Bud Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment is to insure the provisions in the bill dealing with the business incubators. Business incubators create a level playing field for the future establishment of additional incubators. I commend my colleague from Florida [Mr. Weldon], who was here earlier on his interest and support for the future establishment of these incubators and his willingness to work with me on this issue. Mr. Chairman, my amendment enjoys bipartisan support, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall], my very dedicated colleague. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen], a strong advocate for NASA and the space station. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Sherman] who is a new Member and new to this debate. (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a very dedicated member of the committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE) of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas, [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, since my colleague from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], says that he will withdraw this amendment, I want to take this time to once again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for making sure that this Russian issue was settled within the committee and facing off with the administration, because H.R. 1275 does contain a number of tough provisions regarding the Russian participation in the Space Station Program. Cooperation with the Russian Government does offer many benefits to this country in terms of the space program. However, that cooperation has to be based on each party living up to its commitments. The space station provisions in this bill send a strong signal to Russia that we expect them to deliver on their promises. The provisions also direct NASA and the administration to prepare credible contingency plans in case the Russian contributions are further delayed. So I think we have accomplished what my colleague would set out to accomplish by this amendment. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of this amendment. I admire my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas. She is certainly a tireless advocate for NASA, for space station, for all of NASA's issues. I congratulate the chairman for supporting this amendment. I, too, believe that ISU is a useful, innovative approach. It is educating the young people who will lead the international space ventures of the future. I also, in endorsing the International Space University, want to endorse, as the gentlewoman read, the letter from my director of Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Wayne Littles.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the intent of this amendment. There is no question that we need to do all we can to ensure that all of our young people have an equal opportunity to an education. Our Nation will need the skilled scientific and engineering personnel that we can educate if we are to remain competitive in the 21st century. However, I would hope that we could conduct hearings to examine how these academic programs are working as well as what additional resources might be needed. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of this amendment. I think we talk too little about NASA employees. I am proud of their dedicated work. Unfortunately, they are held hostage every year as we face these relentless amendments that are offered on the floor, particularly by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. The NASA employees are not faceless bureaucrats, they are people who have been downsized and streamlined, and year after year they are asked to do more with less, but they have delivered. I think the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is doing them a valuable service by offering this amendment here today. They deserve our support. Let us keep them on the job.

Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I, of course, want to stand here today to pay tribute to two of my best friends, Tom Bevill and Glen Browder. I joined this Alabama team in 1991, so I have been here for 6 years. During that time the entire Alabama delegation taught me that Alabama has a notorious reputation for sticking together. We put Alabama's issues first, we put our party labels second. And they demonstrated that all of the time that I was here. Of course, Tom Bevill and I represent all of north Alabama. I have many industries in north Alabama that are dependent for their jobs on Federal budgets, like the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the Army presence at Redstone Arsenal. I have the Tennessee Valley Authority in north Alabama, as well. We have so many connections to the Federal budget that if any part of it is squeezed, we feel part of the pain from that squeeze. Tom Bevill jumped from the get-go when I got here to make sure that I had available to me his position of power, as I would put it, not as he would put it, there on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water and on the Committee on Appropriations, as well. Whenever I needed to fight a battle, I could fight that battle with the presence of Tom Bevill, literally. Tom and his wife Lou, his daughters Patty and Susan, and his son Don, are like family members to me, so it is very difficult for me to think of losing Tom Bevill to this institution, much less as part of my professional life here in the Congress. But as I stand here today in the presence of John Myers, and Sonny Montgomery who left here, and listen to them talk, as I have both today and days before today, about their experiences here together and separately in this Congress, it makes me think that they just do not make people like that much anymore. They are all three illustrations to those of us here now that the behavior that we sometimes fall into does not have to be fallen into. These are men who work well together. They put their partisan politics to the side. There is an appropriate place for that, but they bring into this institution daily a professionalism that would be hard to match this day and time. We are going to miss all three of them. My colleague, Glen Browder, was slightly behind me in his tenure here. I should say ahead of me; he came here slightly before I came here. And Glen was, as well, an Alabama team member available to me when I got here; from Jacksonville State University, where he served on the faculty at that fine Alabama educational institution. He served also in the Alabama State House. He was Alabama Secretary of State as well. He brought that Alabama background to our Alabama team. Of course, when you come to Congress you do not get to be on every committee you want to be on. Glen was on the Armed Services Committee and, as I said, with our presence in north Alabama at the Redstone Arsenal, with the jobs that we had there, often I had to go to Glen and say, ``We in the Fifth District need your help.'' And he was available to me just as the rest of the Alabama team was available to me. And because I have the kind of district that I have, I was often turning to Glen for advice about how do I get ready to fight NASA's battles on the floor or how do I help my district with the weather service issues that we constantly have there? And he was always available to help me, whether that meant meeting with constituents there or whether it was joining with me to lobby on the floor to win the victories that we needed to win. Glen, to you and your wife Becky, and daughter, I will lose you as family members, as well. I have enjoyed your presence and your moral support here in Congress. You, as well as Tom Bevill, represent the kind of personality and professionalism that I want to be a part of while I am here. We will miss you, but we will look forward to seeing you and working with you in different ways. Tom Bevill, Glen Browder, we will miss you. Alabama thanks you, as we should.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I, of course, want to stand here today to pay tribute to two of my best friends, Tom Bevill and Glen Browder. I joined this Alabama team in 1991, so I have been here for 6 years. During that time the entire Alabama delegation taught me that Alabama has a notorious reputation for sticking together. We put Alabama's issues first, we put our party labels second. And they demonstrated that all of the time that I was here. Of course, Tom Bevill and I represent all of north Alabama. I have many industries in north Alabama that are dependent for their jobs on Federal budgets, like the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the Army presence at Redstone Arsenal. I have the Tennessee Valley Authority in north Alabama, as well. We have so many connections to the Federal budget that if any part of it is squeezed, we feel part of the pain from that squeeze. Tom Bevill jumped from the get-go when I got here to make sure that I had available to me his position of power, as I would put it, not as he would put it, there on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water and on the Committee on Appropriations, as well. Whenever I needed to fight a battle, I could fight that battle with the presence of Tom Bevill, literally. Tom and his wife Lou, his daughters Patty and Susan, and his son Don, are like family members to me, so it is very difficult for me to think of losing Tom Bevill to this institution, much less as part of my professional life here in the Congress. But as I stand here today in the presence of John Myers, and Sonny Montgomery who left here, and listen to them talk, as I have both today and days before today, about their experiences here together and separately in this Congress, it makes me think that they just do not make people like that much anymore. They are all three illustrations to those of us here now that the behavior that we sometimes fall into does not have to be fallen into. These are men who work well together. They put their partisan politics to the side. There is an appropriate place for that, but they bring into this institution daily a professionalism that would be hard to match this day and time. We are going to miss all three of them. My colleague, Glen Browder, was slightly behind me in his tenure here. I should say ahead of me; he came here slightly before I came here. And Glen was, as well, an Alabama team member available to me when I got here; from Jacksonville State University, where he served on the faculty at that fine Alabama educational institution. He served also in the Alabama State House. He was Alabama Secretary of State as well. He brought that Alabama background to our Alabama team. Of course, when you come to Congress you do not get to be on every committee you want to be on. Glen was on the Armed Services Committee and, as I said, with our presence in north Alabama at the Redstone Arsenal, with the jobs that we had there, often I had to go to Glen and say, ``We in the Fifth District need your help.'' And he was available to me just as the rest of the Alabama team was available to me. And because I have the kind of district that I have, I was often turning to Glen for advice about how do I get ready to fight NASA's battles on the floor or how do I help my district with the weather service issues that we constantly have there? And he was always available to help me, whether that meant meeting with constituents there or whether it was joining with me to lobby on the floor to win the victories that we needed to win. Glen, to you and your wife Becky, and daughter, I will lose you as family members, as well. I have enjoyed your presence and your moral support here in Congress. You, as well as Tom Bevill, represent the kind of personality and professionalism that I want to be a part of while I am here. We will miss you, but we will look forward to seeing you and working with you in different ways. Tom Bevill, Glen Browder, we will miss you. Alabama thanks you, as we should.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary agreement and want to say to my colleagues here that the economic development activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority were created so that this section of the country could have the opportunity to have the kind of economic development that other sections of the country would have. TVA has in fact taken steps, I say to my colleague, to phase this out. This would not be the time to pull the rug out from under them. They have shifted from a grant activity program to business services and investments. They have in fact cut staff by 45 percent. They have terminated 25 programs. So they are on line to do what we want them to do. It is just that they cannot have this rug pulled out from under them. Currently, there are over $40 million in existing programs being managed by TVA. TVA must phase out those programs, but they have got to do that in an orderly way. We are holding their feet to the fire, but we are doing it in a responsible way. Let us oppose this irresponsible amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Klug's amendment which would eliminate funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority's [TVA] economic development activities. The mission of TVA's Economic Development program is to increase the number of businesses and quality jobs in the Tennessee Valley with emphasis on rural communities. The Tennessee Valley is almost 60 percent rural. Rural per capita income in this area is 27 percent below the national average with over 18 percent living below the poverty level. As part of its economic development program, TVA's business incubators are effective national models. Partnerships in nine Valley business incubators resulted in the creation of over 300 new businesses and over 2200 new jobs. In my own district, a TVA-Huntsville-Madison County alliance for Technology Transfer has proved invaluable. Local technical, academic, and business experts are aligned to help small and new high-tech firms solve problems in many areas including materials and manufacturing processes. A successful Shoals Entrepreneurial Center has required two expansions with over 150 jobs created--three businesses have graduated from incubators. A Managers Assistance and Training for Minority Business Entrepreneurs program aided five business startups and supported eight existing minority small business. TVA also manages an additional $12 million in projects for the Appalachian Regional Council [ARC] for a total of $52 million in existing programs. Nevertheless, in order to be sensitive to Federal budget pressures and still allow for an orderly and business-like phaseout of existing programs and services, the TVA Board of Directors recommended the following fiscally responsible phaseout plan for economic development. In the past 3 years, TVA has shifted economic development programs from grants to business services and investments. In fiscal year 1995 and 1996, new investments returned $16 for each dollar TVA invested. Staff has been reduced by 45 percent in the past 3 years and 25 major programs have been terminated Over 50 percent of economic development funds go direct into the communities for programs and services. There are currently over $40 million in existing programs being managed by TVA that must be phased out in a logical and orderly, business-like manner. Ignoring TVA's proposed phaseout plan would unnecessarily devastate these programs in hundreds of communities in 7 States. This action would be wrong and unjustified given the strength TVA has clearly demonstrated in economic development. I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited, unnecessary amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take particular note today of a small item in the Department of Justice budget--the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This agency, which began in 1974 with a focus on noncriminal juvenile offenders and four programs, now addresses a full range of juvenile issues, from violent juvenile crime to the victimization of children through child abuse and neglect. The office administers 13 programs under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and the Victims of Child Abuse Act. The budget which totals a modest $162 million, returns huge dividends for America's children and families. We are at a critical time in the history of our juvenile justice system. It is facing a surge in violent crime and spiraling increase in reports of child abuse and neglect. It is under attack as not being effective in dealing with these problems. America is frightened of crime and violence, and more specifically, of violent crime committed by youth. Indeed, to a certain degree, America is becoming frightened of many of its youth. Is there good reason for this fear? In looking at recent arrest data for violent offenders, the greatest increase is in the category of offenders under the age of 15. As to weapons offenses, there was a 23.2 percent increase for offenders under the age of 15, as opposed to a 4.8 percent increase for offenders over 18. OJJDP has taken a two-pronged approach to addressing these issues, stressing the need to provide safety in our communities through accountability and sanctions programs, while at the same time making every possible effort in the areas of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation. In addition OJJDP has recognized that this society must support its families in their attempts to provide the care their children need. This approach is supported by recent research sponsored by OJJDP and others that clearly demonstrates the linkages between abuse and neglect, delinquency and violence. Dr. Terry Thornberry, in his causes and correlates study sponsored by OJJDP, found that adolescents from families with two or more forms of abuse present, are close to three times as likely to report committing violent offenses as their peers from nonviolent families. Cathy Spatz Widom, in her cycle of violence study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, found that childhood abuse and neglect increases the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile and as an adult. The direct connection between child neglect and violence is striking--12.5 percent of neglected children will be arrested for a violent offense by the time they reach age 25. The connection between physical abuse and later violence is even high at 15.8 percent. These correlations are significant, for they tell us that while we must provide for the immediate safety needs of our communities, through adequate law enforcement efforts and accountability and sanctions, we must also intervene early in the lives of our children and help to enrich the life experience of our youth if we are to have a chance to dramatically reduce our crime rate. That is why OJJDP is fostering such programs as: parent training classes to give parents the tools they need to be effective in dealing with and nurturing their children; Head Start to make certain high-risk children are ready for school and have a fair chance to succeed; community public health teams; after school programs to give children a positive activity in which to participate; mentoring to provide positive role models; conflict resolution in schools, the community, and juvenile justice settings; home visitation programs to help new families nurture and care for their children; truancy and dropout reduction programs designed to keep kids in school and give them the tools they need to be self-sufficient; and community policing efforts to bring many of these interventions together as part of a strategy to provide safe and supportive neighborhoods. That is why OJJDP's child protection programs--missing and exploited children, court-appointed special advocates, improvement of the dependency court system, prosecutor training on child abuse and neglect, and the establishment, expansion and improvement of a network of children's advocacy centers across the country are so important. They will serve to prevent the next generation from becoming violent delinquents and from abusing their own children. In fiscal year 1996, OJJDP announced a $3 million competitive program funded by OJJDP, the Violence Against Women Office and the Weed and Seed Program. Entitled ``Safe Kids/Safe Streets: Community Approaches to Reducing Abuse and Neglect and Preventing Delinquency,'' this $2.7 million program seeks to reduce juvenile delinquency by helping to break the cycle of child and adolescent abuse and neglect. It will do this by coordinating community services, both public and private, in order to make the system more accountable by providing a continuum of services. This is just 1 of 11 new competitive programs funded by the office in fiscal year 1996. The others include: Juvenile mentoring; community assessment centers; juvenile gun violence reduction; native American, disproportionate minority confinement, and gender-specific services training and technical assistance programs; field-initiated research; and four independent evaluations of the mentoring, child abuse and neglect, assessment center, and juvenile gun violence reduction programs. These exciting new initiatives respond to identified State and local needs to prevent and reduce violence and improve the juvenile justice system's ability to respond to juvenile violence and victimization. They join an array of prevention, early intervention, graduated sanctions, and system improvement programs that will be continued in fiscal year 1997 with funds under this appropriation. I encourage my House colleagues to learn more about this important program and the outstanding work OJJDP is doing on behalf of America's children.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Economic Development Administration [EDA]. The EDA has been continually active throughout the country, especially in my district. Through public works, technical assistance, planning, community investments, and revolving loan fund programs, EDA has established local partnerships that have provided critical infrastructure development and other economic incentives that have stimulated local growth, created jobs and generated revenues. EDA's Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Firms and Industries [TAA] has been an effective tool in helping U.S. firms and industries injured by international trade. By stemming firms' losses in sales and employment and by restoring growth, the program preserved and created a total of over 62,000 jobs in 500 companies studied. Without EDA's National Technical Assistance program, many successful innovative economic development projects and activities would never be undertaken. This program stimulates technology development and transfer and helps U.S. manufacturers and industries develop new products and processes and utilize appropriate product and production technologies. The Economic Development Administration's role in disaster recovery is to provide assistance to communities to achieve long-term economic recovery through the strategic investment of local resources. In the last 3 years, at least 13 States have been victims of natural disasters that EDA has assisted in rebuilding their communities and revitalizing their local economies. EDA operates the largest Federal program for defense adjustment. The Department of Defense's Office of Economic Adjustment does an excellent job of supporting base reuse and community planning, only EDA can support the implementation of these plans. Over the next few years, communities affected by BRAC will be approaching EDA for critical base reuse funds. Under EDA's Economic Adjustment Program, communities are provided with unique flexibility to design local strategies that achieve economic change and stability, and multicomponent projects to implement those strategies. This program serves a unique role in the nation's response to post-disaster economic recovery, base closure and defense industry downsizing as well as prolonged, persistent economic deterioration. The administration's Infrastructure and Development Facilities Program aids economically distressed communities. It assists with construction of projects that improve opportunities for the establishment and expansion of commercial and industrial plants and facilities among other things. Since 1965 when EDA was created, this program has created more than 1.5 million jobs across the country. I urge my colleagues opposition to amendments threatening EDA's funding.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Tanner- Castle substitute here today, and I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner] as well as the entire Conservative Democratic Coalition, the Blue Dogs, as we are fondly known. We have worked long and hard to make sure that we had an opportunity to get to this day when we could engage in some effective give and take, some effective dialog of this issue to make sure that we had the opportunity to see that the American people have this chance to see this worn-out, burned-out welfare system redesigned. Now, this is not an easy thing to do, and I think that is why my colleagues need to pay attention. The Tanner-Castle substitute is the better way to go. When we look at the bottom line of what we are about to do, we need to do what is effective, not just window dress this issue. I am concerned about the States, where the States are coming from and what they will be able to do effectively when we pass part of this burden, a significant part of this burden, on to the States, and I think the Tanner-Castle is the reasonable approach to take.

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chairman, do we want welfare reform? That is the bottom line here today. The Castle-Tanner bill is a bipartisan bill. It shares and improves upon the leadership's ideas on how to restructure our welfare system that has become a burned-out, broken-down bureaucracy. Like the leadership's bill, Castle-Tanner creates a single cash welfare block grant to replace the current AFDC, JOBS and Emergency Assistance programs. It requires recipients to work within 2 years and limits benefits to 5 years. Castle-Tanner requires able-bodied individuals with no dependents between the ages of 18 to 50 to participate in a work program in order to receive food stamps. It requires minor mothers to stay in school and live with an adult to receive assistance. In addition, Castle-Tanner creates a $2 billion contingency fund for States to meet their need in time of recession. In this era of giving the States more responsibility, Castle-Tanner honors the Governor's request for greater flexibility. The leadership's bill, however, rejects the Governor's request. The National Governor's Assoication says ``the bill greatly restricts State flexibility and will result in increased, unfunded costs for States, while undermining States ability to implement effective welfare reform programs. CBO estimates the leaderhip's bill would fall $12.9 billion short of the funding needed to meet the work requirements under their measure. Castle-Tanner remedies this by providing States necessary help in implementing their work programs. I have focused much of my work in Congress on helping our children. One of the most important additions to the leadership's bill is Castle- Tanner's protection of our Nation's children. States must be able to provide for the needs of children. Castle-Tanner requires vouchers for those children whose families lose cash assistance as a result of a State time limit less than 5 years. Castle-Tanner contains sufficient child care assistance for mothers participating in work programs and provides additional child care assistance for working poor families in jeopardy of losing employment if child care assistance is not provided. Fathers are held responsible for their children through strong child support enforcement provisions. Unfortunately, CBO estimates the leadership's bill would fall $800 million short of the child care funds necessary to meet the legislation's work requirements and maintain current levels of spending on transitional and at-risk child care. We must permanently erase the current, broken welfare state. To do this, we must ensure people are able to move into the workforce and enable them to stay there. Castle-Tanner does this while at the same time preserving the most sacred of American values--the family. The working poor should not be required to choose between caring for their children and the opportunity to be productive, working members of our society.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter this debate or this conversation here and say first, as I enter it, I respect the opinions of both sides and I know that we have all worked together very hard to make sure that we find a way to make NASA the kind of organization that NASA needs to be. Most of us here today have given long years doing that; many people much longer than I have. However, I am concerned about the direction that we are talking. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, represent the Marshall Space Flight Center, and those Marshall employees there are certainly concerned about where they fit into NASA's budget picture. I want to say in behalf of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson- Lee], I know that she represents the Houston Johnson Space Flight Center, or at least parts of that area down there. I want my Marshall NASA employees to know that we respect them, that we are working for them. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that with the offsets that will be occurring under the Sensenbrenner-Weldon approach to this same issue, that we are having to raid other parts of NASA's budget. I wish, in fact, we could have a more complete NASA budget so that we did not have the raid those things. But I do want to say that I support the Jackson- Lee amendment and would encourage the Members to support it as well.

Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I again rise in opposition, strong opposition, to the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. This is, in fact, getting to be an annual ritual, I say to my colleague. I feel like one of those toys kids buy for Christmas, where you pull the back of the toy and the conversation comes out ``Save Space Station'', ``Save Space Station'', ``Kill Space Station'', ``Kill Space Station.'' There have been 10 votes on the floor of the House since 1991 over this issue. As I count it, there have been 32 total votes both in the committee and on the floor on this very issue. I think we have had a fair fight and I think, I say to my colleague, it is time for us to get off of NASA's back. There is not an agency that has been under more scrutiny than NASA has been over the space station project. They have redesigned it since 1991, they have cut the budget, they have cut their personnel, they have come to Congress, they have dealt with us in an open, direct way, and yet we keep saying every year now is the time to turn our back on it. We have invested billions of dollars. Our international partners have their partnership with us at stake in this project. They have invested billions of dollars. Now is not the time to turn our back on it. I want to echo some of the comments that my colleague from Florida, Mr. Weldon, made about children and mathematics and science. We happen to have the international space camp there at the Marshall Space Flight Center, there in Huntsville in my district, and I get to go out there two or three times a year and see all these young people come in from all over the world with their parents, young people that are inspired by NASA and by the space program, young people that want to commit their careers to mathematics and science, young people that are using NASA as their image of what they want to do with their education and their careers. Let us not tell those young people that we are the kind of country that can in fact turn our back on this kind of investment, that can turn our back on the space station program. Space station is the centerpiece of what NASA is all about. We have, in fact, many scientific projects that our doctors are planning to conduct on the space station. In my first year here I sat down with my colleague from Texas and a number of Texas doctors that were here that had joined with doctors from all over the world, and again they said the advances we had made in NASA technology that has given them benefits of robotics and surgery benefits and valves for artificial hearts, that we would lose our ability to complete those technologies if we, in fact, turn our back on the space station. So I say we have had a fair fight. It is the irresponsible thing to do to turn your back on this project at this particular point. Let us kill this killing amendment and let us also kill the amendment that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will offer next, which intends to maim the NASA space station program. Let us stop this and let us get on with it.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to do something carefully here. I want to speak on behalf of the Brown substitute and on behalf of the Wamp amendment as well. I support the Brown substitute now because I supported the Brown substitute for the entire bill. If that fails, then of course I will support the Wamp proposal as well. I am concerned about the budget impact on the National Weather Service. I want to reaffirm what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] has said. We are neighbors there, from north Alabama, northeast Alabama, up there into Tennessee. We have struggled hard to make sure our very vulnerable area of the country is in fact included in the National Weather Service's modernization plan. Budget has impact on the service that the Weather Service can offer to our area so we are concerned not only about the placement of a new NEXRAD, one placement that will accommodate two congressional districts and we have worked hard together to make sure that we not have to cause a budget item that would reflect for two NEXRAD's but that we join together and accomplish that with one placement of NEXRAD and I think we have in fact worked in a model bipartisan way toward that and will accomplish that. What I am concerned about that causes me to support the Brown substitute as well, and, if that fails, as well as what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is proposing here today is that beyond just the NEXRAD's, we have got a personnel issue that if we deny the National Weather Service this kind of budget item, then we are saying to them that they will have to direct the consequences down to the level of midnight forecasts, they will have to absorb this impact somewhere outside of headquarters, somewhere in the field as well. So I think both of these approaches will accomplish what I want to see accomplished. I think the Brown substitute does it in a much more complete way than what the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is proposing, but I am concerned enough about the impact of what we do to stand up here and to say support the Brown substitute first and, if that fails, support the Wamp amendment.