[House Report 104-232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-232
_______________________________________________________________________


 
              AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1995

_______________________________________________________________________


 August 4, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______


   Mr. Walker, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                                  AND

   THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE 
                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                        [To accompany H.R. 1870]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1870) to authorize appropriations for the activities of the 
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology, and for Scientific 
and Technical Research Services and Construction of Research 
Facilities activities of the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the bill.............................................6
 III. Background and need for legislation.............................6
  IV. Summary of hearing..............................................7
   V. Committee actions...............................................9
          Subcommittee markup....................................     9
          Committee markup.......................................    10
  VI. Summary of Authorizations and Major provisions of the bill.....16
 VII. Section-by-section analysis....................................20
          Section 1. Short Title.................................    20
          Section 2. Authorization of Appropriations.............    20
          Section 3. National Institute of Standards and 
              Technology.........................................    21
          Section 4. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act Amendments..    21
          Section 5. Personnel...................................    21
          Section 6. Fastener Quality Act Amendments.............    21
          Section 7. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities..........    21
          Section 8. Limitation on Appropriations................    21
          Section 9. Eligibility for Awards......................    22
          Section 10. Standards Conformity.......................    22
          Section 11. Further Authorizations.....................    22
VIII. Committee views................................................22
  IX. Program criteria...............................................30
   X. Congressional Budget Office analysis and cost estimates........30
  XI. Effect of legislation on inflation.............................32
 XII. Oversight findings and recommendations.........................32
XIII. Oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................32
 XIV. Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported..........32
  XV. Committee recommendations......................................42
 XVI. Reports to Congress............................................42
XVII. Exchange of Committee correspondence...........................42
XVIII.Minority views.................................................45

 XIX. Additional views...............................................48
  XX. Proceedings from Subcommittee markup of Subcommittee Print.....51
 XXI. Proceedings from Full Committee markup of H.R. 1870...........131

                              I. Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``American Technology Advancement Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Under Secretary for Technology.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the activities of the 
Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy $5,066,000 
for fiscal year 1996.
  (b) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the 
following activities of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology:
          (1) For Scientific and Technical Research and Services, 
        $275,579,000 for fiscal year 1996, of which--
                  (A) $39,628,000 shall be for Electronics and 
                Electrical Engineering;
                  (B) $19,565,000 shall be for Manufacturing 
                Engineering;
                  (C) $28,127,000 shall be for Chemical Science and 
                Technology;
                  (D) $28,082,000 shall be for Physics;
                  (E) $54,314,000 shall be for Material Science and 
                Engineering;
                  (F) $13,517,000 shall be for Building and Fire 
                Research;
                  (G) $30,704,000 shall be for Computer Systems;
                  (H) $10,964,000 shall be for Applied Mathematics and 
                Scientific Computing;
                  (I) $19,109,000 shall be for Technical Assistance;
                  (J) $28,169,000 shall be for Research Support; and
                  (K) $3,400,000 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, $62,055,000 for 
        fiscal year 1996.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT AMENDMENTS.

  The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 271 
et seq.) is amended--
          (1) in section 10(a)--
                  (A) by striking ``nine'' and inserting in lieu 
                thereof ``15''; and
                  (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting in lieu 
                thereof ``10'';
          (2) in section 15--
                  (A) by striking ``Pay Act of 1945; and'' and 
                inserting in lieu thereof ``Pay Act of 1945;''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``; and (h) the provision of 
                transportation services for employees of the Institute 
                between the facilities of the Institute and nearby 
                public transportation, notwithstanding section 1344 of 
                title 31, United States Code'' after ``interests of the 
                Government''; and
          (3) in section 19, by striking ``nor more than forty'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``nor more than 60''.

SEC. 4. STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980 AMENDMENTS.

  The Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
3701 et seq.) is amended--
          (1) in section 11(i) (15 U.S.C. 3710(i))--
                  (A) by inserting ``loan, lease,'' after ``department, 
                may''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``Actions taken under this 
                subsection shall not be subject to Federal requirements 
                on the disposal of property.'' after ``education and 
                research activities.''; and
          (2) in section 17(c) (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c))--
                  (A) by striking paragraph (2);
                  (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); 
                and
                  (C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated by 
                subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by striking ``two'' 
                and inserting in lieu thereof ``4''.

SEC. 5. PERSONNEL.

  The personnel management demonstration project established under 
section 10 of the National Bureau of Standards Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1987 (15 U.S.C. 275 note) is extended indefinitely.

SEC. 6. FASTENER QUALITY ACT AMENDMENTS.

  (a) Section 2 Amendments.--Section 2 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5401) is amended--
          (1) by striking subsection (a)(4), and redesignating 
        paragraphs (5) through (9) as paragraphs (4) through (8), 
        respectively;
          (2) in subsection (a)(7), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
        of this subsection, by striking ``by lot number''; and
          (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``used in critical 
        applications'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``in commerce''.
  (b) Section 3 Amendments.--Section 3 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5402) is amended--
          (1) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking ``having a minimum 
        tensile strength of 150,000 pounds per square inch'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``having a minimum Rockwell C 
        hardness of 40 or above'';
          (2) in paragraph (2)--
                  (A) by inserting ``International Organization for 
                Standardization,'' after ``Society of Automotive 
                Engineers,''; and
                  (B) by inserting ``consensus'' after ``or any 
                other'';
          (3) in paragraph (5)--
                  (A) by inserting ``or'' after ``standard or 
                specification,'' in subparagraph (B);
                  (B) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph 
                (C);
                  (C) by striking subparagraph (D); and
                  (D) by inserting ``or produced in accordance with 
                ASTM F 432'' after ``307 Grade A'';
          (4) in paragraph (6) by striking ``other person'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``government agency'';
          (5) in paragraph (8) by striking ``Standard'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``Standards'';
          (6) by striking paragraph (11) and redesignating paragraphs 
        (12) through (15) as paragraphs (11) through (14), 
        respectively;
          (7) in paragraph (13), as so redesignated by paragraph (6) of 
        this subsection, by striking ``, a government agency'' and all 
        that follows through ``markings of any fastener'' and inserting 
        in lieu thereof ``or a government agency''; and
          (8) in paragraph (14), as so redesignated by paragraph (6) of 
        this subsection, by inserting ``for the purpose of achieving a 
        uniform hardness'' after ``quenching and tempering''.
  (c) Section 4 Repeal.--Section 4 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5403) is repealed.
  (d) Section 5 Amendments.--Section 5 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5404) is amended--
          (1) in subsection (a)(1)(B) and (2)(A)(i) by striking 
        ``subsections (b) and (c)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``subsections (b), (c), and (d)'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``or, where applicable'' 
        and all that follows through ``section 7(c)(1)'';
          (3) in subsection (c)(3) by striking ``, such as the 
        chemical, dimensional, physical, mechanical, and any other'';
          (4) in subsection (c)(4) by inserting ``except as provided in 
        subsection (d),'' before ``state whether''; and
          (5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
  ``(d) Alternative Procedure for Chemical Characteristics.--
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), a 
manufacturer shall be deemed to have demonstrated, for purposes of 
subsection (a)(1), that the chemical characteristics of a lot conform 
to the standards and specifications to which the manufacturer 
represents such lot has been manufactured if the following requirements 
are met:
          ``(1) The coil or heat number of metal from which such lot 
        was fabricated has been inspected and tested with respect to 
        its chemical characteristics by a laboratory accredited in 
        accordance with the procedures and conditions specified by the 
        Secretary under section 6.
          ``(2) Such laboratory has provided to the manufacturer, 
        either directly or through the metal manufacturer, a written 
        inspection and testing report, which shall be in a form 
        prescribed by the Secretary by regulation, listing the chemical 
        characteristics of such coil or heat number.
          ``(3) The report described in paragraph (2) indicates that 
        the chemical characteristics of such coil or heat number 
        conform to those required by the standards and specifications 
        to which the manufacturer represents such lot has been 
        manufactured.
          ``(4) The manufacturer demonstrates that such lot has been 
        fabricated from the coil or heat number of metal to which the 
        report described in paragraphs (2) and (3) relates.
In prescribing the form of report required by subsection (c), the 
Secretary shall provide for an alternative to the statement required by 
subsection (c)(4), insofar as such statement pertains to chemical 
characteristics, for cases in which a manufacturer elects to use the 
procedure permitted by this subsection.''.
  (e) Section 6 Amendment.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fastener Quality Act 
(15 U.S.C. 5405(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``Within 180 days after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``The''.
  (f) Section 7 Amendments.--Section 7 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5406) is amended--
          (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
  ``(a) Domestically Produced Fasteners.--It shall be unlawful for a 
manufacturer to sell any shipment of fasteners covered by this Act 
which are manufactured in the United States unless the fasteners--
          ``(1) have been manufactured according to the requirements of 
        the applicable standards and specifications and have been 
        inspected and tested by a laboratory accredited in accordance 
        with the procedures and conditions specified by the Secretary 
        under section 6; and
          ``(2) an original laboratory testing report described in 
        section 5(c) and a manufacturer's certificate of conformance 
        are on file with the manufacturer, or under such custody as may 
        be prescribed by the Secretary, and available for 
        inspection.'';
          (2) in subsection (c)(2) by inserting ``to the same'' after 
        ``in the same manner and'';
          (3) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``certificate'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``test report''; and
          (4) by striking subsections (e), (f), and (g) and inserting 
        in lieu thereof the following:
  ``(e) Subsequent Purchaser.--If a person who purchases fasteners for 
any purpose so requests either prior to the sale or at the time of 
sale, the seller shall conspicuously mark the container of the 
fasteners with the lot number from which such fasteners were taken.''.
  (g) Section 9 Amendment.--Section 9 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5408) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
  ``(d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may designate officers or employees 
of the Department of Commerce to conduct investigations pursuant to 
this Act. In conducting such investigations, those officers or 
employees may, to the extent necessary or appropriate to the 
enforcement of this Act, exercise such authorities as are conferred 
upon them by other laws of the United States, subject to policies and 
procedures approved by the Attorney General.''.
  (h) Section 10 Amendments.--Section 10 of the Fastener Quality Act 
(15 U.S.C. 5409) is amended--
          (1) in subsections (a) and (b), by striking ``10 years'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``5 years''; and
          (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``any subsequent'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``the subsequent''.
  (i) Section 13 Amendment.--Section 13 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5412) is amended by striking ``within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act''.
  (j) Section 14 Repeal.--Section 14 of the Fastener Quality Act (15 
U.S.C. 5413) is repealed.

SEC. 7. 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, provided 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. 8. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) Exclusive Authorization for Fiscal Year 1996.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, no sums are authorized to be appropriated 
for fiscal year 1996 for the activities of the Under Secretary for 
Technology/Office of Technology Policy or the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology 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 1996 for the 
activities of the Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology 
Policy or the National Institute of Standards and Technology unless 
such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by Act of 
Congress with respect to such fiscal year.

SEC. 9. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

  (a) In General.--The Director shall exclude from consideration for 
awards of financial assistance made by the Under Secretary for 
Technology/Office of Technology Policy or the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology after fiscal year 1995 any person who received 
funds, other than those described in subsection (b), appropriated for a 
fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for 
a project that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award 
process. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section 
shall be effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives 
such Federal funds.
  (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by law.

SEC. 10. STANDARDS CONFORMITY.

  (a) Use of Standards.--Section 2(b) of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``, including comparing standards'' and all 
        that follows through ``Federal Government'';
          (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (11) as 
        paragraphs (4) through (12), respectively; and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
        paragraph:
          ``(3) to compare standards used in scientific investigations, 
        engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational 
        institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the 
        Federal Government and to coordinate the use by Federal 
        agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where 
        possible the use of standards developed by private, consensus 
        organizations;''.
  (b) Conformity Assessment Activities.--Section 2(b) of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (11), as so 
        redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section;
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (12), as 
        so redesignated by subsection (a)(2) of this section, and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(13) to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private 
        sector standards conformity assessment activities, with the 
        goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in 
        the development and promulgation of conformity assessment 
        requirements and measures.''.
  (c) Transmittal of Plan to Congress.--The National Institute of 
Standards and Technology shall, by January 1, 1996, transmit to the 
Congress a plan for implementing the amendments made by this section.

SEC. 11. FURTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.

  Nothing in this Act shall preclude further authorization of 
appropriations 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) for fiscal year 1996: 
Provided, That authorization allocations adopted by the Conference 
Committee on House Concurrent Resolution 67, and approved by Congress, 
allow for such further authorizations.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize fiscal year 1996 
appropriations for the activities of the Under Secretary of 
Commerce for Technology, and for Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services and Construction of Research Facilities 
activities of the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and for other purposes.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    Technology is the engine of economic growth and has perhaps 
never been more important to our nation's well-being. Within 
the Department of Commerce, both the Technology Administration 
and the National Institute of Standards and Technology strive 
to promote technological innovation and our Nation's future 
competitiveness.
    H.R. 1870, the Advanced Technology Advancement Act of 1995, 
provides an authorization for fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
for the Technology Administration and NIST's Scientific and 
Technical Research and Services, as well as Construction of 
Research Facilities. The authorization levels in H.R. 1870 are 
guided in principle by H. Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget.
    H.R. 1870 also contains recommended language intended to 
clarify or extend NIST authority to perform certain important 
administrative functions, including the following: permanently 
extend the NIST personnel demonstration project; increase the 
participant cap on post-doctoral fellows; provide authority to 
donate excess scientific equipment to secondary schools; create 
authority for a Metro shuttle for NIST employees; and restate 
existing authorities for NIST activities in standards and 
conformity assessment to incorporate requirements for NIST to 
survey existing practices and report to Congress on 
recommendations for improvements in these activities.
    The Committee believes that H.R. 1870 meets the Committee's 
responsibility to set priorities and reflects a strong 
commitment to both fundamental scientific research vital to the 
Nation's future, and to the need to maintain budgetary 
discipline as exemplified by the directives of H. Con. Res. 67.

                         IV. Summary of Hearing

    On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology held 
hearings on the fiscal year 1996 budget for the Technology 
Administration (TA) and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST). The following witnesses testified before the 
subcommittee: Dr. Mary Good, Under Secretary of Technology, 
Department of Commerce; Dr. Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST; 
Ms. Cynthia Beltz, Research Fellow for the American Enterprise 
Institute; Dr. Edward Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies 
for the Cato Institute; Ms. Laurie Conner, Vice-President of 
Marketing and Sales for Crystallume; Mr. Dwight Carlson, 
President of Perceptron, Inc.; Mr. Arthur Caisse, President and 
CEO of Cubicon, Inc.; Mr. David Gibson, President of X-Ray 
Optical Systems; Ms. Jan Pounds, Director of Massachusetts 
Manufacturing, Bay State Skills Corporation; Mr. Leo Reddy, 
President of the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing; 
and Mr. Larry Rhoades, President of Extrude Hone Corporation.
    Dr. Good, Under Secretary of Technology, testified in 
support of the fiscal year 1996 budget request of $1.36 billion 
for the TA and the NIST. She stated that federal involvement is 
crucial to promote private-sector innovation, and noted that 
the Technology Administration (TA) is the only federal entity 
supporting the civilian technology base. She also stressed the 
importance of technology in the ever-increasing global 
marketplace and the need for all United States businesses to be 
globally competitive.
    Dr. Prabhakar, Director of NIST, also testified in support 
of the fiscal year 1996 budget request. She stated the reason 
NIST's budget has grown so rapidly recently is to bridge the 
widening gap between private and public investment in 
technology. NIST's role, she explained, is to support 
investment in long-term, risky, infrastructural technologies, 
driven by industry, and allocated on a competitive basis.
    Ms. Beltz, Research Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, 
questioned the need for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) 
administered by NIST, and stated the view, based upon her own 
extensive research into the history of comparative government 
sponsored technology programs, that government is not uniquely 
qualified to promote competitiveness in high-risk technologies. 
She observed that today, new sources of venture capital for 
technology initiatives are surging, casting doubt upon the 
rationale often expressed for ATP that the program provides an 
important source of otherwise unavailable capital. Mr. Beltz 
further expressed doubts about the ability of government to 
predict market potential for technology innovations, and 
stressed the point that Congress should more carefully consider 
alternative priorities for the investment of scarce science 
dollars in an era of limited financial resources.
    Dr. Hudgins, Director of Regulatory Studies, Cato 
Institute, testified against government funding of the ATP 
program and noted that the free market is the most efficient 
allocator of investment resources. Hudgins noted that 
government officials are not typically equipped with the skills 
required to perform sophisticated market analyses or invent or 
develop new products or services, for if they were, they would 
more likely be using those skills to their maximum economic 
value in the private sector. Hudgins noted that the record of 
government technology activities does not suggest that 
government employees are better suited than private investors 
at picking winners and losers, and that the results of various 
government-directed investment projects do not support the 
assumption that taxpayer dollars in such ventures are used to 
maximum benefit. Hudgins labeled the ATP program as exactly 
``the kind of corporate welfare against which the Clinton 
administration inveighs.''
    Ms. Conner, Vice President for Marketing and Sales for 
Crystallume Corporation, an ATP grant recipient, testified 
about the importance of government funding for the successful 
start-up of high-risk technologies, but she stressed that ATP 
should operate in a manner more closely attuned to a free 
market environment. Specifically, Conner suggested that 
industry players should be more integrated into the final 
decisions as to which projects are to be funded, as opposed to 
those decisions being left solely to government employees. 
Conner criticized ATP management for duplicative initiatives 
and excessive bureaucratic requirements.
    Mr. Carison, President of Perceptron, another ATP grant 
recipient, and a representative of the Auto Body Consortium, 
testified about the importance of the ATP program as a catalyst 
in bringing together research universities, innovative 
technology companies, and major corporations. Through this 
partnership, he stated, the manufacturing of automobile bodies 
in the U.S. has been improved to the point where U.S. 
manufacturers are fully competitive with their Japanese 
counterparts.
    Mr. Caisse, President and CEO of Cubicon, Inc., an ATP 
recipient, spoke about the need for ATP investments in high-
risk technologies which are too risky for venture capitalists 
to fund, but which are nevertheless crucial to stimulate 
economic growth.
    Mr. Gibson, President of X-Ray Opticals, an ATP recipient, 
testified regarding the importance of ATP in the success of his 
small company. He stated that without ATP he would have been 
without financing for important product prototypes.
    Ms. Pounds, Director of the Massachusetts Manufacturing 
Partnership, Bay State Skills Corporation (an MEP affiliate), 
testified about the importance of the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program. She explained the role of MEP, saying the 
centers provide a wide range of services to small 
manufacturers, including the teaching of methods for 
manufacturing products faster and cheaper in order to maximize 
the return on investment and competitiveness in foreign 
markets.
    Mr. Reddy, President of the National Coalition for Advanced 
Manufacturing, testified that bringing advanced manufacturing 
technologies to all industrial bases requires the combined 
efforts of the private sector and the Federal Government. He 
affirmed that federal dollars are a powerful way to stimulate 
other investment.
    Mr. Rhoades, President of Extrude Hone Corporation, 
testified that manufacturing accounts for 20% of U.S. GNP, and 
98% of manufacturers are small companies which in the last few 
decades are the only manufacturing sectors with job growth. 
Referring to his own company, he stated that with the help of 
MEP, Extrude Hone Corp. has doubled their percentage of profit 
on sales.

                          V. Committee Actions

                          subcommittee markup

    On June 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Technology convened 
to mark up the Subcommittee print of the ``American Technology 
Advancement Act of 1995'', providing authorization for 
appropriations for the Technology Administration (TA) and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Of the 
five amendments offered, three were defeated by roll call votes 
and two were adopted by voice votes.
    1. Mr. Tanner offered an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to increase spending for TA/NIST from $342.7 million 
to $754.2 million, a 120% increase for fiscal year 1996 over 
the budgetary limit suggested by the House-passed Budget 
Resolution. The amendment would have included within the bill 
funding for NIST's Industrial Technology Services (ITS) 
programs, including ATP, MEP, and the Malcolm Baldrige Quality 
Award. The amendment was defeated by a roll call vote of 6 yeas 
to 8 noes.
    2. Ms. Johnson offered an en bloc amendment to create a new 
Title I--General Authorizations and a Title II--Industrial 
Technology Services. This amendment authorized spending for ATP 
and MEP programs ``such sums as may be appropriated.'' Mrs. 
Morella objected to this amendment, noting her intention to 
pass this language in a separate Subcommittee print. The 
amendment was defeated by a roll call of 6 yeas to 7 noes.
    3. Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the bill directed at 
the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award program authorization. The 
amendment sought to expand the allowable purposes for which 
program funds could be used, and would have deleted bill 
language that removes from current law authority for the 
Secretary to expand the award categories. In addition, the 
Brown amendment would have removed any numerical limitation on 
the number of annual awards. The amendment was adopted, as 
modified by a Morella substitute accepted on a voice vote (see 
below). Mrs. Morella offered a substitute amendment to the 
Brown amendment. The Substitute authorized $3.4 million for the 
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award Program, and increased the 
Scientific and Technical Research and Services authorization to 
a total of $275.579M for fiscal year 1996. The amendment 
retained the original language of the bill with regard to 
expansion of award categories and capping the number of annual 
awards at four. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    4. Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment to insert a new section 
authorizing appropriations for the ITS account in the event of 
a tax cut. Her amendment would have taken effect in the event 
that the House and Senate budget resolution provided for a tax 
cut of less than $350 billion. Mrs. Morella objected to this 
amendment stating that if additional funding becomes available 
the Committee could address the situation. The amendment was 
defeated by a roll call vote of 6 yeas to 7 noes.
    With a quorum present, Mrs. Morella moved that the 
subcommittee print, as amended, be ordered reported to the Full 
Committee for consideration. The motion was adopted by voice 
vote.

                         full committee markup

    H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995 
authorizes funding for fiscal year 1996 for the Department of 
Commerce's Technology Administration (TA) at $5,066,000, and 
for the core Scientific and Technical Research and Services 
(STRS) and the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) 
activities for the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) at $275,579,000 and $62,055,000 respectively.
    Under this bill, NIST core programs will be authorized at a 
base level equal to the fiscal year 1995 pre-rescission 
appropriation, approved in the 103rd Congress, with the 
authorized funding level, beginning in fiscal year 1996, 
adjusted in the out years to ensure that real spending power is 
not reduced by inflation. While many other programs were 
reduced or frozen by the House budget resolution, the NIST core 
programs in the STRS account and the CRF account are planned 
for an increase adjusting for inflation in each succeeding 
year. NIST's mission is to promote economic growth by working 
with industry to develop and apply measurements and standards 
essential to our nation's competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.
    H.R. 1870 was introduced on June 16, 1995 by Subcommittee 
Chairwoman Connie Morella. The Full Committee held a mark-up of 
H.R. 1870 on June 28, 1995. The bill was adopted, as amended, 
by voice vote, and was ordered reported to the full House for 
consideration. Amendments were offered in the following order:
    1. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Walker. This en bloc 
amendment addressed concerns of the Fastener Advisory 
Committee, established as part of the Fastener Quality Act, on 
heat mill certification, commingling, and minor non-
conformance. It also included similar language already adopted 
by the Committee on other bills regarding prohibition on 
lobbying, as amended; limitation on authorizations; and anti-
earmarking. Adopted by voice vote.
    2. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. 
Tanner. The amendment would have increased funding for TA/NIST 
from $342.7 million to $754.2 million, a 120% increase for 
fiscal year 1996 over the budgetary limit suggested by the 
House-passed budget resolution. It would have included within 
the bill $464,700,000 for FY96 for NIST's Industrial Technology 
Services (ITS) programs, including the Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP), the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program 
(MEP), and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program. 
This amendment more than doubled the cap set by the House-
passed budget resolution and the cap used by the Subcommittee 
on Technology. Defeated--Roll Call Vote--Y-15, N-26.
    3. En bloc amendment offered by Ms. Johnson. This created a 
Title I--General Authorizations and Title II--Industrial 
Technology Services. It authorized the appropriations of ``such 
sums as may be appropriated'' for the ATP and MEP programs 
under NIST. Objections were raised to this amendment on the 
grounds that a separate Subcommittee draft was reported out of 
the Subcommittee on Technology that already contained this 
language on June 15, 1995, and was introduced on June 16, 1995 
as H.R. 1871, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Industrial Technology Services Authorization Act of 
1995. Defeated--Roll Call Vote--Y-19, N-24.
    4. Amendment creating a new Section 6--Contingent 
Authorization offered by Ms. Lofgren. This amendment provided 
funding for the ITS account under NIST, based on a formula, in 
the event the House-Senate budget conference resulted in a tax 
cut of $350 million or less. Withdrawn.
    5. Amendment creating a new Section 6--Standards Conformity 
offered by Ms. Morella. The amendment moves government and 
industry closer toward the accomplishment of the 
recommendations presented in the NRC study titled ``Standards, 
Conformity Assessment, and Trade'' by formally incorporating, 
into the organic statute which creates and defines the missions 
of NIST, a clear mandate to NIST to coordinate among Federal 
agencies with regard to the development and adoption of 
standards and, wherever possible, direct agencies toward the 
adoption of voluntary, consensual standards developed in the 
private sector. The amendment further directed NIST to take a 
lead role in coordinating among federal, state, local and 
private sector entities to eliminate unnecessary duplication 
and complexity in the development and implementation of 
conformity assessment criteria and certification requirements. 
Adopted by voice vote.
    6. En bloc amendment offered by Mr. Olver. This en bloc 
amendment sought to provide $123 million for the MEP program. 
In doing so, the Construction of Facilities account would have 
been shifted to help offset the costs of the amendment. It also 
would have exceeded the budget cap placed upon the 
Subcommittee. Defeated--Roll Call Vote--Y-10, N-19.
    7. Amendment to create a new Section 6--Further 
Authorization offered by Mr. McHale. The amendment states that 
nothing in the Act shall preclude further authorization of 
appropriations for the MEP program provided that authorization 
allocations adopted by the Conference Committee on H. Con. Res. 
67, the budget resolution, and approved by Congress, allow for 
such further authorizations. Adopted by voice vote.
    8. Clarifying amendment relating to the Malcolm Baldrige 
Award offered by Mr. Roemer. This amendment would have 
permitted the Malcolm Baldrige awards to be made in categories 
with respect to which pilot projects have been established 
before the date of the enactment of H.R. 1870. Withdrawn.
    The Committee, as its final action on H.R. 1870, adopted 
the following summary chart to comply with Committee Rule 
21(b), which delineates the specific additions and subtractions 
to the request assumed in the bill.


     VI. Summary of Authorizations and Major Provisions of the Bill

technology administration--office of the under secretary and office of 
                           technology policy

    In February 1995, the President transmitted to Congress a 
fiscal year 1996 request of $13.906 million for the Technology 
Administration, an increase of $3.9 million--or 39 percent--
over the fiscal year 1995 estimate of $9.992 million. The 
Committee recommends an authorization level of $5.066 million 
for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of $4.9 million--or 49 
percent--from the fiscal year 1995 estimate. The House-passed 
Concurrent Resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67) 
recommended $3.0 million for the Technology Administration.

Scientific and technical research and services

    For the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
Scientific and Technical Research and Services, the President 
requested $310.679 million for Fiscalyear 1996, an increase of 
$46.2 million--or 17 percent--over the fiscal year 1995 
estimate of $264.486 million. The Committee recommends an 
authorization level of $275.579 million for Fiscal year 1996, 
an increase of $11.1 million--or 4 percent--above the 
Fiscalyear 1995 estimate. The House-passed Concurrent 
Resolution for Fiscalyear 1996 (H.Con.Res. 67) recommended 
$272.0 million for the NIST STRS account.

Construction of research facilities

    For the National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
Construction of Research Facilities, the President requested 
$69.913 million for fiscal year 1996, an increase of $5.3 
million--or 8 percent--over the fiscal year 1995 estimate of 
$64.639 million. The Committee recommends an authorization 
level of $62.055 million for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of 
$2.6 million--or 1 percent--from the fiscal year 1995 estimate. 
The House-passed Concurrent Resolution for fiscal year 1996 
(H.Con.Res. 67) recommended $67.0 million for the NIST 
Construction of Research Facilities.
    The following table provides a summary of the amounts 
requested (using the President's February 1995 request) and 
that which is authorized for appropriation in the bill (in the 
column labeled ``FY96''). Also included are current year 
estimates (in the column labeled ``FY95'') and the amounts 
increased, or proposed to be increased, the percentage change, 
and the amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 1996, H.Con.Res. 67 
(in the column labeled ``H.Budg''). The figures are listed in 
millions of dollars.


    The major provisions of the bill accomplish the following 
objectives:
          Authorization of appropriations for the Technology 
        Administration, Scientific Technical Research Services 
        of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
        and Construction of Research Facilities of the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology;
          Expansion of the NIST Visiting Committee from 9 
        members to 15, with the requirement that 10 (increased 
        from 5) be from U.S. industry;
          Provision of authority for NIST to have a shuttle bus 
        service between the Shady Grove Metro station and the 
        NIST Gaithersburg campus for employees to use to 
        commute to work;
          An increase in the cap on postdoctoral positions from 
        40 to 60 positions;
          Clarification of NIST authority to transfer excess 
        scientific equipment by gift, loan, or lease to public 
        and private schools and nonprofit institutions;
          Increasing the maximum number of annual awards which 
        may be made under the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award 
        Program;
          Making permanent the NIST Personnel Demonstration 
        Project;
          Amending the Fastener Quality Act, as recommended by 
        the industry-government Fastener Public Law Task Force, 
        regarding heat mill certification, commingling, and 
        minor nonconformance; and
          Restating and clarifying existing authority in the 
        law for NIST activities in coordinating standards and 
        conformity assessment activities in all levels of 
        government.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

                         Section 1. Short Title

    Cites the Act as the ``American Technology Advancement Act 
of 1995.''

     Section 2. Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscalyear 1996

    Subsection 2(a) authorizes $5,066,000 for the Under 
Secretary for Technology for Fiscalyear 1996.
    Subsection 2(b) provides for authorizations for the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Subsection 
(2)(b)(1) authorizes $275,579,000 for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Scientific and Technical Research and 
Services for fiscal year 1996 and apportions the authorized 
total among the following 11 accounts: (1) Electronics and 
Electrical Engineering; (2) Manufacturing Engineering; (3) 
Chemical Science and Technology; (4) Physics; (5) Material 
Science and Engineering; (6) Building and Fire Research; (7) 
Computer Systems; (8) Applied Mathematics and Scientific 
Computing; (9) Technical Assistance; (10) Research Support; and 
(11) the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program. Subsection 
2(b)(2) authorizes $62,055,000 for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Construction of Research Facilities.

     Section 3. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 
                               Amendments

    Subsection 1 expands the NIST Visiting Committee from 9 
members to 15, with the requirement that 10 (increased from 5) 
shall be from U.S. industry. At its present size, the Committee 
has been challenged to provide the broad oversight and advice 
needed to best inform NIST programs.
    Subsection 2 provides authority for NIST to have a shuttle 
bus service between the Shady Grove Metro station and the NIST 
Gaithersburg campus for employees to use to commute to work.
    Subsection 3 Increases the cap of postdoctoral positions 
from 40 to 60 positions. The Postdoctoral Program allows NIST 
to keep abreast of the latest developments in academic research 
while providing a continuing infusion of the nation's 
outstanding scientists, mathematicians, and engineers into the 
NIST staff both on a temporary basis and by selective 
recruiting for career appointments.

     Section 4. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
                               Amendments

    Subsection 1 clarifies that excess scientific equipment can 
be given, loaned, or leased to public and private schools and 
nonprofit institutions.
    Subsection 2 allows for the recognition of more than two, 
but no more than four, deserving companies meeting the high 
standards for total quality management in a category of 
activity recognized under the National Baldrige Quality Awards. 
It would not, however, require additional awards for every 
category if there are no deserving applicants. The subsection 
also deletes the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to 
expand the award categories.

                          Section 5. Personnel

    Section 5 makes permanent the NIST Personnel Demonstration 
Project. The Project has helped NIST recruit and retain the 
``best and the brightest'' scientists.

               Section 6. Fastener Quality Act Amendments

    Section 6 amends the Fastener Quality Act, as recommended 
by the industry-government Fastener Public Law Task Force, 
regarding heat mill certification, commingling, and minor 
nonconformance. The Fastener Advisory Committee reported that, 
without these recommended changes, the burden of costs would be 
close to $1 billion on the fastener industry.

             Section 7. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities

    Section 7 states that none of the funds authorized by this 
Act shall be available for any activity whose purpose is to 
influence legislation pending before the Congress.

                Section 8. Limitation on Appropriations

    Subsection 8(a) specifies that this Act is the only 
authorization for all programs and activities authorized by 
this Act. Subsection 8(b) specifies that no funds are 
authorized to carry out the programs and activities authorized 
by the Act after fiscal year 1996 unless they are specifically 
authorized by a future Act of Congress.

                   Section 9. Eligibility for Awards

    Subsection 9(a) requires the Secretary to exclude from 
consideration for awards for financial assistance made by the 
Department after fiscal year 1995 any person who received 
funds, other than those described in subsection 9(b), 
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from any 
Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to 
a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from 
consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a 
period of five years after the person receives such federal 
funds.
    Subsection 9(b) states that subsection 9(a) shall not apply 
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.

                    Section 10. Standards Conformity

    Section 10 restates existing authorities for NIST 
activities in standards and conformity assessment to 
incorporate requirements for NIST to coordinate among federal 
agencies, and survey existing state and federal practices and 
report to Congress on recommendations for improvements in these 
activities.

                   Section 11. Further Authorizations

    Section 11 states that the Act does not preclude further 
authorizations for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships 
program provided that the budget resolution allow for such 
authorizations.

                         VIII. Committee Views

                        Section 1. Short Title.

    Section 2. Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal year 1996

    The American Technology Advancement Act of 1995 authorizes 
appropriations for the following activity areas within the 
purview of the National Institute for Standards and Technology: 
(a) the Office of the Under Secretary for Technology/Office of 
Technology Policy ($5.066M); (b) Scientific and Technical 
Research and Services ($275.579M); and (c) construction of 
research facilities ($62.055M). Overall, authorized 
appropriations for these activity areas total $342.7 million. 
Comparatively, House Concurrent Resolution 67 provided for the 
fiscal year 1996 budget allowed $342.0 million for the total 
NIST program.

Office of the under secretary for technology

    The President requested an authorization level of $13.906 
million for the Office of the Under Secretary for Technology 
for fiscal year 1996, an increase of $3.9 million--39%--over 
the fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $9.992 million. In 
contrast, H. Con. Res. 67, the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent 
Budget Resolution, recommended $3.0 million for the Technology 
Administration, essentially reflecting the original, limited 
policy coordination role originally envisioned for the Office. 
The budget of the Office of the Under Secretary has been 
dramatically expanded during the course of the Clinton 
Administration to accommodate policy activities in areas which 
will not be funded, or not funded as aggressively as in the 
past fiscal year, under the budget adopted by the 104th 
Congress for fiscal year 1996. Among those activity areas which 
will be eliminated, or reduced, is the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicle.
    In consideration of the new budgetary and program 
environment, the Committee approved an authorization of $5.066 
million in appropriations for the Office of the Under Secretary 
for Technology/Office of Technology Policy for fiscal year 
1996, a decrease of $4.9 million--or 49%--from the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation.

Scientific and technical research and services

    The Committee approved an authorization of $275.579 million 
in appropriations in fiscal year 1996 for Scientific and 
Technical Research and Services, representing an increase of 
$11.1 million--or 4%--over fiscal year 1995. The President 
requested $310.679 million for fiscal year 1996, an increase of 
$46.2 million--or 17%--over the fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
of $264.486 million. In contrast, H. Con. Res. 67 recommended 
$272.0 million for the NIST STRS account.
    Included within the STRS account, the Committee approved an 
authorization of $3.4 million (identical to the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation) for continuation of the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Program, originally provided for in Section 17 
of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 [15 
U.S.C. 3711(a)]. Previously, the Baldrige program authorization 
was included in the Industrial Technology Services budget of 
NIST. The reallocation of the authorization to the STRS account 
reflects the high value that the Committee places upon the 
program and its determination that the program should be 
adequately funded. However, the Subcommittee on Technology has 
been requested by the Chairman to conduct hearings during the 
remainder of FY 1995 on the operation of the Baldrige program, 
with a view toward reviewing efficiency of program 
administration, appropriateness of the award categories and 
applicant review methodologies, and the feasibility of 
expanding the level of private sector contribution to the 
program support activities.
    Overall, the President's requested authorizations were 
adopted in six of ten program areas within STRS which the 
Committee agreed were appropriate to allow for continuing 
strong support for core, ``mission related'' activities of the 
NIST labs. These areas were: (1) Manufacturing Engineering 
($19.565 million, increase of 2%); (2) Physics ($28.082 
million, up 2%); (3) Materials Science and Engineering ($54.314 
million, up 9%); (4) Applied Mathematics and Scientific 
Computing ($10.964 million, up 51%); (5) Technical Assistance 
($19.109 million, up 28%); and (6) Research Support ($28.169 
million, up 2%). The Committee approved all program activities 
proposed in these areas.

Reductions from Presidential request levels

    In four other activities, the Committee authorized 
appropriations at less than the President's request: 
Electronics and Electrical Engineering; Chemical Science and 
Technology; Building and Fire Research; and Computer Systems. 
However, in two of these activities--Electronics and Electrical 
Engineering ($39.628 million) and Building and Fire Research ( 
$13.517 million)--the fiscal year 1996 appropriations 
authorized are up from the fiscal year 1995 appropriated levels 
by 12% and 2%, respectively. In only two areas did the 
Committee substantially reduce the program activity 
authorizations from fiscal year 1995 appropriation levels--
Chemical Science and Technology ($28.127 million, down 14%) and 
Computer Systems ($30.704 million, down 17%).
    The adjustments made in these four areas reflect Committee 
assessments that certain existing, or proposed, program 
activities are, or would have been, insufficiently related to 
the core mission of NIST to justify the fiscal year 1996 
requested funding. Those program activities fall into four 
broad categories: information infrastructure, environmental 
technologies, fire research, and health care.
            Information infrastructure
    Although no funds were specifically appropriated in fiscal 
year 1995 for this directed program, NIST distributed $12.5 
million of its fiscal year 1995 funds to information 
infrastructure as follows: $5.5 million for Semiconductor 
Metrology under the Electronics and Electrical Engineering 
account and $7.0 million for `Information Technology' under the 
Computer Systems account. The fiscal year 1996 request contains 
an additional $9.0 million increase in the Computer Systems 
account.
    The semiconductor metrology activities are consistent with 
NIST's mission of developing sophisticated processing 
technologies and manufacturing standards. The Committee has 
approved a $9.0 million increase in fiscal year 1996 for these 
activities.
    However, most of the information infrastructure projects 
fall outside the traditional NIST mission, and collectively are 
the development of information industry technologies or 
commercial applications. As stated in NIST's fiscal year 1995 
budget justification, ``high-performance computing and 
networking are generic technologies * * *'' While the Committee 
recognizes the critical importance of high-performance 
computing, the Committee does not believe the government should 
duplicate industry efforts already underway. The proposed 
activity is not unique, as most of the work involves hardware, 
software, and data interchange efforts that are the heart and 
soul of a well-developed, aggressive and globally competitive 
industry, and for which the private sector's capabilities and 
resources are more than adequate to the task. These requests 
were not factored into the Committee's authorization levels.
            Environmental technologies
    In fiscal year 1995, $7.0 million was appropriated for 
environmental technology under the Chemical Science and 
Technology account, with $2.05 million as an add-on. The fiscal 
year 1996 request contains an additional $2.0 million increase.
    The Committee believes that efficiencies in manufacturing 
are driven by market forces and competition and do not 
necessarily require government involvement and subsidies. Waste 
elimination is recognized today as a key component of efficient 
resource management and companies are driven by competitive 
forces to identify and implement cost-efficient waste 
management strategies.
    Major initiatives involving environmental management are 
ongoing at other agencies such as the Department of Energy, 
National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, 
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among 
others. For example, the fiscal year 1996 President's request 
for the Environmental Technology Initiative at EPA was $119.8 
million--$51.9 million more than was appropriated in fiscal 
year 1995. The program request is duplicative of work that is 
ongoing at these agencies, which have substantially greater 
expertise than NIST in environmental technologies. These 
requests were not factored into the Committee's authorization 
levels.
            Fire research
    The fiscal year 1996 President's request contains $6.0 
million for a new start under the Building and Fire Research 
account, in the areas of automated construction processes and 
advanced facilities management.
    The Committee believes that the construction industry is a 
playing field for individual companies, not the Federal 
Government. In today's diverse and fragmented marketplace, 
opportunities are abound for construction companies who seize 
the power of innovation and transform it into new technologies, 
products, and services. This mature industry is already driven 
by powerful competitive forces to produce innovations in the 
areas of construction techniques, building automation, and 
computer assisted design. In the new budgetary environment 
facing the Congress, scarce dollars can better be used on 
other, more important basic research needs. These requests were 
not factored into the Committee's authorization levels.
            Health care
    The fiscal year 1996 request contained $2.0 million for a 
new start for health care under the Chemical Science and 
Technology account.
    The proposed, non-traditional NIST activities are 
duplicative of ongoing, major government initiatives at other 
agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the 
National Science Foundation.
    The United States leads the world in medical research, and 
boundless opportunities for innovation exist in the health care 
sector. Creative companies will seize these opportunities and 
develop new health care technologies and bring them to the 
market--creating new businesses and new jobs. Developed and 
marketed by individual companies, these preventive, diagnostic 
and treatment technologies will foster the growth and wealth of 
our economy and improve the quality of life in the United 
States and throughout the world. NIST expertise in these areas 
is less mature and government research efforts are better 
placed in other centers of excellence within government. These 
requests were not factored into the Committee's authorization 
levels.

     Section 3. National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 
                               Amendments

Expansion of the Visiting Committee Membership

    The Committee supports the request of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology to expand the NIST 
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) from nine 
members to fifteen members. This expansion will ensure that the 
VCAT's expertise can match the breadth and diversity of NIST 
programs. Assessments of NIST laboratory programs require a 
panel with broad technical expertise, since the labs have eight 
major operating units specializing in different fields of 
science and technology, and focusing on different industry 
sectors.
    In addition to this expertise, an ideal panel would include 
a diverse membership representing industry, academe, and 
government laboratories. At its present size of nine members, 
all busy top-level technology experts, the VCAT is challenged 
to provide the broad oversight and advice needed to best inform 
NIST's programs.
    The Committee supports the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology's request for authority to provide shuttle bus 
service between the Shady Grove Metro station in Gaithersburg 
and the NIST Gaithersburg campus for employees to use to 
commute to work. This authority would not require any 
additional funding and would, in fact, provide some cost 
savings for the Federal government.
    Federal agencies are currently authorized to provide cash 
subsidies to their employees to encourage them to use mass 
transit. This subsidy costs approximately $65 per employee per 
month. NIST does not currently provide subsidies and will not 
provide subsidies if given the requested authority. NIST 
proposes to encourage the use of mass transit by allowing 
employees to use the existing shuttle service.

Authority for NIST Metro Shuttle

    Currently, NIST provides employees with a limited shuttle 
service between the NIST Gaithersburg campus and the Shady 
Grove station for use only by visitors and official guests, and 
by employees traveling into Washington, D. C. on official 
business. This requested authority would allow all NIST 
employees to use the NIST shuttle to get to and from the Shady 
Grove Metro station for their daily commute between work and 
home.
    Since NIST is several miles from the Shady Grove Metro 
Station and because the available commercial bus transportation 
route from Shady Grove to NIST is circuitous and extremely time 
consuming, most NIST employees do not take advantage of the 
mass transit. However, NIST employees have indicated that they 
would be willing to take mass transit if convenient direct bus 
transportation from the Metro station were made available.
    In addition, the Committee understands that the National 
Capital Planning Commission and the Maryland National Park and 
Planning Commission are also strongly urging NIST to develop a 
Transportation Management Plan which would include encouraging 
car pooling and bicycling, as well as a plan to encourage the 
use of mass transportation.

Post-Doctoral Fellows Program

    The Postdoctoral Fellowship Program provides NIST with an 
opportunity to keep abreast of the latest developments in 
academic research. Additionally, the Postdoctoral Fellowship 
Program provides a continuing infusion of the nation's 
outstanding scientists, mathematicians, and engineers into the 
NIST staff both on a temporary basis and by selective 
recruiting for career appointments.
    The number of Postdoctoral Fellowships at NIST was last 
increased to 40 in Public Law 99-574, the National Bureau of 
Standards Authorization Act of 1987. An increase in the program 
to 60 positions would permit NIST to enhance some of its 
programs.
    For recent doctoral graduates, the program provides an 
opportunity for concentrated research in association with NIST 
staff, often as a climax to formal career preparation. In 
return, NIST laboratories receive a stimulus to their industry- 
oriented programs from the presence of bright, highly 
motivated, recent doctoral graduates with records of research 
productivity. New ideas, techniques, and approaches to problems 
contribute to the overall research climate of the laboratories.
    The NIST Postdoctoral Fellowships Program provides two-year 
fellowship appointments for outstanding scientists and 
engineers chosen through a national competition administered by 
the National Research Council and the National Academy of 
Sciences.

     Section 4. Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 
                               Amendments

Donation of Equipment to Secondary Schools

    The Committee intends to clarify NIST's authority to give 
excess scientific equipment to secondary schools. Subsection 1 
amends a provision of the American Technology Preeminence Act 
of 1992 (PL 102-245) clarifying that excess scientific 
equipment can be given, loaned, or leased to public and private 
schools and nonprofit institutions without regard to federal 
property disposal laws. The original amendment in the American 
Technology Preeminence Act was intended to allow federal 
laboratories to donate their excess scientific equipment 
directly to public and private primary and secondary schools. 
It was intended to eliminate much of the paperwork burden which 
seems to hinder federal labs from donating such equipment to 
primary and secondary schools. The cumbersome paperwork 
requirements also discourage the public and private schools 
from attempting to obtain excess equipment. Subsection 1 will 
further clarify the intent of the original amendment and 
eliminate problems with implementation.

Modifications to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program

    The Committee also recognizes the importance of the Malcolm 
Baldrige National Quality Award Program, and supports raising 
the limit of awards from two to four per year per category. 
This modification would allow for the recognition of more than 
two deserving companies meeting the high standards for total 
quality management in any particular category.
    The Committee would not require awards for every category 
if there are no deserving applicants, but would replace the 
current restrictions of two awards per category. The Baldrige 
Awards Board of Overseers has recommended removing the current 
restrictions.
    Although the Act provides for budgetary authorization for 
the continuation of the Baldrige Award Test Pilot Programs for 
possible expansion into health care and education, it repeals 
Section 17(c)(2) of the Stevenson-Wydler Act. That section 
permits the Secretary of Commerce, with indirect Congressional 
authorization, to expand the number of categories of the 
Baldrige Awards. As a result, the repeal of this section 
requires the enactment of Congressional legislation for the 
expansion of the three current award categories. The Committee 
believes there must be express Congressional approval before 
the number of award categories are increased.

                          Section 5. Personnel

    The Committee recognizes the success of the NIST Personnel 
Demonstration Project and its dramatic effect on personnel 
management and administration at NIST. Feedback from managers 
and employees and evaluation reports from OPM contractors have 
shown that the project is meeting its objectives to recruit and 
retain quality staff, make compensation more competitive, link 
pay to performance, simplify position classification, 
streamline processing, improve the staffing process, get new 
hires aboard faster, and increase the manager's role and 
accountability in personnel management. As a result, NIST is 
now competing more effectively in the labor market. New hires 
have been made under the system that could not have been made 
previously. Pay-for-performance has improved NIST's ability to 
keep its best personnel.
    The NIST Authorization Act for fiscal year 1987 established 
this NIST project to demonstrate an innovative new personnel 
management system with hiring, classification, compensation, 
and performance methods more like those of the private sector. 
That legislation requires NIST to work with OPM under the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4703, which authorizes demonstration 
projects for a duration of 5 years, but provides OPM authority 
to extend a project. Under this authority, OPM has extended the 
original completion date of the project from December 31, 1992 
to September 30, 1995.

               Section 6. Fastener Quality Act Amendments

    The Committee has adopted recommendations made by the 
Fastener Advisory Committee, amending the Fastener Quality Act 
in Title 15 U.S.C. et seq. The Fastener Advisory Committee, 
created by Congress, has determined that the Act will have a 
detrimental impact on business. The Fastener Advisory Committee 
reported that without their recommended changes, the burden of 
costs on the fastener industry would be close to $1 billion.
    Section 6 addresses the concerns of the Fastener Advisory 
Committee regarding heat mill certification, commingling, and 
minor nonconformance. Working with this Congress and NIST, the 
Fastener Public Law Task Force recommended certain changes to 
the Act. The Task Force comprised of membership from the 
manufacturing, importing, and distribution sectors, has worked 
to improve the law, while maintaining safety and quality. The 
Task Force represents 85 percent of all the companies involved 
in the manufacture, distribution, and importation of fasteners 
and their suppliers in the United States. Combined the Task 
Force represents over 100,000 employees in all 50 states.

             Section 7. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities

    The Committee opposes the use of any authorized funds for 
lobbying.

                 Section 8. Limitation on Appropriation

    The Committee intends this Act to be the sole authorization 
for the Technology Administration, as well as the Scientific 
Research and Technical Services and the Construction of 
Research Facilities at the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology. None of the authorized programs in the Act are 
authorized after September 30, 1996.

                   Section 9. Eligibility for Awards

    The Committee supports only Federal research grants awarded 
through a competitive merit-based process.

                    Section 10. Standards Conformity

    The Committee has adopted some of the recommendations made 
by the National Research Council in its March, 1995 report 
entitled, ``Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade in the 
21st Century.'' The NRC report made certain recommendations 
regarding the functions of NIST, with the objective of enabling 
NIST to function more effectively in the effort to facilitate 
the adoption, within government, of voluntary, private sector 
consensual standards wherever possible.
    The report recommended that Congress restate NIST's 
statutory statement of mission in order to strengthen NIST in 
the effort to implement a Government-wide policy of phasing out 
the use of federally developed standards wherever possible in 
favor of standards developed by private sector, consensual 
standards organizations in the interests of eliminating 
unnecessary duplication of effort and conflict with widely 
adopted industry practices.
    The bill language makes clear that standards and conformity 
assessment activities are to be among the principal concerns of 
NIST responsibilities. The bill requires NIST to develop a 
strategic plan to evaluate state and local criteria for 
accrediting testing laboratories and product certifiers and 
take the lead in efforts to build a network of mutual 
recognition agreements regarding conformity assessment among 
federal, state, and local authorities, in the interest of 
eliminating unnecessary duplication and burden on industry. The 
collective impact of these changes is to grant NIST a clear 
statutory mandate to act as the lead U.S. agency for ensuring 
federal use of standards developed by private consensus 
organizations to meet regulatory and procurement needs, and to 
guide the states toward a national, rationalized system of 
conformity assessment and certification.
    NIST is required to report to Congress on their progress 
and the feasibility of such actions by January 1, 1996.

                   Section 11. Further Authorizations

    The Committee will not preclude further authorizations of 
appropriations for the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, if 
authorization allocations are adopted by the Conference 
Committee on H.Con.Res. 67, and approved by the Congress.

                          IX. Program Criteria

    The Committee states that the activities authorized by this 
Act are consistent with the six criteria below and intends they 
be implemented accordingly.
    1. Federal R&D should be focused on long-term, non-
commercial research and development, with potential for great 
scientific discovery, leaving economic feasibility and 
commercialization to the marketplace.
    2. Federal funding of R&D on specific processes and 
technologies should not be carried out beyond demonstration of 
technical feasibility, requiring significant additional 
investment for production.
    3. Revolutionary new ideas and pioneering capabilities that 
make possible the ``impossible'' (that which has never been 
done before) should be pursued.
    4. The Federal government should avoid funding research in 
areas that are receiving, or should be reasonably expected to 
obtain funding from the private sector such as evolutionary 
advances or incremental improvements.
    5. Government-owned laboratories should confine their in-
house research to areas in which their technical expertise and 
facilities have no peer and should contract out other research 
to industry, private research foundations, and universities.
    6. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly focused 
to the agency's stated mission; those that are not should be 
terminated. All research programs should disseminate the 
results of the programs to potential users.

       X. Congressional Budget Office Analysis and Cost Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(c) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, if the cost estimate is 
timely submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget 
Office estimate:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 19, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1870, the American 
Technology Advancement Act of 1995.
    Enactment of H.R. 1870 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1870.
    2. Bill title: American Technology Advancement Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on June 28, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 1870 would authorize appropriations 
for 1996 for the Under Secretary for Technology of the 
Department of Commerce and for various programs within the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The bill 
also would amend provisions of the Fasteners Quality Act 
regarding laboratory accreditation, commingling of fasteners, 
and enforcement of the act.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 1870 would result in costs to the federal 
government of about $343 million over the 1996-2000 period, 
primarily for NIST expenditures. Other provisions of the bill 
would have no additional budgetary impact. The following table 
summarizes the estimated budgetary effects of H.R. 1870.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1995       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Spending Under Current Law:                                                                           
    Budget Authority \1\......................        334          0          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................        287        165         95         44         18          0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level.......................          0        343          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................          0        218         67         30         16         12
Projected Spending Under H.R. 1870:                                                                             
    Authorization Level\1\....................        334        343          0          0          0          0
    Estimated Outlays.........................        287        383        162         74         34         12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1995 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                    

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 370. 
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending rates for 
the authorized activities.
    6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    8. Estimate Comparison: None.
    9. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    10. Estimate prepared by: Rachel Forward.
    11. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                 XI. Effect of Legislation on Inflation

    In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, this legislation Is assumed to 
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the 
operation of the national economy.

              XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

   XIII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
                    Government Reform and Oversight

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

       XIV. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the 
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed 
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed 
is shown in roman):

           NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT

                establishment, functions, and activities

  Sec. 2. (a) * * *
  (b) The Secretary of Commerce (hereafter in this Act referred 
to as the ``Secretary'') acting through the Director of the 
Institute (hereafter in this Act referred to as the 
``Director'') and, if appropriate, through other officials, is 
authorized to take all actions necessary and appropriate to 
accomplish the purposes of this Act, including the following 
functions of the Institute--
          (1) to assist industry in the development of 
        technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to 
        modernize manufacturing processes, to ensure product 
        reliability, manufacturability, functionality, and 
        cost-effectiveness, and to facilitate the more rapid 
        commercialization, especially by small- and medium-
        sized companies throughout the United States, of 
        products based on new scientific discoveries in fields 
        such as automation, electronics, advanced materials, 
        biotechnology, and optical technologies;
          (2) to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the 
        national standards of measurement, and provide the 
        means and methods for making measurements consistent 
        with those standards[, including comparing standards 
        used in scientific investigations, engineering, 
        manufacturing, commerce, industry, and educational 
        institutions with the standards adopted or recognized 
        by the Federal Government];
          (3) to compare standards used in scientific 
        investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, 
        industry, and educational institutions with the 
        standards adopted or recognized by the Federal 
        Government and to coordinate the use by Federal 
        agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where 
        possible the use of standards developed by private, 
        consensus organizations;
          [(3)] (4) to enter into contracts, including 
        cooperative research and development arrangements, in 
        furtherance of the purposes of this Act;
          [(4)] (5) to provide United States industry, 
        Government, and educational institutions with a 
        national clearinghouse of current information, 
        techniques, and advice for the achievement of higher 
        quality and productivity based on current domestic and 
        international scientific and technical development;
          [(5)] (6) to assist industry in the development of 
        measurements, measurement methods, and basic 
        measurement technology;
          [(6)] (7) to determine, compile, evaluate, and 
        disseminate physical constants and the properties and 
        performance of conventional and advanced materials when 
        they are important to science, engineering, 
        manufacturing, education, commerce, and industry and 
        are not available with sufficient accuracy elsewhere;
          [(7)] (8) to develop a fundamental basis and methods 
        for testing materials, mechanisms, structures, 
        equipment, and systems, including those used by the 
        Federal Government;
          [(8)] (9) to assure the compatibility of United 
        States national measurement standards with those of 
        other nations;
          [(9)] (10) to cooperate with other departments and 
        agencies of the Federal Government, with industry, with 
        State and local governments, with the governments of 
        other nations and international organizations, and with 
        private organizations in establishing standard 
        practices, codes, specifications, and voluntary 
        consensus standards;
          [(10)] (11) to advise government and industry on 
        scientific and technical problems; [and]
          [(11)] (12) to invent, develop, and (when 
        appropriate) promote transfer to the private sector of 
        measurement devices to serve special national needs[.]; 
        and
          (13) to coordinate Federal, State, local, and private 
        sector standards conformity assessment activities, with 
        the goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and 
        complexity in the development and promulgation of 
        conformity assessment requirements and measures.
          * * * * * * *

               visiting committee on advanced technology

  Sec. 10. (a) There is established within the Institute a 
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (hereafter in this 
Act referred to as the ``Committee''). The Committee shall 
consist of [nine] 15 members appointed by the Director, at 
least [five] 10 of whom shall be from United States industry. 
The Director shall appoint as original members of the Committee 
any final members of the National Bureau of Standards Visiting 
Committee who wish to serve in such capacity. In addition to 
any powers and functions otherwise granted to it by this Act, 
the Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding 
general policy for the Institute, its organization, its budget, 
and its programs within the framework of applicable national 
policies as set forth by the President and the Congress.
          * * * * * * *
  Sec. 15. In the performance of the functions of the Institute 
the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to undertake the 
following activities: (a) The purchase, repair, and cleaning of 
uniforms for guards; (b) the care, maintenance, protection, 
repair, and alteration of Institute buildings and other plant 
facilities, equipment, and property; (c) the rental of field 
sites and laboratory, office, and warehouse space; (d) the 
purchase of reprints from technical journals or other 
periodicals and the payment of page charges for the publication 
of research papers and reports in such journals; (e) the 
furnishing of food and shelter without repayment therefor to 
employees of the Government at Arctic and Antarctic stations; 
(f) for the conduct of observations on radio propagation 
phenomena in the Arctic or Antarctic regions, the appointment 
of employees at base rates established by the Secretary of 
Commerce which shall not exceed such maximum rates as may be 
specified from time to time in the appropriation concerned, and 
without regard to the civil service and classification laws and 
titles II and III of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945; 
[and] (g) the erection on leased property of specialized 
facilities and working and living quarters when the Secretary 
of Commerce determines that this will best serve the interests 
of the Government; and (h) the provision of transportation 
services for employees of the Institute between the facilities 
of the Institute and nearby public transportation, 
notwithstanding section 1344 of title 31, United States Code.
          * * * * * * *
  Sec. 19. The Institute in conjunction with the National 
Academy of Sciences, shall establish and conduct a post-
doctoral fellowship program which shall be organized and 
carried out in substantially the same manner as the National 
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Post-Doctoral 
Research Associate Program that was in effect prior to 1986, 
and which shall include not less than twenty nor more than 
[forty] 60 new fellows per fiscal year.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


           STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ACT OF 1980

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 11. UTILIZATION OF FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (i) Research Equipment.--The Director of a laboratory, or the 
head of any Federal agency or department, may loan, lease, give 
research equipment that is excess to the needs of the 
laboratory, agency, or department to an educational institution 
or nonprofit organization for the conduct of technical and 
scientific education and research activities. Actions taken 
under this subsection shall not be subject to Federal 
requirements on the disposal of property. Title of ownership 
shall transfer with a gift under the section.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 17. MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Categories in Which Award May Be Given.--(1) Subject to 
paragraph (2), separate awards shall be made to qualifying 
organizations in each of the following categories--
          (A) Small businesses.
          (B) Companies or their subsidiaries.
          (C) Companies which primarily provide services.
  [(2) The Secretary may at any time expand, subdivide, or 
otherwise modify the list of categories within which awards may 
be made as initially in effect under paragraph (1), and may 
establish separate awards for other organizations including 
units of government, upon a determination that the objectives 
of this section would be better served thereby; except that any 
such expansion, subdivision, modification, or establishment 
shall not be effective unless and until the Secretary has 
submitted a detailed description thereof to the Congress and a 
period of 30 days has elapsed since that submission.]
  [(3)] (2) Not more than [two] 4 awards may be made within any 
subcategory in any year (and no award shall be made within any 
category or subcategory if there are no qualifying enterprises 
in that category or subcategory).
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                          FASTENER QUALITY ACT

          * * * * * * *

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

  (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
          [(4) the sale in commerce of nonconforming fasteners 
        and the use of nonconforming fasteners in numerous 
        critical applications have reduced the combat readiness 
        of the Nation's military forces, endangered the safety 
        of other Federal projects and activities, and cost both 
        the public and private sectors large sums in connection 
        with the retesting and purging of fastener 
        inventories;]
          [(5)] (4) the purchase and use of nonconforming 
        fasteners stem from material misrepresentations about 
        such fasteners made by certain manufacturers, 
        importers, and distributors engaged in commerce;
          [(6)] (5) current fastener standards of measurement 
        evaluate bolts and other fasteners according to 
        multiple criteria, including strength, hardness, and 
        composition, and provide grade identification markings 
        on fasteners to make the characteristics of individual 
        fasteners clear to purchasers and users;
          [(7)] (6) current tests required by consensus 
        standards, designed to ensure that fasteners are of 
        standard measure, are adequate and appropriate for use 
        as standards in a program of high-strength fastener 
        testing;
          [(8)] (7) the lack of traceability [by lot number] of 
        fasteners sold in commerce is a serious impediment to 
        effective quality control efforts; and
          [(9)] (8) the health and safety of Americans is 
        threatened by the widespread sale in commerce of 
        mismarked, substandard, and counterfeit fasteners, a 
        practice which also harms American manufacturers, 
        importers, and distributors of safe and conforming 
        fasteners, and workers in the American fastener 
        industry.
  (b) Purpose.--In order to protect public safety, to deter the 
introduction of nonconforming fasteners into commerce, to 
improve the traceability of fasteners [used in critical 
applications] in commerce, and generally to provide commercial 
and governmental customers with greater assurance that 
fasteners meet stated specifications, it is the purpose of this 
Act to create procedures for the testing, certification, and 
distribution of certain fasteners used in commerce within the 
United States.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

  As used in this Act, the term--
          (1) ``alter'' means to alter--
                  (A) by thorough-hardening,
                  (B) by electroplating of fasteners [having a 
                minimum tensile strength of 150,000 pounds per 
                square inch] having a minimum Rockwell C 
                hardness of 40 or above, or
                  (C) by machining;
          (2) ``consensus standards organization'' means the 
        American Society for Testing and Materials, American 
        National Standards Institute, American Society of 
        Mechanical Engineers, Society of Automotive Engineers, 
        International Organization for Standardization, or any 
        other consensus standard-setting organization 
        determined by the Secretary to have comparable 
        knowledge, expertise, and concern for health and safety 
        in the field for which such organization purports to 
        set standards;
          * * * * * * *
          (5) ``fastener'' means--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) a screw, nut, bolt, or stud having 
                internal or external threads which bears a 
                grade identification marking required by a 
                standard or specification, or
                  (C) a washer to the extent that it is subject 
                to a standard or specification applicable to a 
                screw, nut, bolt, or stud described in 
                subparagraph (B), [or]
                  [(D) any item within a category added by the 
                Secretary in accordance with section 4(b),]
        except that such term does not include any screw, nut, 
        bolt, or stud that is produced and marked as ASTM A 307 
        Grade A or produced in accordance with ASTM F 432;
          (6) ``grade identification marking'' means any symbol 
        appearing on a fastener purporting to indicate that the 
        fastener's base material, strength properties, or 
        performance capabilities conform to a specific standard 
        of a consensus standards organization or [other person] 
        government agency;
          * * * * * * *
          (8) ``Institute'' means the National Institute of 
        [Standard] Standards and Technology;
          * * * * * * *
          [(11) ``original equipment manufacturer'' means a 
        person who uses fasteners in the manufacture or 
        assembly of its products and sells fasteners to 
        authorized dealers as replacement or service parts for 
        its products;]
          [(12)] (11) ``private label distributor'' means a 
        person who contracts with a manufacturer for the 
        fabrication of fasteners bearing the distributor's 
        distinguishing insignia;
          [(13)] (12) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
        Commerce;
          [(14)] (13) ``standards and specifications'' means 
        the provisions of a document published by a consensus 
        standards organization[, a government agency, or a 
        major end-user of fasteners which defines or describes 
        dimensional characteristics, limits of size, acceptable 
        materials, processing, functional behavior, plating, 
        baking, inspecting, testing, packaging, and required 
        markings of any fastener] or a government agency; and
          [(15)] (14) ``through-harden'' means heating above 
        the transformation temperature followed by quenching 
        and tempering for the purpose of achieving a uniform 
        hardness.

[SEC. 4. SPECIAL RULES FOR FASTENERS.

  [(a) Waiver Requirement.--If the Secretary determines that 
any category of fastener is not used in critical applications, 
the Secretary shall waive the requirements of this Act with 
respect to such category.
  [(b) Additional Items.--If the Secretary determines that--
          [(1) a category of screw, nut, bolt, or stud which is 
        not described in section 3(5)(A)(i) or (B),
          [(2) a category of item which is associated with a 
        fastener described in section 3(5)(A), (B), or (C), or
          [(3) a category of item which serves a function 
        comparable to that served by a fastener so described
is used in critical applications, the Secretary may include 
such category under section 3(5)(D) and therefore within the 
definition of fasteners under this Act.
  [(c) Notice and Opportunity for Comments.--The Secretary 
shall provide advance notice and the opportunity for public 
comments prior to making any determination under subsections 
(a) and (b) and shall act through the Director in making any 
such determination.]

SEC. 5. TESTING AND CERTIFICATION OF FASTENERS.

  (a) Requirement.--(1) No fastener shall be offered for sale 
or sold in commerce unless it is part of a lot which--
          (A) conforms to the standards and specifications to 
        which the manufacturer represents it has been 
        manufactured; and
          (B) has been inspected, tested, and certified as 
        provided in [subsections (b) and (c)] subsections (b), 
        (c), and (d) of this section.
  (2)(A) Paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall not apply to 
fasteners which are part of a lot of 50 fasteners or less if, 
within 10 working days after the delivery of such fasteners, or 
as soon as practicable thereafter--
          (i) inspection, testing, and certification as 
        provided in [subsections (b) and (c)] subsections (b), 
        (c), and (d) is carried out; and
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Laboratory Report of Testing.--If a laboratory performing 
the inspection and testing under subsection (b)(1) determines, 
as to the characteristics selected under the sampling 
procedures prescribed by the Secretary and based on the sample 
examined, that a lot conforms to the standards and 
specifications to which the manufacturer represents it has been 
manufactured, the laboratory shall provide to the manufacturer 
a written inspection and testing report with respect to such 
lot. The report, which shall be in a form prescribed by the 
Secretary by regulation, shall--
          (1) state the manufacturer's name, the part 
        description, and the lot number and note the grade 
        identification mark and insignia found on the fastener;
          (2) reference the standards and specifications 
        disclosed by the manufacturer with respect to such lot 
        under subsection (b)(1) [or, where applicable, 
        certified by the manufacturer under section 7(c)(1)];
          (3) list the markings and characteristics selected 
        under the Secretary's procedures for testing[, such as 
        the chemical, dimensional, physical, mechanical, and 
        any other] significant characteristics required by the 
        standards and specifications described in paragraph (2) 
        and specify the results of the inspection and testing 
        under subsection (b)(1);
          (4) except as provided in subsection (d), state 
        whether, based on the samples provided as 
        representative of the lot, such lot has been found 
        after such inspection and testing to conform to such 
        standards and specifications; and
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Alternative Procedure for Chemical Characteristics.--
Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), a 
manufacturer shall be deemed to have demonstrated, for purposes 
of subsection (a)(1), that the chemical characteristics of a 
lot conform to the standards and specifications to which the 
manufacturer represents such lot has been manufactured if the 
following requirements are met:
          (1) The coil or heat number of metal from which such 
        lot was fabricated has been inspected and tested with 
        respect to its chemical characteristics by a laboratory 
        accredited in accordance with the procedures and 
        conditions specified by the Secretary under section 6.
          (2) Such laboratory has provided to the manufacturer, 
        either directly or through the metal manufacturer, a 
        written inspection and testing report, which shall be 
        in a form prescribed by the Secretary by regulation, 
        listing the chemical characteristics of such coil or 
        heat number.
          (3) The report described in paragraph (2) indicates 
        that the chemical characteristics of such coil or heat 
        number conform to those required by the standards and 
        specifications to which the manufacturer represents 
        such lot has been manufactured.
          (4) The manufacturer demonstrates that such lot has 
        been fabricated from the coil or heat number of metal 
        to which the report described in paragraphs (2) and (3) 
        relates.
In prescribing the form of report required by subsection (c), 
the Secretary shall provide for an alternative to the statement 
required by subsection (c)(4), insofar as such statement 
pertains to chemical characteristics, for cases in which a 
manufacturer elects to use the procedure permitted by this 
subsection.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 6. LABORATORY ACCREDITATION.

  (a) Establishment of Accreditation Program.--(1) [Within 180 
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the] The 
Secretary, acting through the Director, shall issue regulations 
which shall include--
          (A) * * *
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 7. SALE OF FASTENERS SUBSEQUENT TO MANUFACTURE.

  [(a) Domestically Produced Fasteners.--It shall be unlawful 
for a manufacturer to sell any shipment of fasteners (except 
fasteners for which the Secretary has waived the requirements 
of this Act pursuant to section (4) which are manufactured in 
the United States unless the fasteners are accompanied, at the 
time of delivery, by a written certificate by the manufacturer 
certifying that--
          [(1) the fasteners have been manufactured according 
        to the requirements of the applicable standards and 
        specifications and have been inspected and tested by a 
        laboratory accredited in accordance with the procedures 
        and conditions specified by the Secretary under section 
        6; and
          [(2) an original laboratory testing report described 
        in section 5(c) is on file with the manufacturer, or 
        under such custody as may be prescribed by the 
        Secretary, and available  for inspection.]
  (a) Domestically Produced Fasteners.--It shall be unlawful 
for a manufacturer to sell any shipment of fasteners covered by 
this Act which are manufactured in the United States unless the 
fasteners--
          (1) have been manufactured according to the 
        requirements of the applicable standards and 
        specifications and have been inspected and tested by a 
        laboratory accredited in accordance with the procedures 
        and conditions specified by the Secretary under section 
        6; and
          (2) an original laboratory testing report described 
        in section 5(c) and a manufacturer's certificate of 
        conformance are on file with the manufacturer, or under 
        such custody as may be prescribed by the Secretary, and 
        available for inspection.
          * * * * * * *
  (c) Option For Importers and Private Label Distributors.--(1) 
* * *
  (2) If the importer or private distributor assumes the 
responsibility in writing for the inspection and testing of 
such lot or portion, the provisions of section 5(a) and 
subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall apply to the 
importer or private label distributor in the same manner and to 
the same extent as to a manufacturer; except that the importer 
or private label distributor shall provide to the testing 
laboratory the manufacturer's certificate described under 
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
  (d) Alterations Subsequent to Manufacture.--(1) Any person 
who significantly alters a fastener so that such fastener no 
longer conforms to the description in the relevant 
[certificate] test report issued under section 5(c), and who 
thereafter offers for sale or sells such altered fastener, 
shall be treated as a manufacturer for purposes of this Act and 
shall cause such altered fastener to be inspected and tested 
under section 5 or this section as though it were newly 
manufactured, unless delivery of such fastener to the purchaser 
is accompanied by a written statement noting the original lot 
number, disclosing the subsequent alteration, and warning that 
such alteration may affect the dimensional or physical 
characteristics of the fastener.
  (2) Any person who knowingly sells an altered fastener and 
who did not alter such fastener shall provide to the purchaser 
a copy of the statement required by paragraph (1).
  [(e) Commingling.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), it shall be 
unlawful for any manufacturer or any person who purchases any 
quantity of fasteners for resale at wholesale to commingle like 
fasteners from different lots in the same container; except 
that such manufacturer or such person may commingle like 
fasteners of the same type, grade, and dimension from not more 
than two tested and certified lots in the same container during 
repackaging and plating operations: Provided, That any 
container which contains like fasteners from two lots shall be 
conspicuously marked with the lot identification numbers of 
both lots.
  [(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to sales by original 
equipment manufacturers to their authorized dealers for use in 
assembling or servicing products produced by the original 
equipment manufacturers.
  [(f) Subsequent Purchaser.--(1) It shall be unlawful for any 
person to sell fasteners, of any quantity, to any person who 
purchases such fasteners--
          [(A) for sale at wholesale, or
          [(B) for assembling components of a product or 
        structure for sale,
unless the container of fasteners sold is conspicously marked 
with the number of the lot from which such fasteners were 
taken, except that this requirement shall not apply to sales by 
original equipment manufacturers  to  their  authorized  
dealers  for  use  in  assembling or servicing products 
produced by the original equipment manufacturer.
  [(2) If a person who purchases fasteners for purposes other 
than those described in paragraph (1) (A) and (B) so requests 
either prior to the sale or at the time of sale, the seller 
shall conspicuously mark the container of fasteners with the 
lot number from which such fasteners were taken.
  [(g) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such regulations 
as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of 
this section.]
  (e) Subsequent Purchaser.--If a person who purchases 
fasteners for any purpose so requests either prior to the sale 
or at the time of sale, the seller shall conspicuously mark the 
container of the fasteners with the lot number from which such 
fasteners were taken.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 9. REMEDIES AND PENALTIES.

  (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
  (d) Enforcement.--The Secretary may designate officers or 
employees of the Department of Commerce to conduct 
investigations pursuant to this Act. In conducting such 
investigations, those officers or employees may, to the extent 
necessary or appropriate to the enforcement of this Act, 
exercise such authorities as are conferred upon them by other 
laws of the United States, subject to policies and procedures 
approved by the Attorney General.

SEC. 10. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

  (a) Laboratories.--Laboratories which perform inspections and 
testing under section 5(b) shall retain for [10] 5 years all 
records concerning the inspection and testing, and 
certification, of fasteners under section 5.
  (b) Manufacturers, Importers, Private Label Distributors, and 
Persons who Make Significant Alterations.--Manufacturers, 
importers, private label distributors, and persons who make 
significant alterations shall retain for [10] 5 years all 
records concerning the inspection and testing, and 
certification, of fasteners under section 5, and shall provide 
copies of any applicable laboratory testing report or 
manufacturer's certificate upon request to [any] the subsequent 
purchaser of fasteners taken from the lot to which such testing 
report or manufacturer's certificate relates.
          * * * * * * *

SEC. 13. REGULATIONS.

  The Secretary shall [within 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act] issue such regulations as may be 
necessary to implement this Act.

[SEC. 14. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

  [Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary shall appoint an advisory committee consisting of 
representatives of fastener manufacturers, importers, 
distributors, end-users, independent laboratories, and 
standards organizations. The Secretary and Director shall 
consult with the advisory committee--
          [(1) prior to promulgating any regulations under this 
        Act; and
          [(2) in such other matters related to fasteners as 
        the Secretary may determine.]
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


                     XV. Committee Recommendations

    On June 28, 1995, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported H.R. 1870, the American Technology 
Advancement Act of 1995, as amended by voice vote and 
recommends its enactment.

                        XVI. Reports To Congress

    Upon the enactment of this Act, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology shall, by January 1, 1996, transmit to 
the Congress a plan for implementing Section 10 of the 
amendment regarding standards and conformity assessment.

               XVII. Exchange of Committee Correspondence

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                    Washington, DC, August 4, 1995.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Tom: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 
3, 1995 regarding amendments to the Fastener Quality Act which 
have been incorporated into H.R. 1870 which was ordered 
reported by the Committee on Science on June 28.
    I agree that these provisions fall within the jurisdiction 
of the Commerce Committee, and I thank you for your agreement 
not to seek sequential referral of this bill. You have my 
commitment that I will support any request by your Committee 
for equal conferees on amendments to the Fastener Quality Act 
or related legislation should a House-Senate conference be 
convened on this legislation.
    Your letter, and this response, will be included as part of 
the Committee's report on H.R. 1870 and will be a part of the 
record during consideration of this bill by the full House.
    Thank you for your assistance in expediting consideration 
of this important legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                        Robert S. Walker, Chairman.
                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                    Washington, DC, August 3, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
2320 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 28, 1995, the Committee on 
Science ordered reported H.R. 1870, the American Technology 
Advancement Act of 1995. H.R. 1870, as ordered reported by the 
Science Committee, contains amendments to the Fastener Quality 
Act.
    The Commerce Committee has had a longstanding 
jurisdictional interest in the issue of fastener quality and 
the Fastener Quality Act. In the 100th Congress, the Committee 
undertook an investigation of counterfeit and substandard 
fasteners. This investigation resulted in the issuance of a 
unanimously approved Subcommittee report entitled ``The Threat 
from Substandard Fasteners: Is America Losing Its Grip.''
    In the 101st Congress, Congressman Dingell and Congressman 
Roe each introduced separate bills on fastener quality. 
Congressman Dingell and Congressman Roe drafted a composite 
bill, H.R. 3000, which was reported by both the Commerce 
Committee and the Science Committee and ultimately became the 
Fastener Quality Act of 1990.
    It is my understanding that the amendments to the Fastener 
Quality act proposed in H.R. 1870 are based on the 
recommendations of the industry-government Fastener Public Law 
Task Force. These amendments primarily address three issues: 
heat mill certification; commingling; and minor nonconformance.
    while the provisions of H.R. 1870 that amend the Fastener 
Quality Act clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Commerce Committee, I recognize your desire to bring this 
legislation before the House in an expeditious manner. 
Therefore, I will not seek a sequential referral of the bill. 
By agreeing not to seek a sequential referral, the Commerce 
Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over these 
provisions. In addition, the Commerce Committee reserves its 
authority to seek equal conferees on these and any other 
provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's 
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be 
convened on this legislation. I would seek your commitment to 
support any request by the Commerce Committee for equal 
conferees on amendments to the Fastener Quality Act or related 
legislation.
    I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of 
the Committee's report on H.R. 1870 and as part of the record 
during consideration of this bill by the House.
    Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
            Sincerly,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                         XVIII. MINORITY VIEWS

    Despite its title, enactment of H.R. 1870, the American 
Technology Advancement Act, would not advance American 
technology; to the contrary, it would be a blow to U.S. 
economic growth and technology development. The problem is not 
so much in what the bill does--its reauthorization of NIST's 
internal programs is broadly supported on both sides of the 
aisle--but in what the bill fails to do. For the first time, 
the Committee has arbitrarily divided NIST's internal and 
external programs into separate authorization bills. The 
Chairman has chosen to report H.R. 1870, which authorizes 
NIST's intramural labortory programs, but not to consider H.R. 
1871, which authorizes NIST's technology and manufacturing 
support programs.
    We are dismayed that the full Committee did not follow the 
lead of the Technology Subcommittee in reporting both H.R. 1870 
and H.R. 1871. The Subcommittee's action unanimously endorsed a 
well-balanced NIST, including continuation of the ATP and the 
MEP. Yet, at full Committee, the same majority Members who 
voted for H.R. 1871 at Subcommittee voted against adding the 
text of H.R. 1871 to H.R. 1870.
    Presumably, this action was intended to send a signal to 
the appropriations committee that only NIST's internal programs 
should receive funding. The Committee apparently intends 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.
    At a time when we are trying to grow our way to a balanced 
budget, killing NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program and the 
Advanced Technology Program is both short-sighted and foolish.
    NIST's Manufacturing Extension Program, which originated 
during the Reagan Administration, has been the salvation of 
many American small manufacturing businesses. Faced with 
increasing direct global competition in the mid-1980s, 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 program (MEP) was NIST's response. The 
MEP demonstrated 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.
    In 1993, a five year effort to make these services 
available to every U.S. manufacturer who needed them began with 
funding from NIST and the Department of Defense's Technology 
Reinvestment Program. Centers now serve businesses in 30 states 
and are making major contributions to civilian manufacturing 
and the defense supplier base.
    The Advanced Technology Program, which also dates to the 
Reagan era, addresses another market failure. Entrepreneurs and 
others were having trouble finding the patient capital 
necessary to develop those leading edge technologies which, 
while not currently marketable, are likely to underpin the 
economy of the early 21st century. Hearings held by the 
Technology Subcommittee earlier this year demonstrated that 
obtaining early stage capital is still a problem for technology 
developers. The business witnesses called by the majority were 
united in support of these programs; witness after witness 
testified that their company or project would not have gotten 
off the ground without ATP's matching funds. The testimony was 
unequivocal that, in the real world, ATP works. The only 
testimony against the ATP program was from inside-the-beltway 
conservative think tanks who preferred ideology over real world 
results.
    Chairman Walker also has charged that the ATP awards were 
politically biased, noting that the majority of companies 
receiving ATP awards in four states--California, Pennsylvania, 
New York, and Michigan--were located in Democratic 
congressional districts. This accusation is unfair, 
unwarranted, and unsubstantiated. In the first place, all of 
the governors and half of the Senators representing these four 
states are Republicans; it is hard to see how such ATP awards 
could have accrued to the political benefit of Democrats alone. 
Furthermore, the choice of those four states is blatantly 
unrepresentative. For example, had Chairman Walker chosen 
instead to review Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and 
Wisconsin, he would have found that the majority of ATP awards 
are in Republican Congressional districts. The fact is that 
overall, 42% of ATP grants have been in Republican 
Congressional districts and 58% have been in Democratic 
Congressional districts--percentages which are in line with the 
historical political distribution of Congressional districts 
and the tendency for Democrats to represent urban districts 
where small manufacturers are located. There is simply no 
evidence to support Chairman Walker's allegations that ATP 
awards are based on political influence.
    We firmly believe in the need to reduce the Federal deficit 
and to Decrease Federal spending, but balancing the deficit 
should not be used as an excuse to stop investing in our 
future. This year the Committee chose not to undertake a 
careful and thorough evaluation of the programs under its 
jurisdiction. The results are sadly predictable. Merit-reviewed 
public/industry partnerships funded by the Department of 
Commerce are proposed for elimination, while the larger, 
politically-connected, but less effective Small Business 
Innovation Research program, and other cooperative programs 
with industry in most other agencies, have not even been 
reviewed.
    In the current budget climate, it is all the more important 
that we examine programs for priority and funding levels based 
on a careful examination of the facts. There will be times when 
Republicans and Democrats can agree to disagree, but these 
disagreements should be on the merits after thoughtfully 
examining the alternatives. We regret that this course was not 
chosen by the Committee in its consideration of ATP and MEP.

                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Mike Ward.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   James Barcia.
                                   Lynn N. Rivers.
                                   Karen M. McCarthy.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   Tim Roemer.
                                   John Tanner.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   Alcee L. Hastings.
                                   Lloyd Doggert.
                                   Paul McHale.
                                   James A. Traficant.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                         XIX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    On June 28, 1995, the House Science Committee considered 
H.R. 1870, which authorized the core NIST programs. At full 
Committee, after a number of amendments had been offered and 
defeated to reinstate the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) programs, I offered 
an amendment to open the door to future funding of the MEP 
program. Cosponsored by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), this 
amendment was accepted by the Chairman of the Committee and 
adopted by voice vote. I am gratified that the McHale-Boehlert 
Amendment served to express the Committee's support of this 
valuable program, paving the way for future funding through the 
appropriations process. In fact, immediately prior to the vote 
on my amendment, I announced to the Committee that more than 
$80 million in funding would likely become available due to the 
fact that the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
State, and Judiciary had just completed their markup, and had 
included funding for the MEP. The full Appropriations Committee 
supported the Subcommittee recommendation, including $81.1 
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership in H.R. 
2076, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary 
Appropriations bill. It is my hope that this funding level will 
be increased, or at the very least maintained, as this bill 
moves through the legislative process.

                                                       Paul McHale.
                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

    In addition to the substantive concerns which have been 
discussed by other minority Members, with which we concur, we 
are also constrained to note that portions of the Committee's 
report violate Committee Rule 21(b). Committee Rule 21(b) 
states:

          No legislative report filed by the committee on any 
        measure or matter reported by the committee shall 
        contain language which has the effect of specifying the 
        use of federal resources more explicitly (inclusively 
        or exclusively) than that specified in the measure or 
        matter as ordered reported, unless such language has 
        been approved by the committee during a meeting or 
        otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members.

    This rule was adopted to ensure that the Committee report 
faithfully and fairly represents the will of the majority of 
the Committee and does not include spending directions or 
policy mandates that were not, in fact, voted on and approved 
by a majority of the Committee.
    The report, however, contains a number of spending 
instructions and policy directions which have absolutely no 
support in the record, much less a majority vote of approval.
    For example, under the subheading ``Reductions from 
Presidential Request Levels'' within section viii, the report 
explicitly directs NIST not to pursue programmatic research in 
information infrastructure, environmental technologies, fire 
research, and health care. However, none of these constraints 
are found within the text of the legislation itself, and the 
Committee did not adopt any report language which was clearly 
consistent with these directions. The report goes on to state 
that ``[t]he adjustments made in these four areas reflect 
Committee assessments that certain existing, or proposed 
program activities are, or would have been, insufficiently 
related to the core mission of NIST . . . .'' Again, there is 
nothing in the transcript of either the Subcommittee or full 
Committee markup or in staff reports to support the claim that 
any such ``assessment'' was made. Casting these arbitrary 
edicts as the result of careful Committee consideration is 
entirely inaccurate.
    Consistent with well-established legal principles, report 
language is not binding on agencies. In this particular case, 
the report language should be given even less consideration 
because it violates the Committee's own rules.
    The report also persists in the fiction that the House-
passed budget resolution included specific funding levels for 
TA/NIST's programs. The report, for example, states that the 
Democratic alternative budget exceeded the House-passed budget 
resolution. There is, of course, nothing in the House-passed 
budget resolution which relates specifically to TA/NIST. There 
is non-binding language in the report accompanying the House 
budget resolution, but such report language is not voted on by 
the House and hardly merits the exalted status which the 
majority seems to bestow upon it. Nevertheless, the report 
compares the Democratic funding alternative amendment as 
exceeding this fictional number, presumably intending to imply 
that the Democratic amendment was somehow a ``budget-buster.'' 
In fact, the Democratic substitute would have cut TA/NIST 
spending by 13 percent below the FY95 level, and 27 percent 
below the President's request. In contrast, the bill as 
reported reduces NIST funding by 60 percent from FY95 levels.

                                   George E. Brown, Jr.
                                   John Tanner.
                XX. Proceedings From Subcommittee Markup

                              ----------                              




    SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                                Subcommittee on Technology,
                                                 Washington, D. C.,
    The Subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m. in Room 2318 of the 
Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Connie Morella, 
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
    Mrs. Morella. Good morning.
    The Committee will now come to order for the markups.
    Pursuant to notice, the Subcommittee on Technology is 
meeting today to consider the following measures:
    The American Technology Advancement Act of 1995, and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology Industrial 
Technology Services Authorization Act of 1995.
    As Chair, I ask unanimous consent for the authority to 
recess. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    I will ask that when members speak, if we all kindly use 
the microphone so that the reporter can get all of your words 
down.
    In this Congress, this Subcommittee is faced with the 
challenge of attempting to actively encourage technological 
innovation while also operating under very tight budgetary 
constraints.
    As a result, we must prioritize our Federal spending 
resulting in limitation of our ability to fund every worthwhile 
program.
    This fiscal limitation is affecting us here today, as we 
prepare to authorize programs for the Department of Commerce's 
Technology Administration and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology for fiscal year 1996.
    The House passed a budget resolution last month which 
commits us to reducing Federal spending and moving our 
Government to a balanced budget in seven years. We are now 
engaging in a collaborative process with the Budget Committee, 
the Appropriations Committee, and this Authorizing Committee to 
do just that.
    Everyone here knows of my strong support for NIST. The 
agency is headquartered in my district in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland. I have been there many times to see, firsthand, the 
vital work and the research that they perform.
    I believe that NIST is a well-run agency with a well-
defined mission. NIST's mission to promote economic growth by 
working with industry to develop and apply technology 
measurements and standards is integral to our nation's 
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
    And of course, if it were possible, I think you all know 
that my preference would be to fully fund every NIST mission 
and function.
    However, given our commitment to balance the budget, that 
simply cannot be a reality. There are difficult decisions to be 
made everywhere, difficult decisions which we must make and 
which affect all of us in our district.
    This Subcommittee has an authorization budget cap of $342.7 
million for fiscal year 1996, and we must be bound by that 
level. That level has been provided to us under the House 
passed budget resolution.
    Obviously, this means that we must prioritize the funding 
for NIST's functions.
    Today, we're going to be marking up two bills, the American 
Technology Advancement Act and the NIST Industrial Technology 
Services Authorization Act.
    We intend to consider two separate bills because it's my 
intention to favorably report out authorizations for the NIST 
laboratory functions as well as the extramural advanced 
technology program and the manufacturing extension partnership.
    Yet, we do not have the budget to fund ATP and MEP, in 
addition to the core scientific work that's being done at the 
NIST laboratories. NIST's core programs must be a priority.
    In addition, NIST's construction account must be maintained 
as another priority. Without the necessary renovation and 
construction of facilities, NIST would simply not be able to 
adequately fulfill its basic mission in the future.
    And while many programs were reduced or frozen by the House 
Budget Resolution, the NIST core programs in the scientific and 
technical research services account and the construction of 
research facilities account both assume an increase in funding 
every year. In fact, Budget Function 370, the Commerce and 
Housing Credit Section, the only two programs in the entire 
section with an increase annual funding are those two programs.
    It is unique in this year's resolution to see any growth in 
a discretionary program, and I suggest that we endorse that 
growth today.
    I therefore propose that this Subcommittee report out the 
NIST Authorization Act with language providing such sums as may 
be appropriated.
    This authorizes the appropriators to fund, without 
prejudice, the extramural programs to the extent they are 
willing and able.
    This also sends a message, a signal to the appropriators 
that this Subcommittee agrees with the House passed budget 
resolution that NIST core funding and construction must be 
maintained.
    As the first priority, I believe that given our present 
budget situation, the course that we're taking today is NIST's 
best hope for funding all of its current programs.
    First of all, I'd like to take up the American Technology 
Advancement Act.
    In addition to providing fiscal year 1996 authorizations 
for the Under Secretary for Technology for the NIST core 
programs for the construction of research facilities, the Act 
also contains language permitting NIST to perform important 
administrative functions, such as expanding its ability to 
continue hiring the best and the brightest scientists.
    These changes include permanently extending the NIST 
personnel demonstration project, which has been such a model 
for other agencies, increasing the cap on the NIST post-
doctoral fellows program, providing authority to give excess 
scientific equipment to secondary schools, and creating 
authority for a NIST metro shuttle for employees, among others.
    So we will then take up the NIST ITS Authorization Act. In 
addition to authorizing the ATP and the MEP, as I have 
mentioned, the Act also contains a number of technical 
modifications to the law to streamline and simplify the fee 
awarding process.
    That being said, I now recognize the distinguished ranking 
minority member, Mr. Tanner, for his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 
appreciate our working relationship and the courtesy of the 
chair.
    But I must say, I'm dismayed at what's taking place this 
morning. Despite the markup of the bills to authorize the 
Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, the fact is the bill is not even scheduled for 
consideration by the Full Committee.
    This dismays me, the markup today and next week, in my 
judgment, will roll back American research and development 
policy to the 1950s.
    By our action and the de facto elimination of NIST's 
Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program, and the Baldridge quality program, we send 
a strong signal to the business community, both large and 
small, that we don't care much about the harsh economic 
realities they face today.
    Corporate research focus is short term, for the most part. 
The market forces, the stock market, and other forces and 
shareholder interests inhibit many long-term research and 
development actions that only a partnership created herein can 
provide.
    As Michael Schrade, Research Associate at MIT, put it, 
what's being advocated are science and technology policies that 
would have been deemed simplistic during the country's agrarian 
heyday.
    By our action, we're going to eliminate government industry 
partnerships which enjoy widespread support among the private 
sector and professional associations and the university 
community.
    I would ask, what is the Committee basing its actions upon 
this morning?
    At the only hearing we held this year on these programs, 
only two witnesses, with no business or technical experience, 
spoke against the ATP program. No one spoke in opposition to 
the Baldridge quality program or the MEP.
    What makes these two authorities on the future of our 
nation's businesses' long-term research needs?
    No science or engineering training, no private sector 
experience. They represent ivory tower intellectuals whose 
entire career consists of working inside the beltway and 
writing in theory.
    This Subcommittee is ignoring the testimony of seven 
business leaders who embrace these programs. In fact, the 
Subcommittee is ignoring its own hearing record and is 
presently considering legislation with no clear defensible 
rationale.
    By de facto eliminating the extramural programs at NIST, we 
will be turning our backs on our constituents and the backbone 
of our society.
    Typical of the letters I received regarding the MEP is one 
from a small firm in Memphis which says, to be frank, it is 
rare when anything connected to a Federal program has helped my 
small company. This is decidedly one of these times, and I 
thought I should let you know.
    The programs we are cutting today affect the states and 
districts of every member in this room in an adverse way.
    Another thing that dismays me is that the current debate is 
focused less on policy than on political rhetoric and innuendo. 
Corporate welfare, picking winners and losers, and political 
favoritism have been erroneously used, referring to these 
programs at NIST.
    These arguments are unfounded and ill-informed.
    I'm even more concerned about the recent allegations that 
NIST awards have been politically motivated, an outrageous 
charge that has never been made before, and remains completely 
unsubstantiated.
    In closing, I'd like to quote from testimony provided to 
the Subcommittee in support of the ATP by David Singer, 
President and CEO of Acumetrics, and a recent ATP awardee.
    From the view of a small company, at least 3,000 miles from 
Washington, D.C., the encouraging part of the current debate 
about fiscal responsibility in Congress is the acknowledgment 
that we must reduce the deficit and stop mortgaging our future 
standard of living for current consumption.
    That's ultimately the whole point of this exercise. It 
seems to me that a major part of being fiscally responsible is 
creating an environment where we, as a nation, are investing 
appropriately in our future. We need to continue support for 
the ATP in order to positively leverage our investment in the 
future.
    And I hope as we debate the merits of these programs today 
and consider the amendments that will be offered, we'll keep 
these words in mind.
    Madam Chairwoman, with that, I will yield back.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the distinguished ranking minority 
member for offering his views.
    I'd like to ask now if there are any other members seeking 
recognition for an opening statement.
    With pleasure, I now recognize Mr. Brown, the ranking 
member.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Initially, I would like to commend the Chair for bringing 
the two bills we're going to consider today before the 
Subcommittee.
    Of primary concern to me are the external programs commonly 
known as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or the MEP, 
and the Advanced Technology Program, known as the ATP.
    While I understand the position of the Chair of the Full 
Committee, and the position of you, Madam Chair, to be that 
government should focus its efforts on basic research areas, I 
believe that the ATP is a crucial portion of our nation's 
commitment to moving into the next century as a world leader in 
technology.
    The purpose of the ATP is to advance our own economic 
growth by assisting in the development of technology prior to 
its use in the commercial applications. Over half of the 
funding for these projects comes from the private sector.
    Additionally, because the technologies developed by the 
program remain generic in nature, private companies often end 
up spending a much larger amount to bring these technologies to 
the stage appropriate for commercial applications.
    With the Full House considering the Defense Authorization 
this week, we have before us in this Subcommittee one of the 
very few government efforts designed to assist in the 
development of non-defense technologies.
    As we move beyond the Cold War and into the 21st century, 
the development of civilian technologies is of paramount 
importance in our efforts to compete in the global marketplace.
    In addition to the direct effects of ATP programs, direct 
effects also include the development of industry groups which 
might otherwise never exist.
    The ATP does not mean that the government chooses its 
favorite industries to support. Contrary to some of the 
assertions that have been made in the past Committee meetings, 
the selection process for ATP grants is not biased toward a 
technology or industry.
    And finally, the ATP program is not a budget buster. We all 
understand that cuts have to be made. But shortsighted 
reductions in the programs that create jobs and expand the 
revenue base of the Federal Government are not the appropriate 
vehicle to balance the budget, in my opinion.
    This program, as well as the MEP, has a high potential 
payoff for the nation as a whole, so once again, I commend you, 
Madam Chairman, and hope that we can consider the value of the 
ATP program.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
    I would now like to recognize, before we recess to vote, 
the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Calvert, for an opening 
statement.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I just have a short comment.
    I'm quite frankly dismayed that comments would be made that 
the concept that government must fund basic science because of 
the feeling that the private sector will not invest in research 
and development.
    If that's the case, then let's help to change the corporate 
culture in America today, and rather than a few looking for a 
government to assist, have the many be involved in programs 
that help them or encourage them to have more investment in 
research and development, for instance, making the research and 
development tax credit permanent.
    So, Madam Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chairman?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes?
    Mr. Brown. In the interest of time, and knowing that we 
should go vote, I would like to take a moment for an opening 
statement, but put most of it in the record. I don't really 
care whether the members listen to it or not, so they can go 
vote. [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Brown, I appreciate your brevity because 
we do have a rule that says ten minutes of opening statements, 
since you did chair this Committee, so if you would make a 
brief statement, that would be splendid.
    Then we'll recess to vote.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chairman, I would be more than delighted 
to accept the guidance that you have offered.
    I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
    Mrs. Morella. So ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. George E. Brown, Jr., 
follows:]


    Mr. Brown. I endorse the statement made by Mr. Tanner, 
which expresses my own concerns, and by Ms. Johnson. I think 
that they reflect our concerns here.
    I would just like to make the additional point that in your 
own opening statement, which I admired greatly, you did, as a 
matter of fact, in the second paragraph on page two, make some 
statements with which I cannot agree, such as this Committee 
has an authorization budget cap of $342.7 million for fiscal 
year 1996.
    This is an artful fiction contrived by the Chairman of the 
Full Committee to which the gentlelady's language is lending 
substance. And I hope that you will permit me to respectfully 
disagree.
    There is no such thing as an authorization budget cap in 
the rules of the House or in law or in any other thing. And we 
have the discretion to act as we see fit in our best judgment 
with regard to authorization levels.
    I will expand on that statement in my prepared remarks, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mrs. Morella. I appreciate, very much, Mr. Brown, your 
making that statement. I appreciate the brevity of it too. 
We'll have further opportunities to discuss it but this was 
something that was established in terms of the Budget 
Authorization Act, and if we don't play within these amounts of 
money, we're not going to even be involved in the 
appropriations process.
    So I think it behooves us to establish the priorities that 
are necessary for our situation. And that's why the bill, such 
as sums as may be appropriated, also maybe keep something alive 
for the hope that there will be some assistance given.
    Thank you.
    We'll now recess to vote.
    [Recess.]
    Mrs. Morella. The Committee will reconvene for the markup 
and we'll now consider the Subcommittee print of the American 
Technology Advancement Act of 1995, which was prepared by 
counsel and previously distributed to the members.
    So I ask unanimous consent for the first reading of the 
bill. I now ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read 
and open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. I'm going to ask that the members proceed 
with the amendments in the order of the roster.
    The bill is now open for amendments.
    We'll proceed to the ranking member and ask him to 
introduce his first amendment on the roster.
    [The material referred to follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    This amendment, in the nature of a substitute, actually 
combines----
    Mrs. Morella. Excuse me, if the gentleman would suspend.
    The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    The Clerk. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. Tanner to the Subcommittee print.
    Mrs. Morella. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading of the amendment.
    The gentleman may proceed.
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you.
    This amendment, in the nature of a substitute, actually 
combines these two bills. I'll explain what I mean by that as 
follows.
    The amendment that we are offering authorizes funding for 
the Under Secretary for Technology and the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, NIST, authorization for NIST 
programs includes funding for the industrial technology 
services, the scientific and technical research services, and 
construction of research facilities.
    The overall funding level is $754.1 million, which is 
within the overall Science and Technology limits set by the 
conservative coalition. It is therefore consistent with 
balancing the Federal budget within seven years, and with this 
Committee's traditional efforts to make sure U.S. industry has 
the tools it needs to compete in the world market place.
    This funding level represents a decrease of $283.9 million 
or 27 percent from the President's request, and a decrease of 
$109.7 million, or a 13 percent decrease from the FY '95 
allocation.
    It is well below the President's revised budget figures. 
Overall this budget represents a hard freeze to the programs 
within the Technology Administration.
    Funding for the Under Secretary of Technology is held at FY 
'95 levels and NIST funding for the scientific and technical 
research and services is held at the FY '95 appropriated level.
    Funding for the industrial technology services is provided 
in three accounts, the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the MEP program, and the 
Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award Program.
    Funding levels from the MEP are set at levels and 
anticipate the amount required to pay for the grants awarded in 
FY '95 and in previous years, as the Chairman of the Full 
Committee has indicated he would like to see.
    NIST has reported that funding totaling approximately $341 
million will be required for FY '96 to fund grants awarded in 
FY '95 and in previous years.
    My amendment authorizes $330.7 million for the ATP account. 
NIST has also reported they will need $132.6 million in FY '96 
to continue existing grants. Under the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership program we authorize $130.6 million. Funding for 
the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award stays at the FY 
'95 level.
    The account for the construction of research facilities is 
funded at $15 million, well below the Chairlady's mark. This 
funding is a funding level necessary to maintain laboratory 
facilities at the Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder, Colorado 
campuses.
    NIST's current unexpended balances in its construction 
account are sufficient to fund the construction of facilities 
outlined in the five-year plan in 1996.
    In 1995, the GAO estimates that NIST will carry over $168 
million in the construction account. This carryover is 
sufficient to build the Advanced Technology Laboratory at the 
Gaithersburg campus that NIST plans to build this year.
    Current construction plans at the Boulder campus are on 
hold because of environmental considerations.
    All of the language in our substitute is the same except 
for the following three instances.
    Section 3 amendment to Section 25[c] of the NIST Act. This 
amendment replaces the arbitrary six-year cut off on Federal 
support of individual manufacturing extension centers. This 
amendment allows for continued Federal support, which cannot 
exceed one-third of a MEP center's total cost.
    Continued funding after six years is contingent upon an 
evaluation by an independent evaluation panel, and only when 
the Secretary of Commerce determines continued Federal 
contributions further the purpose of the MEP program.
    This language is the same as contained in HR 820, which 
passed the House last year.
    Section 3, new Section 31 of the NIST Act, the National 
Quality Program. This amendment would establish a national 
quality program at NIST. NIST plans to undertake a quality 
research and outreach component to begin the transformation of 
the Baldridge award program into a full-fledged quality 
improvement program.
    Research would be conducted in collaboration with U.S. 
universities and businesses. This provision was requested by 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    And finally Section 4, amendment to Section 17[c][3] of the 
Stevenson-Wydler Act. This amendment retains authority in the 
Secretary of Commerce to add new categories to the Malcolm 
Baldridge National Quality Award. It replaces the arbitrary 
limit of four awards per category with a requirement that no 
awards be given in any category where there are no qualifying 
enterprises.
    The intent is to ensure that companies and institutions 
applying for the award are striving to meet the standards set 
out in the award and are striving to meet those rather than 
competing against one another, or a limited number of awards.
    Mrs. Morella. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Tanner. And this modification is recommended by the 
Baldridge Award Board.
    Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Morella. For someone from Tennessee, you can talk very 
fast.
    I thank you for offering the amendment.
    I know that it's a well intentioned, amendment in the form 
of a substitute.
    I must however oppose the distinguished ranking minority 
member's amendment. This Subcommittee in all practicality has 
been provided a budget of $342.7 million, and the gentleman's 
amendment would far surpass the budget allocation.
    His amendment seeks to authorize $754.192 million, which is 
120 percent above our allocation.
    As we begin the process of balancing our budget, this 
authorizing Committee is being bound by the same budget numbers 
which is affecting the Appropriations Committee. It may not the 
budget we wanted but the budget was adopted in terms of the 
resolution, and that's what the Appropriations Committee is 
working with.
    For us to accept the gentleman's amendment would be 
unrealistic to the current fiscal situation. We'd be in danger 
of shirking our responsibility to set policy guided by our 
budget numbers and I think the Appropriations Committee would 
dismiss our authorization completely.
    So unless our allocations change, the House passed budget 
resolution is established as our guide. The amendment will 
exceed not only the Subcommittee's allocation but the budget 
resolution for the Under Secretary for Technology's office, the 
ATP, the MEP, and the Baldridge award program.
    Incidentally, I will be offering an amendment to restore 
for the Malcolm Baldridge award, which is consistent with part 
of your substitute, and I would certainly question whether $10 
million for the construction of facilities would be adequate.
    But all things being considered, while I appreciate very 
much the points that the ranking member has raised, I cannot 
support this amendment.
    I would now ask if there are any other members of the 
Subcommittee who would like to speak on this amendment.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I just want to express my agreement with you that we need 
to move forward. As the Chairman suggests, we risk much worse 
consequences if we aren't able to move the bill. As you've 
indicated, I think the best thing that we can do for American 
business is to balance the budget, bring down interest rates, 
make an R&D tax credit permanent, and those types of activities 
will, in the long run, work for the benefit of business.
    With that, Madam Chairman, I've completed.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Mr. Calvert.
    I'd now like to recognize Mr. Brown, a very prominent 
member of this Committee.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I rise in support of the amendment by the distinguished 
ranking minority member of the Subcommittee.
    I would like to lay out, in fairly strong terms, what I 
think is happening here.
    First of all, if the gentlelady's statement is correct, 
that we have exceeded our allocation, and if that statement 
were anything more than a fiction, she could rule this 
amendment out of order because that would be the situation if 
it actually did violate the budget, or any legally binding 
602[b] allocation.
    The fact is it does not. The gentlelady cannot rule the 
amendment out of order, therefore, but both she and others 
supporting her position persist in the fiction that we have 
some sort of an allocation which we cannot exceed here.
    Let me explain why that's a fiction.
    The Budget Committee does not make allocations at the level 
of the items contained in this budget. They make an allocation 
to the budget function 270 and the amounts that Mr. Tanner's 
amendment proposes fall well within the amounts included in 
that.
    What is actually happening here is that the Chairman of the 
Full Committee, who has announced his opposition, and it's a 
longstanding opposition, to both the Advanced Technology 
Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program, has, on his 
own discretion, his own initiative, allocated to each of the 
Subcommittees of this Committee, an amount which is sufficient 
to fund the programs that he thinks are desirable.
    Since he does not think that the Advanced Technology 
Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program are desirable, 
he did not, in his wisdom, allocate sufficient funds to fund 
those two programs. And did so under the subterfuge that he had 
some sort of authority to make these kind of allocations.
    Now he does have that authority but only as long as he has 
the mandate of heaven. The mandate of heaven happens to be the 
vote of the members of the Subcommittee. At any point, we 
could, with perfect legality, decide that Mr. Walker's policies 
are not what we want to support, and we could adopt the 
authorizing bill that would include those amounts that we 
wanted to.
    I think I've correctly stated the situation. I'd be 
perfectly glad to provide a parliamentary opinion confirming 
what I've said, if the gentlelady would like, or any other form 
of legal opinion that would satisfy her.
    But what bothers me more is that, behind all this, there is 
going to be a subterfuge perpetrated by the Chairman of the 
Full Committee that he will accept two bills, one of which 
funds the base program in this, and the other funds the 
Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Extension Programs with 
some language such as, such others as may be required to be 
appropriated, or something of that sort, and then he will take 
up the base program bill but will not even take up the other 
bill.
    In that sense, he's perpetrating a fraud because that 
circumvents the will of this Subcommittee to at least indicate 
that we support these programs at some level.
    If I'm misinformed, I will profoundly and profusely 
apologize to the gentlelady and Mr. Walker, and they can make 
me out a liar by merely taking up both bills and passing them 
out, and I hope they will. But that's not the information that 
I have.
    And because this whole process is based on that kind of 
fabrication, a false assertion that there's something binding 
about the numbers that Mr. Walker has assigned to the 
Subcommittee and in a sense, an effort to subvert the process 
by not reporting out a bill which would at least recognize the 
existence of the other two programs, I'm going to be very 
strong, maybe unduly strong. I hope not, but I'm going to be 
very strong in calling attention to what's going on here, and 
in supporting the alternative presented by Mr. Tanner as the 
reasonable, procedurally correct, historically precedented 
method of dealing with the situation that we have.
    And I thank the gentlelady.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentleman. I know that he speaks 
from his heart with great earnestness about this process but 
quite frankly, all of the Subcommittees of the Science 
Committee and all of the Subcommittees of other Committees are 
faced with this kind of situation where they have all been 
given an allocation.
    And I know the budget resolution is in fact no more than 
that, a guidepost. It is not absolutely binding. But if we can 
operate under it, as we should, as we have felt the need in 
order to arrive at a balanced budget, and I'm pleased the 
President has decided that we need to balance the budget too, 
we must look at these guidelines.
    So that's what it is. And when we get such sums as may be 
appropriated, we are in hopes that maybe the Appropriations 
Committee can find some money to put into it, hoping that when 
the Conference Committee meets, that it will be able to find 
some money to allocate to it.
    But we are demonstrating some priorities, and I think 
there's no doubt that the major priority deals with the core 
programs of NIST. And these core programs, in this Subcommittee 
mark, are going to be increased every year three percent. 
That's far more than is happening in so many other areas with 
the budget.
    And so I respectfully submit that I appreciate very much 
the passion of the ranking member's statement made. I also feel 
that MEP and ATP are very important and we hope to keep them 
going, but we have to look at the priorities, we have to look 
at the realities.
    It's kind of what we call sort of universal suffering that 
everyone is going through.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentlelady yield briefly to me?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, I shall.
    Mr. Brown. I know the gentlelady is sincere in what she 
said, and believes that what she stated is factual. But I serve 
on one other Committee, the Agriculture Committee. There is no 
process similar to what she has described here, and in fact I 
have inquired of other Committees and I know of no other 
Committee which has gone through the process of setting forth 
602[b] authorization allocations.
    Now, if I am misinformed, I would like the gentlelady to 
correct me.
    On the other hand, if she has been misinformed, I know that 
she would want to correct her statement, and I believe that 
since she offered the statement as a statement of fact, 
presumably it could be verified.
    Mrs. Morella. Well, I offer it, Mr. Brown, as a statement 
of fact, as I understand the situation in terms of arriving at 
the budget balancing by 2002 in accordance with the budget 
resolution that, whether you agree with it or not, did pass and 
is one that we're being guided by.
    So if it is the modus operandi of this Committee, and my 
understanding is that other Committees have been given a figure 
too that they should not surpass, if they want to be in the 
negotiating situation with the Appropriations Committee.
    Mr. Calvert. Would the Chairman yield?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, I'd be pleased to yield.
    Mr. Calvert. I can certainly agree with the Chairman that 
in fact we have in fact been given targets as far as what we 
need to do on the various authorizing committees that I serve 
on and attempting to meet those targets and working with the 
appropriating committees to make sure that we get to the target 
which we need to get at to balance the budget.
    And at this time, that is our overriding concern. And at 
the same time, maintaining what's necessary in all the 
authorizing committees to maintain the function.
    With that, thank you.
    Mrs. Morella. Would you yield back the time?
    Is there any further discussion on this amendment in the 
nature of a substitute?
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I vigorously support the substitute as proposed by Mr. 
Tanner. I would like to join in the remarks previously made by 
Mr. Tanner and by Mr. Brown.
    Let me just say, at the outset, that I have an extremely 
high regard for the Chair of this Subcommittee. And I don't say 
that gratuitously. I have watched your performance on this 
Subcommittee and on the Full Committee during the two and a 
half years that I've been in Congress, and have a great deal of 
admiration for you.
    I say that because I'm about to vigorously attack your 
legislation, and I would not want that attack to be interpreted 
as an attack upon you.
    This is not about balanced budgets. This is about smoke and 
mirrors. And I think Mr. Brown captured it very well. I'm one 
Democratic member of Congress who voted for a balanced budget 
amendment. I voted for the line item veto. I supported a 
balanced budget proposal when brought before the House.
    I think the Chair of the Subcommittee accurately 
characterized what this is about and perhaps inadvertently, 
when you make reference to priorities, without getting into a 
renewed debate on the budget, the simple fact of the matter is 
that most members on your side of the aisle supported a new tax 
credit for those with incomes up to $200,000, and that will 
cost the United States Treasury, if enacted, $281 billion over 
the next seven years.
    Many of us on this side of the aisle, including those of us 
who supported a balanced budget, did not support that new tax 
credit.
    In order to accommodate the cost of that tax break 
reflected in the budget, we are now making decisions that I 
think are profoundly unwise and reflect priorities that we do 
not share.
    Let me conclude with this, if I may, Madam Chair.
    We on this side of the aisle believe in fiscal restraint, 
but we don't believe that we should gut our technology programs 
simply to satisfy the cost of a tax credit that we believe to 
be inequitable and unwise.
    I believe that NIST's core programs must be supported. But 
for those of us who have NIST programs in our districts, 
programs that are working well, programs that are bringing 
technology to the marketplace, it is extremely frustrating to 
hear that those programs must be sacrificed in order to satisfy 
budget priorities that are not ours.
    I would, in a heartbeat, give up a tax credit that most 
Americans have now come to reject, in order to keep the 
economic development programs in my district supported by 
Democrats and Republicans alike that work.
    And so, as you shape the debate and talk about balanced 
budgets, recognize that there are those of us who are equally 
committed to a balanced budget, but who do not share your 
commitment to a $281 billion tax credit that will result in the 
destruction of many of our most important technology programs.
    Mrs. Morella. Thanks, Mr. McHale. And I don't take any of 
this personally. I understand and I appreciate the good words 
that you offered with regard to my service.
    Frankly, I also voted against that tax cut, but it did pass 
and we now have a budget resolution which incorporates that, 
and there is a process that we're still going through, a 
process that will end up with a conference report which will 
come back, and maybe there will be some moneys that would be 
put in.
    This is why the wording of that second bill that comes 
before us. So that's the reality.
    I'm wondering if there's anyone else that would like to 
comment before we call for the vote on this amendment in the 
nature of a substitute?
    I know my colleagues very well, so I know they're going to 
respect brevity too.
    Ms. Lofgren, I think you had your hand up.
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes. Just briefly.
    Although there's not a huge audience or cameras here, it's 
a fairly low key markup, I really believe that this vote about 
to happen is a key moment in the future of the economy of this 
country.
    I think all of us here are struggling to do the very best 
we can for America, but that calls out leadership and taking 
chances sometimes.
    And I'm mindful that if we do not approve Mr. Tanner's 
amendment that the chances are overwhelming that we will never 
have an opportunity to take up the Advanced Technology Program 
in the Full Committee, given the Chairman's view and apparent 
indication that he will not take up the second bill.
    I would note also that putting a specific amount of money, 
as Mr. Tanner has done in his amendment, is fiscally 
responsible, and I think, compared to such sums as shall be 
appropriated, is a more prudent approach to the budget.
    You know, I passed out a letter from a group called Joint 
Ventures Silicon Valley. It is made up of all the high 
technology companies in Silicon Valley, and I submit that for 
the record.
    [The letter follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. As you can see, in the third paragraph, here 
is their statement.
    Silicon Valley's success is due to a long-term partnership 
between industry and government that has led to the 
commercialization of many leading-edge technologies.
    It's just straight out. Silicon Valley would not have been 
successful but for the partnerships, and they outline in their 
White Paper suggestions for frameworks.
    I would draw attention to the amount of money per state. 
This is $318 million, almost $319 million to California, and we 
can look at what the government portion is, but more than half 
is from industry.
    Those industries have, with us, decided to invest in the 
future. They can't satisfy their shareholders by doing a long-
term pre-competitive investment. They can't be prudent.
    I have had CEOs of major companies tell me that they would 
rather give up the investment tax credit for government funded 
research because they can't do it, they can't justify it to 
their taxpayers to do the kind of research that would yield 
results in ten years instead of 18 months, which is the product 
cycle.
    I would just urge that we keep hope alive for our economy. 
Take this step, risky as it may be, and see if we can't help 
our economy on into the next decade and, I would argue, the 
millennium.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank you.
    Hearing no objection, your statement will be included in 
the record. That is, the letter offered by Joint Ventures 
Silicon Valley.
    I know recognize Congresswoman McCarthy.
    Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I appreciate your request for brevity. I do have remarks to 
be submitted into the record in support of the Tanner 
substitute.
    Let me just summarize by saying I believe we have a choice 
here in this Congress. I supported the Conservative Coalition 
Budget which would have reached a balanced budget by the year 
2002, but it would not abandon our investment in our children 
and our small and medium businesses and our economic leadership 
and in our future.
    I really think if we are to be truly faithful to our 
children, we plan for their future by balancing the budget 
fairly without eliminating the programs that are successful 
that will enable our economy to expand and our small businesses 
to thrive.
    This measure, without the Tanner substitute, is extremely 
detrimental to my state and to my district. There are success 
stories out there that ought to be emulated and expanded. And I 
think we choose the wrong approach. We've become pennywise and 
pound foolish, so I would urge adoption of the Tanner 
substitute.
    And I thank you Madam Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy. Your full statement 
will of course be included in the record.
    Is there further discussion on this amendment in the nature 
of a substitute?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. If not, I'm going to call the question. The 
vote occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Tanner.
    All in favor, say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. All opposed?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Mrs. Morella. The ayes have it, the nays have it, and I 
would ask for the Clerk to call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mrs. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McCarthy votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella. Will the Clerk announce the votes?
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, the roll call vote is yeas six, 
noes eight.
    Mrs. Morella. Then the noes have it. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute as offered by Mr. Tanner is rejected.
    Are there any other amendments?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Mrs. Morella. Ms. Johnson has an amendment. I recognize her 
to offer her amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will designate the amendment, 
please.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the Subcommittee print offered by 
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Mrs. Morella. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read and to dispense with the reading.
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairman, I would like to reserve a 
point of order.
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, I recognize the gentleman.
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairman, I'd like to reserve a point of 
order.
    Mrs. Morella. I now recognize the author of the amendment, 
Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    The amendment which I offer to the Subcommittee is very 
plain in nature. Simply stated, the amendment makes sure that 
the Full Committee has the opportunity to consider the external 
programs of the National Institutes of Science and Technology.
    Although I understand that this Subcommittee is considering 
this as legislation related to these programs, the Full 
Committee has shown no inclination to do so. The schedule 
passed out for the next week's schedule of the Full Committee 
does not reflect any intent to hear the Committee report on the 
other programs, external programs.
    My amendment is simply to attempt to change that. The ATP 
program, in particular, provides a valuable service to many 
states and especially to my home state.
    For example, 38 organizations in the State of Texas have 
been participants and 22 different ATP projects awards to 
single applicant companies and prime companies in joint 
ventures have a total investment of $38.8 million in the State 
of Texas.
    My state is just one example of the work done through ATP. 
All across the country, cooperation between the Federal 
Government and industry has led to advancements in commercial 
technologies. These awards are not corporate welfare. Rather, 
the ATP is a valuable resource which assists the American 
economy in its progression into the next century.
    Regardless of any of our opinions, the ATP and other 
programs which the Institute of Standards controls, the Full 
Committee should be given the opportunity to consider these 
programs and vote up or down on whether they should be 
continued.
    As we can all see from the Full Committee markup schedule, 
the intent is not there. Only the American Technology 
Advancement Act is scheduled to be marked up by the Full 
Committee.
    The Act which authorizes the external programs is not 
scheduled. I simply want to combine these programs with very 
similar language, as the Chair's language, to put these bills 
together so that they can be heard in Full Committee.
    That's my only intent, and I thank you Madam Chairman, and 
urge adoption of my amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas. I must 
oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
    As I've stated, we are reporting on two separate bills 
because it's my intention to favorably report out 
authorizations for the NIST laboratory functions, as well as 
the Extramural Advanced Technology Program and the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
    The bills have been divided really to send a signal that 
NIST core funding and construction must be maintained as the 
first priority, and by moving the bills on two separate tracks, 
it would permit the appropriators, if they so choose, the 
ability to fund the extramural programs.
    However, since the Subcommittee is reporting out the two 
bills with a set budget cap, the two bills are necessary to 
demonstrate to the appropriators the prioritization of the 
funding. I believe that core laboratory and construction 
funding must take precedence before funding ATP and MEP.
    And since it's the intent of the Chair to address these 
extramural programs in the second Subcommittee print that will 
immediately follow consideration of this current bill, I must 
oppose the amendment.
    I believe that given our present budget situation, the 
course that we're taking today is the best method to fund the 
core programs and to ensure the best climate and environment 
for NIST's extramural programs.
    Do I have any further discussion?
    Yes, Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Madam Chairman, I couldn't agree with what you 
said more, were it not for the fact that the second bill is not 
on the Committee printout for consideration next week.
    Now what we have done, and what Ms. Johnson has done is to 
try to incorporate your language, not hers, your language in 
the second bill to say to give to the appropriators or whoever. 
Our interest in these programs, and to say that we're going to 
move on two separate tracks when the second bill is not even 
going to be heard by the Full Committee because of, I don't 
want to be too strong, but because of the dictatorial policies 
of the Chairman of the Full Committee, it defies logic.
    What we've done in this amendment, if you don't like my 
amendment, because you've got language in there and numbers in 
there, at least in this amendment, all we say is, such sums as 
may be appropriated. But we do get it hopefully before the Full 
Committee.
    This is out of desperation, the only chance we have to get 
these programs to the Full Committee level. If we don't adopt 
this, we haven't put in any numbers, we don't violate your 
budget resolution, thoughts and desires in this regard. It's 
just simply a matter of desperation to get these programs at 
least to the Full Committee level.
    Mr. McHale. Madam Chair?
    Mrs. Morella. The Chair recognizes Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Madam Chair, rarely do I quote the Speaker of 
the House with approval, but I'd like to do so this morning.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. McHale. I'll speak slowly so this ends up on the 
record.
    Two days ago, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, told 
the breakfast meeting of the Georgia Conventional Delegation 
that the NIST MEP program, quote, ``seemed like a good program 
to him'', end of quote. And also said that MEP was worthy, and 
I'm quoting again, ``MEP was worthy of careful consideration.'' 
End of quote.
    Let's be intellectually honest. The simple fact of the 
matter is that if we don't pass the Johnson amendment, MEP will 
not receive careful consideration. It will receive brief, 
superficial consideration in this Subcommittee and then it will 
die a quiet death, without an opportunity for real debate, real 
discussion, and from my point of view, adequate funding.
    We cannot allow that to happen.
    Speaker Gingrich was correct. MEP is worthy of careful 
consideration. Only by passing the Johnson amendment can we 
guarantee that it receives it. I urge support for the Johnson 
amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentleman for his comments on 
this amendment.
    All I can say is that this Subcommittee will be reporting 
out a bill that will state such sums as may be appropriated for 
both the ATP program and the MEP program.
    My understanding is the Full Committee will be discussing 
this bill. It is not on the roster for next week because the 
Chairman's plan is that it will not be considered next week, 
but at some point it will be, and it will be sent off.
    And with this Committee, by indicating that we feel that 
there should be some continuation of these two programs, I 
think we're doing the right thing.
    I believe the Speaker's comments will certainly be very 
valuable and the appropriators and perhaps even finding more 
money for programs of this nature.
    Mr. McHale. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
    I'm encouraged by your comments that it will be considered 
by the Full Committee. You indicate that at some point. Do you 
have any indication of when that point would be?
    Mrs. Morella. I am not certain as to the exact point. I'd 
be speculating to mention the specific date.
    Mr. McHale. Could I invite you to speculate?
    [Laughter.]
    Mrs. Morella. I've learned around here that you never 
prognosticate without something in writing, and even there, 
there's never a total assurance.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chairman?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, Mr. Brown is recognized.
    Mr. Brown. I must have the last word, Madam Chairman.
    Madam Chairman, I don't want to rehash the issue before us. 
I have such high respect for the Chair, and I know her support 
for the programs under consideration that I'm not even going to 
engage in haranguing her over the need to take stronger actions 
for these programs.
    But what I am going to ask, and I pray for the favorable 
consideration of the chair, is that on the key point which she 
has relied upon for her strategy here, namely that she is 
operating under a mandate to live within a 602[b] authorization 
allocation which precludes her from adequately funding the 
other programs which are going to be in the second bill, and 
her assertion that this is a proper and presumably legal 
process which other Committees have followed.
    I would respectfully request her consent to a direction to 
the joint minority and majority counsel of the Committee to 
make a survey of the degree to which this is a legal and 
binding procedure and is being followed by other Committees.
    Would she indulge me in this?
    Mrs. Morella. You know, Mr. Brown, you're a man of great 
experience, having chaired this Full Committee, and I think you 
know that there are certain rules and procedures that each 
Committee subscribes for itself, where there is some latitude.
    My belief is that if this is not proscribed in writing, in 
stone, that it is the prerogative of the Committee to establish 
that way of working with the appropriators. And so I would 
submit that getting any counsel's opinions would not be 
necessary.
    Mr. Brown. May I respond, Madam Chair?
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Brown. The chair, I think, is taking a prudent course 
here, even though she had previously asserted that this was a 
process that was binding and other committees were following 
it.
    I think a retreat from that position is prudent. I think 
the gentlelady knows that we do not need to have her consent or 
the Committee's consent to have this survey made.
    I ask unanimous consent to include a survey in the record 
of the degree to which other committees are adopting a 
mandatory 602[b] authorization process.
    Mrs. Morella. I have no concern about your asking for that, 
and I don't think I said that it was binding. I said we operate 
under that concept, and I think it is still appropriate for the 
committees to establish how they're going to reach their goal 
in terms of the allocation and look to what they can do to best 
arrive at that.
    And so if a measurement should be taken, that again won't 
be binding, but if that would be of any assistance for the 
future, for the distinguished gentleman, so be it. Is there any 
other discussion before we begin?
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairman, I won't object to the former 
Chairman's desire to engage in a poll, but I want everyone here 
to know, and I think it's common knowledge with all members 
that we have taken on the task of balancing the budget, and all 
the authorizing committees have taken on that responsibility in 
one fashion or another, whether they're looking at the 602[b] 
allocations or doing it in some other manner.
    But nonetheless, we're meeting that responsibility as the 
Chairlady is doing today.
    So with that, Madam Chairman, I won't object to that.
    Mrs. Morella. Do I hear any objection to the survey that 
Mr. Brown has asked for?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Cubin. Madam Chairman, I missed who will be conducting 
the survey that's requested.
    Mrs. Morella. My understanding is that the counsel for this 
Committee, minority counsel for this Committee would be 
conducting the survey.
    Mr. Brown. I asked unanimous consent to have it done 
jointly, but since that was objected to by the chair, we will 
do it with just the minority counsel.
    Mrs. Morella. There is no objection, if that was what the 
request was, then certainly I'd like to present that to the 
Subcommittee then in response it would be the majority and the 
minority counsel would make an inquiry of the other committees 
to establish whether or not they have caps for the Subcommittee 
allocations, looking to them as they authorize--
    Mrs. Cubin. Madam Chairman, I have no objection if the 
minority staff conducts the survey, but I do object to the 
majority staff spending their time doing that also.
    Mr. Brown. This gentleman will rephrase his unanimous 
consent request to include the minority counsel only to satisfy 
the objection of the lady.
    Mrs. Morella. I just want to thank you very much for 
modifying it that way.
    If there are no other objections or no other comments on 
that, so ordered.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chairman, I make one additional request, 
and I know the Chair thinks that I'm harassing her.
    Mrs. Morella. You're not harassing me.
    Mr. Brown. The Chair has repeatedly made the statement that 
this Committee can follow its own rules and procedures. She's 
undoubtedly correct in that.
    Would the Chairlady provide, for the record, a citation to 
the rules which substantiates the right of the Chairman of the 
Full Committee to make the allocations which are the basis on 
which this Subcommittee is constrained to act according to the 
gentlelady's position.
    Mrs. Morella. You know, sometimes Mr. Brown, the absence of 
rules mean that you have the authority, and that may well be 
the case. If it doesn't designate that we do not have the 
authority to do so.
    Mr. Brown. The Chair's request is that the gentlelady 
either indicate the presence or the absence of a statement on 
the matter.
    Mrs. Morella. Yes, I would be happy to do so. Thank you.
    Any other discussion on this particular amendment?
    Yes, Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to express a concern and support 
for the amendment. I do hope that the chair is correct that the 
second bill would be taken up.
    But the concern I want to express is that it's my 
understanding that the Appropriations Subcommittee is going to 
mark up their bill next week, and if we don't take up the ATP 
program in a timely manner, then they will have no indication 
from our Subcommittee or Full Committee as to the value that we 
place upon these programs.
    And I know that the chairperson does value these programs. 
I take her statements of support at face value and do not 
question them. But the concern I express is that if we don't 
act and approve this amendment, the Appropriations Committee 
will never know that and this will be lost in the shuffle and 
will really die a quiet death without a full hearing, without 
the Full Committee having an opportunity to weigh in, and I 
would argue that that is unfair to them and really unfair to 
the Appropriations Committee, to the House and to the process.
    So I would hope that we would give an opportunity for the 
full process to work by approving this amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. I can assure the gentlelady that I've had 
conversations, as perhaps you have and others have, with the 
appropriators in terms of the fact that we do value these 
programs too. But in putting it into two bills, we are just 
simply again reaffirming kind of the priorities, please don't 
take away from the core programs which we think are so 
imperative.
    Do we have any final comments?
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chairman?
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. I put in a point of order on this amendment. I 
don't believe this amendment is germane. I think it violates 
the fundamental purpose of the Chairlady's bill to save the 
core functions of NIST.
    Saying that, however, I withdraw my reservation and say 
that we ought to move this to a vote.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentleman.
    Yes, Ms. Johnson, did you want to comment?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes, I do.
    Since the language is in sync with the other bill, with my 
being in contact with counsel, I just did not recognize the 
non-germaneness.
    I want to say finally that I know that there is support for 
these programs and I'd be willing to abide by a democratic 
process. I don't think we can do that unless this bill has some 
assurance of coming before the Full Committee in a timely 
fashion.
    I have not voted for many of the measures, but everything 
that passed that becomes law, I will follow them because I'm a 
law-abiding citizen. But they have not come by dictatorship, 
they have come by democracy, the democratic performance of this 
Congress.
    That's all I'm asking for this consideration is that the 
Full Committee hear this portion of this Committee's report 
within these two bills and vote it up or down. That's all we're 
asking.
    It's ludicrous to think that if it comes after the time of 
consideration of the Appropriations Committee, that it would 
have any effect.
    I just did not want to get into that comedy of errors of 
having the game played that it will be considered and nothing 
will be done.
    I want to have an opportunity to have these programs voted 
up or down in a democratic fashion. I think that's what we 
stand by in our Constitution, and I would simply ask for the 
Committee to allow for this to prevail in this Committee.
    Mr. Calvert. Would the gentlelady yield?
    In the interests of democracy, that's why I'm withdrawing 
my reservation and have asked us to vote on it.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, sir.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentlelady for offering the 
amendment. Please know that you can also offer that at the Full 
Committee level too, if you so desire. We operate in a 
democratic, small ``d'', procedure.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Madam Chair, I appreciate the position the 
chair is in very much. I want to point out, at the risk of 
repeating myself two things.
    Number one, her amendment does not highlight any budgetary 
restraint that the chair has taken a position on this morning.
    Number two, it is the exact same language of the second 
bill.
    Now I have been here six years, and I've marveled at the 
fig leaves that have been concocted from time to time to really 
hide what's going on.
    What's going on here is really a clumsy fig leaf, because 
if we do not adopt this amendment, you can see the ATP and MEP 
programs gutted. They'll go nowhere.
    We can't get a date for when the second bill will be heard. 
As a matter of fact, that's why we put these two in. The 
appropriators, Ms. Lofgren said, will never know that we even 
care about these, if you vote down this amendment. It's the 
same exact language as the Chairlady's second bill. And to do 
this, I think is a travesty because they'll never be heard.
    And for whatever one thinks about the democratic process, 
if this goes forward, which I have no reason to doubt that it 
won't, I just wanted the members to know that it is not only a 
dictatorial policy from the Committee Chairman, but it is a 
thwarting of the Committee's opportunity to express to the rest 
of the Congress how we feel about these programs.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. If not, the vote occurs on the amendment that 
was offered by Ms. Johnson.
    All in favor will designate by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. Those opposed?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Ms. Johnson. Recorded vote, please.
    Mrs. Morella. The nays have it. A recorded vote has been 
requested and so ordered.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mrs. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McCarthy votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will designate the final amounts.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, the roll call vote is yeas six, 
nays seven.
    Mrs. Morella. The amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment to be offered, Mr. Brown, you've got an 
amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, yes, I do.
    It's number three in the package.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the Subcommittee Print Offered By 
Mr. Brown of California.
    Mr. Brown. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Mrs. Morella. So ordered.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, am I recognized?
    Mrs. Morella. The offeror of the amendment is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, I'm offering this on behalf of 
myself and Congressman Luther, who is not a member of this 
Subcommittee but is a member of the Full Committee from the 
Minneapolis, St. Paul area, which, as you know, is home to the 
3M Corporation and other corporate leaders in the quality 
movement.
    Congressman Luther, with this exposure to the quality 
movement and the Baldridge Award, wants to join with me in 
offering this amendment, and I would like to briefly describe 
what it does.
    This is a conservative attempt to preserve the existing 
situation, the status quo. It expands on your authorization of 
appropriations for the Federal share of the Baldridge Award 
program to allow this program to continue all of its current 
activities, and it restores the program's ability to establish 
two new categories for which awards can be given. And, as you 
know, these are in the health and the education field.
    It also replaces your provision increasing the number of 
awards per Baldridge Award category from two to four with a 
simple statement that the award is not to be given in a 
category in years in which no applicants can meet the Baldridge 
criteria.
    This language has been recommended by NIST based on their 
experience to date in administering the award. They have found 
that having a finite number of awards means that some 
applicants find themselves competing against other applicants 
as much as they find themselves striving to achieve total 
quality, and that striving is the major purpose of the 
Baldridge Award.
    They feel that the absence of a numerical limitation will 
lead to more cooperation amongst applicants, and that is really 
more in the spirit of total quality management.
    I hope you will agree with me that the current program 
should be maintained, and that you will allow this other small 
change that the program administrators feel is important.
    And I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 
remarks.
    Mrs. Morella. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. I would like to offer a substitute to the 
Subcommittee print to the amendment that Mr. Brown has just 
offered. Would the Clerk and Staff please distribute the 
amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. As it's being distributed, let me just 
explain that this amendment to the former Chairman's amendment, 
I believe will respond to the distinguished gentleman's 
concerns.
    The amendment provides for a $3.4 million authorization for 
the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Awards Program for the fiscal 
year 1996.
    The budget cap would not be violated since there'll be a 
corollary reduction for construction bringing that amount to a 
level of $62.055 million.
    I'm only taking money out of the construction account 
begrudgingly because I believe the functions of the Baldridge 
Awards program should be transferred only to the core SGRS 
program account.
    The $3.4 million to be authorized will fully fund the 
components of the program including the test pilot programs for 
health care and education, and therefore these pilot programs 
will proceed on course.
    However, while I'm a strong believer in the total quality 
management and the award program, I believe that Congressional 
authority should be required before we expand the categories 
and goals of the program.
    Last year, Congressional authority was requested to 
officially expand the categories to health care and education. 
The debate was healthy and I believe it was necessary.
    In addition, I understand that expansion of the awards at 
this time is not feasible and still requires further study.
    The Baldridge awards are perhaps at their height of 
prestige. Being named a Baldridge awardee has become a 
significant business achievement.
    I believe we should move prudently before we begin to 
consider expanding the awards. There are questions of possible 
dilution of the award, as we review the limitations on 
categories and the number of awardees.
    But in addition, I have concerns about the cost of 
administering the Baldridge program if it continues to expand. 
Originally, the Baldridge program was intended to be 
financially self-sufficient funded through application fees and 
corporate contributions. If the program is now to be funded in 
the core SGRS account, I don't want the laboratories to be 
overlooked at the expense of funding what may be an ever-
increasing Baldridge award program.
    If NIST can come back to Congress and provide a plan for 
self-sufficient expansion in the health care and education 
categories, I can support this expansion. But I believe 
Congressional authority to do so is not only desired but 
essential.
    I also understand the concern of the Baldridge Award Board 
of Overseers in recommending that the current limit of two 
awardees per category be lifted. I believe that by doubling the 
potential number of awards from two to four addresses this 
concern, which we have done in the legislation.
    To offer the potential of unlimited awardees would only 
serve to dilute the power and prestige of the award.
    Is there any other discussion on the two amendments, the 
amendment to the amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, may I respond briefly?
    Mrs. Morella. Indeed, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. The gentleman is pleased with the substitute 
that the gentlelady has offered as an indication of her desire 
to make a reasonable compromise in this situation. Obviously, 
it does not go as far as I would like.
    And this reflects my own very high regard for the 
performance of the Baldridge Award. This has been the most 
economical way to improve total quality management ever 
invented by the mind of man or woman, as far as that's 
concerned. It is the biggest bargain that we can buy.
    And since some of our most significant need for improved 
quality is in education and health, extremely large, rapidly 
growing segments of our economy, I still want to have us move 
in that direction.
    And I know the gentlelady sympathizes with that desire, 
even though she feels it's not opportune.
    What I would like to suggest is, I accept the gentlelady's 
substitute, reserving the option in the Full Committee for some 
further discussion, which Mr. Luther would like to participate 
in with regard to the other aspects of my amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
    Incidentally, I was in Congress too--of course, you've been 
here longer than I--when the Baldridge Award first became part 
of law.
    Mr. Brown. It was a popular Republican idea, as a matter of 
fact, named after a Republican secretary.
    Mrs. Morella. Exactly, and it has worked very well. I 
appreciate the fact that you're going to accept my substitute 
to your amendment with the idea that you will also present this 
in Full Committee.
    Hearing no objection, do I have any other requests for any 
discussion?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. Then the question is on the substitute to the 
Brown Amendment.
    So many as are in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. The ayes have it.
    The question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Brown as 
amended by the accepted substitute offered by Morella.
    All in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. Opposed?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. The ayes have it. The amendment offered by 
Mr. Brown, as amended by Morella, is now passed.
    Are there further amendments to the bill?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes, Madam Chairman. I have an amendment, 
number four in the packet.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will designate the amendment 
offered by Ms. Lofgren.
    The Clerk. Amendment to the Subcommittee print offered by 
Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would make a unanimous consent request that 
we waive the reading of the amendment.
    Mrs. Morella. With objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would like to urge passage.
    This amendment is intended to address a key issue that will 
define the path that we as a nation end up taking in balancing 
the budget, and that is how much should we cut investments in 
our future to pay for a tax cut.
    The House passed budget resolution contained a $350 billion 
tax cut. The Senate passed resolution contained a $170 billion 
tax cut, and that only if we achieved a balanced budget.
    I think we all agree that investments in research and 
development will stimulate economic growth. And the extent to 
which tax cuts will stimulate growth is actually a matter of 
some debate, and may tie up the conference on the budget 
resolution for some time.
    This amendment is intended to bridge the differences that 
may emerge in the final budget resolution process and 
reconciliation.
    What the amendment does is to provide for the authorized 
levels of NIST to increase by a fraction directly related to 
the magnitude of the tax cut. If the House passed budget 
resolution fully prevails, the amendment would allow for no 
increase.
    If the Senate passed budget resolution prevails, NIST could 
be increased by $465 million, a level which I think is only 
minimally adequate but certainly better than what is currently 
envisioned in this morning's process.
    In either case, this funding will be part of the balanced 
budget plan, it's not a budget buster.
    The contingent nature of this will allow it to be in 
conformity with whatever we end up with, and I would hope with 
the funding contingency on the upside instead of the downside.
    I would urge passage of this as a moderate attempt to 
provide for these programs that all of us believe in.
    Mrs. Morella. I thank the gentlewoman from California for 
offering her amendment. It's pretty creative, as a matter of 
fact.
    And I must, however, oppose the amendment because if extra 
funding levels occur because of House and Senate differences in 
the passed budget resolutions, all programs would really have 
to be considered and prioritized and as the authorizing 
Subcommittee, I think we've got to display the same discipline 
as the appropriators if we're to be considered relevant to the 
process.
    We will of course, if there are changes, again look to the 
appropriators before considering what this Committee is 
offering, so I have concerns at this time about doing 
prognosticating about taking funds from the tax cut where we 
don't know where it is at this point.
    I also believe that reducing the Federal budget deficit 
should take precedence over a tax cut. And, as you know, I 
voted that way.
    Ms. Lofgren. Madam Chair, may I comment just briefly?
    The concern I think why this amendment does merit 
consideration, a positive consideration by the Subcommittee, is 
should the second bill not move forward, as many of us are 
concerned it may not, this will allow for the ability to move 
forward on these important programs.
    I disagree with the Chairperson of the Full Committee and 
reasonable people can differ. But these are important programs 
in my view, and in the view of Silicon Valley and in the view 
of the leading industrial high tech people of the country.
    This will at least keep open the opportunity for action to 
be taken.
    And I thank you for the courtesy of recognizing me.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. If not, hearing none, the question is on the 
amendment that is offered by Ms. Lofgren.
    All those in favor, designate by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. Those opposed?
    [Chorus of nays.]
    Mrs. Morella. The nays have it.
    A roll call has been requested.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mrs. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McCarthy votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella. The Clerk will call the tally of the roll 
call.
    The Clerk. Madam Chair, the roll call vote is yeas six, 
nays seven.
    Mrs. Morella. The amendment is defeated.
    Are there any further amendments to the Subcommittee print?
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. Hearing none, the question is on the 
Subcommittee print, as amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. All those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of noes.]
    Mrs. Morella. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    Mr. Tanner. Madam Chair, that a clean bill be prepared by 
the Chairwoman for presentation to the floor of the House for 
consideration.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    Mr. Tanner. And that the Chair take all necessary steps to 
bring the bill before the Full Committee for further 
consideration.
    Mrs. Morella. The question is on the motion. The 
Subcommittee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    Mrs. Morella. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    Mrs. Morella. The motion is agreed to. The bill is reported 
to the Full Committee without objection. The motion to 
reconsider is laid on the table.
    This concludes our markup of the first bill, the American 
Technology Advancement Act of 1995.


               XXI. PROCEEDING FROM FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

                              ----------                              




 FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1870, THE AMERICAN TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT 
                              ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 12:10 p.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn 
House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker, Chairman 
of the Committee, presiding.
    The Chairman. Good afternoon.
    We will now consider HR 1870, the American Technology 
Advancement Act of 1995.
    I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point. Without objection.
    I ask members to proceed with amendments in the order of 
the roster when we get to amendments, but first I want to 
recognize the gentlelady from Maryland, the Chairwoman of the 
Technology Subcommittee for a report on the American Technology 
Advancement Act.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I'll try to talk quickly because of the hour.
    But, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, with the 
beginning of this Congress--
    The Chairman. The gentlelady will suspend until we have 
order in the Committee Room.
    The gentlelady is reporting an important bill and we need 
order in the room. The gentlelady will proceed.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
    In the beginning of this Congress, this Committee, under 
your leadership, Mr. Chairman, has engaged in a new process 
which puts us, as an authorizing committee, at the table with 
the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee in the 
setting of public policy and in directing how our Federal 
moneys are spent.
    We are now exercising our full policy setting 
responsibilities with a voice in the process.
    Consequently, you have asked all of the subcommittee chairs 
to produce authorization bills which reflect the House-passed 
budget resolution to move us to a balanced budget in seven 
years.
    We have to do this because otherwise we would not be 
considered credible or realistic in our work product.
    As difficult as it is, we're being guided by the same 
budgetary limitations affecting the other Committees.
    Accordingly, these budget limitations have forced us to 
prioritize our Federal spending, resulting in the limitation of 
our ability to fund every worthwhile program.
    These limitation affect us here today as we report out HR 
1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995.
    As I have stated before, I believe NIST is a well run 
agency with a well-defined mission.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology's 
mission: to promote economic growth by working with industry, 
to develop and apply technology, measurements and standards, is 
integral to our nation's competitiveness in the global 
marketplace.
    And if it were possible, my preference would be to fully 
fund every NIST function.
    However, given our commitment to balance the budget in the 
budget cap placed on the subcommittee, that could not be the 
case.
    This American Technology Advancement Act, are reported out 
of subcommittee, sends out the strong signal that the core 
scientific work being done at the NIST laboratories must be a 
priority.
    In addition, NIST's construction account must also be 
maintained as another priority.
    Without the necessary renovation and construction of 
facilities, NIST will simply not be able to adequately fulfill 
its basic mission in the future.
    So the bill provides fiscal year 1996 authorizations for 
the Under Secretary for Technology, for the NIST core programs, 
and for the construction of research facilities.
    The Act also contains language permitting NIST to perform 
important administrative functions, such as expanding its 
ability to continue hiring the best and the brightest 
scientists.
    These changes include:
    Permanently extending the NIST personnel demonstration 
project;
    Increasing the cap on the NIST Post-Doctoral Fellows 
Program;
    Providing authority to give excess scientific equipment to 
secondary schools;
    And creating authority for NIST metroshuttle for employees, 
among others.
    So I thank the Chairman for yielding me this opportunity to 
briefly discuss the bill and look forward to working with you 
and the Committee as we move this bill to the floor.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I want to thank the gentlelady for her 
statement and commend her for the leadership that she's 
provided the Technology Subcommittee. She's taken an aggressive 
stance in her subcommittee to ensure that the core science 
programs at NIST will be authorized to full program levels, and 
I fully support that objective, and have always been a 
supporter of the basic science and mission-related research at 
NIST, and I think the bill she's produced moves us in that 
direction.
    I now want to recognize the gentleman, Mr. Tanner, for any 
opening statement he might make on the bill.
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a very short opening statement, and I want to 
commend our Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. Morella, for her 
work on this matter. And I want to thank her for her support of 
the basic research at NIST. And I know she supports the other 
programs at NIST, as she said in her statement.
    I am concerned about the procedure, as I said in the 
subcommittee markup, under which we operated in our 
subcommittee. I am concerned today, as I was then, that we are 
not considering HR 1871, which is the external programs at 
NIST, the MEP and the ATP.
    That's not on the agenda today, and I'm going to have a 
little bit more to say about that as we go along in this 
hearing.
    I'm going to, as I did in subcommittee, offer an amendment 
to HR 1870 which will include the provisions of HR 1871 with 
specific spending limits.
    My purpose for offering this amendment is twofold. First, I 
believe we ought to openly debate these external programs, and 
secondly, the spending levels that will be proposed are simply 
to ensure funding for commitments the Federal Government will 
have made in fiscal year 1995 and prior years to local 
governments and businesses across the nation.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank the gentleman for his statement.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Brown, does he have an 
opening statement?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I do have an opening statement, 
and I will try to abbreviate it, and I ask unanimous consent to 
revise and extend it in the record.
    I want to recognize the great contribution made by both the 
Chair and ranking minority member of this subcommittee.
    I know of their strong support for the NIST programs, and I 
trust that we will come upon better days later on.
    As I expressed earlier, I am concerned, and Mr. Tanner 
reiterated this point, that we have separated this bill into 
two parts and one part has no funding in it. That part of 
course deals with the ATP and the MEP program.
    I recognize the Chairman's opposition to these programs and 
the lack of budgetary authority for them.
    I don't think the lack of budgetary authority is fatal 
since the budget categories do not reach this level of detail. 
But the Chairman's opposition of course becomes a massive 
obstacle to continuing these programs.
    We intend to call attention to the value of these programs, 
to the American manufacturing community. We intend to try to 
create a strong as possible wave of public support for them, 
and we believe that those who oppose these programs are wrong 
in not recognizing that they have arisen over the course of the 
last generation actually, basically coming out of this 
Committee and in response to requests from the business 
community, and with the support of the Republican 
Administrations who were in power most of this time.
    That doesn't mean of course that they are immortal or they 
necessarily are of value, but we think that the actions 
proposed to be taken here of not funding these programs and 
with a very minimum of opportunity for Committee debate and 
discussion, and public hearings, is contrary to the best 
interests of the country and is a denigration of the 
deliberative role of the Congress in making decisions with 
regard to important matters of this sort.
    And I spell this out in a little more detail in my 
statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    I would say that Mrs. Morella has worked very, very hard, 
along with Mr. Tanner, to guide dollars to the programs under 
the jurisdiction of the NIST laboratories more than anyone else 
in the Congress.
    Congresswoman Morella is responsible for the fact that the 
NIST core programs will be authorized at a level equal to the 
fiscal 1995 funding level approved in the 103rd Congress.
    Moreover, under the subcommittee bill, the authorized 
funding level would be adjusted in the outyears to assure that 
real spending power is not reduced by inflation.
    While many programs were reduced or frozen by the House 
Budget Resolution, the NIST core programs in the STRS account 
and the construction of research facilities account both assume 
an increase in funding every year.
    In fact, in budget function 370, the Commerce and Housing 
Credit Section, the only two programs in the entire section 
with an increase in annual funding are those two programs.
    It is unique in this year's resolution to see any growth in 
discretionary programs, and I suggest we endorse that growth in 
what we're about to do today.
    In my view, that's quite an achievement and Congresswoman 
Morella is to be applauded for it.
    The commitment that we have made to trying to fund the 
basic research agencies of this Government and those agencies 
that serve us truly in our global competitiveness program is 
reflected in what we're doing here in this bill, and I think 
that the subcommittee has done a remarkable job.
    In addition, with our budgetary commitment to increase 
NIST's budget, I believe we must continue to utilize our 
oversight functions over NIST, as well as over all the agencies 
in our jurisdiction.
    I look forward to working with the gentlelady's 
subcommittee in conducting those oversight reviews of a number 
of aspects of the NIST laboratory functions including its 
Malcolm Baldridge Quality Awards activities.
    With that, the Chair would indicate that members should 
proceed with amendments in order of the roster, and it would be 
my intention to offer the first amendment, which is an en bloc 
amendment at the desk.
    And I would ask unanimous consent that it be considered as 
original text so that further substitutes could be offered.
    Without objection.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Clerk will distribute the en bloc amendment.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. When this Committee marked up the Fastener 
Quality Act, I attached an amendment to the Fastener Advisory 
Committee. This Committee was determined that the Act would 
have a detrimental impact on business.
    The Fastener Advisory Committee reported that without their 
recommended changes, the burden of cost would be close to $1 
billion on the fastener industry.
    We attempted in the last Congress to amend the law and 
unfortunately we were not successful. We did have the language 
pass both the House and the Senate. However, the language died 
in conference.
    This amendment addresses the concerns of the Fastener 
Advisory Committee, heat mill certification, commingling, and 
minor nonconformance.
    Working with this Congress and with NIST, the Public Law 
Task Force, comprised of membership from manufacturing, 
importing, and distributing, has worked to improve the law 
while maintaining safety and quality.
    The Public Law Task Force represents 85 percent of all the 
companies involved in manufacture, distribution and importation 
of fasteners and their suppliers in the United States.
    Combined, the Task Force represents over 100,000 employees 
in all 50 states.
    The en bloc amendment also includes the language already 
adopted by the Committee on other bills, including the 
prohibition on lobbying as amended by Mr. Brown, the limitation 
on authorizations and anti-earmarking.
    This amendment I believe is a good solution to a couple of 
problems that are out there, and I would urge my colleagues to 
support its adoption.
    Are there members that wish to be recognized on the en bloc 
amendment?
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. I just simply wanted to indicate that the 
amendment that you've offered en bloc is a reflection of the 
Fastener Quality Task Force recommendations, working with NIST 
and with industry, and I want to commend you for the work 
you've done in the last Congress and continuing, that has 
resulted in this.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
    Are there other members that wish to be recognized on the 
en bloc amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the en bloc amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is Mr. Tanner, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair, waiting to see the amendment here, 
would reserve a point of order.
    Mr. Tanner. I understand.
    And this amendment is similar to the one offered in the 
subcommittee, where it failed, but it authorizes funding for 
the Under Secretary for Technology in the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, authorization for NIST programs, 
includes funding for the industrial technology services, the 
scientific and technical research services and construction of 
research facilities.
    The overall funding level is $754.1 million, which is well 
within the overall science and technology limit set by the 
conservative coalition budget, therefore being consistent with 
balancing the Federal budget within seven years, as this 
Committee was instructed to do.
    The funding level represents a decrease of $282.5 million, 
or 27 percent, from the President's request, and a decrease of 
$109.5 million or 13 percent from the FY '95 allocation.
    Those figures will be important later.
    It's well below the President's Revised Budget figures, and 
represents a hard freeze for programs within the technology 
administration.
    Funding for the Under Secretary is held at FY '95 levels.
    I'm going to skip some of this.
    Funding levels for the ATP and MEP are set at levels that 
anticipate the amount required to pay for grants awarded in FY 
1995 and in previous years.
    NIST has reported that funding totaling approximately $341 
million will be required for FY '96 to fund grants award in FY 
'95 and in previous years.
    Our amendment authorizes $330.7 million to the ATP account. 
This is entirely consistent with Chairman Walker's statement 
that existing projects would be allowed to go to completion.
    NIST has also reported they will need approximately $132 
million in FY '96 to continue existing grants under the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. We authorize 
$130.6 million.
    Funding for the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award is 
held at the FY '95 level.
    The account for the construction of research facilities is 
funded at $15 million. This is a funding level necessary to 
maintain laboratory facilities at the Gaithersburg, Maryland 
and Boulder, Colorado campuses. NIST's current unexpended 
balances in its construction account are sufficient to fund 
constructions of facilities outlined in the five-year plan in 
1996.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance at 
this time.
    The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
    Are there other members that wish to be heard on the 
substitute?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to speak briefly to commend 
Mr. Tanner for his vision in bringing forward this amendment.
    I think in this time where we are focusing on the need to 
balance our budget, we also need to keep our eye on the long 
term of what's going to be good for our country.
    And when I look at what these programs have produced, and I 
understand the role of industry in these programs, I mean, 
California industry has put up more than half the money for 
development of this new technology. And I am convinced, after 
having gone through personally in parts of California and 
learned some of the advances that are being made, that this is 
a component to making sure that our country stays on the 
cutting edge of technology around the world, so that we can be 
competitive in a global market that is very tough.
    I hope that this amendment will receive a more favorable 
hearing in this Full Committee than it did in the subcommittee. 
And I just wanted to thank Mr. Tanner for his leadership in 
bringing it forward to us today, and I would yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairman. I appreciate the gentlelady's statement.
    Are there further members that wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The Chair would withdraw his point of order 
on it. I should have done that earlier.
    Mr. Tanner. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    If no one else wants to talk, if I may, I'd like to, if I 
haven't used my five minutes, I'd like to use two or three at 
this time.
    The Chairman. Well, in order--
    Mr. Tanner. I tried to yield back in my short opening 
statement.
    The Chairman. Yes, you did, but in order to preserve the 
process here, maybe I'll yield to Mr. Brown and let him yield 
to you.
    Is that all right?
    I recognize Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Tanner's 
amendment. It's an exceptionally good amendment and I will 
yield to him to explain just why it's such an exceptionally 
good amendment.
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Let me just read one paragraph from the Economic Strategy 
Institute that I find insightful in this instance.
    They say, in a report dated June 5th of this year:
    Recent Congressional budget cuts to the Department of 
Commerce's Advanced Technology Project, ATP, and the Department 
of Defense's Technology Reinvestment Project, ignore the 
growing recognition in both government and industry that 
increased public private sector cooperation is necessary to 
sustain advanced technological development in the United 
States.
    An Economic Strategy Institute Study released today argues 
that absent such cooperation, the decline in Federal and 
corporate research and development expenditures and concomitant 
rise in foreign R&D spending will increasingly deliver 
technological leadership in defense and commercial areas to 
America's economic competitors.
    I think that goes to the heart of what we're trying to do 
here. We had two bills in our subcommittee--I want you all to 
listen to this--we had two bills in our subcommittee. One funds 
the NIST core programs, which we support.
    The other bill was on our subcommittee docket. It is not on 
the docket today. That bill deals with NIST's external 
programs. The Advanced Technology Program, which is the 
precursor to a competitive situation in the marketplace, and 
which will engage in the research and development that market 
forces in this country do not allow our corporations to engage 
in.
    By that, I mean the pressures of the stock market for 
quarterly dividends, for yearly reports, semiannual reports, 
and the like, hardly allow our CEOs in major corporations to 
engage in long term R&D that's necessary for us to be 
competitive in the year 2010 and beyond.
    There's just no economic payback in the short run. 
Therefore, the government partnership with industry putting up 
the money and actually utilizing their people in some of these 
instances, as other countries that we compete with do, I think 
is crucial to our economic vitality in the next century.
    The other program, the MEP program, of course is a network 
to help small and medium-sized businesses. In all of my career 
in government, I've always thought that the government ought to 
be a friend of business, not an enemy. The government ought to 
be an ally of our businesses, not its adversary.
    And these two programs work.
    In a desperate attempt to get them before the Full 
Committee and the only way available to us, we have combined 
those programs with the core bill.
    The subcommittee chairman and the subcommittee amended the 
base bill for the Malcolm Baldridge Award, so I would say any 
germaneness issue, and I thank the Chairman for withdrawing his 
point of order, was taken up at that time, and this is not only 
germane but this is the only means by which we have to get 
these two programs before the Full Committee.
    And I would appreciate their consideration.
    Mr. Brown. Taking back my time, I want to compliment the 
gentleman for his statement. He has expressed it very well. 
This is an effort to get a vote on authorizing the programs of 
Advanced Technology which the Chairman objects to.
    There are two objections that he's publicly expressed, one 
that it busts the budget, and I point out that the authorizing 
bills are not covered by the Budget Act, only appropriation 
bills are, and therefore this cannot result in any busting of 
the budget. And we are well aware of that.
    His second objection is to the fact that this is corporate 
welfare, as he's expressed on a number of occasions, so it's 
not good science, it's not basic research, it's some sort of 
pseudo-research. This is an ideological view not held by most 
members of the business community. And I hope that Mr. Walker, 
in his wisdom, will gradually change that point of view.
    But over the last ten years, I haven't succeeded in 
convincing him of that, so these are his primary reasons for 
opposing funding of these programs.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The Chair thanks the gentleman for describing 
my position. I'll try to do it myself in a few minutes.
    Mr. Brown. You can describe mine any way you want.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I've a couple questions for the author of the amendment, if 
I may, Mr. Tanner.
    My first question is. I haven't gone through all the 
figures. Does your substitute--I understand that you are 
proposing authorizing the Advanced Technology Program and the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships.
    My question is, in terms of all the other authorizations in 
this bill, does your amendment change the amounts, or does it 
leave them the same with the Chairman's mark?
    I yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Tanner. It is a little more than the Chairman's mark.
    This is very confusing because I don't know who is 
following who here. Either we're following the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, which I think we are since they just handed down 
some numbers that are, by the way, very close to ours.
    As I said in my opening statement, we cut, in our 
amendment, we cut 28 percent--27 percent from the President's 
request, and 13 percent from the FY '95 allocation.
    The subcommittee on Appropriations, yesterday on Commerce, 
Justice, State, and Judiciary, provided 28 percent lower than 
the President's request, one percent different from ours.
    Mr. Schiff. Reclaiming my time, I'd--
    Mr. Tanner. And 17 percent lower than FY '95. We're at 13 
percent.
    Mr. Schiff. Reclaiming my time, I asked a very--
    Mr. Tanner. So it's in the ball park.
    Mr. Schiff. --I asked a very specific question of the 
gentleman, though. Leaving aside ATP and the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnerships for the moment, does the gentleman's 
amendment change Chairman Walker's mark in the authorization?
    It seems to me that's a yes or a no.
    Mr. Tanner. It's slightly lower, I'm told.
    Mr. Schiff. Slightly lower?
    Mr. Tanner. Seven million.
    Mr. Schiff. All right. Taken together then, taken together 
with the reauthorization of ATP and the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnerships, does the total authorization exceed the basic 
bill here today?
    Mr. Tanner. It does, but that's where it becomes confusing 
quite frankly.
    The Appropriations Subcommittee has appropriated $62 
million more than we have marked up. Now I don't know what 
happened to that. I was going to ask later what happens to 
that.
    What we are attempting to do is put into this Committee's 
record authorization for the continuation of these programs, at 
least to the point of having them be enabling them to complete 
obligations of this Government that are currently in the field. 
That's what we've tried to do in this amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. But the Appropriations Subcommittee did zero 
out the ATP program, I believe.
    Mr. Tanner. Well, they said you had to use unobligated 
funds. There is $164 million in unobligated funds in the NIST 
construction account. That's why we only used $15 million in 
our amendment.
    Mr. Schiff. I yield to the Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is correct. I think what we 
need to realize here is this substitute is $410 million over 
the amount in the budget.
    And to say that it comes somewhere close to where the 
appropriators are I think also stretches the imagination a 
little bit. It is considerably higher than where the 
appropriators are because the appropriators have zeroed the ATP 
account.
    Now the gentleman is correct that the appropriators have 
suggested that there are unobligated funds that can be used. 
That is to be used for closeout of programs that have two and 
three-year contracts under the ATP at the present time. There's 
not a desire to completely axe those programs, and so they are 
to be phased out.
    But the number, the appropriated number is zero, whereas in 
the gentleman's amendment, it's $330 million. So there's a 
considerable difference between 0 and 330 million in the 
gentleman's amendment.
    And if I heard the gentleman just a moment ago, he said 
that he is actually lower than our amendment in the core 
program. So what he has done is, he has cut the core program in 
favor of putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the 
external programs in his particular amendment, which goes the 
opposite direction from where the priorities were that the 
subcommittee had reflected.
    Mr. Schiff. If I may reclaim my time from the Chairman for 
just a moment, and then I'll yield whatever I have left to Mr. 
Tanner.
    I would just like to conclude my view.
    I think I have a differing view with our Committee Chairman 
with respect on the role of technology transfer and CRADAs and 
business partnerships.
    I think that within a limited area and under close 
supervision and oversight, that is the policy we should adopt. 
I understand that there are some individual allegations of 
difficulty made about the ATP program. To me, that's more a 
matter of oversight than a matter of discontinuing a program.
    But I have to conclude by saying I'm still concerned about 
the total figures. I've consistently voted against busting the 
budget and Chairman Walker's figures have been shown to be 
accurate, I believe, up until now.
    So that's my problem here more so than the ATP program.
    I think my time has expired. Can I ask--
    Mr. Tanner. Can I answer his question?
    Mr. Schiff. --Can I ask unanimous consent for another 
minute?
    The Chairman. Just one minute.
    Mr. Schiff. I yield to Mr. Tanner then.
    Mr. Tanner. The appropriators appropriated $715 million. We 
are slightly above that. What has happened is we have allowed 
the appropriators to prioritize the matters within our budget 
so that we're very close on the NIST core programs, my 
amendment and the Chairman's mark.
    Where we differ is the appropriators have decreased the 
external programs at NIST by 81 percent. We haven't done that, 
they've done that.
    What we've tried to do is conform our amendment within the 
$700 million umbrella so that we set the priorities within that 
$700 million umbrella, not the appropriators.
    That's what my amendment attempts to do, and tries to 
preserve, as best we can, the ATP and MEP programs.
    Mr. Schiff. I think my time has doubly expired. I yield 
back to the Chairman with thanks.
    Mr. Tanner. I'm sorry. I'm taking too much time.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members wishing to be 
recognized on the substitute?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair is prepared to close the--
    Mr. Tanner. I suffer no allusion that we're going to win, 
Mr. Chairman, so--
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair will close the debate.
    As the Chair has indicated, this is $410 million over the 
number in our bill, which is in line with the budget. I'm not 
certain where the gentleman gets the $715 million.
    The fact is that in this particular account, the 
appropriators do $263 million for the core programs, versus our 
authorization at $265 million.
    They go zero for ATP.
    They go $81 million for MEP and $60 million for 
construction.
    That's the totality of what the appropriators did. That 
doesn't add up anywhere close to $715 million.
    The fact is that the authorization bill we have before us 
today is very close to where the appropriators ended up on the 
core program.
    Like the program that the appropriators have done, we are 
zero on ATP.
    The appropriators have put additional money in for MEP, 
which I think at some point this Committee may want to address, 
but at this point, they are higher than we are there, and their 
number for construction is right where we are.
    And so in fact the authorization bill that is before us, 
with the exception of the MEP program, is right on target with 
where the appropriators came down.
    And so I don't where that particular figure comes from.
    What I would suggest to the Committee is that we should not 
approve a substitute which goes well outside the caps and takes 
us completely out of the ball park with regard to what's 
happening in the Appropriations Committee.
    We do want to, I think at some point, as a Committee, 
reflect upon the fact that the appropriators have moved to some 
degree and freed up money in the MEP program.
    That's the reason why we have separated out the bills to 
give us an opportunity to do that work once we understood the 
parameters in which we might have an opportunity to work, which 
would be somewhat different from the budget.
    But the budget numbers of course for both MEP and for ATP 
are zero. And so that--
    Mr. Boehlert. Would the Chairman yield for a question?
    The Chairman. Sure, I'll be happy to yield.
    Mr. Boehlert. Does the Chairman's mark have any money for 
the Malcolm Baldridge Award program?
    Because as a co-author of that, I have particular pride in 
it.
    The Chairman. The gentleman can be assured we have $3.4 
million for the Malcolm Baldridge Award.
    Mr. Boehlert. And secondly, I'm comforted a great deal by 
your comments regarding the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
because I think that's a very valuable program and I think we 
have to revisit that.
    I think it's working, it's working for America, 
particularly helpful for small business, so I'm comforted by 
that too.
    I thank the Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Tanner. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, 
if I may.
    The Chairman. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Mr. Tanner. The numbers that have been appropriated are, 
according to my figures, they've appropriated $404 million for 
NIST, and we marked up in our subcommittee, $343 million for 
the core programs.
    What we do to adjust this $61 million, we adjusted Mr. 
Rohrabacher's allocation upward by $267 million last week, so 
there's $61 million there, and I'm just, I'm asking what we do 
with that.
    The Chairman. If the gentleman would, I'm not certain 
that's a parliamentary inquiry, but--
    Mr. Tanner. It's a question.
    The Chairman. No, I yield to the gentleman for the purpose 
of the question.
    That's the reason why we have the two separate bills, I 
would say to the gentleman.
    We have a separate bill available that we can go back and 
revisit the issues of the external programs.
    What we're doing here is a bill aimed at trying to make 
certain that we move forward with the internal program.
    Now, you know,--
    Mr. Tanner. Does the Chair have any idea when 1871 might be 
before the Committee?
    The Chairman. I don't know. I don't know precisely when 
that's going to be, at the present time, because I want to take 
a look at exactly where the budget numbers came down and so on.
    But given the fact that we may have to set some priorities 
in that area, we may want to figure out a way to change the 
numbers in that particular bill.
    But it's the reason why we proceeded as we did in his 
subcommittee, I think over his protest, to give us an option to 
deal with this at some point at a later date.
    Mr. Tanner. I don't want to belabor the point, Mr. 
Chairman, but some of us are very interested in seeing 1871 at 
least to go markup at some point in time in this year of 
Congress, not this session of Congress, but this calendar year.
    Does the Chair think that's going to be possible?
    The Chairman. That's a possibility.
    Mr. Tanner. Is it a probability?
    The Chairman. Well, I would say at the moment it's a 
possibility.
    Well, the Chair has concluded debate here, as the Chair 
said. I mean I have asked members whether or not they wanted to 
make statements. When the Chair moves to conclude debate, it is 
my intention not to engage in dialogue with members at that 
point.
    And we have moved to a conclusion.
    My time has expired.
    And the Chair is prepared to put the question.
    All those in favor of the Tanner amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. And those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it. The noes have it, the amendment--
    Mr. Brown. Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California requests a roll 
call vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. No.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes no.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes no.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Oh, yeah.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Ms. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, amendment roll call vote is: 
yes, 15; no, 26.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the--
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary 
inquiry, which was really what I was about to do before. It was 
not to extend debate on the particular amendment.
    I had come back in from the floor and listened to the end 
of what my colleague from Tennessee had been asking, and he had 
been trying to find out, as I remember it, when 1871 would be 
brought to the floor.
    And--
    The Chairman. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry. The gentleman needs to strike the last word, and 
propound a question.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, if I may then try the 
parliamentary inquiry.
    Would a motion to consider HR 1871 be in order?
    The Chairman. We are in the process of considering this 
particular bill. I think the gentlelady next has an amendment 
that is essentially that the bill 1871 that she seeks to put 
into this bill.
    And the question will be whether or not that can be debated 
at this point. But the Committee has not been notified properly 
of taking up another piece of legislation, so it would not be 
appropriate for the Chair to bring that legislation before the 
Committee since the Committee has not been appropriately 
notified.
    The gentleman, Mr. Tanner, offered an amendment to the 
legislation that we have before us. That's an entirely 
appropriate action for the Committee to be taking at the 
present time, providing the amendments are germane.
    Mr. Olver. Okay, thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 
her amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment is being placed before us without 
appropriating any dollars to attempt to use whatever efforts we 
can to bring the ATP and the MEP programs, which are valuable 
programs, to worthy consideration of the Full Committee.
    These programs were considered in subcommittee and voted 
out.
    And I believe very strongly that they are as important as 
the internal programs and I simply wanted a mechanism, Mr. 
Chairman, that the Full Committee would have the opportunity to 
vote on these programs.
    The situation before us is not knowing if we're going to 
have them in full consideration, and feeling that the futility 
of going through the subcommittee, spending time considering 
the bills, which will not be considered by the Full Committee, 
and throughout our consideration of authorizations this week, 
we've been repeatedly told that we must remain relevant to the 
appropriations process.
    And the only way we can be, with these programs to be 
considered, is to attempt to find some mechanism by which we 
can consider them in Full Committee.
    I would urge support of this amendment.
    The Chairman. Are there additional people that wish to be 
heard on the amendment?
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I am speaking on behalf of the amendment and I would ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks so that I 
might just summarize from them for purposes of discussion.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I applaud the woman for offering this 
amendment. I think that these programs have been proven very 
effective, not only in our nation but particularly stand as a 
symbol to our competitors in Japan and Germany and other parts 
of the world who do assist manufacturers to become successful.
    The Germans have 46 centers that specialize in 
manufacturing success. The Japanese have over 170 of these 
centers.
    The U.S. which, as we know, covers a lot more land and a 
much larger economy, has only 42 of these. They are a success 
story in my district, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to insert 
the names of those companies which benefit, and I would also 
like to insert into the record an investment profile of the 
dollars invested by the Federal Government and Missouri State 
Government that profiles our return on investment.
    I think when we are looking to compete on the international 
marketplace, programs such as these that Representative Johnson 
is putting forward in her amendment, are essential for that 
world competition.
    And it does speak to our national psyche that it would 
enable us to build something better and to compete against any 
nation in the world if we are willing to put a priority behind 
our small businesses and our medium-sized manufacturers.
    So I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee would 
support the gentlelady's amendment today.
    I have not heard any reasons, both in subcommittee or even 
in this Committee, as to why this investment, which is in good 
faith with the Government and our private businesses, should 
not continue.
    I think it is essential and I support the woman's 
amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows, including 
above-mentioned attachments:]


    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, as I look at the lady from Texas' 
amendment, it authorizes such sums as may be appropriated, in 
terms of the authorization for the Advanced Technology Program, 
and also for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
    Now I have to say, speaking for myself, it was a difficult 
choice for me in the last vote, because I do support these 
programs, and it's a choice of accepting figures and knowing 
that our Chairman is also the second ranking republican on the 
Budget Committee, I have found the Chairman's expertise in 
these matters to be very precise.
    But in this particular case, if I'm reading this correctly, 
and I'd invite the author of the amendment to tell me if I'm 
not, we're going back to a completely old style of 
authorization to which I object for any authorization, any kind 
of program, because this is exactly the kind of authorization 
that makes authorizers non-players in a system.
    It sounds good. We get to go back to the constituency that 
supports these programs and say, we've just voted to give all 
the money in the world to this program if we can find it.
    But I think that is precisely what has pushed authorizers 
aside into irrelevancy over the last number of years, and 
especially for that reason I oppose the amendment.
    I'm glad to yield to the lady whatever time I have left.
    Ms. Johnson. I just want to point out that it's the same 
language we used in the other programs as well.
    I purposely attempted to use language that would not 
earmark dollars, that would be cooperative. This is not an 
effort to attempt to bust the budget, bust any caps, or attempt 
to be insulting to the leadership of this Committee.
    It is really an effort to attempt to move these programs to 
a level of consideration so that we just don't forget that they 
are very useful programs for establishing jobs for the future.
    There is a network that has started that is progressive 
around this country affecting every state in a positive manner, 
attempting to be sure that we have jobs for the future, which 
we will need very badly.
    We're a major technology and I don't know how we plan to 
put everybody to work unless there are some efforts going on 
like this to coordinate and direct manufacturing and to 
coordinate the efforts in technology.
    I don't see how we could possibly feel that we would have a 
positive future--
    Mr. Tanner. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Mr. Schiff. I believe it's my time. If I can reclaim my 
time for a moment, I think it's about used up, I just want to 
say that, once again, I do share the view that there is a 
proper role for government to cooperate with industry.
    Now, that's not unlimited but I think it's there, it's 
precise and it's shown in a number of different ways. But I 
think that if we're going to try to keep programs that have to 
be done within the total budget process, I think Mr. Tanner 
made that attempt, but I just have to say, with the utmost 
respect to what the lady wants to do, I think this amendment is 
farther away that Mr. Tanner's amendment was.
    I yield back to the Chair any time I have left.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Tanner. Mr. Chairman, could I try to answer Mr. Schiff.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Tanner. I won't take long, John.
    You have an excellent point. What Ms. Johnson's amendment 
is doing is using, is combining the exact two bills that were 
passed by the subcommittee on a party line vote, the 
republicans winning of course, and what she has done is take 
the NIST core appropriation bill, 1870, and added the exact 
same wording that's in bill 1871 to the 1870, out of 
desperation to get these two programs before the Full 
Committee. It's the only way we can do it.
    Now, anybody who voted for these two bills in subcommittee, 
I can't imagine why they'd vote against this amendment. It is 
the same exact language in this bill that was put in and 
written by the republican majority in the subcommittee and 
known as 1871.
    Now if you are serious about being for some recognition of 
ATP and MEP in the external program at NIST, how one could vote 
against this is totally beyond me.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there other members seeking recognition?
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    If I may continue that, in response to the gentleman from 
New Mexico, it was only a matter of a few days ago, it may seem 
like a century but only a short time that we had the Department 
of Energy authorization bill here, and the good Chairman had 
gone through considerable negotiation with the appropriators 
and found that there was an additional $270 million that could 
be added to the previous allocation to the subcommittee, so 
that there was then a $270 million increase through an en bloc 
amendment that the Chairman had negotiated.
    Now we understand that the Commerce Committee has now 
reported out and has put in a considerable amount of money for 
the MEP program which is part of the program which would be 
part of 1871, which is part of 1871 clearly, and obviously the 
Chairman has had a role in negotiating that sum of money.
    What I don't understand then is why we are not bringing 
these two, 1870 and 1871, both of them coming out of the 
subcommittee, both of them covering material which the majority 
seems to be strongly in favor of, and which represents 
important material.
    The comments have been made earlier by Mr. Boehlert that 
the Manufacturing Extension Program is an extremely important 
program. The Japanese have hundreds of centers that provide 
government and academia and the business world working 
together. The Germans similarly have a good number of those.
    If this legislation goes through, and if the authorization 
were followed by the Appropriation Committee, we would not have 
a single one of those kinds of centers left funded, and clearly 
the Chairman doesn't wish to have that because he's already 
negotiated with the appropriators in the Committee Committee to 
get the MEP number that's there.
    So it seems to me it would be most appropriate for the 
addition, bringing these 1870 and '71 back together again, so 
that we can go forward with whatever can be gleaned in these 
important programs from the appropriators in Commerce, State, 
Justice, who are presently about to report out, and keep the 
programs going, since there seems not to have been any intent 
to bring 1871 to the floor, to the floor of this Committee.
    So I certainly would support the gentlewoman from Texas' 
amendment.
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair would simply reply that the 
gentleman has made a statement with regard to intent, which I 
don't believe is anywhere close to the Chairman's position.
    The Chairman has suggested that it may be possible to bring 
the bill that deals with the MEP to this Committee later on. 
And I stated that earlier. Maybe the gentleman wasn't in the 
room but, you know, this has not been a sham process in any 
way, and we intend to move forward.
    That is not on the roster for today, but it has been 
reported from the subcommittee and is eligible for 
consideration at a later date.
    The Chair would also state to the gentleman that he is 
prepared to take an amendment that's going to be offered later 
by Mr. McHale, indicating that we are not going to preclude 
further authorization of appropriations for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnerships.
    I already told Mr. McHale I'm prepared to accept that 
amendment, and so I just think the gentleman ought to 
understand where the Chair is coming from on this.
    Ms. Lofgren had her hand up.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I strongly believe that we ought to accept Eddie Bernice 
Johnson's amendment.
    And I'm new here and I have strong feelings about these 
programs really based on what I saw when I was working in local 
government in San Jose and the companies that I met with and 
the new scientific and technological advances that are being 
made with the help of the ATP program in particular.
    We don't have an MEP center in Northern California. I've 
been convinced by the testimony that I've heard that they have 
provided a useful service to the country, but I don't have 
firsthand knowledge of those programs. I do on ATP.
    I recognize that there are members of this Committee who 
don't see this the same way I do. But I do think it's important 
that we deal with it head on, straight up, and either go 
forward or don't go forward, and be held accountable for the 
decision that we make.
    And I don't assign any motives to anybody but it seems to 
me, as a newcomer, that the whole budget train is leaving the 
station. And if these programs come up at a much later date, 
I'm not sure that it's relevant to anything and I'd like the 
people who are working on these programs, the scientists and 
the engineers, the companies that went out and put their own 
money on the line to do something like owning the flat panel 
display industry in this country so we don't have to go begging 
the Japanese for that type of technology and be vulnerable to 
them in our defense industries, as well as our commercial 
industries, I'd like those companies and those scientists to 
know where we stand.
    I think we ought to make a decision. I think we ought to do 
it today in a timely manner and see where the chips fall. I 
mean, my sense is, you know, or my guess, I don't know that 
maybe a majority of the Committee agrees with the statements 
that the Chairman has made in the past about these programs.
    I don't agree with that, but I think we owe it to the 
public to say where we stand now today as part of this process. 
And the only vehicle for that that I can see is, given the 
division that happened in the subcommittee, is to adopt this 
amendment and then move forward and be up front with the 
country on where we are.
    And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Are there additional members that wish to be 
heard on the amendment?
    The gentlelady was recognized for her amendment. She had 
her five minutes.
    The gentlelady from Michigan.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I rise in support of this amendment and would yield my time 
to my colleague from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Mr. Chairman and members, I simply want to say that my, as 
has been stated, my amendment merely incorporates the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Industrial Technology 
Services Act of 1995 into the framework of the American 
Technology Advancement Act.
    The exact language of the bill, as passed by the 
subcommittee, is inserted into this bill before us today. The 
simpler, in simpler words, the amendment simply combines the 
two bills.
    This is to avoid the probability that the Committee will 
simply not consider, in time, these external programs for us to 
be relevant in the appropriations process.
    I know that many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle are supportive of these programs. And through this 
amendment, they won't simply expire because of the lack of life 
in time.
    I believe that the MEP programs established in Arizona, 
throughout California, Connecticut, Chicago, Delaware, Iowa, 
Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, the midwest, all over New York, 
programs that are creating new jobs, and I think they are 
worthy.
    I would simply ask, Mr. Chairman, that this Committee have 
an opportunity to vote up or down in a democratic fashion on 
these programs.
    And I thank you.
    Thank you, and I'll yield back.
    The Chairman. Are there any other members--
    Ms. Rivers. If I have any additional time left, I would 
yield it to Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the 
remainder of that time.
    It seems to me that this is the cleanest way, if the 
subcommittee believes that these two bills should be 
considered, all the Congresswoman from Texas' amendment does is 
put the two bills back together.
    We are then dealing with this whole issue of both the 
internal and the external programs under NIST.
    And the subcommittee certainly had put those bills out 
favorably, both of them.
    The Appropriations Committee is already acting in such a 
way as to provide some moneys for the external programs under 
1871.
    And this would be the simplest way to put those together 
and then leave the best flexibility for the Chairman of the 
Committee to negotiate with the appropriators to get the best 
ending deal for the programs that come under the external 
Manufacturing Extension Program and under the ATP, if they so 
choose to appropriate.
    The authorization for appropriation is not specified and 
leaves the flexibility for that to be done and to cover what 
the appropriators are already doing.
    So I would hope that the amendment would be adopted.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Are there additional members that wish to be heard on this 
amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. I'm going to ask to be recognized, merely to 
raise a point which the Chairman's repeated statements that, 
after he's asked this question and nobody responds, then he can 
speak, and nobody else can speak after him.
    Now we're proceeding in Committee under the five-minute 
rule and we are presumably following the processes of the House 
with regard to the five-minute rule.
    And in the processes of the House under the five-minute 
rule, you may continue to rise and speak on an amendment until 
nobody else wishes to speak. That doesn't mean that any 
particular person can choose to close debate under the five 
minute rule, such as you're doing.
    Now I am not an expert parliamentarian, but I will ask the 
Chair to kindly request his staff to provide some reference to 
the rules which gives him the right to do what he is attempting 
to do here.
    Now, as a courtesy, I feel that we should oblige you in 
these situations. I think it's a reasonable way to proceed, but 
I don't think that there's any way you can enforce this under 
any rule that I know of.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Brown, would you yield?
    Mr. Boehlert. Would you yield?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield, yes.
    Mr. Boehlert. I'm sitting here as an interested participant 
in this, and I've watched the Chair, and I think the Chair is 
being eminently fair.
    I want to get out as much as anybody else does, but the 
Chair has, quite frankly, I've urged the Chair to speed it up a 
little bit, but the Chair has said, is there anyone else that 
wishes to be recognized. Looks to the left, looks to the right, 
pauses, then says, the Chair will now close the debate, when 
everyone has had an opportunity.
    I think to suggest that the Chair's is being unfair is 
unfair.
    Mr. Brown. I wasn't suggesting the Chair was unfair. In 
fact, I was suggesting that I would like to follow that 
procedure myself, but I know of no rule under which I can 
follow it.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman, there is no 
rule. It has long been a tradition. It was the custom that was 
granted the courtesy of the Chair when the gentleman was the 
Chairman of this Committee who often, who was allowed to close 
the debate as these amendments proceeded forward.
    The Chair has simply assumed that that custom would be 
observed.
    And I have attempted to allow virtually everybody to speak 
any time they wanted to speak and have even allowed people to 
ask me questions, as long as it was within my time.
    But I've also tried to hold to the rule that the Chairman 
should not have more than the five minutes that I'm allocating 
to other members.
    Mr. Brown. I understand that. And as I've said before, I'm 
not alleging any unfairness.
    The Chairman. Well, then would the gentleman tell me why he 
thinks my Committee should cite a rule to him on this? Because 
there is no such rule and the gentleman knows that.
    Mr. Brown. I do know that, and that's why I raised the 
question.
    The reason I raised the question, in addition, is that the 
Chairman has a very fine propensity to conclude debate with a 
serious of statements with which I generally disagree and which 
may not even be factual. And I think that it's reasonable that 
if he does, and I'm not alleging that he always does this, but 
frequently, if he does, there should be an opportunity for 
someone to correct the Chairman's statements.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from California 
yield?
    Mr. Brown. Certainly.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California well knows 
that the rules give the presiding officer the power of 
recognition. And as a matter of fact, when I first came to 
Congress and met Speaker O'Neill the first time, he said that 
that is a rule that should never be compromised because the 
presiding officer has the responsibility of running the 
meetings and enforcing decorums.
    Secondly, there is a tradition in this House that the right 
to close debate belongs to those who support the majority 
viewpoint. So as a result, the recognitions on the floor have 
always been to the majority party or to those who are 
supporting the Committee position in the floor of the House of 
Representatives, for which there is no rebuttal.
    So that's the way it's been as long as I've been here, and 
I know it's been that way as long as the gentleman from 
California has been there, and that is is that the Committee 
Chairman always has got the right to close debate.
    And if you don't like what he has to say, there is really 
no chance to get back at that.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I do not like to be put in a position of 
arguing with the Chairman on a situation like this. On the 
other hand, I don't believe that what the gentleman said was 
factual, that I use this same tactic.
    I'm sure I would have remembered it if I had.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Brown. And what I tried to do was to allow every member 
of the Committee who sought to participate in the debate to do 
so, whether or not the Chair thought he had the right to close, 
which I never really did.
    But we can, I don't want to belabor this.
    If the gentleman can cite the precedents, if he can recite 
where I used this, if he can cite any rule, that would 
influence my thinking, but until he does, I think that he is 
being unnecessarily authoritarian in precluding any debate 
after he has closed with his final summation on this side.
    The Chairman. The Chair would simply say to the gentleman 
that the Chair has bent over backwards to see to it that 
virtually everybody who wants to speak on an amendment gets to 
speak, the exact same process that the gentleman used when he 
was Chairman. The gentleman often closed debate, making 
statements that the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not agree 
with, but that's the nature of the game.
    Someone's going to finish debate in the process. I realize 
that the minority would love to be able to have the last word 
on all of the items that come before the Committee.
    In this particular case, I think that the Chair does have 
some responsibility to reflect what he believes to be the 
opinion of the majority. That's what I've been attempting to 
do.
    If the gentleman can cite to me any member who has not been 
recognized today, in the course of these deliberations who 
sought recognition on an amendment, I would appreciate knowing 
that because the Chair has bent over backwards and at times 
allowed debate to go on far beyond a point where he thought it 
was propitious to do so, simply to allow every member to have 
their say, even though at times they said it two and three 
times.
    Mr. Brown. Would the Chair--
    The Chairman. I'd be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Brown. --in its graciousness, yield to me briefly.
    What the Chair said is correct. He has been quite fair in 
recognizing anyone who sought recognition.
    He has said, does anyone else seek recognition, and then he 
has taken upon himself, when no one did, to close.
    I think this is eminently right.
    On the other hand, he has vociferously objected to anyone 
else seeking recognition after he's closed, and it was this 
point that I sought to see if--
    The Chairman. And the Chair thinks that it his duty at some 
point to close off debate after everyone has had their say. At 
some point, you have to bring these questions to a conclusion, 
and the Chair has sought to give everybody an opportunity to do 
that.
    The Chair has even recognized people during his own time 
who wished to debate him, as long as it was within the time 
that had been properly allocated.
    Mr. Brown. But you know the Chair knows full well that we 
don't have any limitation of debate with regard to amendments 
in Committee unless--
    The Chairman. Well, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
pointed out, the Chair does have the right of recognition, 
which is the longstanding right of the Chair, and the Chair has 
attempted to wield that in a way appropriate to the 
deliberations.
    Mr. Brown. May I clarify to the Chair the fact that his 
right to recognition generally is the right to recognize 
competing persons seeking recognition, not to deny the right of 
a person seeking recognition when no one else is seeking 
recognition.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman that the Chair's 
intention, and I hope its practice, to assure that virtually 
everyone who wants to speak on these topics gets their chance 
to speak.
    And I would hope that that has been the pattern throughout 
the day.
    Having said that, I do rise in opposition to the 
gentlelady's amendment. The gentlelady seeks to maintain 
authorization for a program that is being zeroed in both the 
budget and by the appropriators in the ATP program.
    This is a program which a recent GAO report indicated that 
NIST has not done a very good job of running, and in fact has 
made claims for the program that simply cannot be found when 
the GAO went out to investigate the program.
    In my view, this is a program which has some very troubling 
aspects to it, and I do not believe it is as widely supported 
by industry as some people seem to believe.
    Having said that, it is my belief that this amendment is 
not the right way to proceed, and I would ask for a no vote.
    And with that, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Brown. Roll call.
    The Chairman. A roll call has been requested.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes yes.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    Mr. Minge. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge votes yes.
    Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Mrs. McCarthy?
    Mrs. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. McCarthy votes yes.
    Ms. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Cramer recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer's not recorded.
    Mr. Cramer. Please record me as voting yes.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Doyle recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle is not recorded.
    Mr. Doyle. Doyle votes yes.
    The Chairman. Are there further members seeking to be 
recorded in this vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote is: yes, 19; 
no, 24.
    The Chairman. And the amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the calendar is Ms. Lofgren, which I 
understood was going to withdraw.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Is that correct, Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Yes, I do intend to withdraw this motion. I believe it's 
moot at this point.
    But I'd like to yield, and I will do that at this point, if 
I may then yield the balance of my time to Mr. Tanner, the 
ranking minority member on the subcommittee, for a brief 
comment.
    Mr. Tanner. I appreciate the gentlelady.
    And I just, I couldn't let this vote go by without trying 
to communicate our frustration on the minority side of this 
subcommittee with trying to get the external programs before 
the Full Committee.
    As charitable as I can be, Mr. Chairman, I will say at the 
time in subcommittee markup, when these programs were divided 
into two bills, we said that we did not see the reason for 
that. We thought it was a fig leaf, a rather clumsy one at 
that, to kill these external programs.
    And I think the Committee ought to be aware, with this 
final vote, you have in effect, without some assurance that we 
will have a chance to be involved with these programs again, 
and we can get none from the Chair, I think the members of this 
Committee ought to realize what they've done here tonight, and 
we on the minority side, on our subcommittee, feel very, very 
badly about it, and I had to say that.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair would simply say to the 
gentleman we had the external programs before us. That was the 
vote that we just had a minute ago.
    The amendment was brought before us. That's what we just 
voted on, and we just voted not to accept--
    Mr. Tanner. I understand. And we just killed the ATP and 
MEP programs. I just want people to know what they've done.
    The Chairman. Well, and I would say to the gentleman that 
maybe given the nature of the vote, that it's a good thing that 
we have in reserve the opportunity to do something with the MEP 
program at some point in the future, although we may have to go 
back and revisit exactly how that will be done.
    But I think the Committee has made it clear now to 
appropriators and other persons that we are not prepared to 
move forward with the ATP program.
    Mr. Boehlert. Will the Chairman yield?
    The Chairman. I would yield.
    Mr. Boehlert. I would ask my colleague, the distinguished 
ranking minority member from Tennessee, not to write the 
obituary for the ATP program. There are some of us committed to 
its continued viability. I accepted the Chairman's word that 
this would be revisited.
    The Chairman. I would say to the gentleman, it's going to 
be revisited here in a couple of minutes, because we're going 
to accept the McHale amendment on the MEP program, the McHale/
Boehlert amendment, I should say.
    Mr. Boehlert. Thank you sir.
    The Chairman. But let me move next on the roster to Mrs. 
Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    I think there's an amendment at the desk that I'd like to 
offer, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair should state that there are no more 
amendments on the roster. We've completed the roster. These are 
additional amendments that members wish to offer.
    The Clerk shall distribute the Morella amendment at this 
point.
    Mr. Baker. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. While they're distributing this amendment, may I 
just make a comment that I find the ranking member, when he was 
Chairman, eminently fair, and I find, except when he reached 
into his box of proxies and began counting them, that was a 
little frustrating, and I find the current Chairman eminently 
fair.
    So I'd like to suggest to the current Chairman that we 
allow the ranking member to close on this amendment, and 
presume that everything he says is gospel.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Baker. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Brown. I very much appreciate the gentleman's comments 
about my fairness, and that the current Chairman is likewise 
seeking to be eminently fair.
    I now am able to share what I think was his sense of 
frustration, however, when he was in the minority, and it makes 
me somewhat as testy as he used to be once in a while.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Baker. Well, I was sincere about my remarks on both 
Chairmen, that they are eminently fair, and I think I'm semi-
sincere about asking that you be allowed to close on this 
important amendment, and that everything you say I know will be 
true.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman for his 
contribution.
    I would say there have been moments when we've been trying 
to round members up to be here, that I wished I could reach 
into a box of proxies, as well.
    So there are in fact some--although I do think that in the 
end, we are better off having members really participate, 
rather than doing it by proxy.
    I recognize the gentlelady from Maryland for the purposes 
of offering her amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Everybody has the amendment, so I move that we delete the 
reading of the amendment.
    The amendment relates to the responsibilities of the 
National Institute of Standards in the area of development and 
adoption throughout government of manufacturing standards, and 
the activities of government agencies in conducting assessment 
of product conformity to those standards.
    I have a lengthy statement which I will not read but I 
would like to be put into the record, Mr. Chairman, about the 
amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Morella follows:]
    
    
    Mrs. Morella. But basically we now have the results of an 
NRC study, a report entitled ``Standards Conformity Assessment 
In Trade.''
    And as you look at the study, the reports' authors make 
three key recommendations which tie into my amendment. These 
recommendations regard the functions of the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, that they could best serve in the 
effort to facilitate the use of private consensual standards 
wherever possible.
    The report recommends that Congress extend its statutory 
mandate to NIST to implement a Government-wide policy of 
phasing out Federally operated conformity assessment activities 
in favor of state, local, and private sector- based processes.
    It also recommends that NIST develop a strategic plan to 
eliminate duplication in state and local criteria for 
accrediting testing laboratories and product certifiers and 
take the lead in efforts to build a network of mutual 
recognition agreements regarding conformity assessment among 
Federal, state and local authorities.
    And it recommends that Congress grant NIST a clear 
statutory mandate to act as the lead U.S. agency for insuring 
Federal use of standards developed by private consensus 
organizations to meet regulatory and procurement needs.
    So my amendment actually seeks to move government and 
industry incremental steps closer toward accomplishing those 
goals by formally incorporating into the organic statute, a 
statute which creates and defines the missions of NIST, a clear 
mandate to NIST to coordinate the use by Federal agencies of 
private sector standards wherever possible emphasizing the use 
of standards developed by the Federal agency directives.
    And it also allows or directs NIST to take a forward role 
in coordinating Federal, state, local, private sector entities 
to eliminate unnecessary duplication and complexity in 
developing and implementing conformity assessment criteria 
certification requirements.
    I think that is adequate to indicate that this amendment is 
consistent with the recommendations in that report in making 
NIST the lead agency.
    The Chairman. Are there other members that seek to be heard 
on the amendment?
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I was not aware of this amendment until just recently, but 
I have a question for Mrs. Morella.
    Isn't this the subject of our hearing tomorrow morning at 
9:30?
    Mrs. Morella. It is the subject of it, the report, and 
frankly, Ms. Lofgren, that's a very good question because we 
had arranged this earlier, but because of trying to get these 
bills marked up in Full Committee, the bills came before that 
particular hearing.
    But you'll find that this amendment is in conformity with 
the report which will be part of the discussion at our 
technology subcommittee tomorrow. You're right. It was a matter 
of timing.
    Ms. Lofgren. As I said earlier, I'm new here, but 
ordinarily I would assume the hearings would precede the bills.
    And this may be an excellent amendment, I don't know, I'm 
not saying that it isn't. But it seems to me, if we're going to 
act on this tonight, why are we having the hearing tomorrow?
    Mrs. Morella. Because there wasn't time to have it 
yesterday or today, and it's simply a matter of timing. I can 
understand what you're saying, but it is a report. The report 
is available.
    The amendment is a good amendment. It is in concert with 
the report, with making NIST the lead agency, and I regret the 
fact that the timing is such that the hearing is going to 
follow the discussion of the amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Are there additional people wishing to be 
recognized on this amendment?
    If not, before we get to a vote, maybe we can clear this 
amendment.
    The Chair does support the amendment and thinks it does 
follow the National Institute of Standards.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    Mr. Boehlert. Mr. Chairman, may I ask when you intend to 
come back? Why don't we get a little break. I'm a little bit 
hungry. I think many of us are. A half hour or so?
    The Chairman. Well, why don't we break then. Why don't we 
break until 9:00 o'clock. That'll give the members a chance to 
vote, get something to eat.
    Mr. Boehlert. Wonderful. The Chair is eminently fair.
    The Chairman. No, 9:00 p.m. We'll break now and come back 
at 9:00 p.m.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    We counted up a quorum. Bring in the people. Seventeen 
members are in the room. A quorum is present.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts?
    We have an amendment under consideration, I would say to 
the gentleman. Does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment 
under consideration?
    Mr. Olver. By what, Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary 
inquiry.
    By what mechanism do we have an amendment under 
consideration?
    The Chairman. When we left for recess, the Morella 
amendment was before the Committee.
    Mr. Olver. I'm sorry, I stand corrected. I thought that 
that matter had been disposed of.
    The Chairman. No, we have that amendment before----
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Olver. My recollection, Mr. Chairman, was that it had 
been adopted. It had been adopted by a voice vote.
    The Chairman. Does the Staff concur with that?
    My mistake. My mistake.
    The next amendment that we have--
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. Well, we want to go in some order here, and I 
was going to take Mr. McHale next, because I've agreed to 
accept his amendment.
    I was going to recognize him next for his amendment, and 
then we're going to come to you.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I believe you recognized me. I 
have an amendment at the desk.
    You may have some desire here or some, you may accept his 
amendment at any time, but my amendment in fact, was at the 
desk first, and I have recognition.
    The Chairman. Well, the power of recognition is the power 
of the Chair.
    Mr. Olver. And you recognized me, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Well, if you have decided that you want to go 
ahead of Mr. McHale, go ahead, Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I do that because in fact, well, 
it will become obvious I think why I do that.
    Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which has not 
been, which is being distributed, and I would ask that it be 
considered as read.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gives us another 
opportunity to bring the major import of the 1871 bill into the 
legislation that we are dealing with.
    My amendment would provide $123 million for the 
Manufacturing Extension Program, the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, which I think, and I think from the comments that 
have been made by people on both sides of the aisle, is an 
extremely valuable program.
    It helps manufacturers become more competitive and it 
literally saves companies and jobs.
    This is why republican governors have expressed support for 
it, why businesses across the country have written in support 
of it, and I think also why the Appropriations Committee has 
provided $81 million, the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, State, Justice, for the MEP program.
    I have here a book of letters from businesses. This happens 
to be a book of letters all from the State of Pennsylvania to 
members of the Pennsylvania Delegation, which have been cc'd to 
this Committee.
    I have a second book here which has representative letters 
from another several hundred, 600 or 700, from various states 
around the country; Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, 
Maryland, and so forth. There are about 20 states represented 
in this book with these hundreds, these being only 
representative letters.
    When testimony before this Committee earlier on this issue 
came, there were hundreds of letters from my State of 
Massachusetts, and a book of equal size to the one there from 
Pennsylvania, expressing support for the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership program.
    The amendment that I have offered is I think already 
partially done. The Appropriations Subcommittee has provided 
$61 million more than the subcommittee cap for programs under 
this Committee's jurisdiction, and has provided $81 million of 
the $123 million that I would provide under this amendment.
    The rest of the money is achieved by a shift of $62 million 
from the construction account towards the MEP. Now this shift 
from the construction account, it is my understanding at least, 
that this does not hurt the construction program because NIST 
already has $168 million in unobligated balances now in that 
very construction account, and that's more than enough to do 
the programs that have been proposed for this fiscal year.
    The Manufacturing Extension Program has strong bipartisan 
support and this is an honest effort to provide some funding 
for the program and some authorization for the program.
    In fact, it is exactly corresponding to the, or virtually 
exactly corresponding to the effort that we did on the 
Department of Energy bill when we changed the bill that was 
before us to increase the amount of the allocation for that 
bill to reflect the fact that the Appropriations Subcommittee 
was appropriating money for that so in fact we were following 
them, their movement, in order to be relevant in the 
appropriation process.
    I would point out again, as I did before, that it is 
particularly ironic that our two largest competitors in this 
world, Germany and Japan, which together have an economy not 
quite as large as ours, somewhat smaller than ours, each of 
them has very extensive programs in the form of manufacturing 
extension partnerships in very similar form, that provide a 
partnership among industry, government, and academia.
    And it seems to me that it is most appropriate for us to 
authorize an amount here which the program, the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership could use very effectively and still 
would be somewhat below what is already, what is now in the 
program as it operates at the moment.
    So this is an amendment that deals only with the MEP, 
provides $123 million, and I would hope that the Committee 
would accept it.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Are there other members that wish to be heard on the 
amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will conclude the debate on 
the amendment by indicating that while the amendment does add 
additional money to the core program, on one hand, on the other 
hand, it takes money away from the core program, and the net 
result is that this money, that this particular amendment 
diminishes the core program by $62 million.
    The key program that at least some of us believe is the 
priority of NIST is in fact gutted to the tune of about $62 
million by this amendment, so that money can be put out of the 
internal program into the external programs.
    That would be I think a very unwise move at a time when we 
are attempting to make certain that NIST can do the kinds of 
standards work that allows us to be globally competitive.
    So the Chair would recommend a no vote on this amendment.
    Mr. Olver. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    The Chairman. Of course.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Is it the Chairman's understanding that in fact there is 
not an excess of $168 million in that construction account from 
which my amendment does in fact take $62 million in this fiscal 
year?
    And is it the Chair's understanding, I guess I would assume 
it's the Chair's understanding since he has indicated that this 
would gut, as I understand the language, the construction 
program that the--
    The Chairman. The core program, I said to the gentleman. 
The core program, the operational program at NIST.
    Mr. Olver. Well that simply isn't true. There is, there is 
an excess in the construction account far beyond what it is 
that is indicated to be needed in this fiscal year.
    And so I would challenge the idea that it does anything 
serious in harm to the construction program.
    The Chairman. Well, the Chair stands by his statement that 
this is a gutting of the core program. The construction program 
of course has been building up money for a period of time in 
order to do some constructions of some new lab facilities and 
particularly to put some new technology in NIST to allow it to 
stay ahead of the curve.
    If in fact what the gentleman is doing is spending money 
that has been accumulated over some years at NIST, in order to 
do those updates, badly needed technology upgrades, then he is 
doing even more damage than I really realized.
    But it appears, from the way in which the amendment is 
worded, that the money comes directly out of the core program.
    With that, the Chair would put the question.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from 
Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. I just simply want to agree with you on that. 
That construction program is critically important for 
renovation and construction of the laboratories for the core 
program.
    The Chairman. The Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Olver. Division, please, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman asked for a division.
    Those in favor of the amendment will indicate so by raising 
their hands.
    [Show of hands.]
    The Chairman. The Clerk will count.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Does the Clerk have a count?
    Those opposed will raise their hands.
    [Show of hands.]
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, yes-10, no-19.
    The Chairman. The amendment fails on a division vote.
    The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Mr. McHale.
    Mr. McHale. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I now offer, I offer on 
behalf of Mr. Boehlert and myself.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. McHale. It was crafted following the language that was 
originally contained in the Davis Amendment, in turn 
incorporated into the Walker substitute to the Department of 
Energy Civilian Research and Development Act of 1995.
    Mr. Chairman, basically what this is is a chance to express 
our belief that the MEP program is deserving of our support, 
while recognizing that the level of that support remains 
uncertain.
    Mr. Chairman, in the underlying bill, H.R. 1870, we have 
preserved our commitment to the core programs of NIST, and I 
share that commitment. With the defeat of the Johnson 
amendment, perhaps an hour or two ago, regrettably we turned 
away from ATP and MEP. The amendment that I now offer draws the 
distinction between ATP and MEP, recognizing that whatever 
difficult fate ATP might face--and I find such a result 
unfortunate--MEP may well survive.
    In order to be completely open with the Committee, let me 
point out that Mr. Boehlert and I, as well as others, have 
reason to believe that perhaps as much as $81 million has 
already been found potentially for funding of MEP. My hope is 
that by the time we emerge from the conference committee, we 
will see a figure that is perhaps close to the amount just 
offered recently by the gentleman, Mr. Olver--something in the 
range of $123 million, or as requested by MEP, $126 million.
    I have such a program in my district. I can tell you, Mr. 
Chairman, it has worked superbly in bringing off-the-shelf 
technology to the manufacturing process, as was the case with 
the Davis amendment, previously incorporated into the Walker 
substitute on the Department of Energy bill.
    With the adoption of the McHale-Boehlert amendment, we 
recognize the uncertainty of funds that may be available in the 
future. And by adopting this amendment, we keep the door open 
to the maximum extent possible consistent with fiscal 
responsibility. We hope to obtain such funds, and ultimately 
authorize them under the bill.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair is prepared to take the amendment. Does the 
gentleman from New York wish to be recognized?
    Mr. Boehlert. Nothing need be added, Mr. Chairman. I wish 
to support the amendment.
    The Chairman. Are there other members who wish to be 
recognized on the amendment?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The amendment is agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments? Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.
    The gentleman is recognized to describe his amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with the Malcolm Baldrige 
Award. This is truly an award that we can be proud of in this 
country. The spinoffs in terms of advice that the winners of 
the Baldrige Award give to help other business is truly 
something that I think provides rich dividends to other 
companies.
    Four years ago, we included some language in that expanded 
the Baldrige Awards to some pilot programs that included 
education and health care. In this bill, however, you remove 
the authority that the Secretary of Commerce currently has to 
add new categories to the Baldrige Award, even though this 
committee print does continue funding for the two pilot 
programs.
    My amendment would continue to give the Secretary the 
ability to not only support the pilot programs, but to add 
education and health programs without seeking further 
authorization.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentlewoman from Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I respect the amendment offered by Mr. Roemer, but 
unfortunately I must oppose it. During the subcommittee 
consideration, I offered an amendment which you mentioned which 
was adopted relating to his amendment. It would provide the 
$3.4 million authorization for the Baldrige Quality Awards 
program for the 1996 fiscal year. And as a result, the 
functions of the Baldrige Award program would be transferred 
over to the core SGRS account.
    The $3.4 million to be authorized will fully fund the 
components of the program, including the test pilot programs 
for health care and education. And so these pilot programs 
which the gentleman supports can proceed on course.
    However, while I'm a strong believer in the total quality 
management and the award program, I believe the Congressional 
authority should be required before we expand the categories 
and the goals of the program. Last year, Congressional 
authority was requested to officially expand the categories to 
health care and education, and we had a very healthy debate, 
and I think it was a necessary one. And in addition, I 
understand from NIST that expansion of the awards at this time 
is not feasible, and still requires further study.
    The Baldrige Awards, as Mr. Boehlert has mentioned, are 
perhaps at the height of their prestige. Being named a Baldrige 
awardee has become a significant business achievement, and I 
think we should move prudently before we begin to consider 
expanding the awards. There are questions of whether or not 
there would be a dilution of the award if we remove the 
limitations and categories on the number of awardees.
    But in addition, the costs of administering the Baldrige 
program, if it continues to expand, should be considered. 
Originally, it was designed to be financially self-sufficient, 
funded through application fees and corporate contributions. 
But if it is now going to be funded under the core SGRS 
account, then I have a concern that the laboratories might be 
overlooked at the expense of funding the ever- increasing 
Baldrige Awards.
    So if NIST can come back to Congress, provide a plan for 
self-sufficient expansion into the health care and education 
categories, then I could suggest that we support that 
expansion. But I think that we do need Congressional authority 
to do so. I think it should be essential.
    But I look forward to working on this issue with Mr. 
Roemer.
    Mr. Roemer. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Mrs. Morella. Indeed yes.
    Mr. Roemer. I would just say that I look forward to working 
with her on this issue, too. I know she's very supportive.
    I have a letter in my hand from Mr. Sanford McDonnell, who 
as you know helped create the Baldrige Awards, and is the 
chairman emeritus of the McDonnell-Douglas Corporation. He says 
in a letter that he is very supportive of these pilot programs, 
and goes on to say how instrumental the Baldrige has been to 
business, and how it can provide the same kind of inspiration 
to education and health care companies. And he supports NIST's 
willingness to take cuts from other programs to support these 
pilot programs.
    I would look forward to working with the gentlelady in 
report language if she would be willing to work on that between 
now and the floor. And if she would do that--
    Mrs. Morella. I would indeed be happy to do that.
    Mr. Roemer. I will be honored to work with you on that, and 
I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Are there any other amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, the question is on the bill 
H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement Act of 1995. All 
those in favor of the legislation will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The gentlelady from Maryland.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee 
report the bill H.R. 1870 as amended. Furthermore, I move to 
instruct the staff to prepare the legislative report, including 
supplemental minority or additional views, to make technical 
and conforming amendments, and that the Chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    The Chairman. Will the gentlelady include in her motion 
three days for all members to be able to provide supplemental 
views?
    Mrs. Morella. Indeed. All members shall have three days to 
provide supplemental views.
    The Chairman. Having heard the motion, the Chair will put 
the question.
    Those in favor of the motion will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it. The Committee reports the bill.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    With great pleasure, I offer the following motion, which I 
hope will not be debated. I move pursuant to clause 1 of Rule 
20 of the rules of the House of Representatives that the 
Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate 
on the bill H.R. 1870, or a similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The motion carries.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mrs. Morella.
    Mrs. Morella. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
adopt, as part of the legislative report on H.R. 1870, the 
summary chart which the members have before them.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion. Those in 
favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it. The motion is approved.
    This concludes our markup on the measure H.R. 1870, the 
American Technology Advancement Act of 1995. Who seeks 
recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I do, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to note that I was unavoidably 
detained during the Lofgren amendment on the NOAA bill dealing 
with the authorization on climate and air quality. If I had 
been present, Mr. Chairman, I would have voted ``aye.'' I would 
appreciate it if the record would so note at the place of the 
roll call vote.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's vote will be noted.
    Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Could you tell me as a point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. 
Chairman, under the rules, is there a procedure by which the 
members may bring H.R. 1871 before the Committee, this bill 
which covers the external programs under NIST and which had 
been reported favorably by the subcommittee but which has not 
been placed on the schedule?
    The Chairman. Under the rules of the House, or under the 
rules of this Committee, any measures brought before the 
Committee have to be noticed to the members in advance. The 
meeting chart was, in fact--provided a notice of the 
legislation that was to be considered. That particular bill was 
not provided in the notice, and so therefore is not eligible 
for consideration by the Committee at this time.
    I would again note to the gentleman that the measure the 
gentleman refers to was in fact considered by this Committee as 
an amendment in the case of the amendment offered by Mrs. 
Johnson. So we have had a chance to deliberate that measure 
almost in its exact form. And the Committee did turn down that 
amendment when it was deliberated.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, a point of further parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Is there under the rules a procedure by which the members 
can bring H.R. 1871 up for consideration by the Committee even 
if the Chairman has not put it on the schedule, and in its own 
right, as opposed to in the form that it was as you have stated 
dealt with?
    The Chairman. I will read Rule 17 to the gentleman so that 
we can clear this matter up.
    ``It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider 
any new or original measure or matter unless written notice of 
the date, place and subject matter of consideration to the 
extent practicable a written copy of the measure or matter to 
be considered has been available in the office of each member 
of the Committee for at least 48 hours in advance of 
consideration, excluding saturdayS, Sundays and legal 
holidays.''
    The Chair is attempting to operate by the rules, and 
operating under the rules. The Chair has explained to the 
gentleman that under the rules, it is not possible to bring 
that measure before the Committee, and the Chair would not seek 
to find extralegal ways to try to carry out the wishes of the 
gentleman.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, point of further parliamentary 
inquiry.
    Is it not true that there is a provision in the rules of 
the Committee that providing for a majority of the members to 
ask that that be brought forward, under which circumstances the 
Chairman must put it on the agenda within a seven-day period?
    The Chairman. Well, by order of the vote of two-thirds of 
the members present, providing a majority of the Committee is 
present, that would be possible. But it would not be possible 
to take it up today, as the gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Olver. I was not asking about taking it up today, Mr. 
Chairman. I'm just trying to find out what is the method by 
which we can get 1871 considered in its own right as a bill 
which had been passed out by the majority of members of the 
Committee favorably. I think I have identified that if a 
majority of the members of the Committee wished to have it 
taken up--
    The Chairman. A majority being present, two-thirds have to 
vote. A majority being present, two-thirds of the members have 
to vote.
    Mr. Olver. To take the matter up at this particular time, I 
think that's true, without notice. But by normal notice, I 
think there is a provision that allows for the legislation to 
be brought up after a seven-day notice, within a seven-day 
period, if there is a written request by a majority of the 
members.
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Point of information, Mr. Chairman.
    Don't we have additional business to complete? The members 
would like to finish the scheduled markup of the bills the 
Chairman advertised. Let's conclude that first. The gentleman 
can ask all the inquiries he wants of the staff.
    The Chairman. The Chair is hopeful that we can move on. But 
the gentleman is propounding legitimate parliamentary 
inquiries. The Chair is attempting to be patient and explain to 
the gentleman the options that are before him. The gentleman 
seems to know what his options are, and can in fact pursue his 
rights under the rules.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Point of information.
    Couldn't questions like this, Mr. Chairman, be brought up 
actually in private and be discussed, rather than having to 
take up the time for the whole Committee?
    The Chairman. The gentleman is within his rights. The Chair 
is going to protect the rights of all members. But the Chair 
does wish to proceed with the business that is on the calendar.
    [Whereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter was 
adjourned.]
    [Additional material follows:]