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 the conference report to accompany H.R. 1654.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1654 and urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report so that we can send this bipartisan bill to the President and have it signed into law. This bill is endorsed by all the conferees, regardless of party, in both the House and the Senate. I wish to express my appreciation for the hard work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and offer my thanks for their services on the conference committee and their suggestions for compromise without which we would not be on the House floor today. In passing this bill, Congress will help determine the priority investments in science and technology needed to fulfill America's future in space. H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 2000, authorizes the activity of our civilian space program for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The bill authorizes $14,184,400,000 for NASA in fiscal year 2001, which is about $149 million more than the President requested. It also authorizes $14,465,400,000 for NASA in fiscal year 2002, which is $160 million above the President's request. The bill fully funds the request for human space flight, including the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. More importantly, it contains key policy provisions to control cost growth and maintain the schedule of the International Space Station. The bill caps station costs at $25 billion. We have slightly increased the program reserves that a blue ribbon task force argued were needed to avoid future costs growth. Additionally, we have added a contingency authorization of 20 percent to address the worst case scenarios, such as a partner's withdrawal from the program or the loss of an element during launch. We have also protected the space station design, which will remove a source of future cost growth and scheduled delays. By moving NASA in the direction of a commercial Transhab structure, we transfer the risks and costs of development to any private sector entrepreneur willing to take them. We have also developed three new provisions to address the Russian situation. For years, the Russian Government has failed to provide the resources needed for the Russian Space Agency to meet its obligations to the International Space Station partnership. These failures have cost the United States some $5 billion and delayed the program's completion by over 4 years. The Russian Government recently diverted two progress vehicles and a Soyuz spacecraft to Mir, despite previous promises to use them to meet Russia's obligation to the International Space Station. This bill would seek to prevent recurrences by directing the highest levels of the U.S. Government to raise this issue with their counterparts in Russia. Hopefully, by bringing higher level political attention to the problem, we can solve it. The bill also directs the NASA administrator to seek and renegotiate the appropriate international agreements to bring the benefits each partner receives from its involvement in the International Space Station into line with the partner's actual contributions. This provision will help us return the International Space Station partnership to the equitable foundation required by the Intergovernmental Agreement. Simply put, the administrator would have to seek to reduce Russia's utilization rights while increasing our own and those of our other partners until such time as Russia meets all of its obligations to the International Space Station. Last but not least, the bill directs the administrator to seek to reduce America's share of the operating costs as compensation for any additional capabilities we provide to our partners through NASA's Russian Program Assurance activities. NASA plans to spend about $1.2 billion directly making up for Russia's failures. Some of this funding will result in a more capable station so it makes sense to reduce our outyear costs vis-a-vis the other partners as compensation for performing above and beyond the call of duty. In addition to the policy provisions intended to improve our human space flight program, we have increased funding for the critical area of science aeronautics and technology. These critical investments are needed to build a better future and have produced such past scientific and technological breakthroughs as the Topex-Poseidon spacecraft, which has vastly improved our knowledge of the El Nino effect and its impact on the global environment. NASA's activities in space science have brought us the amazing discoveries of distant planets and black holes by the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Aeronautics research has improved the performance and efficiency of our military and civilian aircraft, while life and microgravity research is helping chart the growth of cancer cells. These additional funds will accelerate NASA's Near Earth Object Survey to detect asteroids and comets that may threaten Earth, to enable NASA to conduct an Earth Science Data Purchase program that leverages billions in private investments for scientific purposes, to allow NASA to fund additional life and microgravity researchers so that the International Space Station is fully utilized for scientific benefit, and to accelerate NASA's efforts to leverage its scientific efforts to improve math and science education in the United States. Members may be pleased to hear that we have authorized funding for space grant colleges and universities, which many Members from both sides of the aisle have sought. There have been no NASA authorization bills sent to the President since 1992. This is the first time in 8 years that the House and the Senate have managed to build a consensus about the policies and priorities that affect the future of our space program. By passing this bill, we hope to give the appropriators additional tools and guidance to use in their annual deliberations. We will provide congressional guidance on a variety of space issues facing NASA and again demonstrate our commitment to the future of science and technology in the United States. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan, and as the chairman of the Committee on Science, I want to assure the gentleman that there was no intent to and indeed this bill does not authorize modeling or research into carbon trading.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the ``Scientific Certainty in Sentencing Act of 2000.'' As the Chairman of the House Science Committee, I have had the opportunity to see first hand the amazing changes that take place each day in various fields throughout the science world. Advancements in DNA testing are no exception. Each advance brings a new degree of accuracy. The legislation I am introducing today will allow convicted federal criminals the use of DNA testing. This would be allowed for those who did not have the opportunity to use DNA testing during trial or those who can show that a new technologically advanced DNA test would provide new evidence in their case. Whether this new testing results in an exoneration, reduced sentence, or a reaffirmation of the conviction, we can all rest assured that the rule of law is upheld and that truth and justice have prevailed. This legislation allows the great strides that have come, and will come, in the field of biological science to be utilized so that we may ensure that we are keeping the correct people behind bars. The bill is not a vehicle for frivolous appeals, but rather to allow all relevant facts to be shown in each case, which can only benefit all parties involved. I encourage my colleagues to join me in promoting the use of the best technological advances in regards to convicted federal criminals.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. During Judiciary Committee mark- up, I brought up my concerns relating to the tribal gaming exemption. I am pleased that the Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and the Gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, were willing to work with me to include language which addresses my concerns about what I believe was an ambiguous section of the bill. I would like to take a moment to explain my concerns and how, through the manager's amendment, these concerns were addressed. The provision exempting gambling on a closed loop system requires both the sender and the receiver to be on Indian lands. This is not limited to the Indian lands on which the game is conducted, therefore, it would allow linking of all Indian lands nationwide. My concern with this language was how multi-Tribal linking could impact individual Tribal/State gaming Compacts. Let me provide an example: If State A's Compact allows for slots, and State B's Compact allows for blackjack and slots, absent clarification, the tribe in State A could argue it can now participate in blackjack. Included in the manager's amendment is additional language on this section to ensure that no Class III gaming activity can occur without the explicit authorization of a Tribal/State Compact. This language does not require Tribes to re-negotiate their Compacts with states; rather it reinforces the Tribal/State Compact. In conclusion, the Indian gaming language has been clarified so that the carefully negotiated Tribal/State compacts are not at risk. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on June 6, the citizens of Turkey were once again reminded that the ground beneath them is not always stable. An earthquake, which registered 5.9 on the Richter scale, shook the Cankiri province in Central Anatolia, but its reverberations were felt in Ankara, Bolu, Duzce, Kirikkale, Corum and Kastamonu. There were at least three casualties, and 81 people injured, and considerable damage to buildings nearby. I visited Turkey last January, after it had experienced significant, earthquakes in August and November of 1999 resulting in the death of more than 17,000 people and the estimated loss of property of $40 billion. The Turkish people impressed me with their resilience and strength. Individuals from all walks of life rallied to assist those that had been less fortunate. This latest earthquake is another example of the difficult task ahead for the Turkish Government and its people. The good news is that some of the world's foremost scientists in both Turkey and the U.S. have been studying the Anatolian fault, which runs east to west along the length of Turkey. This cooperation between our two nations has not only led to an increased understanding of the potential earthquake dangers in Turkey but also in the United States. Unfortunately, most earthquake experts suspect that another severe earthquake will hit Turkey in the next two decades. The earthquake is likely to hit near Istanbul along the Anatolian fault. Such a quake is likely to be devastating. More needs to be done to prepare for this eventuality. The Turkish Daily News reported that the Turkish government, which was criticized for being late to take measures after the 1999 earthquakes, was prompt to reacting to the June 6 quake. Officials said that with the lessons they had learned from the previous disaster, they were well organized and fulfilled their promise to send immediate help to the region. I hope this portends well for the future. Dealing with the destructive power of earthquakes--as Turkey and so much of the World has discovered--is something that requires immense advance planning. By continuing to work together, U.S. and Turkish scientists can help by increasing our understanding of the phenomena, enabling generalized predictions and improved building design. I look forward to continuing this close working relationship between U.S. and Turkish scientists. During this difficult and challenging period, our hearts and thoughts are with the citizens of Turkey. Working together, I hope we can reduce the pain of these terrible earthquake tragedies.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendments offered by the gentleman from New York. Quite simply, they threaten our long-term future. This amendment will transfer $344 million out of NASA's Human Space Flight account and put it in HUD's Section 8 program. The space program is part of our national science and technology enterprise. We all know that our current economy owes much of its success to forty years of federal investments in science and technology. That federal effort generates the pre-competitive breakthroughs in science and technology that make day-to-day applications possible in the future. Because that benefit is long-term, most of us will not be in this Chamber to see the benefits of the decisions we make today, just as the Members who nurtured our science and technology program forty years ago have left this body to enjoy the political benefits of their support for the space program. Thus, there's little political payoff in advocating science and technology. That's why science and technology demand statesmanship and long-term vision. Federal investments serve the good of the country and the future of our grandchildren. Fortunately, this Chamber has repeatedly demonstrated the long-term vision needed for our nation's science and technology programs in space. It did so last year by rejecting similar amendments and preserving funding for the space program. It should do so again this year, by maintaining the space program as a high priority and voting against the Nadler amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The International Space Station represents a unique scientific opportunity to perform research. Research which will lead to innovations and breakthroughs that will improve the quality of life for all of us. NASA has already grown crystals aboard the Shuttle that have provided scientists with useful insights into the mechanisms of crystal growth. Information gained on crystal growth will make it easier and more predictable to develop specialized materials on Earth. During relatively short duration Shuttle missions scientists have gained a better understanding of underlying biological mechanisms that will help us understand balance and hearing in humans. Of particular interest has been research aboard the Shuttle which has given scientists a better understanding of the structure of a specific strain of the flu virus that kills 3,000 infants in the U.S. annually, providing pharmaceutical manufacturers key information needed to develop antibodies. Clearly, research aboard the Shuttle in the zero gravity environment of space has led to keen insights into various scientific phenomena. However, this is only a fraction of the scientific discoveries enabled by the Space Station. The Shuttle can only fly a handful of times per year and only a couple weeks at a time. On the other hand, the Space Station enables research to be conducted 365 days a year. Scientific discovery and technological development are the key drivers behind our prosperity. We must not turn our backs on the payoffs that research on the Space Station can provide to improve life on Earth for all of us. Because our children and grandchildren will benefit most from that research, I urge that the proposed amendment be rejected.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. NASA's science programs are a critical component to enabling many of the technological breakthroughs that all of us enjoy. The importance of research and development and scientific discovery on our every day lives cannot be overstated. NASA in partnership with industry, academia, and other federal agencies perform research and develop technology which is fundamentally important to keeping America capable and competitive. Our nation's economic growth and prosperity are tied more closely than ever to technological advancement. We must ensure that NASA gets the funding necessary to continue to maintain America's leadership in technology. The White House's recently released report on Federal R&D investment challenges the Congress to ``demonstrate strong bipartisan support for R&D'' and ``instead of slashing science and technology, we should accelerate the march of human knowledge by greatly increasing our investments in R&D.'' It took Congress five years to convince the Administration that past cuts to the space program were counterproductive. Now that the Administration has seen the light, I hope Congress will maintain its past commitment to science and technology by rejecting this amendment. The amendment proposes to cut $23 million from NASA's Human Space Flight program. Although the amendment appears to save money by reducing a program's budget, in reality it only increases costs in the future by stretching out the program and delaying the scientific results and advances that the research promises. We must continue to make investments in research and development, so that everyone will benefit from the discoveries and innovations which will improve our quality of life. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gutierrez amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Being fiscally responsible sometimes means making tough decisions. The gentleman from Colorado's amendment presents one such choice. It requires us to choose between spending more money to help states construct extended care facilities for veterans versus funding NASA research programs at the appropriated level. Certainly, we own our veterans a great debt, and nursing home facilities for men and women who served this country are important. But I urge my colleagues to remember that H.R. 4635 already provides funding for this grant program. So even if this amendment fails, these grants will still be available for veterans' care. I oppose this amendment because I believe it sacrifices one of our Nation's most important investments in order to achieve the amendment's goals. This investment, in science and engineering research, is critical to developing the technologies and know how that save lives, strengthen the economy, and help keep our defenses strong and our troops protected. Veterans are alive today because of past investments in science and technology. Don't we owe the veterans of tomorrow the same advantages? I think we do, which is why I oppose the amendment. Investments in research and technology rarely pay off right away-- certainly they cannot compete with the construction of a new building in terms of clearly recognizable short-term accomplishments--but they do pay off. The evidence for long-term payoffs from research and technology investments is impressive. The research programs this amendment would take away from represent part of this long-term investment in research and technology. I urge my colleagues to protect them, and to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York, which would reduce funding for polar research at the National Science Foundation by $18 million and increase funding at Housing and Urban Development by a like amount. I would suggest to the gentleman from New York that if he seeks to increase funding for housing people with AIDS, he could find the resources within HUD's nearly $30 billion appropriation. This agency is far better able to accommodate the amendment's purpose through efficiencies than by cutting NSF, an agency having a budget that is a small fraction of HUD's appropriation. Cutting the appropriation for the Nation's premier science agency, as the gentleman from New York proposes, is ill-advised. The Congress has affirmed the importance of an active U.S. presence in Antarctica. Stable funding for polar programs is necessary because of the long lead time required for these operations. If this amendment passes, funding probably will have to be shifted from basic research programs to support polar operations already in the pipeline. As the White House recently pointed out in its June 15, 2000 press release, any cuts to the NSF budget would put the ``new economy'' at risk. The basic research NSF funds in the biological and other sciences is a vitally important part of the overall Federal research portfolio, adding to our store of knowledge in valuable, and often unpredictable ways. Mr. Chairman, we can all sympathize with the plight for those who have contracted AIDS, but I do not think that it is in their best interests to cut funding for our premier basic research agency that may one day help provide the underlying research needed to find a cure for this and other debilitating diseases. The House should reject Mr. Nadler's amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I'm honored and excited to join Congressman Jim Rogan and my colleagues today in authorizing the President to present astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins--the crew of the historic Apollo 11 mission--with a congressional gold medal. As a cosponsor of this legislation and as Chairman of the House Science Committee, I have observed how these three leaders of America's space program continue to inspire generations of Americans to dream beyond Earth and entertain the infinite possibilities of space exploration. I doubt any American alive on that memorable day in late July of 1969--the 20th to be exact--will ever forget the image of Neil Armstrong first stepping foot onto the Lunar surface. Commander Armstrong presciently declared, ``That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind,'' and America and the rest of the world watched in awe of the greatest feat in space history. These men provided courage and service to the U.S. beyond this memorable and daring mission. Mr. Collins co-piloted the Gemini 10 mission and later served as assistant secretary of state for public affairs. Mr. Aldrin flew over 60 combat missions in Korea and survived a 5\1/2\ hour space walk on the Gemini 12 mission. Mr. Armstrong left NASA in 1971 but continued his service through the National Commission on Space and helping lead the presidential commission investigating the Challenger explosion. Mr. Speaker, these outstanding leaders embody the values, principles, and dedication that make our country the greatest in the world. I'm proud to join my colleagues in working to recognize Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins with a congressional gold medal on behalf of the Congress and the people of the United States.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as the House proceeds to consider H.R. 4635, the Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, I wish to highlight several features of this legislation that are important to our nation's science enterprise. I also will comment on EPA's reformulated gasoline mandate. national science foundation Concerning the National Science Foundation, I support funding at the requested level of $4,572 billion for fiscal year 2001. On May 17, 2000, I introduced H.R. 4485, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2000. This bill authorizes programs at NSF not authorized by the Science Committee in previous legislation. Together with other authorization bills passed by the Committee--including H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, and H.R. 1184, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act--H.R. 4485 would boost NSF's FY 2001 authorization to about $4.6 billion, $54 million above the requested level. While it should be recognized that, with a increase of $167 million, NSF has fared comparatively well in the appropriations process, I would have preferred to see an increase in funding closer to the level requested, especially given the large increases planned for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Indeed, 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. Today, we are in the midst of one of the Nation's longest economic expansions, an expansion that owes much to technological changes driven by the 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. Moreover, many of the breakthroughs in biomedical research have their underpinnings in research and technologies developed by investigators under NSF grants. The development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging is just one of many examples. We often loose sight of the fact that the ongoing revolution in medicine is as much a phenomenon of the physical and computational sciences as the biological sciences. I do not begrudge the increased funding provided for NIH, but I think we could achieve a better balance between the biomedical fields and the other fields of science that contribute to our health and well being in ways that may not be readily apparent. The case for maintaining diversity in the federal research portfolio was made in the Science Policy Study, Unlocking Our Future, which found that, ``It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines . . . and resist overemphasis in a particular area or areas relative to other.'' If Congress continues to concentrate scientific funding in one area, I am concerned that important research in other ares may be given short shrift. Such a result could have serious consequences for future economic growth and biomedical breakthroughs. national aeronautics and space administration While I am disappointed that H.R. 4635 does not fund the Space Launch Initiative, I am pleased to note that the bill recommends $13.714 billion for NASA, an increase of $112.8 million over this fiscal year. I especially commend the hard work of the Subcommittee and Committee leadership, and the Chairmen, to insure that NASA's programs and policy initiatives are sound and emphasize the pursuit of a broad range of space science. Among other notable issues cited in the accompanying committee report, I support the bill's recommendations to fully fund the Space Shuttle, Earth Sciences, and Space Station; to encourage use of the Shuttle for life and microgravity research missions; and to withhold funding for the proposed ``Living With a Star'' program until some of our questions about the program are adequately and fully answered. As Members are aware, several important NASA programs have suffered some failures this year and the agency is appropriately reexamining its implementation of the concept of ``faster, better, cheaper.'' I believe NASA must continue to pursue cost-savings measures as it designs and builds future space, but that it manage these plans with more agency oversight and with mission costs predicated on appropriate levels of risk. Finally, I commend the Committee for insuring that NASA's aeronautics activities are properly targeted and that the agency not expend its limited budget on activities that more appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies. The Space Station and the X-33 continue to drag on NASA's ability to move our space program to the next level of achievement. The Administration made fundamental management errors, in the first instance by allowing Russia to bring station construction activities to a complete halt, and in the second instance by entering into a cooperative agreement with an industry partner without appropriate safeguards to protect the federal investment. I understand the Chairman is committed to working with the Senate to try and restore the Space Launch Initiative funds in the Conference Report. I look forward to working with the Chairman to accomplish that goal because I believe the program is important. EPA's Reformulated Gasoline Mandate Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandated the sale of reformulated gasoline (RFG) to help reduce ozone levels in areas determined by the EPA to have high levels of ozone. At the time the original requirements were implemented in 1995, I had concerns about RFG's human and environmental health effects, cost, potential harm to engines, and about a possible drop in gas mileage. Numerous studies, including one by the EPA's own Blue Ribbon Panel, have shown my early skepticism to be well founded. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended the phase-out of MTBE, an RFG additive, because it has been identified as a potentially dangerous drinking water contaminant. Another study, by the National Research Council, concluded that the use of commonly available additives in RFG has little, in any impact on improving air quality. Now, following EPA's implementation of RFG Phase II requirements, gas prices in the Midwest in areas forced to comply with the new requirements are the highest in the nation. Despite the clear correlation between the areas in the Midwest forced to comply with the RFG mandate and those areas with exceptionally high gas prices, EPA has refused to accept even partial responsibility and has rejected opportunities to provide a solution to the problem. To-date, EPA has refused to grant even a temporary waiver from RFG enforcement despite repeated requests from state and federal officials gasoline consumers, and businesses in Wisconsin and Illinois. EPA has even refused to grant a waiver during the on-going FTC investigation into possible price gouging. Initial reports indicate the FTC's investigation could be lengthy, meaning a resolution to this costly ordeal may not be near. EPA's lack of strong science to support the RFG mandate and refusal to accommodate the requests of the severely impacted communities is troubling. I continue to be extremely disappointed with EPA's actions on this issue.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation Research and Development (R&D), and Clean Coal Technology provisions in H.R. 4578, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001. H.R. 4578 represents the hard work of Mr. Regula and the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee and Committee and I appreciate their diligence. The Science Committee has responsibility for setting authorization levels for funding civilian research at the DOE. The Committee has passed two authorization bills which address DOE fiscal year 2001 funding: (1) H.R. 1655, the DOE Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999; and (2) H.R. 1656, the DOE Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 4578 appropriates $535.6 million for Energy Conservation R&D programs, while H.R. 1655 and H.R. 1656 provide a combined $623.2 million for similar programs. Furthermore, H.R. 1655 and H.R. 1656 provide $442.4 million for Fossil Energy R&D, and H.R. 4578 provides $410.4 million for similar accounts. Although H.R. 4578 does not fully fund these accounts to their authorized levels, Chairman Regula has made a serious effort to fund R&D in a tight fiscal framework. Despite the shortfall in R&D funding, I am pleased the bill does provide $11.7 million for the Science Committee's Energy Efficiency Science Initiative. I am also pleased to see that section 330 of H.R. 4578 contains the Knollenberg amendment that prohibits the use of funds to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees or orders for implementing the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change prior to Senate ratification. Mr. Knollenberg's language assures taxpayers that Senate ratification must precede actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Given the glaring problems with this unfunded, unsigned, and unratified Protocol, such a limitation is proper and necessary and I commend the Appropriations Committee for including it in H.R. 4578.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a more detailed explanation--including a section-by-section analysis--of the Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 included as Title III of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Reduction Act. The Biomass R&D Act of 2000 combines features of three separate bills that were referred to the Committee on Science: Title I of S. 935 and H.R. 2827, the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999; and H.R. 2819, the Biomass Research and Development Act of 1999. This important piece of legislation would help fund the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) necessary to bring to market affordable biobased industrial products, including fuels, chemicals, building materials, or electric power or heat produced from biomass. I want to express my appreciation to many Members of the House and Senate for all of their hard work in crafting the Biomass R&D Act of 2000. This includes: the Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Hall of Texas) and Mr. Udall of Colorado of the House Committee on Science; the Chairman (Mr. Combest) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Stenholm) of the House Committee on Agriculture; the Chairman (Mr. Ewing) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Condit) of the House Committee on Agriculture's Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty Crops; the Chairman (Mr. Lugar) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Harkin) of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; and the Chairman (Mr. Murkowski) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Bingaman) of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Section-by-Section Analysis--Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000--(Title IV of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Reduction Act) Section 401. Short Title. Section 401 cites Title III as the ``Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000'' (hereafter, ``Act''). Section 402. Findings. Section 2 lists 13 findings. Section 403. Definitions. Section 403 defines ten terms: (1) ``Advisory Committee,'' (2) ``Biobased Industrial Product,'' (3) ``Biomass,'' (4) ``Board,'' (5) ``Initiative,'' (6) ``Institution of Higher Education,'' (7) ``National Laboratory,'' (8) ``Point of Contact,'' (9) ``Processing,'' and (10) ``Research and Development.'' The term ``biomass'' means ``any organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, including agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses, residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and other waste materials.'' The conferees gave specific consideration to a proposal to exclude old-growth timber and unsegregated municipal solid waste (garbage) from the definition of biomass, and rejected the proposal as being scientifically unsound. Also, the term ``research and development'' means ``research, development, and demonstration.'' Department of Energy (DOE) activities conducted under this Act are subject to the cost-sharing provisions of section 3002 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486). Section 404. Cooperation and Coordination in Biomass Research and Development Section 404 mandates cooperation and coordination between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy with respect to policies and procedures that promote R&D leading to the production of biobased industrial products. In order to facilitate this cooperation and coordination, a senior official in each of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and DOE is to be designated as a ``point of contact.'' The points of contact are to assist in arranging interlaboratory and site-specific supplemental agreements for research, development, and demonstration projects relating to biobased industrial products; serve as cochairpersons of the Board; administer the Initiative; and respond in writing to each recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Section 405. Biomass Research and Development Board. Section 405 requires the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture to jointly establish the Biomass Research and Development Board to coordinate programs within and among departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the purpose of promoting the use of biobased industrial products. This Board is to supercede the Interagency Council on Biobased Products and Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134. This section also specifies the Board's: (b) membership, (c) duties, (d) funding, and (e) frequency of meetings. Section 406. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. Section 406 establishes the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee, which is to supercede the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134. This section also specifies: (b) the Advisory Committee's membership and appointment process; (c) duties; (d) coordination; (e) frequency of meetings; and (f) terms. With respect to terms, section 406(f) specifies that members of the Advisory Committee shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, except that--(1) \1/3\ of the members initially appointed shall be appointed for a term of 1 year; and (2) \1/3\ of the members initially appointed shall be appointed for a term of 2 years. Section 407. Biomass Research and Development Initiative. Section 407(a) requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy, acting through their respective points of contact and in consultation with the Biomass Research and Development Board, to establish and carry out a Biomass Research and Development Initiative under which competitively awarded grants, contracts, and other financial assistance are provided to, or entered into with, eligible entities to carry out research, development, and demonstration on biobased industrial products. Other provisions of Section 407 address: (b) the purposes of grants, contracts, and other financial assistance under this section; (c) eligible entities; (d) uses of grants, contract, and assistance; (e) technology and information transfer to agricultural users; and (f) authorization of appropriations. Section 407(c)(2)(D) requires that preference be given to applications for grants, contract, and assistance under this section that: (i) involve a consortia of experts from multiple institutions; and (ii) encourage the integration of disciplines and application of the best technical resources. However, this ``preference'' is not meant to negate the requirements of Section 407(c)(2)(D) requiring that ``grants, contracts, and assistance under this section be awarded competitively, on the basis of merit, after the establishment of procedures that provide for scientific peer review by an independent panel of scientific and technical peers''. Section 407(f) provides that in addition to funds appropriated for biomass R&D under the general authority of the Secretary of Energy (which may also be used to carry out this Act), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to carry out this Act $49.0 million for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005. Section 408. Administrative Support and Funds. To the extent administrative support and funds are not provided by other agencies under section 408(b), section 408(a) authorizes the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide such administrative support and funds of DOE and USDA to the Board and the Advisory Committee as are necessary to enable the Board and the Advisory Committee to carry out this Act. Section 408(c) provides that not more than 4 percent of the amount appropriated for each fiscal year under section 407(f) may be used to pay the administrative costs of carrying out this Act. Section 409. Reports. Section 409 specifies the Act's reporting requirements, which include: (a) an initial report and (b) annual reports. Section 410. Termination of Authority. Section 410 terminates the authority under this Act on December 3 1, 2005.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor and strong support of H.R. 4241 which designates the facility of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville, Wisconsin, as the Les Aspin Post Office Building. I had the distinguished honor of serving with Mr. Aspin. As a fellow Wisconsinite, I admired his dedication to public service that was evident throughout his tenure; not only as a Member of the House of Representatives, but as Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, to name just a few. Secretary Aspin did not begin his life's devotion to the public in the political arena. He served this country in the U.S. Army from 1966 to 1968. He then entered politics and went on to served in this body from 1971 to 1993. He served as the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee from 1985 to 1993. He was then appointed by President Clinton as his first Secretary of Defense. Secretary Aspin was known to share his knowledge and passion for America in many circles. He continued his outreach by serving as a distinguished professor for Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI, and in Washington, DC. The naming of the Marquette University Washington program, the Les Aspin Center for Government, recognized his service to this program. Secretary Aspin brought his love for his work and his sense of humor into her personal life as well. As an avid dog lover, my fellow Wisconsinite named his dog ``Junket,'' and Junket was equally comfortable and welcome in the office and at home. I believe that H.R. 4241 is a fitting tribute to a man who gave tirelessly to the people he represented in Wisconsin during his tenure as Congressman and the country during his tenure as Secretary of Defense. I am honored to speak in support of H.R. 4241 and believe that the recognition it would lend to Secretary Aspin, is well deserved. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2000, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 20 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1654) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3646 and H.R. 3363, the bills just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3904) to prevent the elimination of certain reports.