the full committee 
really is necessary to protect the health and welfare of the citizens 
of our districts and our constituents. Part of the game here is both 
sides are trying to protect vulnerable Members by allowing them to 
offer amendments which will be popular in their districts. Of course, 
on our side, we do the same thing. We try and put the other side in the 
position of voting for something that will be very bad for them in 
their district.
  After finally weighing the situation, we have decided that there are 
at least three or four instances in which the Republicans really cannot 
stand the heat from the mistakes in this bill, that is, from the 
political mistakes in this bill, so they are going to try and put the 
money back in to take care of the situation.
  They are going to argue in front of God and everybody that this is 
based upon some sudden new insight, but what it really amounts to is 
they have decided that they do not want to take the political heat that 
they are going to get from, say, cutting back on weather service 
facilities and personnel in a district highly dependent on it, or 
cutting back on personnel for a major NASA lab in a district in which 
the economy depends on it, or a major energy lab. That is the way 
politics works, and we might as well be frank and admit it.
  When we on our side try to point out that we had corrected all of 
these in our substitute, they say you did not do it the right way, or 
something like that. Of course, they are using the fact that our 
figures do not conform to their budget, as if this was holy writ, and 
therefore, anything that we do is obscene, until they find out that it 
is pretty nice to have something close to our budget in order to elect 
one of their Members.
  Mr. Chairman, I hate to say this, because it makes me look so cynical 
and self-serving, but I thought that we ought to have that on the 
record. My substitute is very simple. It provides for the same 
additions that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] has, or it fully 
funds the restoration of the personnel that the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] only partially funds and which was in the 
President's budget.
  It does not attempt to offset this with a numerical increase to 
offset it from another portion of the bill. It does, however, have in 
it the provision that the gentleman from Tennessee makes reference to. 
There is no offset. We have decided to be honest and not have an 
offset. The gentleman from Tennessee found an offset in a program, 
polar orbiting satellites, which the agency had decided not to do 
anything about for the next 2 years anyway, so he is going to reduce 
the budget by that amount, which is a sort of a subterfuge, but if he 
can get away with it, fine.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members to be honest and to accept my 
substitute, which provides the same benefit that the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] does, and does not go through the motions of 
trying to offset this with some more or less specious offset, which is 
unnecessary, even if it was a real offset.

                              {time}  1745

  I know that since a part of the majority's position is going to be to 
wave the flag and claim that they have to have these offsets in order 
to balance the budget, which we pointed out means to increase the 
budget where they want and cut it where we want, I urge that Members 
support my substitute, recognizing that I probably will not win.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from California does not need to be cynical about the 
process. The fact is what he is watching is the legislative process at 
work. Members do have a right under an open rule to come out here and 
offer amendments. We have to decide whether or not to accept some of 
those amendments or to fight some of those amendments.
  It is not anything different than what goes on in Congress. In fact, 
it is the essence of the process to make some of these decisions as a 
Congress, and some of them change my bill, some of them enhance the 
bill. They in fact are an important part of how we do legislation. I do 
not resent the fact that the bill gets changed a little bit along the 
way. It is the way the process works. I have even happily accepted some 
amendments along the way because I thought they were the right things 
to do.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have the 
gentleman acknowledge this. I am not trying to present this as some 
perverse or evil process. I just wonder why it is when I offered the 
same amendments in committee the Chair did not have the perspicacity to 
realize that they might be necessary.
  Mr. WALKER. When the gentleman offered them in committee, in some 
cases we did not have the full information available to us to evaluate 
it. In other cases he offered them as a part of a substitute that 
contained many, many other items. In a number of the cases when the 
gentleman referred to the fact that he had offered them in committee, 
he did not offer separate amendments on the subject matters. What he 
offered was a substitute that covered a whole variety of items, and we 
rejected his substitute as going the wrong direction.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that at the full 
committee level I was on record, and I

[[Page H5703]]

think our chairman will remember, stating that I wanted to address this 
on the House floor and I would be looking actively for an offset so 
that we could do the responsible thing. But I specifically stated at 
the markup I wanted this addressed and detailed what I wanted addressed 
on the House floor.
  So it was not like it mysteriously appeared, Mr. Brown, and in all 
fairness Mr. Cramer and I think it worked in about the most bipartisan 
way here. Let us not bring partisanship into this issue of NEXRAD radar 
system, please. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is correct. He did reserve his rights for 
the floor. I am pleased that we were able to work something out. I am 
glad to modify the bill to do that.
  It seems to me, though, that we do not want to do the Brown 
substitute. As the gentleman from California himself has said, this is 
not offset. It will increase the National Weather Service local warning 
and forecast budget by $26 million. That means that we are not dealing 
in the same manner that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] has 
done, in the responsible way of assuring that we do this with an 
offset.
  Unlike the Wamp amendment, which adds money for both modernization 
and local warnings and forecasts, the Brown amendment eliminates all 
the reductions that the Committee on Science made to the National 
Weather Service headquarters and specialized weather programs, and does 
not include any money for the modernization program. That strikes me as 
being an odd set of priorities. What you are doing is plusing up the 
account for the headquarters staff and overhead while not putting the 
money into the modernization program that the Weather Service regards 
as its most important priority. So the Wamp amendment in fact moves us 
toward a much stronger content level on it.
  Why reduce the headquarters staff? Why do we think that is important? 
We are going along there with the inspector general. This is not some 
ideological kick. The inspector general said in his most recent report 
that the National Weather Service headquarters staff could be 
identified as having over $32 million in potential savings, and those 
reductions can be made in headquarters staff.
  Why is that the case? Because as they modernize the Weather Service, 
the fact is that they are able to utilize some equipment to replace 
people, and so the modernization program is actually resulting in the 
ability to reduce headquarters staff. That is what is reflected in what 
we have done in the bill, what is reflected in the Wamp amendment, and 
we think that it makes sense to go along with what the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] wants to do here.
  We believe that, in the case of the Brown substitute, that it puts 
the money that is not offset into a bureaucracy. We think that the 
money should go into some things with regard to headquarters, but there 
also ought to be money for modernization, and I thank the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] for what he has done.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to do something carefully here. I want to speak 
on behalf of the Brown substitute and on behalf of the Wamp amendment 
as well. I support the Brown substitute now because I supported the 
Brown substitute for the entire bill. If that fails, then of course I 
will support the Wamp proposal as well. I am concerned about the budget 
impact on the National Weather Service.
  I want to reaffirm what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] has 
said. We are neighbors there, from north Alabama, northeast Alabama, up 
there into Tennessee. We have struggled hard to make sure our very 
vulnerable area of the country is in fact included in the National 
Weather Service's modernization plan. Budget has impact on the service 
that the Weather Service can offer to our area so we are concerned not 
only about the placement of a new NEXRAD, one placement that will 
accommodate two congressional districts and we have worked hard 
together to make sure that we not have to cause a budget item that 
would reflect for two NEXRAD's but that we join together and accomplish 
that with one placement of NEXRAD and I think we have in fact worked in 
a model bipartisan way toward that and will accomplish that.

  What I am concerned about that causes me to support the Brown 
substitute as well, and, if that fails, as well as what the gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is proposing here today is that beyond just 
the NEXRAD's, we have got a personnel issue that if we deny the 
National Weather Service this kind of budget item, then we are saying 
to them that they will have to direct the consequences down to the 
level of midnight forecasts, they will have to absorb this impact 
somewhere outside of headquarters, somewhere in the field as well. So I 
think both of these approaches will accomplish what I want to see 
accomplished. I think the Brown substitute does it in a much more 
complete way than what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is 
proposing, but I am concerned enough about the impact of what we do to 
stand up here and to say support the Brown substitute first and, if 
that fails, support the Wamp amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, yesterday I referred to the Committee on Science as a 
do-little committee that was, through this piece of legislation, 
offering a do-little agenda for this country when it comes to job 
creation through invigorating our science and technology policy, going 
absolutely the wrong direction if our goal is to have more high-paying 
jobs in this country based on science and technology.
  I think the Wamp amendment today provides another example of the do-
little legacy of this committee, because it is attempting to repair 
changes in our science policy that should never have been made in the 
first place. In any case, I was not here on the floor a little earlier 
this afternoon when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the 
chairman of the committee, asserted that my comments of yesterday were 
inaccurate. He particularly took umbrage at my claim that the committee 
had just one committee report to its credit for all of 1995. Take note 
he did not disagree with my comment that the committee had absolutely 
zero, that is, a big goose egg when it comes to legislation signed into 
law through its work last year but he did quarrel with the fact that 
they had only one committee report. He said they had 16. In fact, I 
have the Committee on Science calendar for last year, and it confirms 
that there was only one committee report for all of last year. This is 
distinguished, of course, as my remarks did, from those reports 
associated with the filing of more and more of these bills to fulfill 
the Gingrich ideological agenda.
  A committee report, for those who do not understand the difference, 
is a matter of oversight, that we in Congress have a responsibility to 
exercise oversight over NOAA, over all of these various bureaucracies 
to see that they are doing their job. But this committee, unlike the 
time when my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], 
chaired the committee and had 13 oversight reports of committees, has 
not kept pace with its work.
  True, the chairman of the Committee on Science has been very involved 
in oversight of the Clinton administration, looking for any political 
examples it can find that might be useful in this year's elections. 
Perhaps that provides some of the reason why just merely pursuing good 
science has gotten second shift when it comes to oversight.
  So I stand by my comments of yesterday regarding the lack of 
productivity of a committee that ought to be central to a jobs policy 
for this country. But I would cite this Wamp amendment as an example of 
more of the problem that when you pursue political rhetoric and 
political ideology over good science, you make mistakes like this. I 
believe that it is fair to say that there were not but a handful, if 
that, of our colleagues on the Republican side who had the slightest 
idea what was being done in committee when these cuts to NOAA were made 
and now that probably one or two people in the body have the slightest 
idea whether the restoration level that the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Wamp]

[[Page H5704]]

is proposing is the appropriate level or whether the offset that he 
would propose will guarantee the integrity of NOAA services. And, of 
course, since the Committee on Science rarely meets, it goes 4 or 5 
months without even convening, there is no committee record of any 
type. There has not been bringing in any expert or any citizen 
concerned with this to look at the NOAA issues. So we have no evidence 
or record upon which to support this amendment.
  I would say that what we have had in the Committee on Science is 
amply demonstrated by this, not legislation that could be passed on a 
bipartisan basis as occurred under both Republicans and Democrats in 
previous administrations, not committee reports exercising the 
oversight policy; rather, we have just had an example that the main 
kind of science coming out of this committee is political science and 
we have had more excellence in pursuit of error.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
Committee on Science.
  Mr. Chairman, I am greatly concerned that the replacement of the Erie 
Weather Service Office at Erie, PA, with radar service from Pittsburgh, 
Cleveland, and Buffalo would increase weather-related accidents on 
Pennsylvania's north coastal region. Reports issued by both the General 
Accounting Office and the National Research Council support this 
conclusion by identifying radar coverage gaps and other shortcomings 
with the new nationwide NEXRAD coverage system. After the terrible 
consequences of unforeseen tornadoes in 1985 that devastated a number 
of communities in our region and the ever-present danger of 
unpredictable lake-effect weather on Lake Erie, the communities of 
northwest Pennsylvania in my view must have weather service they can 
depend upon.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that the 
National Weather Service is studying any potential impact that a 
removal of the Erie weather station would have on local forecasting. In 
the meantime, Erie will continue to receive its current radar coverage 
until January 1998 when the National Weather Service will complete its 
study. At that point the National Weather Service will recommend 
whatever arrangement is best to guarantee the continued safety of the 
local communities in northwestern Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I appreciate receiving those assurances 
from the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many problems with this legislation. One of 
the most significant is the lack of title dealing with the Department 
of Energy's R&D programs. Why not? I believe the explanation is that a 
bipartisan majority of the committee, and probably the House, would 
fund them at a much higher level than the chairman would like.
  These members recognize the role energy plays in preserving our 
economic well-being and national security. What Mr. Walker purports to 
be the relevant House action in this area guts funding for almost every 
sector of energy research: conservation, solar and renewable, nuclear--
including fusion--as well as important fossil R&D efforts to reduce the 
environmental impacts of what will continue to be the source of over 85 
percent of energy production.

  If we were to follow the Walker budget, we would be practically 
zeroing out conservation, solar and renewables, and fossil energy.
  When we marked up this bill in committee, we were promised a 
subcommittee markup on an energy authorization in the ensuing weeks. 
This did not happen.
  Then, when H.R. 3322 was originally scheduled for floor action, we 
were told that there would be a subcommittee markup the following week.
  It would be cynical to suggest that this announcement was made merely 
to allay the concerns of numerous members of the majority who are 
concerned over the chairman's vision of energy R&D.
  However, it is interesting to note that once H.R. 3322 was pulled 
from the floor schedule the energy markup was canceled.
  It is also interesting to point out that it has been 3 weeks since 
the Energy and Environment Subcommittee has met for any reason, so it 
is not as if we have been overwhelmed by the schedule. Perhaps someone 
who is setting the committee's schedule could tell us when energy 
policy is going to be a high enough priority for us to act.
  When we began the debate on this bill, the committee chairman claimed 
that we handled the energy accounts on the floor last year. He refers 
us back to H.R. 2405, which the House passed last October. Let me 
remind Members that the genesis of this so-called vision of our energy 
future--a vision that calls for a $500 million reduction in energy 
research--not from the request, but from fiscal year 1996--was based on 
an amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania brought to the floor 
on his own and did not reflect the will of the committee.
  Let me quote Mr. Walker from the debate 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.''--Congressional Record, October 11, 1995--H9847.
  The claim of the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, because he wrote a 
fiscal year 1997 energy R&D budget on the floor last October, there is 
no need to review these accounts is incredible. This is an absolute 
contradiction to our treatment of the National Science Foundation 
budget, which like the DOE accounts received 2 year authorization in 
last year's science authorization, but unlike DOE, which is apparently 
not worthy of our consideration, the NSF budget was included in H.R. 
3322.
  What is the reason for doing so? I imagine it may have something to 
do with the lack of support for the chairman's vision of our future 
energy research needs.
  I had considered offering an amendment on energy R&D, but have 
decided not to, as it has become apparent that it is a waste of the 
Members' time to in any way improve upon this meaningless and 
irrelevant legislation.
  Instead, I will submit for the Record, at the proper place and time, 
a letter to Appropriations Chairman Livingston from members of the 
Science Committee, Republicans and Democrats, expressing our concern 
over energy R&D authorization levels and the continued irrelevance of 
the back-of-an-envelope budget the committee chairman has endorsed.
  In closing, I want to reemphasize that this is in no way an 
``Omnibus'' bill. Semi-omnibus would be a more accurate description, 
and in many instances, what is contained in the bill is not worthy of 
our support.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As Members of the House Science 
     Committee, we are writing to express our concern over House-
     passed authorization levels contained in H.R. 2405 for 
     civilian research and development activities for the 
     Department of Energy.
       Even if there is no further action by the Science Committee 
     on its DOE accounts, your Committee needs to understand that 
     the Science Committee provided for flexibility in the setting 
     of FY 1997 funding levels in H.R. 2405. This is due to the 
     continued relevance of the Davis amendment to these 
     authorizations. The Davis amendment clarifies that 
     authorization for these programs should be reconsidered if in 
     the budget and appropriations process, more funds become 
     available.
       Last October, when the House considered H.R. 2405, an 
     amendment offered by Chairman Walker was adopted which raised 
     authorization levels for FY 1996 to meet the previously 
     appropriated level, but also set FY 1997 levels. While the 
     action taken regarding FY 1996 levels was in keeping with the 
     Davis Amendment adopted during Science Committee mark-up, the 
     Committee had not considered DOE funding for FY 1997 at all.
       In the debate over the inclusion of FY 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

[[Page H5705]]

     floor as my own amendment.'' (Congressional Record, October 
     11, 1995--H9847)
       Since the House acted on H.R. 2405, there have been several 
     developments which warrant reconsideration of these numbers. 
     For example, the Congressional Budget Office has revised its 
     economic assumptions, resulting in greater flexibility in 
     making discretionary spending decisions. Also, the Energy & 
     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.
       We are very grateful to Energy & Environment Subcommittee 
     Chairman Rohrabacher for scheduling these hearings. However, 
     they will be for naught 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 
     have publicly pledged their willingness to move a FY 1997 DOE 
     R&D authorization bill. While we support this action, we are 
     concerned that the mark-up of this legislation will occur too 
     late to influence your Committee's consideration of these 
     accounts.
       We recommend that your Committee not consider itself bound 
     in any way by the FY 1997 levels passed in HR 2405. Energy 
     policy is too important to our national security and economic 
     strength to be based on last year's information. Thus, 
     Congress should not act presumptively to drastically reduce 
     these vital accounts.
           Sincerely,
         Mike Doyle; Sherwood Boehlert; John Tanner; John W. 
           Olver; Steve Largent; George E. Brown, Jr.; Tim Roemer; 
           Eddie Bernice Johnson; Paul McHale; Zach Wamp; Lynn N. 
           Rivers; Zoe Lofgren; Bart Gordon; Jane Harman; Tim 
           Holden; Mike Ward; Robert E. Cramer, Jr.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

                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 $487,126,600 for fiscal year 1997 for 
     Science and Technology 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, $74, 119,900.
       (2) For global change research, $1,400,000.
       (3) For water quality related research, $26,294,000.
       (4) For drinking water related research, $26,593,700.
       (5) For toxic substances related research, $12,341,500.
       (6) For lab and field expenses, $73,031,600.
       (7) For headquarters expenses of the Office of Research and 
     Development, $9,254,800.
       (8) For multimedia related research expenses, $174,060,100, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be for graduate student 
     fellowships.
       (9) For program management expenses, $6,399,000.
       (10) For pesticide related research, $20,632,000.
       (11) For research related to hazardous waste, $12,000,000.
       (12) For environmental research laboratories, $51,000,000.
       (c) Additional Authorizations.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal year 1997--
       (1) for oil pollution related research, $2,076,900; and
       (2) for research related to leaking underground storage 
     tanks, $769,000.
       (d) Limitations.--No funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated by this title for--
       (1) the Environmental Technology Initiative;
       (2) the Climate Change Action Plan;
       (3) Indoor Air Research;
       (4) North Dakota Center for Air Toxic Metals Research;
       (5) drinking water research conducted by the American Water 
     Works Association Research Foundation, other than amounts 
     awarded through a competitive process;
       (6) the Water Environmental Research Foundation;
       (7) the National Urban Air Toxic Research Center;
       (8) the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substances Research Center;
       (9) urban waste management research at the University of 
     New Orleans, other than amounts awarded through a competitive 
     process;
       (10) the Resources and Agricultural Policy Systems Program 
     at Iowa State University or
       (11) the Oil Spill Remediation Research Center.

     SEC. 504. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIW.

       (a) In general.--The Administrator shall assign to the 
     Assistant Administrator the duties of--
       (1) development a strategic plan for scientific and 
     technical research activities throughout the Agency;
       (2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency 
     planning activities; and
       (3) reviewing all Agency research to ensure the research--
       (A) is of high quality; and
       (B) does not duplicate any other research being conducted 
     by the Agency.
       (b) Report.--The Assistant Administrator shall transmit 
     annually to the Administrator and to the Committee on Science 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Environmental and Public Works of the Senate a report 
     detailing--
       (1) all Agency research the Assistant Administrator finds 
     is not of sufficiently high quality; and
       (2) all Agency research the Assistant Administrator finds 
     duplicates other Agency research.

     SEC. 505. GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS.

       In carrying out the graduate student fellowship program for 
     which funds are authorized to be appropriated by this title, 
     the Administrator shall ensure that any fellowship awarded to 
     a student selected after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act is used only to support scientific research that would 
     further missions of the Office of Research and Development in 
     fields in which there exists or is projected to exist a 
     shortage in the number of scientists.

     SEC, 506, SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Annual Report.--The Science Advisory Board shall submit 
     to Congress and to the Administrator an annual report that 
     contains the views of the Science Advisory Board on proposed 
     research programs as described in the President's budget for 
     research, development, and demonstration activities at the 
     Environmental Protection Agency. Such report shall be 
     submitted to Congress as soon as practicable after the 
     submission of the President's budget to Congress. The 
     Administrator shall cooperate with the Director of the 
     Science Advisory Board, particularly with respect to the 
     timely provision of budget information to the Science 
     Advisory Board, to allow the Science Advisory Board to carry 
     out its duties under this subsection.
       (b) Evaluation.--The Science Advisory Board shall conduct 
     periodic evaluations of selected areas of the current and 
     planned research development, and demonstration activities of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency. The areas of evaluation 
     shall be selected by the Science Advisory Board in 
     consultation with the Administrator, the Office of Research 
     and Development, other Agency programs and appropriate 
     committees of the Congress. Reports containing the Science 
     Advisory Board's evaluations and recommendations shall be 
     filed with such committees and the Administrator. The 
     Administrator shall provide to such committees a written 
     response to the Science Advisory Board's evaluation and 
     recommendations within 60 days after the Science Advisory 
     Board's report has been submitted.
       (c) Review of Certain Research Activities.--The Science 
     Advisory Board shall annually review the research activities 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency and shall include the 
     results of such review in the annual report required by 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Submission to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit 
     to the Congress any report required by law to be submitted to 
     the Administrator by the Science Advisory Board. The 
     Administrator shall make any such submission not later than 
     60 days after the Administrator receives the report from the 
     Science Advisory Board.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?

                              {time}  1800


                    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 118, line 17, strike 
     paragraph (2).
       Page 118, line 18, through page 119, line 12, redesignate 
     paragraphs (3) through (11) as paragraphs (2) through (10), 
     respectively.

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to one of the 
most egregious research bans in this bill. The very thought of Congress 
banning areas of scientific research should be offensive to all of us 
and to all American citizens.
  H.R. 3322 attempts to restrict the EPA from spending money on the 
climate change action plan, a research program designed to identify 
cost effective ways of limiting carbon emissions in the future. The 
genesis of this program was the international concern expressed at the 
Rio Convention that increased emissions of greenhouse gases will lead 
to an increase in global temperatures or climate change.

[[Page H5706]]

  The Committee on Science has held several hearings on the issue of 
climate change, and I believe this has been a reasonably productive 
exercise. We have heard from the world's experts, who represent the 
vast majority of scientists on climate change, and we have also heard 
from some skeptics who have participated in the public debate.
  It is fair to say most Members on both sides of the issue have come 
away from these hearings better informed, whether or not they were 
swayed by the arguments. One of the few points of agreement, however, 
has been that the potential for climate change is plausible and we must 
continue to carry out the research to understand how much and how soon.
  At the same time, we must understand how to achieve a reduction in 
our consumption of fossil fuels and emissions of greenhouse gases. This 
has relevance far beyond the obvious environmental concerns. It is 
simply good economics. Whether we do only the most cost effective 
things that are justified, regardless of whether there is climate 
change or whether we go beyond the so-called no regrets policy to do 
the more difficult things, it makes good sense to examine the issue. 
This is what the climate action plan does.
  The climate action plan is based on an array of voluntary programs 
that, if successful, will save almost $2 billion annually by the year 
2000. These include programs such as the Green Lights Program, the 
Energy Star Computer, Natural Gas Star, and other voluntary efforts 
that are strongly supported by industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that the evidence is mounting that 
human actions have had an impact on the Earth's climate and will have 
an increasing influence. I recognize, however, that other well-meaning 
Members may disagree. We should all agree, however, that we have a 
responsibility to more fully understand this issue. We should also 
agree that we should move toward a more energy efficient future 
beginning with voluntary programs such as those in the climate action 
plan.

  This is hardly money down a rat hole, as was stated in our Committee 
on Science markup. The climate action plan will have far-reaching 
economic benefits as well as potentially important environmental 
benefits. I hope Members will join me in striking the prohibition on 
this program. Let us leave science to the scientists, not to the 
politicians.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to reverse what I consider 
one of the more egregious portions of this bill, which is found on page 
118, line 14, under the title of limitations. And it says that no funds 
are authorized to be appropriated by this title for, and in this case 
paragraph 2, the climate change action plan.
  Now, there are a total of five prohibitions here that prohibits funds 
from being spent for any of these five, and I expect amendments to 
eliminate some of these other prohibitions as well, but what I consider 
to be the most egregious is all of these are important programs already 
in place by this administration. They fall within that category of 
research and development which the distinguished gentleman from 
southern California [Mr. Rohrabacher] came up yesterday and 
acknowledged that he considered to be liberal claptrap, and as a result 
of that categorization, which apparently is accepted by everybody on 
the Republican side, they propose to just categorically not fund any 
research within these various areas.
  Now, this particular kind of research, actually it is not research as 
much as it is a program to act on the potential impact of certain new 
research findings, what these amendments do is preclude us from using 
scientific knowledge no matter where it comes from, the Federal 
Government, universities, or the private sector. If this research 
indicates that a certain program of action is necessary to alleviate 
the prospective damage revealed by this research, we are prohibited 
from developing a program to do that, an action plan to accomplish 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not care what the field is, I think that is the 
wrong way to approach any kind of public policy activity. We cannot 
just blindly prohibit certain kinds of things from taking place. This 
reminds me of the kind of thing that would get done in an autocratic 
dictatorship or a theocracy or something of that sort.
  If the results of scientific research indicate that action is 
necessary, we should not prohibit that activity. The amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] would strike that 
language from the bill and, in my opinion, improve it considerably.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentle lady's amendment to 
strike the prohibition on EPA's climate action plan. The goal of the 
climate action plan has been to identify actions that could be 
undertaken to return U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 
the year 2000. This is essentially the nonbinding target which the U.S. 
agreed to as part of the Framework Convention on Climate Change which 
came out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  The action plan consists of 44 separate activities directed toward 
all sectors of the economy. The programs and activities are voluntary. 
A number of them also derive from the Energy Policy Act because of the 
dual nature of the problem--that is, building a sustainable future 
based on cost effective, environmentally safe energy sources.
  In addition to Federal funding, a substantial amount of private 
capital has been committed to this problem. This will achieve energy 
savings valued at $61.2 billion out to the year 2000. Eighteen of the 
forty-four activities are designed to increase energy efficiency in the 
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors of the economy. EPA's 
part of this plan also focuses on technologies for methane recovery 
from coal mines, land fills, and natural gas systems.
  The administration estimates that without the action plan, greenhouse 
gas missions would grow from 1,462 million metric tons in 1990 to 1,674 
million metric tons by 2000. The program thus far has been very 
successful although we have a long way to go to achieve the targets 
suggested by the Rio treaty.
  It is important to point out that this issue has involved two 
administrations and virtually all the other nations of the world. 
Building a sustainable future is not a partisan issue but it is a 
serious issue. Simply prohibiting funds from being spent to explore our 
options is irresponsible.
  I urge the adoption of the Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I think we ought to get to the facts about what this amendment does. 
What this amendment does is sets off an area of research within EPA, 
which means that the money that would be spent for this research would 
come from all other environmental research, and the money that would 
thereby be given to other environmental research of equal standing, and 
perhaps more important priorities, would actually be given now to 
global climate change.
  Now, the reason why we have this particular language in the bill 
right now, which the Lofgren amendment eliminates the termination of 
EPA's global climate change research program, is because we had good 
reason to decide that this was not high priority. First, the Office of 
Research and Development, which is authorized in this title, is 
intended to support the Environmental Protection Agency with good 
science. Currently we do not regulate CO2 emissions. EPA does not 
regulate CFC's, and in this bill we have authorized EPA's stratospheric 
ozone research above the level requested by the President.
  In other words, where EPA has real jurisdiction we have decided to 
actually increase the amounts of money going into that research. Now, 
if we adopt this particular amendment, what we will do is run the risk 
that we will take money away from places where we are increasing the 
money and give it to global climate change.
  Second, the agency has been using its research to do impact 
assessment of global warming not improving the models it will tell us 
if and by how much the world may warm. That, in my mind, is not exactly 
the priority that most of us would choose.
  Now, we are currently spending almost $2 billion across the Federal 
Government on global climate change research. It is important we 
prioritize that research. This is not a case of cutting out all the 
money for global change. I happen to think that global change research 
is a very, very appropriate thing to be funded. I think $2 billion 
being spent by the Federal Government is a lot of money, being spent 
for a lot of programs. What we ought to

[[Page H5707]]

do is make certain it is being spent wisely and well.
  The administration has spread climate change research through 12 
agencies right now, including the Department of Defense, the Department 
of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Interior, 
NASA, NSF, and NOAA. EPA has a relatively small piece of that climate 
change budget, roughly about $20 million. We do not need 12 agencies 
doing essentially the same kind of research.

  EPA, in this particular office, is not the place to conduct global 
climate change research. The research they are conducting is of a 
lesser value than that done by their agencies and should be terminated 
in favor of better research elsewhere.
  The bottom line is if we choose to spend this $20 million in this 
place on climate change impact assessment out of the EPA budget, the 
hire priority research, such as maybe endocrine disrupter research, 
that we approved yesterday, drinking water research, clean air 
research, a lot of the other things are going to suffer. This money 
comes out of other high priority regulatory type matters in order to go 
into this account where we are already in other agencies spending $2 
billion.
  If that is what people want to do in the name of environment, then 
perhaps they will vote for this particular amendment. But we had 
exactly this same amendment on the floor last year and this exact same 
amendment was turned down last year. It seems to be that the Congress 
wisely understood last year that there are very important environmental 
matters to be researched at EPA. This is not one of the ones that 
should be done there. It should be done elsewhere, where they do a 
better job than what is being done at EPA. Vote against the Lofgren 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from California. It is no secret by now that this committee 
is committed to gutting the global climate research program. H.R. 3322 
provides 27-percent fewer resources than the administration requested 
in the fiscal year 1997 budget in some of the strictest fiscal 
discipline applied to any of the programs under the bill.
  The ban on using funds for the global climate change action plan is 
based on ideology, not information. Before I came to the Congress of 
the United States, I started two of the most successful energy 
conservation companies in the United States. They are still, today, two 
of the largest energy conservation companies in this country, and I can 
tell Members that energy conservation simply makes sense.
  We now have a growing body of information about the carbon dioxide 
gases which are choking off the overall environment of this world. For 
us to wait until we have a critical situation which requires mandates, 
I think, is just plain silly.
  When we look at the rising trade deficits that occur in the United 
States month after month after month, literally 50 percent of our 
annual trade deficit goes for one product, and that is importing 
foreign oil. Why not get behind a program which voluntarily asks 
industry to participate in ways of creating energy conservation instead 
of sending off our petroleum dollars to the OPEC'ers overseas? Why not 
keep the jobs here? Why not do it in a voluntary way? Why not support 
the amendment by my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, in a way 
that will make sense for people in this country and that will create 
jobs for the people of the United States?

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may not be aware that earlier 
in the Congress, over the objections of many in the minority, we passed 
a bill to concentrate attention on hydrogen research. It is something 
we have pushed very, very heavily because we think that what the 
gentleman says is absolutely correct, that one of the ways in which we 
can achieve energy independence is to develop a new kind of energy 
regime. That bill is now in the Senate. We hope it will come back.
  I would hope the gentleman would support us and what this committee 
is attempting to do in terms of transitioning to a new hydrogen economy 
as a way of addressing those kinds of issues.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern. There is a question about whether 
or not hydrogen energy is the best methodology that we ought to be 
using in the future, and it seems to me, if that is nothing more than 
corporate welfare for the nuclear power industry, it is something we 
should take up.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman further yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that, in fact, 
we are trying to move the research away from any association with the 
nuclear side of it in the bill, and we are attempting to address 
exactly that issue, and hydrogen, the gentleman must admit, is an 
absolutely clean energy source, in fact, if we can utilize it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern, and I do not have a problem with 
trying to develop other resources, but I do have a problem when we try 
to use those arguments to oppose the basic fundamental requirement of 
this legislation, which was to just ask industry to voluntarily find 
ways of keeping our levels of carbon dioxide emissions down to the 1990 
levels.

                              {time}  1815

  It seems to me that this is not requiring any kind of mandate. It is 
not in any way suggesting that we have to enforce those levels on 
industry. All it is saying is if we voluntarily get these industries to 
participate in this program, we can keep jobs here in the United 
States, we can cut down on our balance of trade deficit, and we can 
essentially strengthen the economy of America.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
that is not what this particular program does. In fact, what the 
gentleman is talking about is a $20 million expenditure that largely is 
going right now to impact assessments of global warming. It is not 
going to the voluntary programs.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments, but the fact is that I have been 
assured that the purpose of this amendment is in fact to do just what I 
have suggested, which is to make a 27-percent cut in the Climate Change 
Action Plan, which the amendment of the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Lofrgen] essentially restores the budget cuts for.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in 
other sections of EPA, the gentleman is absolutely right. But this is 
the research account. In the research account, that Action Plan is not 
a part of what is being done here. The $20 million is not being spent 
on the Action Plan, it is being spent on impact assessments and things 
of that kind.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] for a 
clarification of whether or not this is a restoration of the 20 percent 
cut or whether some other account is being affected.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will 
yield, basically if the gentleman looks at page 188 of the bill, line 
18, there is a prohibition on the utilization of funds already 
appropriated for the Climate Change Action Plan. And I would add, in 
addition to line 17.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Walker, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would read further on 
page 118, extending on to page 119, there are also prohibitions on 
research in the area of indoor air, drinking water research conducted 
by the American Waterworks Association, as well as a

[[Page H5708]]

number of other prohibitions on scientific research activities.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my view that it is a tremendous error for Members 
of Congress, most of whom are not scientists, I think we have three or 
four scientists among our 435, to substitute our judgment for those of 
scientists.
  This is clearly an area that we know, as you referenced earlier, is 
of significant impact not only to the United States but to the world. 
My children are 11 and 14. I do not want them to be adults and live in 
a world where climate change is too late to impact, as the climate 
change action plan attempts to do on a voluntary basis before it is too 
late.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the climate change action 
plan, if I understand properly, is a small portion of the overall 
Global Warming Program, which is the subject of a 27-percent cut here. 
In the case of the climate change action plan, there is a 100-percent 
cut in this particular portion, but that is part of the overall 27 
percent cut.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the clarification. If I might respond, let me read what the 
bill currently says.
  No funds are authorized to be appropriated by this title for, No. 1, 
the environmental Technology Initiative; No. 2, the climate change 
action plan; No. 4, indoor air research, which I know we are going to 
come back to in a few minutes so I will be very kind about this; and, 
four, the Center for Air Toxics. In any event, the appropriate portion 
of this is that the climate change action plan will not receive any 
funds under this legislation.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the action plan is not tied to the research program. The two Members on 
that side have quoted absolutely accurately, but the only thing we have 
in our program relates to the Office of Research. The Office of 
Research does not do the action plan.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I 
understand, the ORD portion does take up some significant technology 
aspects that are included in the cut that has been taken up by this 
bill. Some of the new technologies are in, in fact, cut under the 
portion of this bill which is granted coverage under the limitations 
which I just cited.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
there is practically no impact here because the action plan that the 
gentleman referred to earlier of doing business hookups is, in fact, 
not in the Office of Research, and that is all I am trying to say to 
the gentleman; to portray what is being done here is eliminating that 
program is inaccurate. That is not the case. What we are doing is 
simply trying to deal with global change research on a priority basis.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rising today in support of the amendment which the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] has offered on this 
underlying bill which allows the EPA to continue their work on the 
climate change action plan.
  But I would like to just comment for a moment on the comments by the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who is arguing 
here in his previous set of comments that all they are really doing is 
eliminating the consideration of the global climate change action plan 
from any involvement in EPA, that there are at least 11 other places in 
the budget where global climate change is covered in some way by 
research.
  But it seems to me that the one perhaps most significant and most 
coherent locus of that research is right here under the EPA, which has 
a responsibility given to it by the Congress to deal with global 
climate change in the climate change action plan.
  So for that reason at least, if we were going to be doing anything, 
we ought to be concentrating in this area where the Environmental 
Protection Agency has the responsibility given to it by Congress to 
deal with the climate change action plan.
  Now, the amendment of the gentlewoman from California corrects what I 
think is a serious wrong-headedness of the Republican budget ax. Her 
amendment allows the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, to meet 
the responsibilities which have been rightfully assigned to it by the 
Congress.
  Climate research has far-reaching implications for environmental 
protection, and this Congress has a responsibility to recognize the 
need for such research into our local as well as our global 
environment.
  But once again the majority has demonstrated their carelessness and 
insensitivity where broad issues of environmental protection are 
concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, in the wake of what has been a record-breaking winter 
and then the current crowd that, if sustained, could create a sand dune 
desert the size of the great State of Texas covering much of the 
southern high plains of this country, it seems to me it is preposterous 
for this Congress to turn its back on understanding climate change.
  During the 104th Congress I have heard much about cost-benefit 
analysis. Apparently, some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have a problem with the analysis part of that cost-benefit 
analysis. But you do have to have data in order to do analysis. Whether 
you agree or disagree with the concept of global warming, let us at 
least be willing to gather the data so that our debate in this body 
grows from knowledge rather than from ignorance.
  Sound policy requires us to incorporate sound scientific research and 
reasoning in order to have any kind of semblance of sound policy. It 
seems to me the truth is out there and we should not be running from 
it, we should be, if anything, concentrating our global climate change 
action in the EPA, which is charged with environmental protection, 
because it is a matter of greatest possible significance to us in 
climate change for what our environment is going to be in the future.
  So I would hope that we would adopt the amendment by the gentlewoman 
from California and strike that little clause in paragraph 2, the words 
climate change action plan.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
continue the dialog I had with the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the 
global climate change action plan, and the implications that this has 
for technology.
  My understanding in checking with the staff is that, in fact, when 
you say that no funds are authorized to be appropriated for this title 
for the climate change action plan that you are, in fact, cutting $6.2 
million that would go for the research on these new technologies and 
their impact. So I would just like to understand exactly what the 
gentleman's point is.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct on the $6.2 
million, but if he will look further, he will find that we transferred 
that money to plus up the account on the stratospheric ozone research, 
and the attempt here is to be sure that we are doing work in real areas 
in the EPA. It is a tradeoff. We happen to think that in terms of the 
immediate priorities the stratospheric ozone question is more important 
to address.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Olver] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Olver was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out 
that there was some confusion in the last interchange that I had with 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because I thought he was trying to 
suggest the last time around that, in fact, there was not a cut.
  Now I am understanding in this present exchange that there is, in 
fact, a cut, but he has just taken the money and used it for some other 
purpose. I

[[Page H5709]]

understand that he is taking the money and using it for some other 
purpose, but the truth of the matter is that he cut the program and the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] is attempting to put the 
money back in the program, which I think has finally been clarified.
  There is an attempt in this bill to gut the Global Climate Change 
Action Plan which will, in fact, hurt the technologies. The gentleman 
is going to use the money for some other purposes, which I am sure are 
very, very good and helpful and strong, but we still want some money 
put into this program.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as a matter of fact, it 
is not that we are specifically putting money back into the program, 
but merely removing the language that requires that no money be 
authorized for the Global Climate Change Action Plan. I would hope that 
the amendment by the gentlewoman from California would be adopted.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am trying to work my way through all of this. I 
started out this morning worrying about the Climate Change Action Plan 
because I think it is a significant, though not the overall major, part 
of this plan to study global warming, to study global climate change, 
which I happen to be a firm believer we need the exact scientific data 
to produce.
  So I have been working my way through trying to figure out where the 
cuts are coming from, and I was happy to hear that we are not cutting 
$20 million out of the Global Climate Action Plan, but it is actually 
$6 million, but it is in an area of research so that the chairman of 
the subcommittee places the money in this area of research to 
stratospheric ozone research, which I think is appropriate.
  I understand, though, in the EPA's budget in the area of the 
environmental programs and management, there is tens of millions of 
dollars for the Climate Change Action Plan.
  Now, I want to stand here and agree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentlewoman from California in that we need a 
significant role to play as far as the Government is concerned to 
produce more energy-efficient cars, lighting, using fuel. And a number 
of the Fortune 500 companies in the United States are part of this 
green light program and a part of many other programs which 
significantly reduce the costs of their production and at the same time 
significantly reducing the amount of hydrogen fuels going into the 
atmosphere which produce global climate change.

  But in this particular amendment I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' 
Basically, the $6 million coming out of the action plan is going into 
solid research so that we can understand the nature of the atmosphere 
and the nature of how it is changing as a result of human input and how 
we can further deal with this climate change that is, understandably 
from all the scientific data that we read, inevitable.
  So, the research portion of this $6 million, I think, is being well 
spent.
  Now, the climate action plan is a program that I fully endorse, and 
while it has taken a bit of a cut here, there still is probably, I am 
not sure what the exact amount is, but it is probably close to $100 
million. And I think we should continue to pursue that climate action 
plan. It is a solid program that meshes government and the private 
sector together.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points that the gentleman 
has made. The fact is that we get accused all the time of being opposed 
to the Global Climate Change Program. I am sure there are some, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], for example, is not 
particularly enthusiastic.
  Mr. Chairman, I happen to support the research. I think it does good 
things too. I think it should be properly prioritized. I thought that 
when we were dealing with some of the ozone issues, that was also a 
part of the general pattern here of trying to understand the 
atmospheric conditions that produce some of the changes that are 
potential problems for us.

                              {time}  1830

  So, in transferring the money around, it is important to realize that 
we are setting priorities. For instance, only NOAA and EPA, to my 
knowledge, do stratospheric ozone research. We have 12 different 
agencies doing the global climate change research. It seems to be the 
right kind of priority, to me, for us to do it in the way we have done 
it here. And I would agree with the gentleman. I think he has every 
reason to be supportive of some of the programs at EPA that move some 
of these programs forward and does recognize, I am pleased, that what 
we have done here is simply attempted to utilize research dollars a 
little bit better.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Lofgren].
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a point, because I 
do think that to fail to enact the amendment I proposed would run 
contrary to the goals that my colleague is espousing that I share. I do 
not oppose research in stratosphere ozone research. However, we do have 
much research going on pursuant to our international treaty on ozone. 
As a matter of fact, we found a number of things already. As my 
colleagues are well aware, the Nobel Prize was awarded for some of the 
significant findings in that arena.
  But the action plan, the climate change action plan is where we bring 
together the various components that are all important into our plan. 
It is not, that function, so far as I can tell as a member of the 
committee, is not provided for elsewhere in the budget.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are still 
large dollars in the climate action plan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman 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. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Lofgren] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now 
in order to consider amendment No. 6 by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].


           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. 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. Kennedy of Massachusetts: Page 
     118, line 18, strike paragraph (3).
       Page 118, line 19, through page 119, line 12, redesignate 
     paragraphs (4) through (11) as paragraphs (3) through (10), 
     respectively.

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth is that 
Americans spend about 90 percent of their lives indoors. While we spend 
90 percent of our lives indoors, we spend billions and billions of 
dollars cleaning up outdoor air. Indoor air happens to be about 1,000 
times more polluted than outdoor air. So we have a kind of a crazy 
situation where, despite the fact that we are living inside buildings, 
we are working inside buildings, we are living and working in areas 
that are much, much more polluted than the areas where we end up 
spending the vast majority of our dollars to clean up.
  Now, I just believe that it makes sense for us to get a better handle 
on exactly the kinds of indoor air pollutants that are potentially 
causing great harm to the American people and people throughout the 
world. I know that my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, agrees that 
this is an important issue and one that we should work together to try 
and understand, both the causes as well as some of the solutions.
  Mr. Chairman, in this very building, if we take a deep breath, we 
will be breathing in more fungus and bacteria and molds than we want to 
shake a stick at. So I would not suggest that all of my friends on the 
other side of

[[Page H5710]]

the aisle stop breathing, although from time to time it seemed like a 
good idea. Nevertheless, I do think that trying to find out some better 
research and some better understandings about how we can deal with the 
serious issue of indoor air problems is an area where I hope we can 
both agree.
  Mr. Chairman, if my friend from Pennsylvania has some thoughts on 
this, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the gentleman about his 
amendment. Also, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], on our side 
of the aisle, has talked to me some about this particular amendment. On 
behalf of Mr. Davis, I am prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate 
and I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown] who has been a great supporter of research on indoor air 
quality for every year that I have offered this amendment for the last 
10 years. I appreciate it once again.
  We will let him smoke his cigar wherever he wants, but I do 
appreciate his help.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding.
  I do want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I 
appreciate the willingness of our friends on the other side to accept 
that effort to move the proceedings along here, which I know is of 
interest to all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Massachusetts. Here we go again. It seems just a short 
time ago, 7 months ago actually, that we were having this same 
discussion. Unfortunately, the majority continues to believe that 
indoor air quality is an area where sound science is no science.
  This belief is not based upon any testimony that we received, since 
we have never held hearings on this program. Ironically, one of our 
most extensive discussions of indoor air in committee occurred during 
the markup of H.R. 3322 when a unanimous-consent request was made that 
committee members refrain from smoking in the committee room during the 
markup.
  In H.R. 3322, the majority is making a request that EPA refrain from 
gathering information about indoor air contaminants. I object to that 
request.
  Indoor air pollution continues to be identified as a significant 
health risk and an area worthy of study by EPA's Science Advisory 
Panel. We all spend significant amounts of time indoors these days, and 
we all recognize that there have been health problems associated with 
faulty air-conditioning and ventilation systems. Individuals who suffer 
respiratory problems as a result of contaminants present in their homes 
and workplaces would like to know what the contaminants are and how 
they can be controlled.
  The committee will try to tell us that this research program is 
really part of a plot to regulate the air in people's homes. This is 
ridiculous. This program's purpose is to empower citizens to make 
informed choices about products and services available to them to 
improve air quality in their homes. For nearly 10 years this program 
has generated information that has been used to disseminate information 
to State indoor air programs and to building owners and managers on how 
to avoid and mitigate indoor air quality problems.
  The Indoor Air Research Program is an excellent example of how 
science can be used to achieve environmental quality goals without 
regulation.
  The question is do we want to have the facts about indoor air quality 
or not? Do we want people to have information to make informed 
decisions about how they can improve their home and work environments 
or not? I urge my colleagues to support knowledge over ignorance by 
supporting the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, poor indoor air causes 
flu, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and dozens of other diseases.
  Air we breath indoors can contain dangerous levels of radon, 
asbestos, carbon monoxide, lead, and chlorine.
  Americans spend an average 90 percent of their time indoors, yet air 
in homes, schools, workplaces, airplanes, can be 1,000 times more 
toxic.
  This bill would eliminate EPA's nonregulatory indoor air research 
program--ending important research that would fuel future discoveries 
enabling us to prevent illnesses related to indoor air contamination.
  In 103d Congress, we passed a bill that I have introduced every year, 
the Indoor Air Quality Act, with bipartisan support. We adjourned 
before the bill could be signed into law, but support for increased 
indoor air research was clearly validated by this Chamber.
  The Science Committee report that accompanies this bill claims that 
EPA should not do indoor fair research, but that the research arm of 
OSHA, NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health], 
should.
  But this seems odd, considering the fact that in the 1997 budget 
resolution, NIOSH is scheduled to be terminated--the very agency the 
committee claims should conduct this research.
  Who, then, will do indoor air research? The bill, as written, 
prohibits the EPA from doing the research. And with NIOSH scheduled to 
be terminated, we end up with a situation where nobody is able to do 
indoor air research.
  At any moment, 21.2 million Americans are working in 1.4 million 
offices, schools, factories, and other structures where indoor air 
quality may be a problem. How can we ignore these numbers?
  The cost of indoor air pollution is staggering as well. Americans 
spend an extra $1.5 billion each year in medical bills, and the loss in 
productivity for businesses translates into tens of billions of dollars 
more.
  We have had plenty of indoor air quality problems in my State.
  A statewide 1995 survey by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
estimated that more than 30 percent of Massachusetts' 1,794 public 
schools suffer from poor air quality and that about 42 percent of them 
have ventilation problems.
  In February, 26 students at Peabody Veterans Memorial High School in 
Boston were pulled out of school by parents concerned about the quality 
of air in the building. Their children had severe headaches, dizziness, 
sleepiness, and some developed rashes.
  My district has had other sick building syndromes recently that 
stretch from the Boston Registry of Motor Vehicles, to a county 
courthouse, and to Bringham & Woman's Hospital.
  But problems with indoor air quality are not unique to my district. 
Just yesterday, the Department of Transportation headquarters evacuated 
5,500 workers because of the discovery of a toxic airborne mold in the 
building. The problem of poor indoor air quality is not going to go 
away on its own.
  EPA's Science Advisory Board has ranked indoor air pollution as one 
of the highest health risks meriting EPA attention. While there is 
considerable information about some indoor pollutants, scientists know 
little about the relative magnitudes of the potential risks associated 
with different indoor environments and exposure levels.
  All evidence points to the fact that we need more research on indoor 
air contamination, not less.
  Fortunately, though, my friend from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
Science Committee, Mr. Walker, has agreed to accept my amendment.
  By accepting this change to the underlying bill, we are sending a 
positive message that we are going to continue supporting the type of 
research that consumers, homeowners, and builders need to make informed 
decisions about safeguarding their health.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  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. 5 by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee].


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Page 118, 
     line 16, strike paragraph (1).
       Page 118, line 17, through page 119, line 12, redesignate 
     paragraphs (2) through (11) as paragraphs (1) through (10), 
     respectively.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I solicit Chairman Walker to 
accept this one as well because I think it tracks certainly our mutual 
concern on fiscal responsibility and the combination of commitment to 
the environment along with an effective partnership with business.
  Beyond the science authorization bill, there is language which 
specifically prohibits any money from being

[[Page H5711]]

appropriated for the Environmental Technology Initiative, or the ETI 
Program, of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Let me emphasize that my amendment is revenue neutral. It simply says 
that the administrator, if they see fit to implement this program, they 
must find ways to fund it and offset it by utilization of funds from a 
particular location and offset it from that location. My amendment 
would simply strike this language.
  Though I cannot speak as to the reasons for the chairman's desire to 
zero out the program, I can tell how this program has benefited our 
country and its citizens. As recently demonstrated by speeches and 
votes on the floor of the House, many of us in Congress are deeply 
concerned about the environment and what can be done to harmonize human 
existence within it.
  Mr. Chairman, as I am sure my colleagues are aware, many people have 
voiced their opinions about the EPA and its regulations. As an example, 
many businesses leaders have said that complying with EPA regulations 
is expensive.
  Here lies the basis of support of the ETI. The goal of the 
Environmental Technology Initiative is to promote improved levels of 
health and environmental protection by accelerating the development and 
use of innovative environmental technologies. Most of these 
technologies may be put under the better, cheaper label and benefit 
industry by both being cheaper and exceeding current standards.
  Environmental technologies prevent pollution, control and treat air 
and water pollution, remediate contaminated soil and groundwater, 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, assess and monitor exposure levels and 
management environmental information.
  It is the private sector's job to promote innovation, but it is the 
Government's job to create a climate where technology innovation is 
rewarded, not penalized, so that the private sector can function free 
of government interference. However, there are many barriers, both 
internal and external to the EPA, that limit private sector investment 
and innovative environmental technologies.

  These barriers include: statutes, regulations, policies and 
procedures, like permitting and enforcement that favor the use of 
conventional technologies and then essentially lock these technologies 
into place; insufficient resources at the State level to provide 
credibility to vendors by verifying the performance and cost of 
promising new technologies; and lack of established networks and 
sources of information that provides users access to better, cleaner, 
safer, lower cost technologies.
   Mr. Chairman, many of the 274 ETI-funded projects are beginning to 
show results, and EPA is disinvesting from direct technology 
development projects. What more can we ask for?
   Mr. Chairman, let me add a note. In the Republican-based task force 
on the environment, we are told that we must replace the outdated 
approaches of the past with common sense, flexible, and effective 
approaches that build on consensus, private property ownership, free 
enterprise, local control, sound scientific evidence, and the latest 
technology. Here lies the Environmental Technology Institute.
  I would suggest that by disinvesting from direct technology projects 
except in specific areas where private sector research and development 
is not available and focusing on reducing policy and regulatory 
barriers, this is the way for the EPA to go.
  ETI funding is an integral part of EPA's research efforts to 
streamline its regulatory and permitting processes to ensure that new 
rules and policies do not inhibit the use of better, more effective 
technology. With my amendment I seek to ensure that the Environmental 
Technology Initiative continues to direct an appropriate way to ensure 
an effective partnership between Government and the private sector and 
to allow the EPA to do its job.
  I simply ask that in a bipartisan manner we allow the EPA to do its 
job with current and new technologies, and that is to support the 
reinclusion of allowing the Environmental Technology Initiative to 
continue forward and to allow it not to be stricken and for the 
Administrator to be able to determine how best to utilize it and to 
fund it.
  This is revenue neutral. I ask for bipartisan support on the 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word, and I include a statement for the Record:
  Mr. Chairman, with her amendment, my colleague from Texas seeks to 
remove another of the majority's ill-considered bans on research 
conducted at the Environmental Protection Agency. Our Republican 
colleagues, in this bill, deny EPA the authority to continue the 
Environmental Technologies Initiative. Rather than contest the merits 
of the program, the majority simply does away with it. This theory of 
Republican policymaking reminds me of Mencken's famous line: ``There is 
always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, 
and wrong.''

  The environmental technologies initiative has as its goal increasing 
the speed with which new and better technologies become available to 
protect public health and environmental quality. The initiative seeks 
to prevent pollution, or to reduce the cost and increase the speed at 
which hazards are removed from the environment.
  It is passing strange that at the same time the majority complains 
bitterly about EPA's impact on the private sector, it would here 
prevent the Agency from learning new ways to reduce the burden of 
environmental compliance. Republicans complain that EPA does not weigh 
the costs and benefits of pollution control strategies before issuing 
regulations, but let the Agency act to gain real-world experience with 
the costs and benefits of new technologies and the majority cannot 
interfere quickly enough. The majority once complained about 
congressional micromanagement of agencies during the Reagan and Bush 
years. We were harangued again and again about hamstringing the 
executive branch. But with Republicans in the majority, we find that 
micromanagement is in the eye of the beholder.
  The Environmental Technologies initiative is precisely the sort of 
action that should be taken to achieve what the majority claims is its 
intent--to reduce the EPA's impact on business while maintaining 
environmental protections. EPA is working with business to find new 
ways to accomplish what the law demands. Rather than encouraging 
Administrator Browner for her leadership, the Republicans stop her 
cold. Am I alone in finding something wrong with this picture?
  EPA is not alone in supporting the environmental technologies 
initiative. The Departments of Defense and Energy are searching for 
faster and more affordable methods of dealing with the overflowing 
waste pits at military bases around the country and at the Nation's 
nuclear weapons production facilities. The Government can offer access 
to facilities such as the National Laboratories and help for small 
businesses hoping to improve their technologies; in return the 
Government gets proven techniques for addressing its own problems.

  Mr. Chairman, no idea is so dangerous that we can't even talk about 
it--except in this Republican Congress. We held no hearings on the 
merits of the environmental technologies initiative, probably because 
the results would contradict the policy the majority wanted to impose 
anyway. Banning research on cleanup technologies is hardly a smart 
move, and so I urge support for the Jackson-Lee amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] will be postponed.


          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. 15 offered by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Lofgren]; and amendment No. 5 offered by the gentlewoman from Texas 
[Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  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 a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H5712]]

                             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 197, 
noes 211, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--211

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

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Barton
     Chabot
     de la Garza
     Engel
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Gibbons
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hayes
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Jones
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Quinn
     Studds
     Wilson

                              {time}  1901

  Messrs. GREENWOOD, FRISA, and GOODLING changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY and Mr. WELLER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, I was unavoidably 
detained--had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee] 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 CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 209, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--209

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen

[[Page H5713]]


     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Barton
     Browder
     Chabot
     de la Garza
     Engel
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foglietta
     Gibbons
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Klink
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1908

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Browder for, with Mr. Gutknecht against.

  Mr. LONGLEY and Mr. STENHOLM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:

        TITLE VI--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

     SEC. 601. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated the following:
       (1) For Scientific and Technical Research and Services of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
     $280,600,000 for fiscal year 1997, of which--
       (A) $38,407,000 shall be for Electronics and Electrical 
     Engineering;
       (B) $18,747,000 shall be for Manufacturing Engineering;
       (C) $33,939,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
     Technology;
       (D) $28,048,000 shall be for Physics;
       (E) $54,589,000 shall be for Material Science and 
     Engineering;
       (F) $13,085,000 shall be for Building and Fire Research;
       (G) $43,076,000 shall be for Computer Science and Applied 
     Mathematics;
       (H) $18,950,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
       (I) $28,772,000 shall be for Research Support; and
       (J) $2,987,000 shall be for the Malcolm Baldrige National 
     Quality Program under section 17 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a); and
       (2) for Construction of Research Facilities of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, $105,240,000 for 
     fiscal year 1997.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, H.R. 3322 takes an aggressive stance in title VI of the bill 
to ensure that the core science programs at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology [NIST] are funded at levels which will permit 
the NIST Laboratories to perform their critical national mission.
  I commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, for his support. Mr. Walker has recognized the important 
work being done at the NIST Laboratories and has recommended a funding 
level which the laboratories deserve.
  NIST is integral to U.S. competition in the global marketplace, 
through its interaction with industry, and by developing and applying 
technology measurements and standards. I am pleased that, despite our 
commitment to achieve a balanced budget, and with tight budget caps in 
place, the bill authorizes a funding level for the NIST Laboratories 
above the President's request of $270.7 million.
  By not only matching but exceeding the President's funding request 
for the scientific and technical research services account at $280.6 
million, the bill funds projects which we were unable to fully 
authorize in the previous fiscal year. These added increases will fund 
projects in semiconductor, metrology, biotechnology measurements, 
advanced materials processing, and new Government coordinating 
responsibilities to make NIST the lead agency for standards and 
conformity assessment activities as mandated by the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancements Act of 1995.

  In addition, the bill authorizes the NIST construction account to 
provide necessary renovation and modernization of facilities. Without 
these funds for the state-of-the-art Measurement and Calibration 
Laboratories to modernize their facilities, NIST cannot adequately 
fulfill its mission into the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that title VII of H.R. 3322 
authorizes fiscal year 1997 appropriations for FAA's research, 
engineering, and development [RE&D] activities; strengthens the role of 
the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee in setting priorities; and modifies 
requirements.
  Title VII includes sections authored by the distinguished ranking 
member of the Technology Subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Mr. John Tanner. These sections require the FAA to consider 
recommendations of the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee in establishing R&D 
priorities; requires the FAA RE&D Advisory Committee to review FAA's 
R&D funding allocations and advise the Administrator as to whether they 
will support FAA objectives; and modifies requirements for the National 
Aviation Research Plan by changing the time horizon to 5 years and 
requires the FAA to respond to the recommendations of the RE&D Advisory 
Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I recommend passage of the titles VI and VII.

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is as follows:
 TITLE VII--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND 
                              DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``FAA Research, Engineering, 
     and Development Management Reform Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) considerable effort and expenditure has been devoted 
     since 1981 to the modernization of the National Airspace 
     System, with limited results;
       (2) long-standing management, organizational, and cultural 
     impediments at the Federal Aviation Administration have led 
     to cost overruns, schedule delays, program terminations, and 
     other wasteful inefficiencies;
       (3) a lack of coordination between the technology 
     developers and operational sections of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration has led to research, engineering, and 
     development programs that are unbalanced because they either 
     are too technology driven or have operational requirements 
     that are unrealistic or unwarranted;
       (4) the research, engineering, and development functions of 
     the Federal Aviation Administration have been carried out 
     without the benefit of critical management education and 
     competencies;
       (5) the failure to employ contemporary management 
     techniques and industry best practices has led to inadequate 
     contractor oversight and poor risk management; and
       (6) significant improvements in modernizing the National 
     Airspace System will require fundamental changes in the 
     Federal Aviation Administration's acquisition management 
     system and in the orientation of the officials who implement 
     the system.

     SEC. 703. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``affordable'' means having life-cycle costs 
     that are in consonance with the long-range funding and 
     operational design plans for the National Airspace System;
       (2) the term ``evolutionary acquisition'' means an 
     acquisition strategy in which a core capability is fielded 
     with a modular structure that allows for changes as 
     requirements are refined;
       (3) the term ``life-cycle costs'' means the total costs to 
     the Federal Government of a system over its useful life, 
     including the costs of research, development, acquisition, 
     support, and disposal;
       (4) the term ``nondevelopmental'' means not requiring 
     significant further development to be made usefully 
     operational; and

[[Page H5714]]

       (5) the term ``pre-planned product improvement'' means an 
     acquisition strategy that defers technically difficult or 
     unknown system requirements to mitigate risks or to field a 
     system that incorporates design considerations that 
     facilitate future changes.

     SEC. 704. MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES.

       The Federal Aviation Administration shall develop, 
     implement, and maintain a disciplined acquisition management 
     system that facilitates the transforming of broadly stated 
     requirements into affordable, operationally effective and 
     suitable products and services to meet the needs of users of 
     the National Airspace System. Such acquisition management 
     system shall be based on and incorporate the following 
     principles:
       (1) The employment and integration of--
       (A) a process to establish and validate requirements;
       (B) full life-cycle acquisition management; and
       (C) planning, programming, and budgeting.
       (2) Full involvement of both acquisition and operational 
     Federal Aviation Administration personnel in the processes 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), (B), and (C).
       (3) Early and continuous involvement of National Airspace 
     System operators and users, advisory committees, and industry 
     vendors and experts in establishing and stabilizing sound, 
     realistic operational requirements.
       (4) Assignment of acquisition officials based on 
     demonstrated leadership, professionalism, and proven 
     acquisition management competencies, consistent with their 
     positional responsibility and authority.
       (5) Full life-cycle, event-driven acquisition strategies 
     which explicitly link major interim program decisions and 
     contractual commitments to demonstrated accomplishments in 
     research, engineering, and development.
       (6) The balancing of system design requirements and 
     constraints based on cost-benefit sensitivity analysis.
       (7) Consideration of maximum practicable use of 
     nonmaterial, nondevelopmental, or commercial solutions before 
     embarking on protracted research, engineering, and 
     development activities by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration.
       (8) Consideration of evolutionary acquisition and pre-
     planned product improvement strategies to mitigate risks and 
     expeditiously field products and services.
       (9) Use of contemporary management techniques and industry 
     best practices to--
       (A) compare the current status of a program to where it 
     should be;
       (B) reassess the goals of a program and the plans for 
     achieving those goals;
       (C) assess program risks and strategies for mitigating 
     those risks; and
       (D) assess whether the program is affordable.

     SEC. 705. DOCUMENT OF APRIL 1, 1996.

       The Congress recognizes that the acquisition management 
     system set forth in the document dated April 1, 1996, issued 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration, is substantially 
     compatible with the principles stated in section 704 of this 
     title. The Federal Aviation Administration may implement that 
     proposed system as a suitable compliance with the 
     requirements of this title, and may modify elements of that 
     system to the extent that those modifications conform with 
     the principles stated in section 704 of this title.

     SEC. 706. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 48102(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1)(J);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2)(J) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) for fiscal year 1997--
       ``(A) $10,000,000 for system development and infrastructure 
     projects and activities;
       ``(B) $39,911,000 for capacity and air traffic management 
     technology projects and activities;
       ``(C) $20,371,000 for communications, navigation, and 
     surveillance projects and activities;
       ``(D) $6,411,000 for weather projects and activities;
       ``(E) $6,000,000 for airport technology projects and 
     activities;
       ``(F) $37,978,000 for aircraft safety technology projects 
     and activities;
       ``(G) $36,045,000 for system security technology projects 
     and activities;
       ``(H) $23,682,000 for human factors and aviation medicine 
     projects and activities;
       ``(I) $3,800,000 for environment and energy projects and 
     activities;
       ``(J) $1,500,000 for innovative/cooperative research 
     projects and activities; and
       ``(K) such sums as may be necessary for other research, 
     engineering, and development activities described in the 
     President's fiscal year 1997 budget request to the Congress 
     under the category `Engineering, development, test, and 
     evaluation' of Facilities and Equipment.''.

     SEC. 707. 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. 708. BUDGET DESIGNATION FOR FEDERAL AVIATION 
                   ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       Section 48102(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Designation of Activities.--(1) The amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (a) are for the support of all 
     research and development activities carried out by the 
     Federal Aviation Administration that fall within the 
     categories of basic research, applied research, and 
     development, including the design and development of 
     prototypes, in accordance with the classifications of the 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 (Budget 
     Formulation/Submission Process).
       ``(2) The President's annual budget request for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall include all research and 
     development activities within a single budget category. All 
     of the activities carried out by the Administration within 
     the categories of basic research, applied research, and 
     development, as classified by the Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-11, shall be placed in this single budget 
     category.''.

     SEC. 709. 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. 710. 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;
       ``(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''.

  Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 
briefly discuss title VII of H.R. 3322. This title authorizes fiscal 
year 1997 appropriations for FAA's research, engineering, and 
development [RE&D] activities; strengthens the role of the FAA RE&D 
advisory committee; and modifies the national aviation research plan.
  FAA efforts to modernize the national airspace system have suffered 
significant cost, schedule, and performance problems and, according to 
extensive testimony, the issues do not appear to be the appropriated 
funding or how it's allocated--but to longstanding organizational, 
managerial, and cultural impediments within the FAA itself. With bold 
congressional help, the agency began an impressive first step by 
implementing a new acquisition management plan April 1.
  When H.R. 3322 was introduced, it contained language to codify 
broadly-stated guiding principles--for managing FAA R&D activities long 
after the tenure of current FAA leadership. To expeditiously get the 
omnibus science bill to the House floor, we struck these important 
principles from this title. However, in the days ahead, we must 
maintain our focus on these critical principles to avoid the costly and 
protracted problems of the past. We look forward to working closely 
with Chairman Bud Shuster and our good friends and colleagues on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Aviation Subcommittee 
Chairman Jon J. Duncan and the respected members of the Aviation 
Subcommittee--not on a partisan

[[Page H5715]]

nor jurisdictional mission, but rather to bring discipline and 
accountability to FAA programs that have drifted too long in the 
wilderness.
  I would like to thank my good friend and distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. John Tanner, the ranking minority member on the 
Technology Subcommittee, for his leadership in authoring sections of 
this title which strengthens the role of FAA's RE&D advisory committee 
in establishing R&D priorities and reviewing funding allocations, and 
increase the viability of the national aviation research plan. An 
additional section, also drafted by Mr. Tanner, would have greatly 
simplified the analysis of FAA R&D programs by requiring FAA to 
consolidate all its R&D activities into a single budget account--per 
OMB guidelines. This section was also withdrawn to expedite 
consideration of H.R. 3322 before the full House.
  Regarding FAA RE&D funding, the President requested $195.7 million 
for fiscal year 1997. Management reform, based upon sound guiding 
principles, offers the promise of increased efficiencies and less 
waste. Accordingly, fiscal year 1997 RE&D budget authority should not 
be increased above the fiscal year 1996 appropriation--$185.698 
million--until improvements in FAA's acquisition management are 
apparent and efficiencies can be more readily assessed.
  In summary, FAA's chronic delays in fielding new systems have not 
been caused by a lack of funds or their allocation, but can be 
attributed to legendary organizational, managerial, and cultural 
impediments to changing its acquisition process. The FAA, with our 
assistance, has taken an enviable first step and we are cautiously 
optimistic. But the road ahead is long and formidable. Working together 
in the Congress, we can help continue the transformation of a 
bureaucratic agency--long overdue for change--into a world-class 
standard of excellence for the 21st century.

 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT 
                 [RE&D] FY 97 RECOMMENDED AUTHORIZATION                 
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year--            
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                      1996        1997 PB        1997   
                                  appropriated    request     authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development/                                                     
 infrastructure.................        10.000       16.822       10.000
Capacity/ATM technology.........        37.200       40.570       39.911
Comm/Nav/Surveillance...........        23.000       20.371       20.371
Weather.........................         6.493        6.411        6.411
Airport technology..............         6.000        6.000        6.000
Air safety technology...........        37.978       38.999       37.978
System security.................        36.045       36.045       36.045
Human factors/aviation medicine.        23.682       23.682       23.682
Environment/Energy..............         3.800        3.800        3.800
Innovative/Cooperative research.         1.500        3.000        1.500
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total.....................       185.698      195.700      185.698
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Capacity/Air Traffic Management Technology was adjusted upward    
  slightly from the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. For fiscal year     
  1997, the President requested $2.629 million less for Communications/ 
  Navigation/Surveillance and $0.082 million less for Weather than was  
  appropriated for fiscal 1996. These two amounts, totaling $2.711, were
  used to increase fiscal year 1997 budget authority for Capacity/Air   
  Traffic Management activity from the fiscal year 1996 appropriated    
  amount of $37.200 million to $39.912 million. This budget category,   
  which funds research and development for the free flight concept, was 
  cited as the top priority by the FAA's RE&D advisory committee.       

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VII?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
  The text of title VIII is as follows:

       TITLE VIII--NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

     SEC. 801. 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.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VIII?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IX.
  The text of title IX is as follows:

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

       None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available 
     for any activity whose purpose is to influence legislation 
     pending before the Congress, except that this shall not 
     prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its 
     departments or agencies from communicating to Members of 
     Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through 
     the proper channels, requests for legislation or 
     appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient 
     conduct of the public business.

     SEC. 902. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1997.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no sums are 
     authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1997 for the 
     activities for which sums are authorized by this Act unless 
     such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by 
     this Act.
       (b) Subsequent Fiscal Years.--No sums are authorized to be 
     appropriated for any fiscal year after fiscal year 1997 for 
     the activities for which sums are authorized by this Act 
     unless such sums are specifically authorized to be 
     appropriated by Act of Congress with respect to such fiscal 
     year.

     SEC. 903. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

       (a) In General.--The head of each Federal agency for which 
     funds are authorized under this Act shall exclude from 
     consideration for awards of financial assistance made by that 
     agency after fiscal year 1996 any person who received funds, 
     other than those described in subsection (b), appropriated 
     for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1996, from any Federal 
     funding source for a project that was not subjected to a 
     competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from 
     consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for 
     a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal 
     funds.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to 
     persons who are members of a class specified by law for which 
     assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a 
     formula provided by law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title IX?


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

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

       Amendemtn offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 137, after line 4, 
     insert the following new sections:

     SEC. 904. ROTC ACCESS TO CAMPUSES.

       (a) Denial of Grants and Contracts.--(1) No funds 
     appropriated for civilian science activities of the Federal 
     Government may be provided by contract or by grant (including 
     a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to any 
     institution of higher education that, as determined by the 
     agency to which the funds were appropriated, in consultation 
     with other appropriate Federal agencies, has an anti-ROTC 
     policy.
       (2) In the case of an institution of higher education that 
     is ineligible for grants and contracts by reason of paragraph 
     (1), the prohibition under that paragraph shall cease to 
     apply to that institution upon a determination by the agency 
     to which the funds were appropriated, in consultation with 
     other appropriate Federal agencies, that the institution no 
     longer has an anti-ROTC policy.
       (b) Notice of Determination.--Whenever an agency makes a 
     determination under subsection (a) that an institution has an 
     anti-ROTC policy, or that an institution previously 
     determined to have an anti-ROTC policy no longer has such a 
     policy, the agency--
       (1) shall transmit notice of that determination to the 
     Secretary of Education and the Congress; and
       (2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of that 
     determination and of the effect of that determination under 
     subsection (a) on the eligibility of that institution for 
     grants and contracts.
       (c) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--Each agency 
     shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a 
     list of each institution of higher education that is 
     currently ineligible for grants and contracts by reason of a 
     determination of the agency under subsection (a).
       (d) Anti-ROTC Policy.--In this section, the term ``anti-
     ROTC policy'' means a policy or practice of an institution of 
     higher education that--
       (1) prohibits, or in effect prevents, the maintaining or 
     establishing of a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training 
     Corps at that institution; or
       (2) prohibits, or in effect prevents, a student at that 
     institution from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve 
     Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher 
     education, but does not include a longstanding policy of 
     pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.

     SEC. 905. RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

       (a) Denial of Funds.--(1) No funds appropriated for 
     civilian science activities of the Federal Government may be 
     provided by grant or contract (including a grant of funds to 
     be available for student aid) to any institution of higher 
     education that, as determined by the agency to which the 
     funds were appropriated, in consultation with other 
     appropriate Federal agencies, has a policy of denying, or 
     which effectively prevents--
       (A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
       (B) access to directory information pertaining to students,

     for purposes of military recruiting. This paragraph shall not 
     apply to a longstanding

[[Page H5716]]

     policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliation.
       (2) In the case of an institution of higher education that 
     is ineligible for grants and contracts by reason of paragraph 
     (1), the prohibition under that paragraph shall cease to 
     apply to that institution upon a determination by the agency 
     to which the funds were appropriated, in consultation with 
     other appropriate Federal Agencies, that the institution no 
     longer has a policy described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Students referred to in paragraph (1) are individuals 
     who are 17 years of age or older.
       (b) Notice of Determination.--Whenever an agency makes a 
     determination under subsection (a) that an institution has a 
     policy described in subsection (a), or that an institution 
     previously determined to have such a policy no longer has 
     such a policy, the agency--
       (1) shall transmit notice of that determination to the 
     Secretary of Education and the Congress; and
       (2) shall publish in the Federal Register notice of that 
     determination and of the effect of that determination under 
     subsection (a) on the eligibility of that institution for 
     grants and contracts.
       (c) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--Each agency 
     shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months a 
     list of each institution of higher education that is 
     currently ineligible for grants and contracts by reason of a 
     determination of the agency under subsection (a).
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``directory information'' means, with respect to a student, 
     the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and 
     place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the 
     most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by 
     the student.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me be very brief, because this 
amendment in its two parts has previously passed this House and has 
become the law of the land. The amendment says that any institution of 
higher education that prohibits ROTC units on campus or prohibits the 
recruiters of our military to go on campus and offer honorable careers 
to the young men and women graduating from these colleges will not be 
eligible for any of the grants that appear in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, these institutions just cannot expect to reject the 
people who defend our country and the public on one hand and dip into 
the public trough with the other hand. For the last 15 years or so, 
this country has had to depend on an all volunteer military. These 
young men and women come from all walks of life from all across this 
great country, and they are the best trained, the best educated, the 
best motivated young men and women of any military in the entire world 
today. But because it is an all-voluntary military, our military does 
need access to be able to offer these honorable careers to these young 
men and women.
  This amendment, the last time it was offered to the defense 
authorization bill, received 271 votes, and therefore I would ask the 
Members accept it here tonight so that we can continue the success of 
our all-voluntary military today.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment if my 
understanding is correct of some language that the gentleman has added 
to the amendment.
  As the gentleman knows, I had some concerns about schools that have a 
historic pattern of practicing pacifism, that are religiously oriented 
schools, and I wanted to assure that they were not kept from 
participating in research programs as a result of that historic pattern 
and those religious beliefs. My understanding is that the gentleman has 
put language into his amendment to assure that those kinds of 
institutions can be exempted. Is that correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is correct, I say to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. If he reads on page 3, on line 1 and 2, it 
says that this does not include institutions who have a long-standing 
policy of pacifism based on historical religious affiliations.
  I understand that with the kind of schools that the gentleman might 
have in his district, as well as the gentleman from Virginia, who I 
think is seeking to be recognized here as well.
  Mr. WALKER. Just one more clarification, if I could. It is my 
understanding that that exemption then would be up to the agency that 
is going to grant the money and the respective Federal agencies to make 
the determination.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is obsolutely correct.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I think it 
is vitally important. Campus recruiting is a vitally important 
component of the military's effort to attract our Nation's best and 
brightest young people. It is simply sound fiscal policy to deny 
Federal dollars to schools that interfere with the Federal Government's 
constitutionally mandated function of raising a military.
  However, I have in my district, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has, religious denominations, Mennonite, Amish and others that have 
hundreds of years of historical background of not participating in 
military activities based upon their deeply found religious beliefs, 
and I think if they are not simply antimilitary based upon a political 
position of the time but rather have that deep-seated opinion, then 
they should have that exemption and should still be able to apply for 
funds for legitimate scientific programs at their institutions. I thank 
the gentleman for including that language in the bill which will 
protect those schools.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman is correct, and certainly because of his 
recommendation and that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], we have included it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from California, who has been 
one of the major sponsors of legislation like this ever since he first 
came to the Congress.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
in strong support of the amendment.
  I think that it is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of fairness 
to our military, to our young people who have chosen a military career. 
I also believe it is extremely important that in our universities 
across this country that they make that an option for our students, for 
our young people, as an option for a career that they should go into if 
they do choose to accept Federal dollars and grants. I thank the 
gentleman for offering this amendment and am in strong support of it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. It is the Solomon-Pombo amendment. I certainly thank the 
gentleman for speaking out for it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will this include student loans?
  Mr. SOLOMON. It has nothing to do with student loans.
  Ms. LOFGREN. I am seeking to understand the amendment. Would the 
prohibition of funds going to a university include Pell grants or 
student loans or students in universities where ROTC is not offered?
  Mr. SOLOMON. No, it would not. These deal only with research grants.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that I may be the only voice against the 
amendment here today, but I do so because there is a school in my 
district that for over a long period of time reached the conclusion not 
to have a ROTC program. I personally think ROTC is a good idea. I wish 
that ROTC did exist and I know individuals who have had a great 
experience and a measurable improvement in their future and life 
because of their participation in the program. However, I would hate to 
see San Jose State University cut off from all of the fine research 
that they are doing because of a decision made in another program area, 
supportive as I am of the ROTC program. I think it is a mistake to tie 
in our research funds with our ROTC program support, because so much of

[[Page H5717]]

what is done by way of scientific research is not done just to benefit 
the universities that might participate in those research programs but 
that research is to benefit the entire country, to benefit the future 
of the United States by forging advances on one or another of critical 
questions that face us and our future.
  So I think although we must take strong efforts to support our men 
and women in the military, in the long run it will do them no good to 
cripple those universities that might be doing research in the very 
areas that could benefit them in the future.
  So with a great deal of respect for those who have offered the 
amendment, I would urge that we not willy-nilly run down this path that 
may have consequences that are adverse and that we have not fully 
considered.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, I know that this was not 
considered by the committee. We did not have any hearings on it, at 
least in our committee, and I think it would be ill-advised to approve 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IX?
  If not, are there further amendments to the bill?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to offer an amendment, a new title 
X which would add to the bill the provisions unanimously reported by 
the Technology Subcommittee chaired by the gentlewoman earlier this 
year.
  Knowing of her interest in these programs, I would like to ask her 
what her intentions might be and if she would intend to offer such an 
amendment, I would allow her to do so.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland.
  Mrs. MORELLA. In response, Mr. Chairman, to the ranking member of the 
Science Committee who is such a dedicated, distinguished gentleman who 
knows that I do care about the ATP Program, the amendment I am about to 
offer has to do with the Manufacturing Extension Program. It is an 
excellent amendment. I know that the gentleman would support it 
wholeheartedly. I would love to have the opportunity to offer it. We 
can then see whether the gentleman wants to do something else after 
that.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I understand the gentlewoman's position. I 
infer that she is constrained from offering the version that was 
reported out of her subcommittee by unanimous vote; am I correct in 
that?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I feel that it would be appropriate to fulfill what the full committee 
has decided to do, and it was not considered appropriate for the full 
committee to act on that.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Did the full committee take some action that 
I am unaware of?
  Mrs. MORELLA. No, the full committee did not act on that.
  Mr. BROWN of California. In other words, the gentlewoman is doing 
what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] says he is willing to 
accept?
  Mrs. MORELLA. No, no, no, no, no, no. The ATP bill, which was 
authorized by our Technology Subcommittee, was approved, did not come 
to the full committee. And I am not offering it today, but I am 
offering an amendment that was offered at full committee and then was 
withdrawn with a significant sum attached to it.
  Mr. BROWN of California. As much as I respect and admire the 
gentlewoman, I am constrained to say that her answer does not satisfy 
my requirements and I am going to offer, and I do offer at this point 
an amendment to the bill which had been approved unanimously by the 
subcommittee but was objected to by the chairman of the full committee.


              amendment offered by mr. brown of california

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 137, 
     after line 4, insert the following new title:

                TITLE X--INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

     SEC. 1001. INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for the Industrial Technology Services activities of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology for fiscal 
     year 1997--
       (1) for the Advanced Technology Program under section 28 of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278n), such sums as may be appropriated; and
       (2) 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), such 
     sums as may be appropriated.

     SEC. 1002. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       Section 28 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n) is amended--
       (1) 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'';
       (2) 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,'';
       (3) 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'';
       (4) 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'';
       (5) 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
       (6) 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.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  Mr. BROWN of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order on the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, this 
amendment was considered in the Technology Subcommittee of the 
Committee on Science and adopted unanimously as an extremely innocuous 
indication of support for two of the vital programs of the National 
Institute of Science and Technology. These two programs were the 
Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnerships, as set forth in the amendment.
  There is not a specific amount authorized for these programs but only 
such sums as may be appropriated. In other words, this leaves it up to 
the Committee on Appropriations to determine the level of funding. But, 
if adopted and signed into law by the President, it continues an 
authorization for these two excellent programs which are an integral 
part of the work of the National Institute of Science and Technology.

                              {time}  1930

  Now, it turns out, of course, that the bill, as reported out of the 
Subcommittee on Technology, was never taken up by the full committee. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has many good reasons why 
he does not want to continue authorizing these two programs, and his 
method of doing this, of course, was merely not to take them up in full 
committee, not to have them debated and marked up in full

[[Page H5718]]

committee, and then not, therefore, to be included with the other 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and this 
so-called omnibus science authorization bill.
  Now, I am offering something that I feel is the easiest, simplest, 
least controversial, and least expensive way to go. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has frequently argued that we must never in 
our authorizations go beyond the levels which the appropriators are 
going to go. As a consequence, of course, we many times end up going 
far below what the appropriators are going to go.
  Last year, for example, the appropriators continued these two 
programs at levels which did not satisfy me, but they were continued on 
the books. I am now, at this point, offering this amendment as a 
nominal way to maintain the authorization for these two existing 
programs, at the level that the appropriators in their wisdom fit 
within the budget, so that we cannot have the argument argued so often 
by the gentleman that we are busting the budget.
  We cannot bust the budget in an authorizing committee, as all of 
those who have served in this body know. It is only the appropriators 
who can bust the budget, and by passing the ball to them we will allow 
them to decide what the budget allows and we will maintain the 
authorization for these two finally important programs, which the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], the chairman of the 
committee, considers to be corporate welfare. So he is bitterly opposed 
to them.
   Mr. Chairman, I very much hope that the Members will see the logic 
of my offering this minimal type of authorizing amendment and will 
support it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is an 
interesting point in the debate. The gentleman from California has 
essentially decided to bring an amendment to the floor to authorize one 
of the favorite programs of the administration, and there is no doubt 
this administration loves corporate welfare. The gentleman has offered 
the ultimate corporate welfare amendment by reauthorizing the ATP 
program.
  Now, as the gentlewoman from Maryland had said, we were prepared to 
try to reauthorize the manufacturing extension program but the 
gentleman from California was not satisfied with that. He wants to go 
further and go well beyond that and go into the ATP program. The ATP 
program is, in fact, industrial policy defined. It is all of the things 
that people are concerned about when they hear about their tax dollars 
being spent.
  For middle class Americans who are concerned about where their tax 
dollars go, here is a program they should love because this particular 
chart talks about those largest awards and where they went last year. 
Now, when we think about $25,000-a-year working families in my district 
having taxes taken out of their pockets and brought to Washington and 
then given to people, who do we think they should have the money given 
to? Well, in this program where the money goes is to General Motors, 
Ford Motor, AT&T, GE, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, United 
Technologies, Bell South, MCI, Allied Signal, Texas Instruments.
  This is a list of the Fortune 500 that are getting money that is 
being taken out of the pocketbooks of working families and handed over 
to corporations.
  Now, if Members think that results in good science, think a little 
bit about what we were told when the GAO took a look at these programs. 
What we will be told is, oh, well, we have to have these cooperative 
arrangements with these big companies in order to get development of 
new products. The fact is that we do not get development that is 
generic to all products, we get a few hand-picked corporations singled 
out that then get the money.
  Now, I realize the administration loves that because these are hand-
picked corporations that just happen to give big political 
contributions according to research done by one of the foundations in 
town. They looked at the ATP program and found that there was this 
surprising similarity between those who gave money to political 
campaigns and those who got money from the ATP program. So it fits a 
very, very nice pattern for those who think that corporate money into 
political campaigns is a great idea, but I am not so certain it serves 
the needs of science.
  The fact is that what we have attempted to do is reprioritize 
spending by going away from some of these programs that give money to 
big corporations and put money into industrial subsidies and put the 
money into some of the places that we think are high priority research.
  So the gentleman from California is offering an amendment which is, 
in fact, an amendment to continue the pattern of corporate welfare. 
Despite the fact suggested that the government ought to be backing out 
of corporate welfare, this administration, and now the minority, has 
decided that corporate welfare is the wave of the future. That is the 
way in which we have to go in order to assure a better climate for 
science in the country.
  I just disagree. I think industrial policy science makes no sense. It 
in fact impedes our competitiveness. It does all the wrong things. It 
has us picking winners and losers in the marketplace. It does all the 
bad things in terms of how we want to proceed ahead with both research 
and development and the science of the country.
  So if Members are for the gentleman's amendment as presented to us at 
the present time, they are for taking money out of the pockets of 
middle class Americans and giving it to General Motors, Ford Motor, 
AT&T, GE, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, United Technologies, Bell 
South, MCI, Allied Signal, Texas Instruments, Apple Computers, Sun 
Microsystems, and a whole bunch of other people. That is what Members 
are for doing.
  I think it is a bad deal and I suggest we should reject the amendment 
of the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in the 5 minutes I have I will try to give the facts on 
this amendment and what it was meant to do. It was unanimously, 
Democrat and Republican, passed out of our subcommittee last year. 
Because of the comments of the previous speaker, one knows where the 
bias of the chair on our committee is toward these programs, and I do 
not need, I do not think, to elaborate on that anymore.
  Let me simply say this. Trying to separate fact from fiction, these 
are not corporate welfare grants, these companies put up 50 percent of 
the money as these ATP programs, Republican-administered, throughout 
the country. And let me further say this. In an independent Silber & 
Associates report, talking about the Advanced Technology Program, they 
said that it does indicate the program is achieving its objective; that 
there is no evidence that there is any linkage to any kind of political 
campaign, and that, furthermore, over half of the ATP cost-shared 
awards have gone to small businesses and more than 100 universities 
have participated in more than 157 projects.
  Now, we went through this in the subcommittee at great length. I am 
sorry that the chairman of the subcommittee did not choose to try to 
bring our bill that we thought was so good in a unanimous vote to the 
floor. The full committee never took up the unanimously passed bill in 
the subcommittee for reasons that have heretofore been expressed, and I 
would just simply say this. All we are asking for is a vote on this.
  Every person who has looked at these programs who is not an ideologue 
or has a bias of some kind has said the wave of the future, and I cited 
earlier when I was talking about the Council on Competitiveness, hardly 
a liberal claptrap organization, said that the wave of the future is to 
get away from this business of applied versus basic science. The wave 
of the future is to make government an ally of business in this country 
because the businesses in this country, because the vagaries of the 
marketplace are not going to be able to invest in blue sky research 
without some thought of a product that can be marketed to come back to 
them in the future for commercialization.
  Therefore, it behooves us all, government, industry, universities and 
Federal labs, to work together. That is exactly what these two programs 
do. They allow for industry to participate in blue sky research with 
the help of the Federal Government, so that if

[[Page H5719]]

there is a technological breakthrough sometime down the line, American 
businesses will be able to take advantage of that in this worldwide 
marketplace. That it all it is.
  Furthermore, this amendment does nothing more than authorize these 
programs at whatever sum the appropriators deem necessary, because we 
cannot get in our authorization committee a hearing on this bill in the 
full committee, notwithstanding the fact it was passed unanimously by 
the subcommittee.
  Be that as it may, we do not run the committee, I understand that, 
but we have at this time an opportunity to let the Congress speak their 
will, not costing one dime, not one single cent, not a budget buster, 
only to say these programs ought to be authorized because unbiased 
experts have said they are working.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly comment, and 
I very much appreciate the gentleman's statement, and it illustrates 
exactly the reason I appear to be a little irked here on the floor.
  This was the most arbitrary action I have ever seen a chairman take 
when he rejected a unanimous subcommittee report and refused to take up 
the bill. And then to categorize that as corporate welfare or 
industrial policy or as the grants going to, I gather, Democratic 
contributors is the most ridiculous, absolutely false statement, which 
he has never been able to substantiate, that I have ever heard.
  A combination of arbitrariness, dictatorialness and a misuse of facts 
is what is ruining the activities of this committee and of the Congress 
as a whole to the degree it is infected by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's positions.


  amendment offered by mrs. morella as a substitute for the amendment 
                   offered by mr. brown of california

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Morella as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California: Page 137, after 
     line 4, insert the following new title:

                    TITLE X--FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

     SEC. 1001. FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for the 
     Manufacturing Extension Parternships program under sections 
     25 and 26 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 278l) for fiscal year 
     1997. None of the funds authorized by this section may be 
     used to establish a new Center.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly:

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the substitute that I propose will also 
add a new title X to the bill. It is for the purpose of authorizing the 
Commerce Department manufacturing extension partnership program, 
managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

                              {time}  1945

  This program is one which I, and many Members of this body on both 
sides of the aisle, consider to be not only valuable but essential to 
our national competitiveness. MEP's State and regional centers provide 
consultation and guidance to manufacturers, both large and small, in 
the development and implementation and advanced management techniques 
designed to enhance efficiency and manufacturing expertise.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute that I propose would provide an 
affirmative authorization only for the manufacturing extension 
partnership program, and it would allocate to it $10 million more than 
was appropriated for fiscal year 1996. The amount would be $90 million.
  This money would provide the funding required for support of the 
centers that have now been established and also for those that are 
planned during the period of fiscal year 1997. So that would bring the 
total number of centers to 75 at the conclusion of fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand from the information that we have been 
provided during the course of our committee's consideration of these 
spending authorizations that that figure would represent the full 
complement of centers, 75, that are planned by the present 
administration and that no new centers are planned for startup after 
the conclusion of the fiscal year 1997 period.
  I am persuaded in any event that at the conclusion of this 1997 
fiscal year, it will be appropriate to pause and evaluate the 
performance of these centers before considering the creation of any new 
ones.
  Congress should consider, after gathering the requisite information, 
the record of the centers in achieving their goals and the 
implementation of criteria for continued Federal funding. Thus, the 
amendment also contains language that would preclude the opening of any 
new centers after fiscal year 1997. This is not intended to be a 
permanent prohibition but merely to ensure that there be a pause in 
expansion until Congress has an opportunity to review and affirmatively 
make a decision about the need for any additional centers.
  I know, however, that we do have preliminary information on the 
impact of the MEP program in the form of two GAO studies which 
collected extensive assessments of customer opinion on the value of the 
work done by the centers. Those customer reports were positive, spoke 
well for the fine work that is being done by the dedicated participants 
and the work of the centers.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my substitute to the Brown 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Having read the amendment, I withdraw my 
point of order, and I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I must, to begin with, suggest my very great admiration 
for the gentlewoman from Maryland. She has been a stalwart of the 
committee for many years. I know of her dedication to all of the 
programs at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology and to 
the general policies of technology development, technology transfer and 
dissemination. She is one of the leaders in this House, and I have the 
very highest regard for her.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why she does certain things in this 
substitute. Of course, if she can explain it, I would be happy to 
listen to it. But what she has done here is to offer a substitute which 
takes a small part of the programs included in my amendment, the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and eliminates the major program, 
the Advanced Technology Program.
  She authorizes a specific sum, $90 million, here. I see nothing in 
the amendment which accords with the Chairman's frequent admonition 
that there must be offsets whenever an amendment is offered that 
increases the amount of money. Perhaps he has in mind how she is going 
to offset this $90 million. But until he does offer such an offset, 
then I am constrained to feel that his previous admonitions that we 
could not consider amendments that did not have offsets was slightly 
disingenuous, to coin a phrase that I have sometimes used.
  Mr. Chairman, there is, also, despite the strong protestations by the 
gentlewoman as to the excellence of this program for manufacturing 
extension partnerships, and I thoroughly concur with her, that this is 
a prohibition against extending this program. None of the funds 
authorized shall be used to establish a new center. If these centers 
are, in fact, as good as they are purported to be, and which we agree 
they are, they are generally funded for a fixed term of years. When 
they have finished that, they are supposed to transition to, if 
possible, 100 percent private sector financing. The money that is 
released should be used to continue the work by establishing other 
centers.
  In the gentlewoman's substitute, she prohibits this. Not that it 
requires more money; it could be done with existing stream of funds, 
but she prohibits it. This denies the earlier statements that she made 
that these centers are making a contribution to improving the quality 
of performance of our great small business community in this country, 
which is our goal.
  Now, for these reasons, and others, having to do of course with the 
fact that it does not include the Advanced Technology Program, I am 
going to

[[Page H5720]]

ask that we reject the substitute offered by the gentlewoman and pass 
the original amendment which contains everything that her amendment, 
her substitute, offers, plus additional benefits which I have already 
described in my earlier remarks.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has gone on a 
couple of emotional tirades, and I think we ought to clear up the 
record.
  The gentleman from California has suggested that, in talking about 
the ATP Program, that this is ideologically driven by the chairman of 
the committee. I would suggest that just the opposite is true of the 
ideology. Let us correct the record with regard to whether or not any 
responsible observers have suggested whether there may be a connection 
between the ATP grants and politics.
  It was done by the Cato Institute. I quote,

       Many of the top recipients of technology research grants 
     awarded by the Clinton administration were also substantial 
     contributors to the Clinton campaign or the Democratic 
     National Committee.

  Mr. Chairman, that is where I get the information. It was not made 
up. It is, in fact, very clear.
  The next thing is, if this is a huge philosophical issue with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, then I do not know how I have gotten so 
far into the sack with Robert Shapiro, with director of economic policy 
at the Progressive Policy Institute, which is, in fact, not 
ideologically associated with me. But in looking at the ATP Program, he 
expressed some of the same concerns that I did.
  Mr. Chairman, he says with regard to a grant that went to the Philips 
Corporation under ATP, he makes the statement:

       However, the Federal Government should not be helping 
     Philips, the largest lighting company in the world, develop 
     new commercial applications for technology already used in 
     street lights.

  That is the kind of thing that is going on in the program, and even 
people at the Progressive Policy Institute in fact are finding some 
concerns with those kinds of questions.
  So we have a lot of lobbyists and big corporations that support this 
program, but the fact is that there are real concerns.
  What the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has done is she has 
said, okay, she has a strong faith in some of these programs such as 
the MEP Program. She says, let us single it out and make sure that it 
gets all the money that it needs to fund the 75 centers that the 
administration says are necessary; and the administration has requested 
no more than 75.
  The $90 million in the gentlewoman's amendment totally funds all 75 
centers plus some administrative expenses. She is making the case that 
that is the right direction to go, but let us not continue down this 
road of funding industrial policy through ATP that gives money to big 
corporations out of the pockets of poor and middle-class wage earners.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what the whole issue will be about here as we 
consider this: whether or not Members are for extending the MEP 
programs and probably getting an overwhelming vote in favor of the MEP, 
or whether or not what they are wanting to do is go the route of 
corporate welfare by ensuring that the ATP Program is that which is 
funded, and it is funded at a huge level at a cost to the taxpayers and 
going to big corporations.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I thought the 
gentleman would give me the courtesy of allowing me to complete my 
statement, but I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask the gentleman, he 
likes to quote the Cato Institute report a lot and says that these are 
contributors to Democratic causes. Only five of the corporations, AT&T, 
Boeing, Chevron, Shell and Texaco, received ATP awards, and each of 
those companies gave more heavily to Republicans than they gave to 
Democrats.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman too about corporate 
welfare that he supports like the National Weather Service, NIST in-
house R&D, energy supply R&D, FAA, S&T. The Cato Institute defines all 
of this as corporate welfare.
  If the gentleman is agreeing with Cato's definition that corporate 
welfare is any program that involves government cooperation with 
industry, then why is the gentleman supporting hydrogen R&D, which he 
supports? Is that not corporate welfare?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman want 
a response or is he just interested in pejoratives?
  Mr. Chairman, the hydrogen R&D Program that I supported was a basic 
research program. If the gentleman wants to go back and look at the 
bill, we supported a basic research program from hydrogen. We did not 
support any industrial policy to research to that. And the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania does not accept the Cato Institute's definition of 
corporate welfare. There are many different definitions around here 
that the gentleman can come up with.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, that is the report the gentleman cited.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I did not yield to the gentleman. Is he 
going to let me answer?
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the way I define corporate welfare is 
when we are taking money from hard-earning, middle-class Americans and 
putting it in the hands of corporations through subsidies.
  Now, that is exactly what we do here. And so, in fact, this is one of 
the biggest programs we have in the entire Federal Government that 
takes money out of the pocketbooks of Americans and hands it to big 
corporations.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in my view, this is a definitional corporate 
welfare program. It is certainly a corporate subsidy program. It is 
certainly an industrial policy program, all the things that I think are 
bad.
  The fact is we have had a recent report on U.S. competitiveness in 
USA Today. In USA Today they in fact say that the best things that we 
do in this country are when we have entrepreneurship and when we do the 
job of having better investment, not with huge corporate subsidies.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Morella substitute, and I 
yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the wording 
in this particular amendment. There are 75 centers that will, we 
understand, be fully funded, including administrative costs. Of the 75 
centers, 15 are new. Fifteen are new, already contracted for, and we 
are providing the money for them for fiscal year 1997.
  We are asking that it is appropriate at the end of that period of 
time to simply look and review the 75 centers to see how effectively 
they are operating. I think this is good accountability, good 
responsibility, good oversight on the part of this Congress.
  The MEP program is one that our committee has demonstrated a desire 
to continue. We are budgeting it. We are offering in the authorization 
$10 million more than what was in the budget authorization for the last 
fiscal year that had been appropriated, and we feel it is a good 
amendment. I do not think it has any criticism. That is adverse. And I 
say to this Congress, pass it.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just add, in 
support of this, that this House addressed the ATP program last year, 
zeroed it out. The gentlewoman from Maryland's strategy is to come back 
and try to get something for the MEP program. I think it is a realistic 
way that we can get the appropriate money for it, and I am happy to 
support it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to comment briefly on this because I have 
heard some of the same things that I have heard now for 18 months in 
the Committee on Science. I think there is a philosophical difference, 
and I think it is fair that we discuss it. It is not about money to 
corporations. I was here and voted against the agriculture bill. We 
shovel money at farmers, and they are corporations; that does not seem 
to bother anybody. It bothered

[[Page H5721]]

me. So the problem is not about taking tax money and giving it to 
others apparently. It is about industrial policy. And I have heard the 
Chairman use that word over and over again.
  I think there is a difference.

                              {time}  2000

  I know that we are in a vicious economic global competition. If we 
look at what others around the world are doing and compare them to what 
we will do it this bill passes with the Morella amendment to the Brown 
amendment, I think we will agree, at least I believe, we are in 
trouble.
  Mr. Chairman, Europe is accelerating its investment in commercial 
technologies through just the same kind of programs that the ATP 
program represents for America through the European Union joint R&D 
initiative. Japan is doubling their government science and technology 
budget in the next 4 years. China is tripling its investment in joint 
projects. Korea is also boosting its R&D efforts in key areas.
  They realize, as we should, that precompetitive, precommercial 
research is part of getting ahead in the really rather strident and 
tough competition that we face internationally.
  I would like to note that some people who I do not think the very 
political, like the American Chemical Society, has said, and I quote: 
ATP is a vital component of our Nation's technology and competitiveness 
portfolio.
  I would like to give just a couple of quick examples of how this 
actually works. One example from San Jose is Spectra Diode 
Laboratories, which joined with Xerox in 1991 in a project to develop 
integrated arrays of high-powered multi-wavelength laser diodes. Now 
the ATP funds that were provided, and I would add in partnership; 
industry puts at least 50 percent of the money up and oftentimes more; 
enabled this firm, SDL, to move ahead of where they otherwise would 
have been.
  It is true one of the three technologies they developed might have 
been developed anyhow, but would not have happened in the time frame in 
which it did. In Silicon Valley and high tech, time is very important. 
We are talking about products that have a life cycle of 12 months, 13 
months, 14 months. If you miss a step, pretty soon you have got your 
competitors abroad just killing you in the business.
  Mr. Chairman, I would note that SDL's early applications have tripled 
their business in 2 years, and note that in some measure their success 
has added to the 46,000 jobs that were added in 1 year in Silicon 
Valley, CA.
  None of us want to squander tax money, but there are things such as 
squandering and then there are investments for the future. My voters 
tell me for the most part that, if we can do something to invest in 
science and technology that boosts our economy, that provides high-
tech, good-paying jobs, that is a good investment.

  Mr. Chairman, I would add just one other example, and that has to do 
with something that I think is going to be a critical matter for our 
country and whether we prosper or fail in the next generation of 
computers. That is flat panel display. There are several competing 
technologies being pursued at this point. It is not yet clear which of 
them will emerge as the winner. We have one ATP program located in 
Silicon Valley pursuing very sophisticated approaches using photons as 
a base for the technology.
  We have very little going on other than the ATP program in the United 
States. Our major competitors are in Japan, in Singapore, in Korea.
  If we were to pull out of this technological research, we would be 
doing great damage. For those who have laptops, you cannot build a 
laptop unless you can get a flat panel. When all the flat panels are 
owned, when all the flat panel technology is owned by our economic 
competitors, our folks will not have a guaranteed supply of the key 
components for something that is going to be a growth industry.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not shoot ourselves in the foot. I strongly urge 
that we vote against the Morella amendment. It kills the ATP program, 
and it does damage to our country's future.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is getting late, and I am not going to take a 
lot of time. I just think it is interesting to note that, while the 
chairman of the Committee on Science likes to talk about Boeing 
receiving $2 million on the ATP program and labels that corporate 
welfare, he conveniently overlooks the $6 billion contract Boeing gets 
on the Space Station, which he supports. So I think there is just a 
little bit of a double standard going on here.
  There is some corporate welfare apparently that is good, and then 
there is other corporate welfare that is not so good.
  I would say to the gentlewoman from Maryland that we support MEP. All 
of us over here support that program, and we have tried to work in a 
bipartisan way to make sure what is clearly a success story continues. 
I would like to see the MEP program funded at $105 million, at full 
funding.
  I would like to see other areas have MEP centers, like I enjoy in 
western Pennsylvania. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource 
Center, I believe, has saved the manufacturing base in Pittsburgh and 
is a program that not only needs to continue but should be expanded 
because it is doing good things, too.

  Similar good things have been happening in the ATP program, and I 
think it is interesting to note that, when we held hearings on ATP, 
most of these so-called expert witnesses that were presented were not 
from members from the private sector or from industry. They were these 
so-called experts from these inside-the-Beltway think tanks that talked 
negatively about this program.
  Every private sector, every company representative, even those that 
did not receive ATP awards, spoke favorably about this program. So I 
think, if we were serious about addressing this issue of so-called 
corporate welfare, that we would have done it in a much more 
substantial way rather than the very narrow focus that the chairman has 
taken in this program.
  In closing, I think the Brown amendment is a far superior amendment 
because it takes care of two programs that are a success story. We do 
support the MEP program and certainly are going to support funding for 
that.
  Certain elements within the Science Committee have tried to bury 
NIST's technology and manufacturing support programs without ever 
having to endure the political inconvenience of debating their merits 
or voting on the record to kill them.
  Our amendment is designed to correct this situation and allow 
flexibility for the Appropriations Committee to find funding for these 
supposedly controversial programs.
  What are the functions of these disputed programs?
  First, let's look at NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program. The MEP, 
which originated during the Reagan administration, has been a salvation 
to many American small manufacturing businesses. Faced with increasing 
direct global competition in the mid-1980's, small American 
manufacturers needed to become more efficient, but objective sources of 
modernization advice were costly or nonexistent. Abroad, countries like 
Japan, Germany, Singapore, and Italy all launched manufacturing 
extension programs to help their small manufacturers innovate, 
renovate, and compete. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 
[MEP] was NIST's response to the efforts of our global competitors to 
seize control of the international market for technology.
  The MEP demonstrates that the Federal Government, in partnership with 
local business groups, educational institutions, and State governments, 
could provide small manufacturers with modernization services worth 
several times the Federal investment. Today, the MEP program serves 32 
States through a network of 44 nonprofit centers. Federal funds are 
awarded on a competitive basis with States and local partners matching 
Federal funds. Each MEP center is tailored to meet the needs of 
regional industries by assisting small and medium size firms employing 
fewer than 500 workers--381,000 manufacturers employing 12 million 
workers--to modernize in order to compete in the demanding marketplace 
of the 1990's and beyond. To date, MEP centers have reached 25,000 
customer firms. Each MEP project on average adds or saves 5 jobs, 
increases sales by $360,000 and saves $430,000 in labor and 
investments. Total benefits to manufacturers amount to $8 for every 
Federal dollar invested.
  The MEP in my region, SPIRC, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial 
Resource Center, has made meaningful improvements in numerous 
manufacturing plants throughout Allegheny County. It's safe to say 
SPIRC is directly responsible for maintaining our manufacturing base in 
western Pennsylvania.
  The MEP program's benefits have been widely recognized. The House and 
Senate have agreed on language that was included in

[[Page H5722]]

the debt ceiling extension bill reaffirming the importance of MEP 
centers in helping business comply with Federal and State-level 
environmental regulations. The language reads,

       Nothing in this Act in any way affects or limits the 
     ability of other technical assistance or extension programs 
     to perform or continue to perform services related to 
     compliance assistance.

  This clearly covers current MEP activities, which provide significant 
environmental assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. This 
has been a recent point of emphasis within the MEP program. For 
example, the Tennessee MEP Center was awarded $900,000 to develop a 
prototype program for environmental compliance that can be emulated by 
other MEP centers.
  Let's also look at another Reagan administration effort, the Advanced 
Technology Program, which addressed another market failure. Technology 
partnership programs, such as ATP, were crafted in direct response to 
the concern that too much of the scientific knowledge resulting from 
research projects was not finding its way into our companies, where 
technology could be turned into the products and services, the profits 
and jobs that drive our economy. Many factors, including the 
globalization of markets, the rapid pace of technology cycles, and the 
focus on short term investment, have led to the short term and narrow 
R&D focus in most companies.
  As a result, U.S. industry tends to avoid investments in enabling 
technologies with broad economic benefits, and focuses almost 
exclusively on narrow mission-specific research with short horizons. 
Technology partnerships were conceived as a means to create some 
bridges to better connect basic research with the companies who can 
move ideas into the marketplace.
  The ATP, based on previous Government experience in fostering 
technology transfer, is a cost-shared partnership between Government, 
industry, and universities. With funding of $341 million in fiscal year 
1995, it represented less than 1 percent of total Federal civilian R&D 
investment. It is too early to determine the full economic benefits 
from a program like ATP, which began in 1990, but has at least a 10-
year horizon for payoff. Already, there is substantial evidence that 
the ATP is catalyzing unique, new enabling technologies and thereby 
creating new economic opportunities that would not have existed 
otherwise.
  Also, I want to mention that in spirit of bipartisan cooperation, 
Congressman Boehlert and I circulated a letter of support for MEP. Well 
over 90 Members signed onto this letter, including such notable Members 
as Congressman Hastert, the majority's chief deputy whip, Chairman 
Spence of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Meyers of the Small 
Business Committee, and many others. I have a copy of the letter here, 
which I hope Members will look at before voting.
  Thanks to more thoughtful consideration of these programs than that 
of the Science Committee, Congress provided adequate funding for the 
NIST laboratories and provided subsistence funding for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Unfortunately, funding for the 
Advanced Technology Program was eliminated for fiscal year 1996.
  Authorization levels for the MEP and the ATP were not the result of 
any objective analysis of the merits of these programs, but were based 
solely on political considerations. From the beginning days of the 
104th Congress, both the MEP and ATP programs were targeted as 
corporate welfare by certain Members.
  What is the basis for my assertion that the attacks made on the ATP 
and MEP are political rather than any rational evaluation of the 
program? In a hearing before the Technology Subcommittee this past 
year, the only witness who spoke against the ATP and MEP were expert 
witnesses with no technical business background--their only experience 
was working for inside the beltway think tanks. Every other private 
sector witness supported these programs and programs like them, 
regardless of whether their company received an ATP award.
  According to a July 1995 Congressional Budget Office [CBO] report, 
Federal Financial Support of Business, the ATP and MEP represent less 
than 4 percent of the $12 billion the Federal Government will spend on 
programs that support industrial technology commercialization. If the 
cities of these programs were truly interested in rooting out this so-
called corporate welfare, why are they silent regarding the majority of 
programs, such as the almost $1 billion Small Business Innovation 
Research Program [SBIR], or $3.7 billion at the National Institutes of 
Health [NIH] for applied biomedical research? If they were serious, we 
would be debating the entire range of technology commercialization 
programs which the Government funds. The Science Committee has not done 
this and the House has not done this.
  The elimination of the ATP and attempts to eliminate the MEP are 
using the corporate welfare label to further another agenda. To be 
frank, the ATP and MEP were targeted, despite their initiation by a 
Republican administration, because they were enthusiastically endorsed 
by Bill Clinton--both as a candidate and as President. Eliminating ATP 
and MEP does not mean that Congress is making hard choices, it says 
Congress is making political ones. Rather than listening to the experts 
and building a Federal investment S&T that is based in economic reality 
and looks to the future, opponents of these programs have only used 
rhetorical arguments as justification for attacking the ATP and MEP for 
purely political reasons.
  I want to emphasize that until this Congress the question of support 
for MEP and ATP has not been partisan. It is the effort to make this a 
partisan debate that many of us on both sides of the aisle are working 
to counter. Even in the mark-up of this bill, Members of both parties 
supported this amendment, which failed on a tie vote. I have the utmost 
respect for my colleagues in the majority who have not succumbed to the 
misguided effort to handicap our competitiveness.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of my 5 minutes. I just feel 
compelled to answer some of the charges, I guess we would call them, 
that have been made on the floor here today, all without any 
foundation, from the benefit of the standpoint of a hearing in our 
committee on these matters.
  Let me tell Members what industry says about the Advanced Technology 
Program, just a few things. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic 
Engineers continues its strong support for the ATP program. A 
significant amount of progress in technology transfer is the direct 
result of the ATP programs. These programs illustrate that government 
participation in the R&D arena can be both efficient and productive.
  The American Chemical Society: As the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Lofgren] alluded to, ATP support of market incentives encourages 
companies to invest for the long term in high-risk, high-payoff 
technologies.
  The American Electronics Association: ATP is based on government and 
industry cooperation and the development of technologies critical to 
America's long-term ability to compete in the global marketplace.
  The South Carolina Research Authority in Columbia, SC: By supporting 
research in high-risk, leading-edge technology, the ATP is advancing 
the state of the art, contributing to the growth of our economy.
  Finally, from a company in Valley Forge, PA: ATP is one vital 
approach to maintaining our science and technology leadership. These 
projects will never be undertaken without government support to 
challenge industry to take the higher technology risk. This could 
double or triple our R&D efforts on projects that are beyond our 
current core business and which we would otherwise never undertake.
  That says it better than any politician, Mr. Chairman. That says 
exactly what this amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] has offered is all about. And that is why this almost, well, I 
do not know the word to use, amendment, to mask what is happening here 
that has been offered by the chairwoman of our subcommittee to just 
limit it to MEP and then to cut that off saying no new centers, that is 
why it should be rejected. We ought to really and truly support 
American business in this country.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the ATP program was established in 1990 by President 
Bush. It seems to have worked very well. I do not know what has caused 
the chairman of this committee to just turn against it and seem like to 
have closed his mind on it. When the amendment was offered in 
committee, the majority of the committee members bipartisanly supported 
it. But he literally went over in committee and intimidated a Member to 
change his vote. It failed because it was a tie vote.
  It really says that most of us on this committee really do think 
about what the future is all about. We really do understand that we 
have to be a partner in creating these jobs and getting technology that 
saves money. You know, there are a lot of success stories of the ATP 
program. They are many, they are varied. But in the health care 
industry,

[[Page H5723]]

for example, the ATP program for information infrastructure is 
assisting the industry in laying the foundation for the efficient use 
of technology in doctors' offices, hospitals, and clinics by cost-
sharing with industry in the development of technologies, to reduce 
paperwork and bring better health care to rural areas. Many of 
our rural hospitals are at risk for closing.

  Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of technology we need. Health care 
costs about $1 trillion a year in the United States, and the process of 
information accounts for about 20 percent of that total cost, or about 
$200 billion annually. If we can get technology to reduce that cost, 
thereby reducing the cost to individual patients, it is worth that 
small investment.
  There are other examples of the ATP process. In Plano, TX, just 
outside my district but in the district of the gentleman from Texas, 
Mr. Sam Johnson, there is Microfab Technologies that hired 18 people. 
But they have come up, a very small company. I do not think you 
consider 18 people a large company, a big corporation. They have come 
up with product development from major, other companies. This new 
technology will significantly reduce hazardous waste. That is 
significant because soon we will be talking about Superfund reform and 
reauthorization.
  I should think we want to save dollars when we have that technology. 
I think it is not penny-wise but it is pound-foolish for us to just 
decide arbitrarily, almost single-handedly that we must not partnership 
for developing technology, bringing about more jobs and reducing costs 
on things that are done in a way that could be improved with 
technology. I really regret that we have forgotten that we hold the 
trust of the people in this country, and we ought to try to bring about 
these changes because other countries will pass us by and we will pay 
more for it.
  Rather than reducing ourselves to personality battles to show who is 
bigger than the other, that is irresponsible. I think that it is time 
for us to stop that and decide that we are here with the trust of 
people. We ought to stand and be responsible for what we are here 
about, and we cannot do it without these partnerships.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am extremely disappointed that a procedural maneuver 
may prevent a clean vote on the Tanner amendment, now called the Brown 
amendment, which I have enthusiastically cosponsored. Instead we will 
vote on a watered-down compromise, much less than we need.
  NIST technology programs never used to be political hot potatoes. 
Both the MEP and ATP were established, as we just heard, during the 
Reagan and Bush administrations. Both programs are embraced by Members 
on both sides of the aisle because they make our Nation's businesses 
more competitive worldwide. Both programs are visionary and prove that 
government can be an effective partner with industry on technology 
development.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just spend a few moments discussing the MEP and, 
in particular, California's Manufacturing Technology Center in Southern 
California's South Bay. Last year, 51 small manufacturers hired 442 
additional employees after implementing improvements recommended by the 
CMTC. These same manufacturers saw their sales increase by a total of 
$5.8 million. Those are private-sector dollars, not taxpayer dollars.

  It is all the more intriguing to me why the Committee on Science 
majority has decided to turn the Federal Government's back on small 
manufacturers, which have accounted for the majority of manufacturing-
sector job growth in the Nation during the last 25 years.
  Equally important to our Nation's high-tech development is the ATP, 
the Advanced Technology Program, a unique partnership between 
government and industry to accelerate the development of high-risk 
technologies. That promises significant commercial payoffs and 
widespread benefits for our economy. Industry drives the ATP by setting 
the program's research priorities. Industry must keep its part of the 
partnership by adhering to strict cost-sharing rules. We must keep up 
our end of the bargain by maintaining investment in high-technology 
industries.
  Mr. Chairman, we must drive technology forward into the 21st century. 
Government must be a partner with industry in this effort. This 
amendment is too little and very late.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a long-standing debate on this House 
floor that one party over another is good for small businesses. I rise 
to support the Brown substitute that really does support small 
businesses and creates jobs.
  We realize that the MEP program, in fact, has kept thousands of 
smaller companies in business by giving them the technology and the 
understanding to maintain their business and to keep their doors open. 
But we have heard a very striking and unfortunate debate revolving 
around the ATP program.

                              {time}  2015

  Might I, Mr. Chairman, simply call the roll?
  Plano, TX, an ATP program; Harris County, TX, an ATP program; 
Farmington Hills, MI, an ATP program; Danbury, CT, an ATP program; 
Yorktown Heights, NY, an ATP program; Valley Forge, PA, I might add in 
the great State of Pennsylvania, ATP program; Hopewell Junction, NY, 
ATP program; Wilmington, DE; San Diego, CA; Potomac, MD; Columbia, SC; 
Washington, DC; Santa Clara, CA, among many.
  This is not a corporate welfare program. What it is is an effective 
partnership between business and government. It says to business, 
``Where there is a great risk and we realize that you will not be 
taking the opportunity to explore these technologies, we will come in 
in competition with Japan and Germany and France and England and stand 
alongside of you so that you might be successful.''
  I am somewhat disappointed that the distinguished chairman of this 
committee would continue to call this corporate welfare. Is he aware 
that when he sees the names of AT&T and IBM and Xerox, that they are, 
in fact, a partner with some 12 to 15 smaller companies that wind up on 
the grant from the Advanced Technology Program? Again a helping hand.
  The chairman likes to always cite Cato as the expert on what is 
corporate welfare, and of course the Cato Institute suggests that the 
Advanced Technology Program is corporate welfare. Well, if they are so 
wise, let me offer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] that 
Cato also says that his favorite projects are welfare, corporate 
welfare; the National Weather Service, the NIST in-house research and 
development, general science at DOE, energy supply R&D, U.S. Geological 
Survey, the FAA, the Office of S&T Policy, cooperative R&D agreements, 
technology transfer, high-performance computing, R&D university 
researchers, and the Space Station.
  Might I say that we as a body have a bipartisan responsibility to 
insure that the science of America becomes the jobs of the 21st 
century? I have said it yesterday, I say it today, and I say it 
tomorrow. The MEP program, along with the Advanced Technology Program, 
are effective partners, want to emphasize small businesses, but as well 
to emphasize partnerships between the government large corporations and 
smaller businesses to insure that risky scientific investigation and 
research is carried on so that we can be competitive worldwide.
  This is a bad amendment that excludes the ATP program. I would ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the substitute offered by the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], for the 
committee offered in committee a bipartisan support short of that one 
vote. I will simply ask, Mr. Chairman, that we do that today and be 
victorious on behalf of research and businesses of America, 
particularly our small businesses.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], as amended.

[[Page H5724]]

  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Goodlatte) 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, 
pursuant to House Resolution 427, he reported the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________