F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Chairman, let me say I am going to support the gentlewoman's amendment. Any Member can request a GAO study. Placing the language in the bill I think is a constructive addition because whether the GAO responds to the House as a whole or to an individual Member, this is an issue that has got to be addressed, and it has got to be resolved as we figure out how to make the rising tide of information-technology applications lift all of the boats in our society. So I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, and I hope the committee adopts her amendment.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, heaven rejoices when a sinner repents, and this amendment strikes language that the gentleman from Massachusetts added to the bill in committee. I commented at the time that I thought it was ill-advised to get the GAO involved in what amounted to a political debate over the budget. I am glad that the gentleman from Massachusetts has seen the light, and I hope that his amendment is adopted.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. I have always supported Buy American provisions. I support his efforts again. Obviously the money that we are authorizing under this bill should, to the greatest extent possible, go to goods and services that are made in the USA and done by Americans, and I think the gentleman has emphasized that point. This amendment improves a very good bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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. 2086, the bill just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 1999. H.R. 2005 is premised on the notion that a product which is used safely for a substantial period of time is not likely to have been defective at the time of manufacture, sale, or delivery. Any injury incurred after a reasonably long period of time is likely to have been due to either misuse or improper maintenance by someone other than the manufacturer. The longer the product is in use, the more difficult it is for the manufacturer to prove its product was not defective at the time it was manufactured. H.R. 2005 creates a uniform federal statute of repose for cases involving injury caused by durable goods. Currently, nineteen states have statutes of repose. I have long recognized the need for a national statute of repose for products, including workplace durable goods. In fact, my first year as a Member of this body, I introduced one of the first federal statute of repose bills. In sum, H.R. 2005 provides a balanced solution to the problem of endless liability, while protecting a claimant's right to bring suit for injuries incurred during the repose period. It places a reasonable outer time limit on litigation involving older products in the workplace, where injured claimants will have recourse to benefit from the worker compensation system. I commend my colleague, Mr. Chabot, for all his hard work on this long overdue, much needed legislation. I urge the passage of this legislation.

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 rise in support of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999. As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I would like to highlight a provision of the bill that is particularly important to our nation's research base: the Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D tax credit). H.R. 1180 includes the longest ever extension of the R&D tax credit. While I support a permanent extension of the R&D credit, this five-year extension is a step in the right direction. As federal discretionary spending for R&D is squeezed, incentives must be used to maximize private sector innovation and maintain our global leadership in high- tech, high-growth industries that help keep our economy the strongest in the world. A long-term extension of the credit will aid the research community by creating incentives for private industry to fund research projects. Congress has extended the R&D Tax Credit repeatedly over a period of 18 years. The credit again lapsed on June 30th of this year. This five- year extension will put an end to the start-and-stop approach that has characterized this extension process. A 1998 Coopers & Lybrand study found that U.S. companies would spend $41 billion more (in 1998 dollars) on R&D as a result of extending the credit. This in turn would lead to greater innovation from additional R&D investment and would begin to improve productivity almost immediately, adding more than $13 billion a year to the economy's productive capacity by the year 2010. The Coopers & Lybrand report went on to note that the R&D tax credit would ultimately pay for itself. ``In the long run,'' the report states, ``$1.75 of additional tax revenue (on a present value basis) would be generated for each dollar the government spends on the credit, creating a win-win situation for both taxpayers and the government.'' Last year, the Science Committee released a National Science Policy Study entitled Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science Policy. The Unlocking Our Future is the most comprehensive study of federal science policies ever conducted by Congress. And the full House passed a resolution adopting its recommendations. One of the study's primary recommendations was the permanent extension of the R&D tax credit. I am pleased that the House today is taking a concrete step toward enacting the study's recommendations.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly against H.R. 3194, the District of Columbia Appropriations Conference report. While I support many of the provisions of this legislation, I cannot support any legislation which perpetuates the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and does not allow for the modest federal milk marketing order reforms to go into effect. While this legislation maintains a balanced budget and protects Social Security, which I strongly support, I simply cannot condone its treatment of Wisconsin farmers. I understand the plight of farmers in other regions of the country; however, passing this legislation in an effort to help them directly punishes the farmers in my district, in my state, and throughout the Midwest. This is completely unacceptable and therefore, I must vote against it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2112), to amend title 28, United States Code, to allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for trial, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain multiparty, multiforum civil actions, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, America lost its foremost science advocate, a statesman, and a tremendous human being when my colleague and friend, George Brown, passed away. As a Member and later Chairman and Ranking Member of the Science Committee, George was a forceful and tireless advocate for science. Whether it was protecting a science account from attack or pushing the newest area of research, George was a true friend to the science community. I feel both sadness and inspiration when I look up to see George's likeness watching over the proceedings in the Science Committee's hearing room. Sadness at our loss but inspired to continue building upon the successes George made possible. I am hopeful that his portrait will serve as a constant reminder of George's commitment to our nation's science programs, his leadership, his friendship, his humor, and his compassion throughout his many years of service. George's integrity and the strength of his word were never in doubt. He could be a forceful advocate when needed and a bipartisan friend when deserved. Perhaps what was most remarkable about George was that even after sitting through hundreds and hundreds of presentations by researchers around the nation, George never lost a genuine delight in hearing of new science breakthroughs that would revolutionize tomorrow's world. When tomorrow's scientists find their next breakthrough discovery, I know in my heart that George will delight in their achievement. Although George served for eighteen terms in the House, a remarkable achievement in itself, I don't think he ever enjoyed looking back as much as he cherished looking ahead. Earlier this year, George remarked, ``I've thought that science could be the basis for a better world, and that's what I've been trying to do all these years.'' Certainly George made his own strong contribution to making this a better world. I ask all Members, to keep George's spirit alive as we proceed with our responsibilities during this Congress--with his respect for this institution foremost in our minds and his joy of public service and his friendship in our hearts.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, gas hydrates, which consist of a mixture of gas and water frozen into a solid crystalline state, have great energy potential. The most abundant form of gas hydrates, methane hydrates, are found in many areas throughout the world. The U.S. Geological Survey's 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources estimated the value of the U.S. in-place methane hydrate resource to be an astounding 320,000 trillion cubic feet of gas or 320 quadrillion cubic feet of gas. By comparison, the United States annually consumes about 22 trillion cubic feet of methane as natural gas, and the world's current known gas reserves are about 5,000 trillion cubic feet of gas. In addition, the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates at oceanic depths offers the possibility that excess greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, may be disposed in the deep ocean as synthetic hydrates. 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 gas hydrate R&D. It authorizes the Secretary of Energy $5 million for fiscal year 2000, $7.5 million for fiscal year 2001, $11 million for fiscal year 2002, and $12 million for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to carry out the program. 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 gas hydrate R&D; requires that all such awards be made available based on 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 a new building or alteration of an existing building, including site grading and improvement and architect fees. It allows the Secretary of Interior to award gas hydrate R&D contracts in grants to, and to enter into cooperative agreements with, qualified entities under the Marine Mineral Resources Research Act of 1996. It sunsets the gas hydrate R&D program after the end of fiscal year 2004. Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to the House for its adoption. 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. 1753) to promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate resources and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 1753.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished subcommittee chair.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on H.R. 2670, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1999 conference report. This bill contains funding for the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Science and Technology programs. In May of this year, the Committee on Science passed H.R. 1552, the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999, and H.R. 1553, the National Weather Service and Related Agencies Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 1553 subsequently passed the House on May 19th and awaits Senate action. In H.R. 2670, NOAA is funded at $2.3 billion. Within this amount, the National Weather Service (NWS) is funded at $604 million, which is a $43 million increase over the FY 1999 enacted level. This level is $13 million below the authorization in H.R. 1553 of $617.9 million, however, I believe it will provide adequate resources for the NWS. It is NOAA's highest duty to protect our citizens' life and property from severe weather and this amount is sufficient for NWS to finish its modernization and deploy critical weather observation systems. I also am pleased that the appropriators kept the Award Weather Interactive Processing Systems (AWIPS) cost-cap of 1996. This cap will protect taxpayers from unnecessary cost overruns. This bill funds the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA at a level of $300.2 million which is $18 million over the President's request. This amount is also $16 million over the total authorizations in H.R. 1552 and H.R. 1553. The National Sea Grant College Program is funded at $59.2 million. This is $7.7 million above the President's request. I am pleased that this total includes money for zebra mussel research. Sea Grant's cost- sharing approach with states provides a good bang for the research buck and is a good way to stretch scarce research dollars. However, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the conferees decided to include funding for a new Fisheries Research Vessel. The Commerce Inspector General and the Government Accounting Office have pointed out time and time again the need for outsourcing NOAA fleet operations. While NOAA is making some progress in the oceanographic and hydrographic outsourcing areas, there is little to no progress in the fisheries research area. In H.R. 1552, the Marine Research and Related Environmental Research and Development Programs Authorization Act of 1999, the Committee on Science directed NOAA to transfer resources to NSF to avoid having the taxpayer foot the bill for a new NOAA vessel. I urge NOAA to follow the recommendations of the Commerce I.G. and GAO and contract for vessel time instead of building new ships. H.R. 2670 also funds the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at $639 million for FY 2000. This amount is $99 million below the President's request and $8 million below the FY 1999 enacted amount. First, I want to remind my colleagues that last year we appropriated $197.5 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) program. We were recently informed by the Commerce Department that the ATP program would carryover $69 million of this total. Once carryover from previous years is considered, ATP spent less than $190 million in FY 1999. This bill includes $142 million in new appropriations for ATP. With the 1999 carryover, ATP will have $211 million for FY 2000. I see no reason to increase the money available for ATP when the program could not efficiently and effectively use its FY 1999 appropriation. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at NIST is funded at a level of $104.8 million or $5 million over the President's request. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the construction account at NIST is funded at $108.4 million for FY 2000. After deducting a modest amount to maintain NIST facilities in Colorado and Maryland, I am optimistic that enough funds will remain to start construction of the Advanced Measurements Laboratory (AML). AML is necessary due to the precise measurements required for establishing standards associated with today's increasingly complex technologies. It is my hope that the additional funding that has resulted from this conference will enable NIST to begin construction of AML in FY 2000.