F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Reports and Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 calls for the sunset of all periodic reports submitted to Congress by the executive branch. Congress has extended the sunset date of these reports until May of this year. The committee on science highlighted nearly 100 reports relevant to its jurisdiction from the thousands scheduled for sunset. Out of that group, 30 were considered to be important to the committee's oversight responsibilities and have been incorporated into H.R. 3904. These reports serve a useful purpose within the agency themselves as a part of their internal review and evaluation process. The agency reports exempted under H.R. 3904 originate from NASA, the National Science Foundation, NOAA and others. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3904 is a bipartisan effort of the Committee on Science to maintain a fundamental oversight tool. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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.R. 3904.

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 this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, methane hydrates which consist of a mixture of methane and water frozen into a solid crystalline state have great energy potential and are found in many areas throughout the world. The U.S. Geological Survey's 1995 national assessment of United States oil and gas reserves estimated the value of U.S. in-place methane hydrate resources to be an astounding 320 quadrillion cubic feet of gas. By comparison, the United States annually consumes about 33 trillion cubic feet of methane as natural gas. The world's currently known gas reserves are about 5 quadrillion cubic feet. H.R. 1753 directs the Secretary of Energy in consultation with the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense and the Interior and the director of the National Science Foundation to commence a program of methane hydrate R&D. It authorizes the Secretary of Energy $5 million for fiscal year 2001, $7.5 million for fiscal year 2002, $11 million for fiscal year 2003, and $12 million for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005 to carry out the programs. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to award grants or contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises to conduct methane hydrate R&D. It requires that all such awards be made available based upon a competitive merit review process. It limits administrative expenses to not more than 5 percent and prohibits any funds from being used for either the construction of the new building or alteration of an existing building, including site grading and improvement in architect fees. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to award methane hydrate R&D contracts and grants to and to enter into cooperative agreements with qualified entities under the Marine Mineral Resources Research Act of 1996. It sunsets the methane hydrate R&D program after the end of fiscal year 2005, and it requires the Secretary of Energy to engage the national research council to conduct a study of the progress of the program and to make recommendations for future methane hydrate R&D needs. The NRC report is to be transmitted to Congress not later than September 30, 2004. Mr. Speaker, the House unanimously approved a similar version of H.R. 1753 last October, which the Senate amended in November. I commend this revised version of the bill which represents the bipartisan agreement with the Senate to the House for its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 453) providing for the consideration of the bill H.R. 1753 and the Senate amendments thereto.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, the Freedom from Unfair Energy Levy Act or ``FUEL Act,'' to alleviate the impact of current high fuel prices. My legislation would place a six-month moratorium on federal motor fuel excise taxes, including the 18.3 cent per gallon tax consumers pay for gasoline and the 24.3 cent per gallon tax on diesel fuel, and eliminate permanently the 4.3 cents per gallon tax increase approved in 1993. The need for this legislation is evident. Crude oil prices have more than doubled in the past 12 months, resulting in the largest gas price increase in history. In 1993, when fuel prices were low, Democrats in Congress, President Clinton, and a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Gore combined to increase federal fuel taxes. Now that prices are high and consumers are feeling the pinch, shouldn't we reduce federal fuel taxes? Some have argued that money from fuel taxes is more useful in Washington than in Americans' pockets, helping motorists afford the high price of gasoline. In reality, the economic damage caused by high fuel prices far outweighs any impact on federal spending that a six- month moratorium could cause. High fuel prices have the potential to bring our strong economy to a grinding halt. In the 1970s, when the retail price of gasoline doubled, the U.S. was hit with double digit inflation and unemployment rose to over eight percent. Oil prices dropped precipitously in the '80s and the U.S. economy greatly improved, but, with the crisis in the Persian Gulf in 1990 and 1991, retail prices of gasoline increased nearly 20 cents per gallon. Predictably, this price hike corresponded with a recession and a rise in unemployment to over seven percent. Congress must work to reduce fuel costs if similar economic dislocation is to be avoided. This record-breaking increase in the cost of gasoline follows a string of misguided Clinton-Gore Administration energy policies. Besides supporting the 1993 increase in the gas tax, the Administration also locked up the cleanest burning coal in the lower 48 states, which could be used to meet America's heating and electricity needs, by designating massive amounts of land in Utah as a National Monument. Further, the Administration has done nothing to increase U.S. oil production. As a result of the Administration's policies, domestic oil production is at its lowest point since before World War II. With the onset of rising oil prices, the Clinton Administration has had the opportunity to reconsider its energy policies. However, the Administration's response to the growing national problem of rising oil prices has been to target aid to one region, the Northeast, and to only one group of people, those receiving federal energy subsidies for home heating oil. Other fuel users, including truckers, farmers, and family drivers, are realizing no benefits from the Administration's actions. In contrast, a moratorium on the collection of the federal fuel tax would provide immediate assistance to every American who now bears the burden of rising fuel costs. The Fuel Act's six-month moratorium on transportation excise taxes and permanent elimination of the 4.3 cent increase will immediately help Americans weather the current oil price storm that is directly impacting their daily lives. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important message. In 1993, the administration invited Russia to join the International Space Station project. At the time the White House made it clear to Congress that Russian participation in the International Space Station was a key component of the administration's efforts to encourage Russia to adhere to a variety of nonproliferation norms and agreements. Many Members, myself included, expressed concerns about transforming the space station into a foreign policy program, but accepted the administration's argument that Russian involvement was important to halting the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Since then, we have seen repeated reports in the Western and Russian media that a variety of Russian aerospace enterprises are assisting Iran's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The CIA's 721 report of February 2, 2000 confirms these reports. Russia's aerospace enterprises are not private firms in the way U.S. companies are. In fact, most Russian aerospace enterprises are owned and operated by the Russian government. In 1998 and 1999, the Russian government clarified its control of its aerospace industry by putting many of these Russian enterprises under the legal and economic jurisdiction of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency. Having paid the Russians some $800 million between 1994 and 1998, the administration announced in late 1999 its intention to make additional payments to the Russian Aviation and Space Agency. The administration's reliance on Russia has put the American taxpayer in the unacceptable position of possibly subsidizing the very Russian aerospace enterprises that are helping Iran develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The administration's current policy creates an unhealthy situation for both our space program and our nonproliferation efforts. H.R. 1883 addresses these concerns by requiring the President to make a determination about the extent of Russian assistance to Iran before NASA can make additional payments to the Russian aviation and space agency. Moreover, the bill holds the Russian government accountable by preventing payments to the Russian Aviation and Space Agency if it or any of the entities for which it is legally responsible are involved in inappropriate technical assistance to Iran. Certainly nobody in this body wants to see U.S. tax dollars inadvertently subsidizing the proliferation of ballistic missiles. H.R. 1883 helps prevent just such a prospect. While helping curb proliferation, the bill does not jeopardize the safety of our astronauts about the ISS or delay the delivery of the Russian hardware that NASA claims it requires in order to reduce U.S. dependence upon Russia in the space station program. Both of these issues are addressed in narrow and specific exceptions to the bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1883 is a sound step to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It passed the House by a vote of 419 to 0 and the Senate by a vote of 98 to 0. I am proud to have joined the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) as an original cosponsor of this bill and look forward to the day when the President signs it into law.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000. In my view, the American tort system is a disaster. It resembles a wealth redistribution lottery more than an efficient system designed to compensate those injured by the wrongful acts of others. Our current system raises the prices of goods made in America, forces State and local governments to expend precious resources, and causes unwarranted personal anguish and damages reputations. Companies should be held responsible for truly negligent behavior resulting in actual harm. But a civil justice system that perpetuates the concept of ``joint and several liability'' and has no effective mechanism, such as a loser pays rule, to deter frivolous lawsuits is simply not just. I am pleased that H.R. 2366 takes the first step toward alleviating this problem. H.R. 2366 would eliminate joint and several liability of small business defendants for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, but would retain if for economic damages, such as medical expenses. This would partially relieve the situation where a small business defendant is held liable for damages far in excess of its actual responsibility. I have been a longtime supporter of legislation to set uniform standards for product liability actions brought in State and Federal court. Inconsistencies within and among the States in rules of law governing product liability actions result in differences in State laws that may be inequitable with respect to plaintiffs and defendants, which, in turn, impose burdens on interstate commerce. Establishing uniform legal principles of liability for product seller, lessors, and renters will provide a fair balance among the interest of all parties in the chain of product manufacturing, distribution, and use, reduce costs and delays in product liability actions, and reduce the burdens on interstate commerce. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this long overdue legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, the United States stands as the global leader in computing, communication, and information technology. This $500 billion a year industry accounted for one-third of our Nation's economic growth since 1992 and created new industries and millions of new high-paying jobs. This staggering success, however, is predicated on Federal research conducted over the last 3 decades. Fundamental IT research played an essential role in the information revolution. However, maintaining the Nation's global leadership in information technology is not a given. The congressionally-chartered President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, called PITAC, stated that the ``current boom in information technology is built on basic research in computer science carried out more than a decade ago. There is an urgent need to replenish the knowledge base.'' Although the private sector conducts most of the IT research, that spending has focused on short-term applied work. As our Nation's economy becomes more dependent upon the Internet and IT in general, current Federal programs and support for fundamental research and IT must be revitalized. To accomplish this, I, along with George Brown, the late ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, and 24 other Members introduced H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act, a 5-year authorization bill. The committee subsequently passed this bill by a vote of 41 to nothing, showing rare bipartisan unanimity on an important piece of legislation facing this Congress. H.R. 2086 provides comprehensive authorization for the Federal government's civilian basic information technology research efforts at the six agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the EPA. This bill fundamentally will alter and greatly enhance the way information technology research is supported and conducted. Its centerpiece is the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program, which will be managed primarily through NSF and which will focus on long-term peer-reviewed basic research of the kind in which the NSF excels. While funding for individual investigators remains an important aspect of IT research, funding for research teams and centers can also lead to dramatic progress. Therefore, this bill authorizes $130 million for large grants of up to $1 million each for high-end computing, software, and networking research, and $220 million for information technology research centers that are comprised of research teams of six or more members. To attract more students to science and to careers in IT, the bill also authorizes $95 million for universities to establish for-credit internship programs for IT-related research at private high-tech companies. Both 2-year and 4-year schools will be eligible for these grants, which will operate on a 50-50 cost-sharing basis. To help meet the need for state-of-the-art computing systems for the civilian research community, H.R. 2086 authorizes $385 million for a terascale computing competition at NSF. The bill requires that the funds be allocated on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis, and that awardees be required to connect to the Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure network. Finally, the bill authorizes the Next Generation Internet program through completion in fiscal year 2002. Mr. Chairman, our future global influence lies in the hands of our young people, the education and training they receive, and the new scientific breakthroughs they produce. This bill combines increased authorizations for research funding with important policy changes that will keep the Nation at the cutting edge of information technology and produce the next generation of highly-skilled IT workers. It offers opportunities for all by providing open competition for IT grant funding, as well as benefiting diverse groups ranging from 2-year community colleges through the largest universities. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates a commitment to upholding our Nation's preeminence in information technology. It has been endorsed by dozens of organizations, including the 1999 co-chairs Bill Joy and Ken Kennedy of PITAC, the Technology Network, the Computing Research Association, the Big Ten universities, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I believe that H.R. 2086's widespread support stems from the realization that information technology research assists all fields of science. Indeed, the research funded under this bill will help physicists, mathematicians, engineers, meteorologists, and computer scientists alike. I ask my colleagues to join me in maintaining our world leadership in information technology by supporting H.R. 2086. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who is the Chair of the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Basic Research, which has jurisdiction over NSF.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Technology of the Committee on Science.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I also have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and I support his constructive amendment. This amendment would expand the definition of ``information technology'' under the NSF account and change the NSF numbers accordingly. This year the administration expanded the definition of programs deemed ``information technology'' within NSF's budget. This expanded definition is compatible with H.R. 2086, and I am pleased to include the new NSF numbers in the bill. The administration prioritization of NSF in 2001 also demonstrates that they have accepted the committee's philosophy for IT spending. The committee believes that the NSF is the best agency to run open competitive and peer review IT grant programs. With the adoption of this amendment, H.R. 2086 will incorporate the new expansive definition of IT at NSF within the same stable and sustainable rate of growth passed by the committee with a 41-0 vote last year. Thus, NSF IT spending in the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act will remain the same total growth rate over the 5 years of the bill after this amendment is adopted as it had been before the new expanded IT definition was proposed. While this amendment accepts the aggregated definition of NSF IT spending, I would like to point out that this amendment does not rubber-stamp the President's request. This amendment does not plus up any other agencies to the President's request, nor does it reflect the decreases in overall NSF spending after fiscal year 2001 found in the administration's fiscal 2001 request. With the exception of NSF, the committee will review on a case-by-case basis the requested increases for IT and other agencies during the consideration of those agencies' authorization bills. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects a bipartisan agreement on the part of the committee to a bill that has strong bipartisan support. I commend the ranking member from Texas (Mr. Hall) for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). He correctly states that the only reason this was not included in the bill when it was considered by the Committee on Science is that it would have triggered a sequential referral to the Committee on Resources which would have resulted in a delay. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for signing off on this amendment. This simply integrates the efforts of the U.S. Geological Service into the type of research that is being done so that their mapping efforts can be much better digitalized and, thus, much more effective.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we have come to the conclusion of the debate on a bill which the Committee on Science sincerely believes will be one of the most important pieces of legislation enacted in the year 2000 by the 106th Congress. Should the other body agree and we send this bill to the President for his signature, America will have made a commitment to the information technology research that we need to continue our country as number 1 in this area. The pipeline for Federal research breakthroughs has slowed to a trickle as a result of some changes that have occurred since 1986. This bill provides a 5-year commitment to steady increases in funding for civilian information technology programs in the health areas as well as in the areas of computer science and information technology, and roughly doubles the funding for these programs over the next 5 years. The legislation before us, H.R. 2086, focuses Federal efforts on basic research. Federal basic research nicely complements private sector-applied research. In many cases, the basic research that is done under this bill and which has been done in the past has been too high risk for the private sector to prudently invest their own money in. So having a Federal Government-private sector partnership where the taxpayers pick up the basic research that the private sector cannot do, and then the private sector goes and commercializes the results of successful basic research, will mean that we will continue our nationwide preeminence which provides good jobs for Americans, and I think has made our economy the healthiest in the world. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is look where information technology has brought this country during the decade of the 1990s. We have the longest peacetime sustained growth rate in the history of our country. Unemployment is at a 30-year low, and inflation has been kept in check. One only needs to compare this success for Americans with the double- digit unemployment that has plagued the major countries in Europe and a Japan that has been teetering on the brink of depression for the better part of the last 10 years shows that we have done it right. A lot of the reason for America doing it right is the breakthroughs in information technology. We cannot predict where the research authorized under this bill will lead other than that basic research breakthroughs will lead to applications in disciplines from A to Z. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. The bill before us provides better coordination of civilian information technology programs. Grouping these programs under one legislative umbrella will lead to better coordination and thus give the taxpayers more value for their dollar. The National Science Foundation has an enhanced role as the lead agency in this undertaking. They spend their money through competitive peer-reviewed grant programs. We have expanded the grant programs, but we have also made the grant programs more relevant to the private sector by requiring at least one representative from the private sector on each of these peer review committees. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, and to all of the members of the Committee on Science for working on this cooperative effort. I think that 20 years from now, as historians look back at what the 106th Congress did in the year 2000, should this bill pass through the Senate and be enacted into law, they will view this as probably the most important single piece of legislation that the Congress considers. So as this bill passes, we all look forward to working with the Senate to make sure that this investment in our Nation's future ends up becoming a reality.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland for yielding. I support her amendment. The reason this amendment is before us today on the floor is the same reason why the previous amendment was before us, and, that is that the NIH is not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. Had we added this money in during the Committee on Science consideration of the bill, it would have delayed the bill's consideration through a sequential referral to the Committee on Commerce. What the gentlewoman from Maryland is doing is closing an important hole in this bill, and I am happy to note that the chairman, the members, and the staff of the Committee on Commerce support her efforts in doing so. So this has been worked out without any brouhaha over committee jurisdiction. This makes a good bill better; and it gets the NIH into developing better information technologies, to develop better ways of making sick people better and preventing them from getting sick in the first place.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support this amendment. It is identical to a bill which he introduced and which I cosponsored earlier. We are talking about how to make information technology available in the cheapest possible way, particularly to our public schools and libraries. This is something that is timely and needed, and to make sure that the money we are authorizing under this bill is spent in the most efficient manner possible.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would authorize a $700,000 study by the National Research Council on IT accessibility by the disabled and elderly. I would note that there have been studies conducted by a number of different groups looking at similar issues, including the Federal Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee, the University of Wisconsin Trace Research and Development Center, the California State University at Northridge Center on Disability, and the Worldwide Web Consortium Web Access Initiative have all taken or are taking a look at similar issues. I had some misgivings about the amendment as it was originally drafted, but since the funding will now come out of the available funds and not as a separate authorization, I will not oppose this, and urge Members to adopt it.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey makes a very good bill even better, and I am pleased to support it and hope that the committee adopts it.