Bud Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

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. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the International Space Station Authorization Act, and I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee. I also want to congratulate the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. As these two fine gentlemen know, every year we dot every ``i'' and cross every ``t'' with regard to NASA. Unfortunately, my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], [[Page H 9565]] who has already left the Chamber, cannot see that. He participates in that, but he just cannot let go of that. There have been nine votes in the House to terminate the space station since I came to Congress in 1991, and the space station has survived every vote. Now along the way we have, in fact, held NASA's feet to the fire. The space station was redesigned in 1993. The goals of NASA have been refocused and reformed, and I think this process has allowed us to refocus that and to accomplish many things, but enough already. I think this bill is the right thing to do, and this is the right time to do it. The Congress has spoken definitively in its support for space station. I think the margin of votes recently is a reflection of that. Now is the time to put this debate to rest, and I think this multiyear bill will accomplish that goal. My colleague from Indiana as well has made it sound as if, once this piece of legislation is passed, that that will be the end of the monitoring period. Of course it will not. As the chairman has pointed out, we will still have our annual appropriations process that we must go through so we have an opportunity to adjust when and if we need to do that. I think, as well as I must add, that for the benefit of the fine NASA employees that are out there that have given their good careers to work in this program that this is a bill that makes sense. Let us do it. Let us get on with it. I thank the chairman for giving us that opportunity.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and urge Members to oppose it. I rise in strong opposition to the termination of the International space station. There have been seven votes in the House to terminate the space station since I came to Congress in 1991. The space station has survived every vote. We've had a fair fight on this issue every year. The space station is a critical investment in America's future. The Station is about life on earth. If we give up on space station--we give up on Human Space Year. The station will be a permanent, orbiting laboratory in low earth orbit that will provide important contributions to medical research, microgravity materials and life sciences research, and advanced technologies research. The space program has already proven how important it is to life here on earth during its 35-year history. The space station is the next logical step in our exploration and utilization of outer space. The space station is the largest international science project ever undertaken. The Station draws on the resources and expertise of 13 nations, including our old cold war adversary--Russia. As the world redefines itself in this era following the end of the cold war, international cooperative projects like the space station become powerful symbols for what can be accomplished through peaceful cooperation among nations. The United States is falling far behind the rest of the industrialized world in long-term investment in research and development. We as a nation cannot afford to fall further behind in science and technology if we expect to be the world's technology leader into the next century. NASA's R&D efforts provide one of the few Federal investments in our economy of 10, 20 or even 30 years from now. These R&D investments are being made in the space station, aeronautics, high-speed computing, environmentally clean technologies, remote sensing, and miniaturization. The investments being made in the science and technology now, will make long-term economic growth possible and provide long-term opportunities for future generations. The space station is a critical element in this long-term investment that will ensure our Nation's future. The station will be a testbed for a wide variety of future technologies and a unique science platform for research on advanced industrial materials, communications technologies, and medical research. The Space Station, Too Late to Turn Back The space station was redesigned in 1993 to incorporate Russian participation, to be cheaper, and to be more capable. These goals were accomplished. The new design saves $5 billion in development costs, reduced annual operating costs by half, and expands the station's research capabilities. [[Page H 7928]] The redesigned station has nearly twice the power, double the volume, twice the number of laboratory modules, and 50 percent more crew than the earlier design. The new cooperative effort with Russia enables the station to be completed 15 months sooner and will save the United States almost $2 billion in development costs. Since the redesign in 1993, the station program has proceeded smoothly and with stability. All program cost, technical and program milestones have been met. The station is on time and on budget. We are now less than 30 months from the launch of the first element of the space station in November 1997. NASA has manufactured more than 42,000 pounds of actual flight hardware in 1994 and early 1995. A total of 75,000 pounds will be built by the end of 1995. The first phase of the station program is well underway. We are gaining valuable experience with the Russian space station that reduces our technical risk. This past February, the space shuttle flew within 37 feet of the Russian Mir Space Station and in March a U.S. astronaut began a 90-day stay aboard Mir. On July 7, the shuttle Atlantis completed the historic docking with the Mir Station. Several more missions to the Mir Station are planned in the next 2 years. The era of close cooperations with the Russians is well underway. We have committed too much time and money in the space station and are too close to assembly of the station to turn our backs on this project. I believe strongly that the space station is too important a program to abandon. I believe it is crucial to our Nation's future and to the future of our children. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to terminate the space station.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the termination of the international space station. Mr. Chairman, there have been seven votes in the House to terminate space station since 1991. The space station has survived every vote. We have had a firefight every year. I urge the Members to oppose this amendment. You cannot be responsible and build a house and get to the point of putting the roof on it and say now is the time to turn our back on this program. We have gone too far to do that. If we give up on space station, we give up on human space exploration. Do not let the 104th Congress be the Congress depicted in another movie much like ``Apollo 13,'' as the Congress that turned its back on this very critical program. Support the space station. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Economic Development Administration's level of funding contained in this bill. Consequently, I oppose the amendment. I want to congratulate the people that have spoken out. I am going to sound something like a chorus here: The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman; the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]; and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] as well. We are fighting within a tight budget to reform an administration that might in some ways need some reform but has been incredibly effective in my community there in Alabama. In the Fifth District of Alabama, EDA has helped leverage non-Federal funds on projects ranging from water treatment facilities to business incubators. I think most of my local officials are clearly endorsing EDA, especially its concept of helping communities that help themselves. EDA is important because it provides seed money that promotes long-term investments that respond to locally defined economic priorities. I hope the Members will pay attention to this debate. I think we owe as much responsibility to revise and evaluate before we eliminate. We should not make an extreme move and eliminate EDA. I oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Parker-Walker amendment. I hope our colleagues will pay attention to this. This amendment eliminates funding for unnecessary DOE energy efficiency rulemaking. The proposed rulemaking, if left as proposed, would eliminate thousands of American jobs. In my district alone, it would eliminate 1,000 jobs. This amendment solves this problem. The market competition is achieving the objectives sought by the proposed DOE rule. We do not need this kind of rulemaking. Support the Parker amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. CRAMER. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his interest and support for a program that has as its mission to help communities create self-sustaining economies.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time that Congress should consider further reductions. The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, finally referred to as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is completing oversight hearings over ARC. We are in the middle of that oversight review. This will be a 5-year reauthorization bill that would reform and in fact streamline ARC. This bill eliminates some of the Commission's activities and better targets its resources to the areas of greatest need. One important aspect of ARC is that it is a bipartisan program. At least it has bipartisan support. Our Governor there in Alabama, Fob James, has stated that ARC is unique in that it is a shared partnership of Federal, State, and local governments. As such, he says ARC provides flexibility to address the needs of the people, and allows Governors and local governments to set priorities, so it is one of the few programs that is responsive to local and State needs. We only request that this program be retained and other programs in fact modeled after it.

Mr. CRAMER. My colleague from Alabama is correct, Mr. Chairman. ARC, as was stated by our colleague from Kentucky, has helped in slashing the region's poverty rate in half. We have cut the infant mortality rate by two-thirds. We have reduced unemployment rates as well. However, despite these successes, this region still has very much economic needs and unmet needs. We have 399 counties that are classified as severely distressed under ARC and 115 of those counties are still severely distressed. We have come a long way, but we have not come the way that we need to go. That is why this amendment is not justified at this time. As was pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, is the gentleman from Alabama aware that this Committee on Appropriations has already cut ARC funding by 50 percent from fiscal year 1995 funding level?

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to my colleagues that are both here on the floor and those that are in their offices listening to this debate. I want to say to my classmate, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], I applaud him for his consumption with the budget and keeping us on the edge of where we need to be. As we from districts that have irons in these budget fires, the gentleman squeezes this budget and some of us feel the pain from that, but he has made us realize that we have to accept some cuts, that we have to reanalyze some of our connections to the Federal Government, because we cannot keep spending money at the rate or at the level we have been spending money. However, I also want to say to my classmate that he is consistent with regard to my region, the ARC amendment and how this TVA amendment, and the space station fight we go through annually. I want to echo some of the words of my colleagues from [[Page H 6877]] Tennessee and from Kentucky and the other regions that certainly have interests connected to this issue here. I want to remind my colleagues, we are taking a 28-percent cut here. We are talking about an agency that runs dams, almost 50 dams in the TVA area. We are talking about an agency that is charged with obligations that it cannot meet if this irresponsible amendment passes here today. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not speak to other alternate ways for us to run those almost 50 dams. This amendment does not talk about the flood control issues that our region of the country would be saddled with. There are many troublesome reasons that we need to oppose this amendment. This amendment ensures that rural communities in the Tennessee Valley will lose access to a variety of information sources, including education, health care, and business opportunities. Much like the speaker who just spoke from Tennessee, my region takes a cut, a significant cut. We have the environmental research center, a TVA project, that is located in my district. It bears the direct impact of this budget cut, this 28-percent cut here today. That is a very important program in my district that TVA has started, that has environmental impact. I think those of us from our region have taken our fair share of cuts. We only ask the Members not to go so far as to cut us off. We think we have been responsible in this effort. I urge Members to oppose this Klug amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I am a strong supporter of our Nation's defense and a strong supporter of a robust national missile defense program. My community is strongly involved in that defense program. And I support the missile defense program outlined in this bill. I strongly support the Spratt amendment. This amendment is frankly a very simple one, and I cannot imagine why anybody would oppose it. It simply reaffirms our Nation's commitment to a reduction of nuclear weapons. This amendment in no way changes the missile defense program outlined in this authorization bill. The Spratt amendment would simply require that we develop, test, and deploy a national missile defense system that complies with the ABM treaty. It would allow for any future amendment if we determined that we need a missile defense system that might not need to comply with the ABM treaty. I believe this amendment is crucial, this amendment today is crucial to our efforts to ratify the START II treaty. This amendment does not affect the theater ballistic missile programs, and only affects our national missile defense programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Deal substitute, the only deficit reducing welfare reform plan. Mr. Chairman, we must reform the welfare system from top to bottom. The current system does not work. It was intended to be a safety net for poor children and families, but it has become a burned-out bureaucracy that encourages laziness and discourages people from finding work. I support welfare reform, and I am going to vote for the strongest plan possible. I am cosponsoring a plan drafted by the coalition, and moderate House Members. The plan I support is tough but fair. It is the best plan before Congress to get people off welfare and get them into the workforce. The welfare reform plan I support would: Impose a 2-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits. Demand that people who get welfare start their job search immediately upon receiving benefits. Impose tougher enforcement of child support, with provisions to revoke driver's licenses and withhold income of people who fail to pay child support. Provide States with funding for job training for recipients so they can get off welfare and into work. While other welfare proposals have been criticized for cutting the National School Lunch Program, the plan I support does not affect school lunches or any other nutrition program. The problem with the current welfare system is not the School Lunch Program. The problem is the welfare system doesn't give people any incentive to work. The plan I support provides benefits for a limited amount of time, during which you must look for a job. No more something for nothing. My plan is the only one that reduces the deficit. It costs less than the current system, and it specifically directs the savings to go toward deficit reduction. Other plans put their savings toward paying for tax cuts. This proposal is tough but sensible. It provides reasonable assistance for those in need for a limited amount of time. It provides the means and the incentive to get off welfare and get a job. The House is expected to hold votes on the coalition's welfare reform plan and competing proposals by Friday afternoon.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly congratulate the authors of these amendments, the amendment itself, and amendment to the amendment. As I said earlier, I thought we would be making a mistake if we left the juvenile issue out of the incarceration issue. I think it is very important. One of the plagues on our local communities is the violent juvenile offenders. While we are talking about violent offenders, we should in fact be talking about violent juvenile offenders as well. So I want to thank the Members for working in a bipartisan way together. I think this is a terrific improvement in this legislation, and I think it will help the local and State communities realize they have a more effective partnership with the Federal Government.

Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word, and I want to speak in strong support of my colleague from Texas's amendment here. I want to say I represent the State of Alabama, one of 44 of 47 States that likely would not qualify under this current approach to building prisons. In my former life I was the president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association. I spent 10 years prosecuting violent offenders, violent juvenile offenders, and just this week I was checking on three of those who are in prisons where they will have to be released because there simply is not enough bed space or places to incarcerate those prisoners. I think the 1994 crime bill made sense. I think we started an effective partnership with the States where we gave the States a hand in building prisons, and we told them that we wanted to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I think it is only fair and this amendment seeks to address that, that we amend this incarceration provision so that we do allow States to begin gaining in this partnership with us, and I think it is only fair that we rectify this by saying that when 50 percent of them reach this level then we will provide prison grants for the States.