F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 256.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 256. Chapter 12 is a form of bankruptcy relief only available to family farmers enacted on a temporary basis to respond to the particularized needs of farmers in financial distress. As a part of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, chapter 12 has been extended several times since 1986 until it lapsed on July 1 of last year. Absent chapter 12, farmers are forced to file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code's other alternatives. None of these forms of bankruptcy relief, however, work quite as well for farmers as chapter 12. Chapter 11, for example, will require a farmer to sell the family farm to pay the claims of creditors. With respect to chapter 13, many farmers would simply be ineligible to file under that form of bankruptcy relief because of its debt limits. Chapter 11 is an expensive process that does not accommodate the special needs of farmers. In the last Congress, the House on two occasions passed legislation that would have extended chapter 12. Unfortunately, the other body did not act on these bills and chapter 12 expired on July 1, 2000 as a result. By virtue of H.R. 256, chapter 12 will be reenacted retroactive to July 1, 2000 and extended for 11 months to June 1 of this year. I must note, however, that H.R. 333, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2001, a bill that will be considered on the floor tomorrow, will make chapter 12 a permanent fixture of the Bankruptcy Code for family farmers. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 256. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, February 26, 2001. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 256, a bill to extend for 11 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure. congressional budget office cost estimate H.R. 256--A bill to extend for 11 additional months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11 of the United States Code is reenacted H.R. 256 would extend chapter 12 of title 11 of the U.S. Code until June 1, 2001. Chapter 12, which was created by the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-554), specifies bankruptcy procedures available only to family farmers with regular annual income and is intended to facilitate an efficient and expeditious bankruptcy process. The authorization for such bankruptcy proceedings expired July 1, 2000. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 256 would have no significant budgetary impact. It would result in a small loss of offsetting collections to the U.S. Trustee System Fund, thus causing an insignificant increase in net outlays from this fund in 2001. In addition, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 256 would result in a negligible loss of offsetting receipts and revenues in 2001. Because H.R. 256 would affect direct spending and governmental receipts pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Based on information from the Executive Office of the United States Trustees, CBO expects that, without the temporary extension of chapter 12, family farmers filing for bankruptcy would split their filings about evenly between chapter 11 and chapter 13. Chapter 12 has a $200 filing fee and does not require the bankrupt party to pay quarterly fees to the government. Chapter 11, in contrast, requires an $800 filing fee as well as quarterly filing fees. (On average, $1,000 is collected per case.) Chapter 13 requires only a $130 filing fee. Bankruptcy fees are recorded in three different places in the budget. Portions of the fees are recorded as governmental receipts (revenues), as offsetting collections to the appropriation for the U.S. Trustee System Fund, and as offsettting receipts to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC). The percentage of the fees allocated among these accounts varies by chapter. Because only 300 to 400 bankruptcy cases are likely to be affected by the bill, it would have only a small effect on the amount of fees collected in 2001. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J. Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for the 107th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. These rules were adopted by the Committee on January 31, 2001, in a meeting that was open to the public. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Rules of Procedure, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Adopted January 31, 2001 Members of Committee--One Hundred Seventh Congress F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman, Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, George W. Gekas, Pennsylvania, Howard Coble, North Carolina, Lamar S. Smith, Texas, Elton Gallegly, California, Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Steve Chabot, Ohio, Bob Barr, Georgia, William L. Jenkins, Tennessee, Asa Hutchinson, Arkansas, Chris Cannon, Utah, Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina, Spencer Bachus, Alabama, Joe Scarborough, Florida, John N. Hostettler, Indiana, Mark Green, Wisconsin, Ric Keller, Florida, Darrell E. Issa, California, Melissa A. Hart, Pennsylvania, and Jeff Flake, Arizona. John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Barney Frank, Massachusetts, Howard L. Berman, California, Rick Boucher, Virginia, Jerrold Nadler, New York, Robert C. Scott, Virginia, Melvin L. Watt, North Carolina, Zoe Lofgren, California, Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas, Maxine Waters, California, Martin T. Meehan, Massachusetts, William D. Delahunt, Massachusetts, Robert Wexler, Florida, Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey, Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin, and Anthony D. Weiner, New York. rules of procedure Rule I The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees with the following specific additions thereto. Rule II. Committee Meetings (a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on Tuesday of each week while the House is in session. (b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when, in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor. (c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each scheduled Committee or subcommittee meeting, each Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be furnished a list of the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject to a point of order, unless their consideration is agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or subcommittee. (d) The Chairman, with such notice to the ranking Minority Member as is practicable, may call and convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the Chairman. (e) Committee and subcommittee meetings for the transaction of business, i.e., meetings other than those held for the purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any Member, and a copy made available to each Member present. (g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the full Committee or any subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full majority of the Members of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure or recommendation from the Committee or subcommittee, closing a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a subpoena. (h) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be published in the same manner as hearings before the committee and shall be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by the Chairman. Rule III. Hearings (a) The Committee Chairman or any subcommittee chairman shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any measure or matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or subcommittee, with the concurrence of the ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman or subcommittee chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. (b) Committee and subcommittee hearings shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee determines by majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House. (c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence before the Committee or any subcommittee, a quorum shall be constituted by the presence of two Members. (d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until such time as each Member who so desires has had an opportunity to question the witness. (e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the committee which are decided to be printed shall be published in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication. Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct any errors other than errors in the transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another congressional committee, a memorandum of understanding shall be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the publication of the verbatim transcript. Rule IV. Broadcasting Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure. Rule V. Standing Subcommittees (a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability, including medical malpractice and product liability, legal reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the Chairman. (b) There shall be five standing subcommittees of the Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows: (1) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, information technology, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (2) Subcommittee on the Constitution: constitutional amendments, constitutional rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships, administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (4) Subcommittee on Crime: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement, sentencing, parole and pardons, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, prisons, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (5) Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims: immigration and naturalization, admission of refugees, treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims against the United States, federal charters of incorporation, private immigration and claims bills, other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight. (c) The Chairman of the Committee and ranking Minority Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting Members, of each subcommittee to which such Chairman or ranking Minority member has not been assigned by resolution of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing or meeting of such subcommittee. Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all mattes referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective subcommittees after consultation with the Chairman and other subcommittee chairmen with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports No report of the Committee or subcommittee which does not accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of such report and given the opportunity to give notice of intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in which to file such views be less than three calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the House is not in session). Rule VIII. Committee Records The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall notify the ranking Minority Member of any decision to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of the Committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am making good on a promise I made during the last days of the previous Congress. During a press conference on October 24th last year announcing the introduction of H.R. 5516, the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination And Retaliation Act (the No FEAR Act) of 2000, I pledged to reintroduce this legislation on the first day of the 107th Congress. That day has arrived. I am pleased to introduce the No FEAR Act of 2001. During that press conference, a spokesman for the NAACP noted the NAACP Task Force on Federal Sector Discrimination and other civil rights organizations are supporting this legislation. It was hailed as the first civil rights legislation of the 21st Century. I would like to thank the courageous individuals and organizations, which have spoken out on the need for this legislation for their support. I would also like to thank Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee and Representative Connie Morella for their support of this bill when it was first introduced. This year I have made some modifications to the bill which ensure that its contents do not otherwise limit the ability of federal employees to exercise other rights available to them under federal law. The new draft also requires federal agencies to report their findings to the Attorney General in addition to Congress. Finally, the legislation makes more explicit references to reimbursement requirements under existing law. I believe that these changes make a good bill better. As the Chairman of the Committee on Science during the last Congress, I was very disturbed by allegations that EPA practices intolerance and discrimination against its scientists and employees. For the past year, the Committee on Science has investigated numerous charges of retaliation and discrimination at EPA, and unfortunately they were found to have merit. The Committee held a hearing in March 2000, over allegations that agency officials were intimidating EPA scientists and even harassing private citizens who publicly voiced concerns about agency policies and science. While investigating the complaints of several scientists, a number of African-American and disabled employees came to the Committee expressing similar concerns. One of those employees, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, won a $600,000 jury decision against EPA for discrimination. It further appears EPA has gone so far as to retaliate against some of the employees and scientists that assisted the Science Committee during our investigation. In one case, the Department of Labor found EPA retaliated against a female scientist for, among other things, her assistance with the Science Committee's work. The EPA reassigned this scientist from her position as lab director at the Athens, Georgia regional office effective November 5, 2000--a position she held for 16 years--to a position handling grants at EPA headquarters. In the October 3 decision, the Department of Labor directed EPA to cancel the transfer because it was based on retaliation. EPA's response to these problems has been to claim that they have a great diversity program. Apparently, EPA believes that if it hires the right makeup of people, it does not matter if its managers discriminate and harass those individuals. Diversity is great, but in and of itself, it is not the answer. Enforcing the laws protecting employees from harassment, discrimination and retaliation is the answer. EPA, however, does not appear to do this. EPA managers have not been held accountable when charges of intolerance and discrimination are found to be true. Such unresponsiveness by Administrator Browner and the Agency legitimizes this indefensible behavior. Subsequent to the hearing, other federal employees have contacted me with information regarding their complaints of harassment and retaliation. Federal employees with diverse backgrounds and ideas should have no fear of being harassed because of their ideas or the color of their skin. This bill would ensure accountability throughout the entire Federal Government--not just EPA. Under current law, agencies are held harmless when they lose judgements, awards or compromise settlements in whistleblower and discrimination cases. The Federal Government pays such awards out of a government-wide fund. The No FEAR Act would require agencies to pay for their misdeeds and mismanagement out of their own budgets. The bill would also require Federal agencies to notify employees about any applicable discrimination and whistleblower protection laws and report to Congress and the Attorney General on the number of discrimination and whistleblower cases within each agency. Additionally, each agency would have to report on the total cost of all whistleblower and discrimination judgements or settlements involving the agency. Federal employees and Federal scientists should have no fear that they will be discriminated against because of their diverse views and backgrounds. This legislation is a significant step towards achieving this goal.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, Charles Canady of Florida. I have had the good fortune to serve with Charles Canady on the Committee on the Judiciary. In his capacity as Chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, as in all his professional roles, he had served with honesty, dedication, and integrity. Therefore, I know I echo the sentiments of our colleagues, both on the Judiciary Committee and throughout the House, when I say that we will miss our friend, Charles Canady. Charles Canady has served as a tireless advocate for the people of Florida's 12th Congressional District. At the same time, he has fought on behalf of all Americans to bring morality and common-sense to the laws governing our great nation. Even when issues as controversial as partial birth abortion came up, he stuck by his principles. When the country was divided during the impeachment nearly two years ago, he stood firmly behind the rule of law. One of Charles Canady's guiding principles is that government should not divide its citizens, but unite them. It should not place Americans into separate racial, gender, or ethnic groups. Rather government should strengthen those bonds that make us all Americans. Throughout his tenure in the House, Charles Canady has remained committed to working toward realizing this goal. For these and many other reasons, both Charles Canady's constituents and his colleagues will miss him. Back in 1992, Charles Canady pledged to serve no more than four consecutive terms in this body. While I admire his commitment to keeping his word, I know I speak for many of our colleagues when I say the House is losing one of its most effective Members. I wish Charles Canady the best in whatever the future holds.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Bill Archer. Few legislators have the opportunity in their careers to effect such far-reaching reforms as the gentleman from Texas has during his time in this body, particularly his years as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. As we all know, the Committee on Ways and Means carries a very heavy legislative load, dealing each and every year with 100 percent of our nation's revenues. Bill Archer has taken this responsibility very seriously since becoming Chairman in 1994, and his accomplishments reflect this. First and foremost, Bill Archer left his mark on legislative history with his work on the Balanced Budget Act of 1977. Among it's many provisions, the Balanced Budget Act gave Americans the first tax cut in 16 years. It also helped taxpayers by shifting the burden of proof on tax issues from the taxpayer to the Internal Revenue Service. Taxpayers received new rights and protections in their dealings with the Internal Revenue Service, and the Internal Revenue Service in turn became subject to the oversight of an independent agency. However, reforming the Internal Revenue Service is not Bill Archer's only legacy. He also fought hard and successfully for welfare reform which has resulted in millions of former welfare beneficiaries leaving the welfare roles and moving back into the workforce. In addition, he has worked toward meaningful Social Security reform, and we know that the groundwork he laid will help us realize that goal effectively. Bill Archer's legislative accomplishments speak volumes about his integrity, dedication, and commitment. These are the characteristics that have led his constituents to send him back to Washington 15 times. These same characteristics are the ones we, his colleagues, will miss most when Bill Archer retires. I join all Bill Archer's friends and colleagues in thanking him for his many years of service and wishing him the best of health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from California, Ron Packard. After 18 years of service and dedication to his constituents and his country, Ron is retiring. While I join my colleagues in wishing him all the best as he dedicates himself to some well deserved time with his family, I also know that the House is losing a valued and trusted Member. Ron Packard's career has been marked by fairness and bipartisanship. In his various roles on the Appropriations Committee, Ron has always gotten the job done. That's not always an easy task when it comes to funding the government, but Ron has done it with integrity, dignity, and purpose. Ron's career has been marked with distinction since the beginning. Even the method of his election was notable. Ron is one of only four Members of Congress ever to have won their first election as a write-in candidate , but that's not surprising. He had experience as a businessman, a school board member, a city councilman, and mayor. He knew then what he knows now citizens' needs are best met on the state and local level by people who understand them rather than by Washington bureaucrats. This is the legacy Ron Packard will leave behind. It is characterized by hard work, honesty, bipartisanship, leadership, patriotism, and strength. It will serve as an example for future legislators as they do the people's business. I join my colleagues in wishing Ron a fond farewell and a happy retirement.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the private bills just considered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate bill be passed over without prejudice.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution amends H.R. 1550, and in doing so makes technical corrections to H.R. 1550 and S. 1639, both of which were passed by the Senate on October 18. I had hoped that the House could have sent these bills to the President, but, regrettably, errors in the Senate-passed versions mean that they will have to be sent back to the Senate. In the interests of time, this resolution incorporates these two bills into titles I and II respectively of H.R. 1550. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership for making the time available to consider this resolution, and I hope our colleagues in the Senate will move expeditiously to pass H.R. 1550, as amended by this resolution, and send it to the President for his signature before the Congress adjourns. Mr. Speaker, titles I and II represent compromises worked out between the Senate and the House and are very similar to the comparable bills that passed the House by overwhelming majorities during the first session of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, title I reauthorizes training, research, data collection, and analysis and public education programs at the United States Fire Administration. H.R. 1550 represents the big step in getting this agency back on track, especially in research. The bill authorizes a total of $142.6 million over fiscal years 2001 through 2003. The bill also requires USFA to certify that funds obligated in fiscal year 2002 are consistent with the strategic plan required in title I. In addition to the increased authorizations for research funding, the bill also requires the agency to establish research priorities and to develop a plan for implementing a research agenda. Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill, which authorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, makes technical changes to S. 1639. Earthquakes are a national problem. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 39 States are subject to serious earthquake risk, and 75 million people in the United States live in urban areas with moderate to high earthquake risk. Four agencies participated in NEHRP, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the USGS, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. For fiscal year 2001, title II authorizes $104.1 million for the base activities in these agencies. In addition, title II authorizes two new projects, each of which grew out of congressional direction. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System will update the Nation's aging seismic monitoring network. The bill authorizes $185 million over 5 years for USGS for equipment and operation. Mr. Speaker, the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, named after the distinguished late ranking minority Member and chairman of the Committee on Science and originator of NEHRP, will link more than 30 earthquake engineering research facilities and upgrade and expand major earthquake testing facilities. Title II provides NSF with a 4-year authorization totalling $74.1 million for this program. Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill authorizes funding for studying the New Madrid fault. Through its emphasis on monitoring, research and mitigation, H.R. 1550 will help the Nation prepare for the inevitable and save lives and property. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research; the gentlewoman from Texas, (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, for all of their work in helping craft a fine bill. Mr. Speaker, this resolution to amend H.R. 1550 represents a sensible, long-term investment that will pay for itself many times over in saved lives and reduced property losses. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 655) providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1550 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.Res. 655.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I ask unanimous consent that on Friday, October 27, 2000, it be in order to consider the call of the Private Calendar.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2413.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2413 updates the Computer Security Act of 1987 to improve computer security for Federal civilian agencies and the private sector. The Computer Security Act of 1987 gave authority over computer and communications security standards and Federal civilian agencies to NIST. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 strengthens that authority and directs funds to implement practices and procedures which will ensure that the Federal standards-setting process remains open to public input and analysis. When implemented, the bill will provide guidance and assistance on protection of electronic information to Federal civilian agencies. Since 1993, the General Accounting Office has issued over 35 reports describing serious information security weaknesses at major Federal agencies. In 1999, the GAO reported that during the previous 2 years serious information security control weaknesses had been reported for most of the Federal agencies. Recently, the GAO gave the Federal Government an overall grade of D minus for its computer security efforts. Specifically, hearings held by the Committee on Science earlier this year identified information security leaks at the Department of Energy and the Federal Aviation Administration that threaten our Nation's safety, security, and economic well-being. Much has changed in the years since the Computer Security Act of 1987 was enacted. The proliferation of networked systems, the Internet, and Web access are just a few of the dramatic advances in information technology that have occurred. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2000 addresses these changes, promotes the use of commercially available products, and encourages an open exchange of information between NIST and the private sector, all of which will help facilitate better security for Federal systems. Finally, the legislation is technology neutral and is careful not to advocate any specific computer security or electronic authentication technology. Mr. Speaker, while no single piece of legislation can fully protect our Federal civilian computer security systems, H.R. 2413 is a necessary step in the right direction. It has been unanimously supported by the Committee on Science and includes a number of provisions offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon); the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), chair of the Subcommittee on Technology; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), ranking member of that subcommittee; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), a member of the Cyber Security Leadership Team of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I urge all my colleagues to support swift passage of this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2413) to amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to enhance the ability of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to improve computer security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4940, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, title I of H.R. 4940 designates the museum operated by the Secretary of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as the American Museum of Science and Energy and grants ownership of this name to the United States. It further provides legal remedies for the unauthorized use of the name. Title I also authorizes the museum to accept gifts, operate a retail outlet, and lease space on its premises. In addition, it authorizes the museum to recruit and train volunteers. The American Museum of Science and Energy is the second most frequently visited attraction in the Knoxville metropolitan area. Since the beginning of operations in 1949, the museum has hosted nearly 10 million visitors from all 50 States and more than 40 foreign countries. The Oak Ridge Convention and Visitor's Bureau estimates the museum generates $6 million to $7 million annually in revenue to the community. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) introduced H.R. 4940 on July 24, 2000. The bill has strong bipartisan support, and I would like to compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for its introduction. H.R. 4940, as amended, also includes a second title. Title II is the modified text of H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act. The House passed H.R. 2086 by voice vote on February 15, 2000. The Senate passed it with some minor changes on September 21, 2000 as a part of another legislative vehicle. It has strong bipartisan support and has been endorsed by 61 organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Council of Scientific Society Presidents. I urge the House to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4271) to establish and expand programs relating to science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, as the House proceeds to consider the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several provisions of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. National Aeronautics and Space Administration By providing a total of $14.3 billion for NASA in FY01, this bill increases NASA's budget above the President's request by some $250 million and represents an increase of $683 million over the previous fiscal year. This is a significant increase for NASA and represents continued strong Congressional support for the agency's mission, following on the heels of passage of H.R. 1654, the NASA reauthorization bill, which is now awaiting the President's signature. The bill fully funds the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, Mars exploration, and the Space Launch Initiative. Equally significant, this bill provides the resources necessary to permit NASA to fund a broad range of space science programs, life and microgravity research activities, earth science, and aeronautics research. It is vitally important that NASA continue to maintain an array of ongoing, basic research and development programs. There are some areas of concern NASA must continue to deal with, including serious programmatic slips in the X-33, X-34, and the X-37 programs. NASA must also endeavor to improve its management under the ``faster, better, cheaper'' paradigm, insuring that missions are designed without taking on unreasonable levels of risk. I am also greatly concerned about NASA's apparent efforts to sole- source a $600 million research contract under the ``Living With a Star'' program. NASA appears to be bending acquisition rules to preclude our national community of research and development laboratories from competing for this very important initiative. I am disturbed by NASA's actions and will continue to monitor this contract to insure that their justification for sole-source meets the spirit and letter of the law. That being said, I support increased funding for NASA as provided in H.R. 4635 and compliment Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee Chairman Walsh for his efforts to strengthen NASA's programs. The funding levels and initiatives contained in this bill bode well for NASA's future. National Science Foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support the provisions in the conference report providing a Fiscal Year 2001 funding level of $4.4 billion, the largest NSF budget ever and an increase of $529 million over the previous fiscal year. I think it is important that the role of NSF in providing the intellectual capital needed both for economic growth and biomedical research be more widely recognized. We are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions that owes much to the technological changes driven by basic scientific research conducted 10 to 15 years ago. Many of today's new industries, which provide good, high paying jobs, can be linked directly to research supported by NSF in the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. I wish to emphasize, too, the critical research in information technology carried out under the National Science Foundation's auspices. Future developments in computational research will help scientists in the U.S. advance the boundaries of all fields of science, and is vitally important that the U.S. maintain a leadership role in information technology. Reflecting this commitment, the Science Committee successfully passed H.R. 2086 through the House, legislation calling for new government emphasis in this important field. H.R. 4635 significantly increases funding for information technology research, and again I commend Mr. Walsh for his support of NSF and IT research spending. Mr. Speaker, while I support the funding levels provided for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation, there are also provisions in this bill that I oppose. Unfortunately H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, has been added to the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. Of particular concern is the National Ignition Facility. The Department of Energy has badly mismanaged this program, potentially wasting over $900 million of taxpayers' money without any clear indication that NIF will actually work. NIF is over budget, behind schedule, and may not work. In the face of these difficulties, I think it is wrong to reward DOE's incompetence by providing--as this conference report does--$199 million for the project. I voted against overturning the President's veto on the Energy and Water Conference Report just last week and I will vote against this measure today. I regret that H.R. 4733 has been made part of the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill.