Bud Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Brown, the ranking member, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise, unfortunately, in opposition to the committee's bill. I have several concerns about this bill. One of those concerns I will raise in an amendment that I and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will offer when we get to the NOAA section of the bill. The National Weather Service is undergoing a major modernization and will be closing offices all over the country. While I and other Members support that modernization, I do not want some Government bureaucrat determining that my weather service office will be closed. I want more protection than that, and I and other Members of Congress have fought very hard to make sure that we have that kind of protection, and we have been denied that so far. Mr. Chairman, currently a process exists in law to require the Secretary of Commerce to certify that such weather services will not be degraded. The committee's bill eliminates this requirement and, consequently, the committee's bill would allow weather service bureaucrats to close offices all over the country. Just this past weekend, my district there in Alabama suffered again from tornadoes, tornado warnings. Other sections of the country did, as well. Our section of the country was left out of the Weather Service's modernization plan, and we dotted i's, crossed t's, and now we are expected to be included in that modernization plan. However, I do not want, in the process of getting our NEXRAD radar up and in place, I do not want a bureaucrat determining that for some even temporary length of time that we will be without that kind of coverage. Mr. Chairman, another concern is that the committee's bill drastically cuts the operations budget for the Weather Service. That budget line cuts pay for the salaries of Weather Service employees in field offices across the Nation. The concern with that salary cut would be that it would eliminate midnight forecast shifts at all Weather Service offices. We simply cannot pay that kind of price, and we cannot go that far with this kind of funding. This bill would be devastating for other districts across the country. Mr. Chairman, another issue that I am concerned about within the bill itself would be NASA's issues. The bill cuts NASA's salaries by $81.5 million. NASA has been downsized enough. This is not the time to cut additional salaries. Support the Brown substitute.

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the Weather Service Modernization Act, which was passed in 1992, established procedures for the modernization of the National Weather Service. A lot of us here today, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] included, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] as well, have fought long and hard to make sure that our areas of the country were included in that modernization plan. There were two points that we raised consistently about this modernization act. One was the requirement that no Weather Service office can be closed or automated without a certification that the closure would not result in degradation of service to the affected area. Let me repeat that in lay language. We do not want Weather Service offices closed without a certification that there is no degradation of service there. So as we proceed with the modernization plan, we are proceeding with a network of NEXRAD radars that will cover the entire country. A lot of us have talked about our concerns about the NEXRAD radars, but we have not talked as much about the closure of the Weather Service offices. Mr. Chairman, I support the modernization plan, but I think there is a balance between no certification at all, which the committee bill stands for, and a streamlined certification process. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Walker and the staff of the committee for working with us, those of us that are concerned, to make sure that we develop the proper balance between cost savings and the protection of our citizens, because we are talking about the protection of lives when we are talking about the closure of the Weather Service offices. 1630 We need a certification process. There must be some specific accountability before we are going to say that we will not serve an area through the existing weather service office. It has taken many of us Members of Congress a few years to make sure that our areas were in fact given consideration for the modernization process. I know the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I, through the committee, on the floor, as well, have fought consistently and maintained that we were in gap areas, that the modernization plan did not in fact cover our areas and that our children, our families, people in church, people in schools, people in their homes would in fact be very vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, just this past weekend in my district we had another weather service pattern that moved in. We were glued to our TV's as we watched the NEXRAD coverage in my district from 100 miles south. We looked at the local weather service Doppler radar that we have in our area as well, all of that trying to see if we could be protected. So when we are talking about saving money, we have also got to be talking about saving lives and some built-in checks and balances in this process. Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would accomplish a streamlining of the certification process. As I said a few minutes ago, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania Chairman Walker, and thank him for working with us on making sure that we have at least a streamlined certification process. We will eliminate the costly and time-consuming requirement that each closing certification be published in the Federal Register for 60 days. We will eliminate by September one of the two current oversight committees involved in the process. This streamlining will save $35 million over 5 years and will eliminate redundancies that are currently in the law. Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of streamlining the modernization process, but I am not willing to sacrifice the safety of people. This is a safety issue, and I thank the chairman for accepting my committee amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague's amendment, and I want to make a few points. I do believe that H.R. 3322 just goes too far with regard to the National Science Foundation. Let us remember this is one of the most efficient Federal agencies. Less than 4 percent of its budget supports its own internal operations. In the past decade its budget has tripled, the workload has doubled, but yet the work force has remained constant. So I think the gentlewoman's amendment has focused on a problem in NSF that H.R. 3322 does not in fact address, and so consequently I support this amendment and urge my colleague to do the same.

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to briefly point out that H.R. 3322 will eliminate one NSF directorate, and yet we do not know the effect of that on the agency. So I think we are imposing an organizational change on that agency before we hear from that agency, and this agency is too efficient to treat that way, and so I applaud the gentlewoman for accomplishing that through her amendment as well.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Truth in Budgeting Act of 1996 and in opposition to Mr. Minge's amendment ending off- budget status of the trust fund if there is funding for transportation projects from general revenue. Initially, the creation of the transportation trust funds assured our state and local governments a steady, dependable stream of Federal assistance necessary in undertaking long-term projects. Those who benefited from the transportation programs paid for the program. Today, inclusion of these trust funds in the unified Federal budget has resulted in enormous surpluses--moneys which are desperately needed for improvements to our Nation's transportation systems. Specifically, I must oppose Mr. Minge's amendment. It provides off- budget status would cease if any general funds are spent on the construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance of highways or grants-in- aid for airports or for aviation-related facilities, equipment, and research engineering. This amendment is too broad as it would cover any highway or aviation general-fund spending. For example, if a law coming from a committee, or a report accompanying a law coming from a committee provides general funds for any highway or aviation program, the off-budget status of the transportation trust funds would end. On the issue of general funds, let me give a few examples: if there were general funds appropriated through EDA or DOD that could be used for highway purposes, then under the amendment the trust funds would no longer be off-budget. Even if there were general funds appropriated for highway or aviation research and development that too would put the trust fund back on-budget. Mr. Chairman, anyone who supports H.R. 842 should oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Alabama. I accept the gentleman's points. I rise in opposition to this amendment as well, and I accept the points the gentleman has made. I additionally want to say on behalf of Alabama that we have worked very constructively with this committee, with the chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee. We have dotted every i, crossed every t. That first question we answered was, our State in support of a specific project? We from the Alabama delegation worked with a delegation with the committee. So I think many misunderstand this process and misunderstand what we have to do in order to look after certain projects in the State. I just think this is a bad way to accomplish what the sponsors of this amendment want to accomplish, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to come before the House tonight to pay tribute to a very special woman from the Fifth District of Alabama. She is Mrs. Eunice Merrill from Huntsville, AL. Many years ago, at a time when there were very few women in Alabama running their own businesses, Miss Eunice opened Eunice's Country Kitchen. It is a place where people of all ages and all stations in life gather together. It is truly a crossroads in our community, where everyone can share breakfast and a common table. The food and the conversation are big attractions, but one of the main reasons people come from all around is Miss Eunice herself. She treats everyone who walks through her door like they are family, whether they are long-time friends or first-time customers. No matter how early it is or how busy it is, Eunice always has a smile and a kind word for every person. While she is beloved for her kindness and her hospitality, Miss Eunice is revered for her extraordinary work for charity, especially on behalf of the Arthritis Foundation. But, last November, Mr. Speaker, tragedy struck Miss Eunice. She was leaving her house for work at 4 o'clock in the morning, as she did most every morning to begin fixing breakfast for her customers. As she walked from her house to her car, Miss Eunice was brutally attacked and robbed. She was rushed to a hospital to undergo emergency surgery. Not only did she survive the attack, but after a week's stay in the hospital, at the age of 78, Miss Eunice was back at work. She didn't even postpone the fund-raiser she had organized for the Arthritis Foundation, which she held, just as she planned, on the very first day she returned. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Eunice Merrill is a glowing testament to the heart and strength of the human spirit. While her story of survival is inspiring, it is simply one chapter in a life story of faith and perseverance. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, to stand here tonight to honor the Woman of the Year for the Fifth District of Alabama, Mrs. Eunice Merrill.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Agricultural Market Transition Act. I thank Mr. Roberts for his efforts to ensure the preservation of America's farmers. Mr. Chairman, briefly, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. de la Garza for his many years of exemplary, bipartisan leadership as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Kika, you will be missed. I wish you the best. It is often said on this floor, in reference to a particular bill, ``that bill is not a perfect bill''. This can certainly be said for this bill as well. I seriously question the process used, or lack thereof, to formulate vital farm policy for our Nation. Nevertheless, farmers in my north Alabama district and farmers all over this great country can not be made to suffer any longer as hostages of the budget debate. It is past due for farmers to make financial arrangements for spring and summer crops. The uncertainty surrounding the program is making it difficult for them to obtain production loans. We owe them this much-needed security by voting to pass this bill. I rise in strong opposition to the Shays-Lowey peanut amendment. The amendment would result in the loss of thousands of American jobs and put most peanut farmers completely out of business. The 16,194 peanut farms in this country are small, family-owned farms averaging only 98 acres of peanut production, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture. Seventy-seven percent of the counties in the heart of America's peanut-producing region already have a 20 percent poverty rate or higher. In addition, eliminating the bill's peanut program could increase Government spending by eliminating the $83 million in budgetary reduction assessments. A $190 million forfeiture and crushing of all peanut inventories in area marketing pools could also result. Mr. Chairman, the United States has enjoyed a safe, stable supply of the best quality peanuts in the world for many decades. It is imperative we preserve our farmers' ability to compete while providing top quality peanuts. As it now stands, the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act does this while making significant reforms in the program: cutting the support price dramatically, shifting more production to family farmers, and ensuring the peanut program operates as a no-cost program to the Federal Government. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Shays-Lowey amendment which is both unnecessary and highly damaging to all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment to eliminate cotton's marketing loan program. Elimination of the marketing loan program as proposed by Representatives Chabot and Kennedy would seriously threaten the stability of our cotton farmers and our textile industry. This amendment would give subsidized foreign countries a competitive advantage impossible to overcome, result in minimal budget savings and deny U.S. trade negotiators leverage to convince other countries to discontinue subsidies. U.S. cotton competes in a world market replete with subsidies. Prior to implementation of the marketing loan, our cotton industry experienced dramatic declines in exports as well as loan forfeitures to the Government. In addition, the strength of the U.S. textile industry is extremely important to my district in north Alabama. This industry must have access to market priced raw-materials if it is to remain a force in an incredibly competitive international textile trading environment. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. cotton marketing loan program is a market- oriented, competitive agricultural program. It has achieved tremendous policy success. The program assures an adequate supply of cotton at a globally competitive price, advances domestic mill use and increases both raw cotton and cotton textile exports. Other commodities are provided marketing loans. To discriminate against cotton is both unsound and unjustifiable policy. I urge my colleagues to support America's competitiveness by opposing the Chabot-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, what we are engaging in here tonight is in fact a charade. This is certainly a family unfriendly Congress. There is a legitimate budget on the table, that is the coalition's budget. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder], for having the courage to set forth earlier in this year a very detailed, a very difficult budget that makes very difficult choices. That is what we ought to be negotiating here today, not this mindless game that we are playing here, where we are not really getting anywhere. We are in fact holding Federal employees hostage. They are sitting out there wondering if this is in fact the way Government should work. No, it is not. Let us get serious. Let us look at the coalition budget and let us do the job that the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of coalition plan to balance the budget in 7 years without egregious cuts, without putting tax cuts ahead of spending cuts, and without huge Medicaid and Medicare cuts. It is often said on this floor, in reference to a particular bill, that that bill is not a perfect bill. This may be said of the coalition plan as well. However, the coalition proposal is the best proposal being considered today and every Republican and Democrat should vote for it. The coalition plan is based on fairness and fiscal responsibility. The coalition plan is both tough and compassionate. It is tough because it reaches balance in 7 years with a steady glidepath of deficit reduction and includes tough deficit reduction enforcement provisions. It is tough because it puts spending cuts ahead of popular tax cuts. It is tough because it reforms welfare in a way that provides tough work requirements and provides protection for children. It is compassionate because it restores solvency to the Medicare trust fund and avoids premium hikes for low- and middle-income seniors, and avoids devastating cuts to rural and inner-city hospitals. It is compassionate because it maintains nursing home standards and Medicare premium assistance for low-income seniors. It is compassionate because it rejects a tax increase on the working poor. If Members of Congress are looking for a proactive moderate proposal that reflects true mainstream American values--have I got a deal for you--the coalition reconciliation proposal. The coalition plan proves that it is possible to balance the budget over 7 years, using honest numbers, shared sacrifice, sound priorities, and common sense. Both The Washington Post and The New York Times, considered two of the most conservative newspapers in the country, have endorsed the coalition plan by opining that ``it [Coalition plan] is a far better solution to the deficit problem than any other in sight now,'' and ``the plan suggests the budget can be balanced by 2002 without pummeling the poor or Medicare,'' respectively. I urge my colleagues to support the coalition plan--a plan that reflects where the majority of Americans would like to see our ideological budget debates resolved.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me, and I want to make a point, perhaps with the gentleman's help, about our Weather Service programs carried under the umbrella of NOAA, the National Weather Service. Two weeks ago in the debate on the omnibus science bill, Mr. Chairman, we came to the floor with an issue that relates to the certification of the Weather Service offices, and a lot of us from both sides of the aisle were very concerned that unless this amendment, the amendment that I offered in the Cramer amendment, passed, that we could see the offices shut by a bureaucrat rather than going through the certification process that the existing law preserved. I would ask the ranking member of the Committee on Science, if we passed the Republican reconciliation plan today, the Cramer amendment that passed that preserved the certification process, that would be done away with; is that correct?

Mr. CRAMER. If the ranking member would continue to yield, that is a very important public safety issue that we would be giving up if we passed the Republican plan today.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly point out that, as the gentleman and I both know, our areas have been designated by the National Research Council as likely among the most vulnerable gap areas in the country with the modernization plan and the recommended placement of NEXRADS. The gentleman and I have been so budget-conscious that we have talked about sharing a NEXRAD, if in fact we get that opportunity, as we hope we will, placing it somewhere between our respective districts, so we can in fact protect our citizens, but at the same time save as much money as possible. I wanted the Members to know that is how well we worked together.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members, both present in the Chamber and listening in their offices, will pay close attention to my amendment today because it is indeed a public-safety amendment. The Weather Service Modernization Act, which was passed in 1992, established procedures for the modernization of the National Weather Service. A critical part of that law was the requirement that no weather office can be closed or automated without a certification that the closure would not result in degradation of service to the affected area. Now pursuant to that modernization act an implementation plan was passed by the Weather Service that would propose to close many Weather Service offices around this country including my Weather Service office there in north Alabama which also serves southeastern Tennessee as well. There are 300 existing Weather Service offices right now, and, according to the implementation plan, those numbers would be reduced to 118. Now, under current law, Mr. Chairman, the certification requires a review of local weather characteristics, comparison of weather services within the affected area and, importantly, a review of the weather radar coverage. The process requires a publication in the Federal Register and a period of public comment before a closure takes place. I think the public participation in this process is critical. Now the bill before the Chamber here today eliminates any certification requirement before the Weather Service can close an office, and let me repeat that. This bill eliminates any certification requirement before the Weather Service can close an office. That means that a bureaucrat can determine by the stroke of a pen which of those Weather Service offices will be closed and when those Weather Service offices will be closed, and this is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, that is why I say this is indeed a very critical public-safety argument here in my amendment today. Requiring a certification that there is no degradation of services is a matter of public trust. No Weather Service office should be closed without the guarantee that an area shall receive at least the same kind of Weather Service protection that it has received in the past. There must be some kind of accountability to the process of closing those offices, and a certification requirement provides an accountability. So what do we do because none of us want a government bureaucrat exercising that kind of authority? We have got to meet some middle ground here, and I think that is what my amendment in fact does. My amendment does not preserve the existing certification process. It is a compromise amendment. What we are doing with the amendment is currently there is a requirement that each closing certification be published in the Federal Register for 60 days. We reduce that requirement to 30 days. Currently there is a requirement that the modernization transition committee be consulted twice during the certification process. My amendment reduces that to one consultation. And in the third place, Mr. Chairman, currently there is a requirement that the Weather Service maintain a liaison officer in every closed office for 2 years. This is wasteful and not necessary. We eliminate that requirement by this amendment and simply require that the Weather Service maintain a program for 2 years, a program for 2 years that will provide timely information to Weather Service users in the community that is losing the Weather Service office. Now this amendment, by reaching that kind of compromise, will save $15 million over 5 years and will eliminate redundancies that are currently in the law, but at the same time we will maintain the essential requirement that there be a certification of no degradation of service when a weather office will be closed.

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

Mr. CRAMER. Again I think with this compromise process, as the gentleman and I know brutally well in our separate areas, we have raised concerns within the committee about the modernization process and the fact that we are likely left in gap areas that many studies have determined, and recently we have engaged in jumping through every hoop, crossing every ``t'' we can cross, in order to fairly preserve this modernization plan to make sure the citizens of our areas are in fact protected. I think this is an additional guarantee that those of us that are concerned about this modernization process are given some protection that before they can close our offices in my case, move the office 100 miles south of my area, and recently my Weather Service office went out because it was struck by lightning, and we were served from this 100-mile-away Weather Service office, and the coverage was disastrous. We were given 2 and 3 minutes notice of tornadoes. So, Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman and I have worked very hard, and I congratulate him, as well, for bringing this issue to the floor.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this time and thank the chairman of the committee, and of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science, both now and in years past. They have in fact bent over backwards to make sure those of us who were extremely nervous about this modernization plan were given opportunities to question, poke holes, because what we said then and what I say now is, ``Do not use our citizens as guinea pigs. Do not, just for the sake of balancing the budget,'' and this is a small amount of money, I might add, ``do not risk out citizens' lives.'' I have had people sitting in church who were blown away by tornadoes, and I cannot stand here and let the gentleman say this is simply a budget issue. I wish we had had the hearings the gentleman is talking about before we brought this bill to the floor today. I am glad we are having the hearings next week, but I must again say this is a public safety issue and not a budget issue.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?