F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rogan amendment to increase funding by $105 million for National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Science, Aeronautics, and Technology account. The appropriators made a good faith effort to restore cuts to the Space Science budget during the bill's consideration by the full committee, but they did not go far enough. More needs to be done, now and in conference. Space Science has been the bright spot in NASA's research program. The space science community recognized the coming budget crunch years ago and enthusiastically embraced the ``faster, cheaper, better'' philosophy by doing business in a new way. The scientists and engineers who lead our space exploration efforts took on new technical challenges, applied more creative management techniques, and dramatically increased their productivity. This community is squeezing increased scientific and technical productivity out of every nickel. Who can forget Mars Pathfinder, which deposited a rover on the surface of Mars for one-fifth of the cost of previous Mars missions? In just the last few years, the space science community has cut the cost of spacecraft development by over 60 percent, reduced development time by 25 percent, and increased flight rate by 300 percent. Mr. Chairman, space science is an example of good government and good science. It's also the kind of good government that we need to encourage by showing NASA's other enterprises and the rest of the federal bureaucracy that success is rewarded, not punished. As passed by Committee, the appropriations bill sends the wrong signal and makes the wrong kinds of cuts. The amendment corrects that oversight by transferring funds from a poorly-performing agency to a well-run scientific enterprise. It's an amendment we should all embrace.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Gutierrez amendment. The measure will nickel and dime NASA to death. This amendment cuts $5 million out of NASA's Human Spaceflight programs to fund the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Brownfields Redevelopment program. In addition, Mr. Gutierrez cuts $20 million out of Science, Aeronautics and Technology and $5 million out of Mission Support to fund other HUD programs. When taken together, these amendments would cut NASA's budget by $30 million. These amendments take money out of our investments in science and technology, which will benefit future generations, and put that money into current consumption. In short, the amendments are akin to eating our seed corn. The bill already underfunds NASA. These amendments will worsen NASA's ends-means mismatch since they do not reduce any of NASA's programmatic responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, the country's elected officials can't keep asking the space program to do more with less. That makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gutierrez amendments.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on H.R. 2670, the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1999. This bill contains funding for the Department of Commerce's (DOC) Science and Technology programs as well as legislative guidance on some key project management issues at the Department of Commerce. 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 has since passed the House on May 19th and awaits Senate action. In H.R. 2670, NOAA is funded at $1,959,838,000 and contains transfers of $67,226,000. Within this amount, the National Weather Service (NWS) is funded at $599,196,000, which is a 7% increase over the FY 1999 enacted. Chairman Rogers noted that the NWS is the highest priority within NOAA and I concur with his comments. The protection of our citizens' life and property from severe weather must be NOAA's highest priority. This bill funds the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA at a level of $260,560,000. I concur with Chairman Rogers' assessment that this office should not be funding duplicative social- science and human dimensions research, and should fund hard computational science that has real benefit to the American taxpayer. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has a social science program area that is capable of making these assessments and I consider social science research at NOAA to be a low research priority. I am pleased that the National Sea Grant College Program is funded at $58,500,000, which is $7,000,000 above the President's request. Sea Grant's cost-sharing approach with states provides greater bang for the research buck and in tight fiscal times it is the best way to stretch research dollars. Finally, I am extremely gratified that Chairman Rogers decided not to fund the Fisheries Research Vessels that were in the NOAA request. 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. I urge NOAA to examine the use of UNOLS vessels to support fisheries research. NOAA should closely examine the Dorman report which pointed out that the need for these ships is questionable. H.R. 2670 funds the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) at $436,686,000 for FY 2000. This amount is $300,270,000 below the President's request and $210,464,000 below the FY 1999 enacted amount. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) at NIST is terminated in H.R. 2670. As I have stated in the past, until fundamental reforms are made to ATP that will ensure that federal grant funding is not simply displacing private capital investment, I do not think the program should be funded. The Science Committee and the full House passed just such structural changes to the program last year, but unfortunately the Senate did not act on them. The changes would not only prevent the displacement of private capital, but would increase private sector matching requirements for the program. Congresswoman Morella has once again introduced legislation, H.R. 1744, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1999, to fix the problem and authorize ATP. I am hopeful that this time the bill will be enacted. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at NIST is funded at a level of $99,836,000 in H.R. 2670. I am pleased that the bill fully funds MEP at the President's. Finally, the construction account at NIST is funded at $56,714,000 for FY 2000. This will provide $44,916,000 of the required funds for the Advanced Measurements Laboratory. Unfortunately, funding AML at this level will not allow NIST to begin construction of the project during FY 2000. The AML is necessary due to the precise measurements required for establishing standards associated with today's increasingly complex technologies. It is my hope that additional funding may become available during the Conference to allow construction of AML to begin during Fiscal Year 2000.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation will allow State Attorneys General to seek Federal court injunctions against any out-of- State companies that illegally direct ship alcohol to consumers. These illegal direct shippers are bypassing State excise and sales taxes, operating without required licenses, and most appallingly, illegally selling alcohol to underage persons. It is important to note what H.R. 2031 does not do. It does not change existing State laws, and makes no restrictions on legal Internet or catalog sales. It does not open the door to Internet taxation. In fact, the word ``Internet'' does not appear anywhere in the text. It does not create a new Internet E commerce policy. It only deals with direct shipments of alcohol. The legislation has bipartisan support. It was adopted overwhelmingly as an amendment to the other body's juvenile justice bill. Attorneys General from 23 States have signed a letter of support on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of States' rights, and urge my colleagues to allow States to enforce their own alcohol laws by voting in favor of this much needed legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday evening, Space Shuttle Columbia touched down at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The crew of Space Shuttle Columbia completed an important mission. A few short hours after launch, shuttle mission STS-93 successfully deployed the Chandra X-ray Observatory. With the launch of Chandra, we begin to explore the universe in new and exciting ways. Chandra will allow us to examine the hot, turbulent regions in space with images nearly 25 times sharper than previous X-ray pictures. The scientific promises that Chandra holds are far reaching and will have a significant impact on our understanding of how our universe operates. Yet beyond the scientific accomplishments of the recent shuttle mission, we rise today to celebrate a new turning point in history. STS-93 is the first-ever shuttle mission commanded by a woman, U.S. Air Force Colonel Eileen Collins. Colonel Collins has downplayed her role as the first female space shuttle commander. In her mind, she is just another astronaut, not unlike her male predecessors, who has worked hard and has been bestowed the great honor of commanding a U.S. space shuttle into space. In reality, Colonel Collins has emerged as a role model for all young women who aspire to one day follow in her footsteps or to pursue careers in other scientific fields. However, Mr. Speaker, a young girl watching the recent nightly news coverage of Colonel Collins' flight will not be able to command her own space shuttle flight unless she acquires the science and math skills necessary to succeed as an astronaut in the U.S. space program. Sadly, many young girls, and boys for that matter, are not receiving a quality education even in the most basic math and science courses. The release last year of the Third International Mathematics and Science (TIM) study revealed that American high school seniors, even our Nation's best students in advanced classes, are among the world's least prepared. We must expect more from our Nation's students with respect to math and science. Curricula for all elementary and secondary years need to be developed in a manner that conveys the excitement of science and math so that students are prepared to follow in the footsteps of Colonel Collins and her crew if they choose to do so. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Technology, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for introducing H. Res. 267 for our consideration today. I congratulate Colonel Eileen Collins and the crew of Shuttle Mission STS-93 and urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 267. 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. Res. 267.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 267) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with regard to Shuttle Mission STS-93, commanded by Colonel Eileen Collins, the first female space shuttle commander.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) about the activities of the Committee on Appropriations relative to the NASA budget. And it was my hope that at least some of these funds can be added to the Committee on Appropriations mark between now and the time the VA-HUD bill comes to the floor. Let me state, however, that passage of the VA-HUD bill is necessary even at the lower amount if we are to avoid having a government shutdown of NASA as well as HUD and VA departments at the end of September. That I think is the worst of all possible alternatives. So we have to work together in a bipartisan basis to attempt to get a VA-HUD bill out of this House and over to the other body for its consideration as we continue working on giving NASA an appropriate appropriation. I would like to point out to the gentlewoman from California, however, that the mark that came out of the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2000 is $700 million higher than the outyear budget that was submitted in January of 1996 by the Clinton administration. In other words, the Clinton administration's projections for the NASA budget for fiscal year 2000 was $700 million lower than the Committee on Appropriations mark which has been so roundly criticized. So I think that we ought to quit playing games with numbers, I hate to use these numbers to counter the numbers of the gentlewoman from California, and get on to the business of making sure that NASA has the funds to do its job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Let me just put a word of procedural caution relative to how this bill is being considered. All three of the provisions of this bill have merit and should be enacted into law on their own. Two of them are private bills in nature, the Kerr-McGee settlement and the Menominee Indian Tribe settlement, and the other provision is public in nature relative to disseminating on the Internet a do-it-yourself kit on how individuals can make their own weapons of mass destruction. So they all should become law, and I support this legislation today. However, I am disturbed at the practice of the other body in mixing public and private legislation in the same bill, and I would hope that the consideration of this bill today as a mixture of both public legislation and private legislation will not be viewed as a precedent for future mixings by either this body or the other body. I would hope that this motion to suspend the rules will be overwhelmingly agreed to so that we can get these three items out of the way and enacted into law, but I would hope we would be a little bit more careful procedurally as we deal with both public and private legislation in the future.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999. This bill contains funding for the majority of the Department of Energy's (DOE's) civilian science and energy R&D programs as well as legislative guidance on some key project management issues at the Department of Energy. Today, the Department of Energy epitomizes all that is wrong with how a government department should be run. DOE lacks basic planning and project management skills and cannot provide simple planning information to Congress on costs and deadlines. This appropriation bill represents the hard work of Mr. Packard and the Members of the Subcommittee to correct a department that has gone awry and appears incapable of righting itself. The Science Committee has responsibility for setting authorization levels for funding civilian scientific research and development programs at the Department of Energy as well as providing programmatic direction. The Committee has passed two authorization bills which address Department of Energy funding needs. They are: H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999; and H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999. While H.R. 2605 does not fully fund some science and energy R&D accounts to their authorized levels, it is a good attempt to follow the authorization bills directions on R&D funding within a tight fiscal framework. In addition, H.R. 2605 will have a profound impact on climate research at the Department of Energy. While the Administration jumped on the Kyoto bandwagon, I have always believed that a more science- based assessment of our climate and energy resources is necessary before we use taxpayer funds to support a flawed policy approach. H.R. 2605 addresses this issue through its inclusion of language, known as the Knollenberg amendment, that prohibits any funds from being used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This language is consistent with language from Representative Zoe Lofgren's amendment that was adopted by the Committee on Science as part of H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Act of 1999, on May 25, 1999. Together, both Ms. Lofgren's and Mr. Knollenberg's language assures taxpayers that Senate ratification must precede actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol and that the Department of Energy cannot attempt to implement any Kyoto regulations through a disingenuous approach. 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 this language in H.R. 2605. Finally, I want to commend and applaud the Committee's decision to follow the authorization language in H.R. 1655 regarding the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) project. Specifically, H.R. 2605, through legislative and report language, will require DOE to meet the following criteria before any construction funds are released. The criteria taken from H.R. 1655 are as follows: 1. Certification that senior project management positions for the project have been filled by qualified individuals; 2. Cost baseline and project milestones for each major construction and technical system activity, consistent with the overall cost and schedule submitted with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, and that have been reviewed and certified by an independent entity, outside the Department and having no financial interest in the project, as the most cost-effective way to complete the project; 3. Binding legal agreements that specify the duties and obligations of each laboratory of the Department of Energy in carrying out the project; 4. A revised project management structure that integrates the staff of the collaborating laboratories working on the project under a single project director, who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over the duties and obligations described in subparagraph (3.) above; 5. Official delegation by the Secretary of primary authority with respect to the project to the project director; 6. Certification from the Comptroller General that the total taxes and fees in any manner or form paid by the Federal Government on the SNS and the property, activities, and income of the Department relating to the SNS to the State of Tennessee or its counties, municipalities, or any other subdivision thereof, does not exceed the aggregate taxes and fees for which the Federal Government would be liable if the project were located in any other State that contains a national laboratory of the Department; and 7. Annual reports on the SNS project, included as part of the Department's annual budget submission, including a description of the achievement of milestones, a comparison of actual costs to estimated costs, and any changes in estimated project costs or schedule. In the past, costs associated with some major scientific projects have spiraled out of control because adequate preventative measures were not taken in the early planning stages to limit cost growth. The Superconducting Supercollider and International Space Station are two examples, and I believe that the language on Spallation Neutron Source, when coupled with rigorous oversight, will provide the Department of Energy with the facility they need at a cost that does not cause heartburn for the American taxpayer.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2466, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 includes funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Coal Technology, Fossil Energy and the Energy Conservation Research and Development programs. The bill represents the hard work of Mr. Regula and the members of the subcommittee and reflects Republican commitment to the balanced budget discretionary caps that were agreed to in 1997. Abiding by these caps meant that hard decisions had to be made on a wide variety of issues including those related to research and development at the Department of Energy. While breaking the caps and simply spending more of the taxpayer-earned surplus is the easy thing to do, Mr. Regula has chosen the right thing to do and reined-in spending. The Science Committee has responsibility for setting authorization levels for funding research at the Department of Energy. The committee has passed two authorization bills which address Department of Energy funding needs, they are: H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999 and H.R. 1656, the Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology Authorization Act of 1999. H.R. 2466 appropriates $524,822,000 for energy conservation programs, H.R. 1655 and H.R. 1656 provide a combined $542,375,000 for similar programs. Furthermore, H.R. 1655 and H.R. 1656 provide $366 million for fossil energy research and development while H.R. 2466 provides $335,292,000 for similar accounts. While H.R. 2466 does not fully fund these accounts to their authorized levels, it is a reasonable attempt to fund R&D in a tight fiscal framework. In addition, much of the R&D included in H.R. 2466 has a profound impact on climate research. While the administration jumped on the Kyoto bandwagon, I think a more science-based assessment of our climate and energy resources is necessary before we use taxpayers money to support a flawed policy approach. I have spent a great deal of time analyzing the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. treaty that mandates the U.S. to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. In 1997, the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a series of three ``Countdown to Kyoto'' hearings on the science and economics of climate change. In December 1997, I led the bipartisan congressional delegation at the Kyoto climate change negotiations. Upon my return, I chaired three Science Committee hearings on the outcome and implications of the climate change negotiations. Most recently I attended the latest round of negotiations at Buenos Aires this past November. In the midst of the Buenos Aires negotiations, the Administration signed the Protocol without fanfare. This fact alone should raise our suspicions, giving this administration's willingness to take credit for, well, just about everything. Through all of these experiences, it's become clear to me that Vice President Gore is determined to implement this flawed protocol. Last October, the administration's own Energy Information Administration found the Kyoto Protocol would have significant negative impacts on the U.S. economy, including increased annual energy costs for the average household of $335 to $1,740; electricity price increases of 20 to 86 percent; gasoline price increases of 14 to 66 cents per gallon; fuel oil price increases of 14 to 76 percent; natural gas price increases of 25 to 147 percent; and actual GDP declines of $60 to $397 billion. In addition, EIA estimates a decline in coal use of 20 to 80 percent, and an average coal price increase by 154 to 866 percent, with additional coal mining job losses of 10,000 to 43,000. This approach is unacceptable. H.R. 2466 addresses this issue through its inclusion of language, known as the Knollenberg amendment, that prohibits any funds from being used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This language is consistent with language from Representative Zoe Lofgren's amendment that was adopted by the Committee on Science as part of H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Act of 1999, on May 25, 1999. 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. 2466.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce, H.R. 2413, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999, a bipartisan bill to address our government's computer security needs. Joining me as cosponsors of this important legislation is Mr. Bart Gordon of Tennessee and Mrs. Connie Morella of Maryland, the Chairwoman of the Science Committee's Technology Subcommittee. The bill amends and updates the Computer Security Act of 1987 which gave the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) the lead responsibility for developing security standards and technical guidelines for civilian government agencies' computer security. Specifically, the bill: 1. Reduces the cost and improves the availability of computer security technologies for Federal agencies by requiring NIST to promote the Federal use of off-the-shelf products for meeting civilian agency computer security needs. 2. Enhances the role of the independent Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board in NIST's decision-making process. The board, which is made up of representatives from industry, federal agencies and other outside experts, should assist NIST in its development of standards and guidelines for Federal systems. 3. Requires NIST to develop standardized tests and procedures to evaluate the strength of foreign encryption products. Through such tests and procedures, NIST, with assistance from the private sector, will be able to judge the relative strength of foreign encryption, thereby defusing some of the concerns associated with the expert of domestic encryption products. 4. Clarifies that NIST standards and guidelines are to be used for the acquisition of security technologies for the Federal Government and are not intended as restrictions on the production or use of encryption by the private sector. 5. Addresses the shortage of university students studying computer security. Of the 5,500 PhDs in Computer science awarded over the last five years in Canada and the U.S., only 16 were in fields related to computer security. To help address such short-falls, the bill establishes a new computer science fellowship program for graduate and undergraduate students studying computer security; and 6. Requires the National Research Council to conduct a study to assess the desirability of creating public key infrastructures. The study will also address advances in technology required for public key in technology required for public key infrastructure. 7. Establishes a national panel for the purpose of exploring all relevant factors associated with the development of a national digital signature infrastructure based on uniform standards and of developing model practices and standards associated with certification authorities. All these measures are intended to accomplish two goals. First, assist NIST in meeting the ever-increasing computer security needs of Federal civilian agencies. Second, to allow the Federal Government, through NIST, to harness the ingenuity of the private sector to help address its computer security needs. Since the passage of the Computer Security Act, the networking revolution has improved the ability of Federal agencies to process and transfer data. It has also made that same data more vulnerable to corruption and theft. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has highlighted computer security as a government-wide, high-risk issue. GAO specifically identified the lack of adequate security for Federal civilian computer systems as a significant problem. Since June of 1993, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued over 30 reports detailing serious information security weaknesses at 24 of our largest Federal agencies. The Science Committee has held seven hearings on computer security since I became Chairman in 1997. During the hearings, Members of the Science Committee heard from some of the most respected experts in the field. They all agreed that the Federal Government must do more to secure the sensitive electronic data it possesses. The Federal Government is not alone in its need to secure electronic information. The corruption of electronic data threatens every sector of our economy. The market for high-quality computer security products is enormous, and the U.S. software and hardware industries are responding. The passage of this legislation will enable the Federal Government, through NIST, to benefit from these technological advances. I look forward to working with all interested parties to advance the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1999. In my estimation, it is a good bill, and I am hopeful we can move it through the legislative process in short order.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report to H.R. 775, the Y2K Act. This bill, while markedly different from when it was first introduced, has retained several key core principles: The establishment of uniform legal standards for all businesses and users of computer-related technologies; the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution to avoid costly and time-consuming lawsuits; the lessening of the burden on interstate commerce by discouraging frivolous lawsuits while preserving the ability of individuals and businesses who have suffered injury to obtain relief. The year 2000 computer problem, commonly referred to as the Y2K bug, presents grave challenges to both the private and public sectors throughout the United States. H.R. 775 has had a difficult history in Congress. Substantial changes were made during every step of the process, in committees, on the House floor, in the other body, and finally in conference committee in an effort to deal with this pressing issue in a way that is fair and equitable to all parties involved, both potential plaintiffs and defendants in Y2K-related disputes. The reason we are here today is because of the persistence of the House and the other body to enact legislation far enough in advance of the year 2000 to stem the potential litigation explosion over the Y2K bug, one that has been estimated as costing our economy a potential $1 trillion. Throughout this whole process, the administration has remained cool to the idea of passing any legislation dealing with Y2K liability. In addition, the administration was noticeably absent at every junction of this debate. The White House was invited to testify before the House Committee on the Judiciary on this legislation but declined. Instead of active participation, the administration chose to issue veto threats to even the amended bipartisan Senate-passed version of the bill with only general descriptions on which provisions they found to be objectionable. In all, the administration sent five veto threats, with the fifth being issued on June 24 by the President's chief of staff just prior to the conferees meeting on that day. At the first meeting of the House-Senate conference, the House conferees accepted the Senate amendments to H.R. 775 and added two additional amendments. It was at this conference after the train had already left the station that the White House finally got serious and requested additional time to work out a compromise. The chairman of the conference postponed further proceedings until the drop-dead date of June 28 in a good-faith effort to see this bill enacted without the potential of a White House veto. Finally, the administration gave specifics on what they found to be objectionable and suggestions on how to change these provisions in order for the President to support it. Fortunately, the administration's differences with Congress were resolved, which allows the conference report to be brought to the floor today without the uncertainty of a veto. The conference report has the support of the broad-based Year 2000 Coalition and the Information Technology Industry Council. The conference report includes the following key provisions which warrant its adoption by the House of Representatives: It allows class action suits for Y2K claims to be brought into Federal courts if they involve $10 million in claims or at least 100 plaintiffs. It creates a proportionate liability formula for assessing blame so companies would be penalized for their share of any Y2K damage. This formula would make whole individual consumers even if one of the defendants went bankrupt. It caps punitive damages at $250,000, or three times the amount of compensatory damages, whichever is less, for individuals with a net worth of up to $500,000 and for companies with fewer than 50 employees. And it applies current State standards for establishing punitive damages instead of creating a new preemptive Federal standard. In addition, the conference report requires plaintiffs to mitigate damages, defines the term ``economic loss,'' but does not place caps on directors and officers liability. In summary, while H.R. 775 has been whittled down by the administration's efforts to accommodate trial lawyers, enough substantial provisions remain to warrant support by the House of Representatives.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to instruct, as does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). But since the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has expressed concerns of the administration, let me say that, first of all, the administration does not legislate under the Constitution. They have the choice of signing or vetoing the work product of both Houses of Congress. However, the Senate, during its deliberations on this bill, moved in major efforts towards the President's position to try to modify the legislation to address many of the President's concerns. Included are changes in the proportional liability section of H.R. 775, the elimination of the liability caps on directors and officers, the elimination of the reasonable efforts defense, the tort claims, modification of the punitive damages provision in H.R. 775, and elimination of obligations on attorneys to disclose and report certain information to their clients, all of which were in the statement of administration position expressing opposition both to the House bill and to the Senate bill. So there has been a huge movement in the direction of the President. However, we all know that this President has been very strongly opposed to any changes in tort liability law and any changes in product liability law. This is kind of a product liability bill, because it is dealing with software that is manufactured by computer companies that may or may not fail when the odometer rolls over next New Year's Eve, the danger that exists in agreeing to everything that the President objects to is, by the time we are done, the bill does not do anything. It is merely cosmetic in nature. Then I think that, if that is the case, the President and the Congress will be equally guilty in fooling the American public that something is being done to shield people from frivolous litigation and destructive litigation when, in fact, that is not the case. So the conferees, I think, have got to be careful. They have got to make sure that we give a conference report for consideration by this House and the other body which does address this problem and prevent frivolous litigation rather than simply passing a piece of paper, all of us taking a bow, and this bill becomes law, knowing full well that this bill really does not solve the legal problems relating to Y2K liability. As a conferee, those are the goals I am going to try to achieve, and that is to pass a bill that does something, that addresses these problems. I would hope that the President, in the spirit of compromise, recognizing that the Senate really met him more than halfway with his objections to the House bill, would move a little bit by himself.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the research and development provisions in H.R. 2084, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, for FY 2000. As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I believe this bill's research funding provisions meet the requirements for a solid research and development base in support of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) mission. Like Chairmen Young and Wolf, I too recognize that investing in research today will improve the safety and efficiency of travel in the future. Last month the Science Committee passed H.R. 1551, the Federal Aviation Administration Civil Aviation Research and Development Act. The bill included a $208.5 million authorization for research and development programs at the Department of Transportation. Like H.R. 2084, H.R. 1551 proposes a $173 million dollar commitment to the Research, Engineering and Development account at the Federal Aviation Administration. This is an increase of $23 million over the FY 1999 enacted or a 15.3 percent increase for FAA Research and Development programs and will provide FAA with the resources necessary to expand their Research and Development activities. In addition, I am pleased H.R. 2084 funds the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping function of the FAA's Facilities and Equipment account at a level of $33 million dollars. These critical projects and activities are assisting us to develop the next generation of communications, navigation and surveillance capabilities necessary to meet the projected increases in aviation in the 21st century. Similarly, the bill supports the Safe Flight 21 program at FAA at the authorized level of $16 million. Although I would have liked to have seen Safe Flight 21 in the research account, and not in the Facilities and Equipment account, I do believe this is a program of merit and worthy of support. While I believe H.R. 2084 provides DOT and FAA with the resources necessary to conduct world class research that is mission critical to DOT, I cannot support the bill as a whole. I believe that the $50.7 billion appropriated by this legislation is more than we can afford for the Department of Transportation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2086 the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 1999. And I recommend that all my colleagues join with Science Committee Ranking Member George Brown, Congressman Tom Davis and 23 other Republican and Democrat Members of the Science Committee in cosponsoring this important bipartisan research initiative. Two decades ago, the changes wrought by information technology were unimaginable. The scope and scale of the changes produced by the explosion in information technology are comparable to those created during the Industrial Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. But whereas the Industrial Revolution ushered in the era of the machine-- symbolized by the steam engine, the factory, and the captain of industry--the Information Revolution promises to create the era of the mind--symbolized by the silicon chip, the microprocessor, and the high- tech entrepreneur. Today, the United States is the undisputed global leader in computing and communications, and a healthy information-technology industry is a critical component of U.S. economic and National security. The impact of information technology on the economy is telling. It represents one of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy, growing at an annual rate of 12 percent between 1993 and 1997. Since 1992, businesses producing computers, semiconductors, software, and communications equipment have accounted for one-third of the economic growth in the U.S. Fundamental information-technology research has played an essential role in fueling the Information Revolution and creating new industries and millions of new, high-paying jobs. But maintaining the Nation's global leadership in information technology will require keeping open the pipeline of new ideas, technologies, and innovations that flow from fundamental research. Although the private sector provides the lion's share of the research funding, its spending tends to focus on short- term, applied work. The Federal Government, therefore, has a critical role to play in supporting the long-term, basic research the private sector requires but is ill-suited to pursue. However, as the Congressionally-chartered President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) noted in its recent report, the emphasis of Federal information technology research programs in recent years has shifted from long-term, high-risk research to short-term, mission oriented research. This is a trend that began in 1986 but has accelerated over the last six years. PITAC warned that current Federal support for fundamental research in information technology is inadequate to maintain the Nation's global leadership in this area, and it advocated a five-year initiative that would significantly increase basic-research funding. The Administration's response to the PITAC report is its Information Technology for the 21st Century proposal--IT \2\. I believe this proposal, however well-intentioned, falls short of what PITAC envisioned. It does not, for example, commit the Administration to any funding increases beyond fiscal year 2000. In fact, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Administration's own figures show flat or declining budgets beyond next year for the IT \2\ agencies, so any increasess in information technology research would have to come out of other important science programs, an untenable situation. To address the issues raised in the PITAC report, I am introducing the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act today. This is a five-year bill that provides justifiable, sustainable, and realistic increase in information technology research. It authorizes for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 nearly $4.8 billion, almost doubling IT research funding from current level, at the six agencies under the Science Committee's jurisdiction: the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This bill will fundamentally alter the way information technology research is supported and conducted. Its centerpiece is the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program, which: Limits grants to long-term basic research with priority given to research which helps address issues related to high-end computing, and software and network stability, fragility, security (including privacy) and scalability. Requires all grants to be peer reviewed by panels that include private sector representatives. Establishes 20 large grants of up to $1 million in FY 2000-2001; 30 large grants in FY 2002-2004. Makes $40 million available for grants of up to $5 million for IT Centers (6 or more researchers collaborating on cross-disciplinary research issues) in FY 2000-2001; $45 million in FY 2002-2003; $50 million in FY 2004. Provides $95 million to create for-credit private sector internship programs at two and four-year colleges and universities for IT students. To participate in the program, a company must commit to provide 50 percent of the cost of the internship program. Authorizes a total of $385 million for new computer hardware for terascale computing, which will be allocated in an open competition by NSF. Awardees must agree to integrate with the existing Advanced Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure program and give access to Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act research grant recipients. In addition, the bill authorizes $111 million through fiscal year 2002 for the completion of the Next Generation Internet program. Another of the bill's provisions requires NSF to report to Congress on the availability of encryption technologies in foreign countries and how they compare with similar technologies subject to export restrictions in the United States. I believe that export controls on encryption are stifling development in this critical area, and I think this study will demonstrate that the current policy on encryption is self-defeating. I also have included language in the bill to make the research tax credit permanent. For too long, businesses have been unable to plan for long-term research projects because of the annual guessing game surrounding the extension of the credit. To encourage capital formation, the credit must be a fixture in law instead of a perennial budget battle. As you know, there are a number of bills that expand the R&D tax credit, but I believe extending it permanently is a good start. Once that hurdle is cleared, we can then examine ways to improve it. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 1999 has been endorsed by both the Technology Network, a coalition of leading technology executives, and Ken Kennedy, the academic co-chair of the PITAC. It is a strong bipartisan bill, and I encourage all my House colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' The bill synthesizes the contents of two other measures I have authored, H.R. 1852 and H.R. 967. Section 2 of my bill is identical to H.R. 1852, the ``Multidistrict Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999,'' which I introduced on May 18 at the behest of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, or the ``AO.'' The AO is concerned over a Supreme Court opinion, the so-called Lexecon case, pertaining to Section 1407 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code. This statute governs federal multidistrict litigation. Under Section 1407, a Multidistrict Litigation Panel--a select group of seven federal judges picked by the Chief Justice--helps to consolidate lawsuits which share common questions of fact filed in more than one judicial district nationwide. Typically, these suits involve mass torts--a plane crash, for example--in which the plaintiffs are from many different states. All things considered, the panel attempts to identify the one district court nationwide which is best adept at adjudicating pretrial matters. The panel then remands individual cases back to the district where they were originally filed for trial unless they have been previously terminated. For approximately 30 years, however, the district court selected by the panel to hear pretrial matters (the ``transferee court'') often invoked Section 1404(a) of Title 28 to retain jurisdiction for trial over all of the suits. This is a general venue statute that allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought; in effect, the court selected by the panel simply transferred all of the cases to itself. According to the AO, this process has worked well, since the transferee court was versed in the facts and law of the consolidated litigation. This is also the one court which could compel all parties to settle when appropriate. The Lexecon decision alters the Section 1407 landscape. This was a 1998 defamation case brought by a consulting entity (Lexecon) against a law firm that had represented a plaintiff class in the Lincoln Savings and Loan litigation in Arizona. Lexecon had been joined as a defendant to the class action, which the Multidistrict Litigation Panel transferred to the District of Arizona. Before the pretrial proceedings were concluded, Lexecon reached a ``resolution'' with the plaintiffs, and the claims against the consulting entity were dismissed. Lexecon then brought a defamation suit against the law firm in the Northern District for Illinois. The law firm moved under Section 1407 that the Multidistrict Litigation Panel empower the Arizona court which adjudicated the original S&L litigation to preside over the defamation suit. The panel agreed, and the Arizona transferee court subsequently invoked its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 104 to preside over a trial that the law firm eventually won. Lexecon appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding that Section 1407 explicitly requires a transferee court to remand all cases for trial back to the respective jurisdictions from which they were originally referred. In his opinion, Justice Souter observed that ``the floor of Congress'' was the proper venue to determine whether the practice of self-assignment under these conditions should continue. Mr. Speaker, Section 2 of this legislation responds to Justice Souter's admonition. It would simply amend Section 1407 by explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial, or refer them to other districts, as it sees fit. This change makes sense in light of past judicial practice under the Multidistrict Litigation statute. It obviously promotes judicial administrative efficiency. Section 3 of the bill consists of the text of H.R. 967, the ``Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999,'' which I introduced on March 3rd. This is a bill that the House of Representatives passed during the 101st and 102nd Congresses with Democratic majorities. The Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported this bill during the 103rd Congress, also under a Democratic majority, and just last term the House approved the legislation as Section 10 of H.R. 1252, the ``Judicial Reform Act.'' The Judicial Conference and the Department of Justice have supported this measure in the past. Section 3 of the bill would bestow original jurisdiction on federal district courts in civil actions involving minimal diversity jurisdiction among adverse parties based on a single accident--like a plane or train crash--where at least 25 persons have either died or sustained injuries exceeding $50,000 per person. The transferee court would retain those cases for determination of liability and punitive damages, and would also determine the substantive law that would apply for liability and punitive damages. If liability is established, the transferee court would then remand the appropriate cases back to the federal and state courts from which they were referred for a determination of compensatory and actual damages. Mr. Speaker, Section 3 will help to reduce litigation costs as well as the likelihood of forum shopping in mass tort cases. An effective one-time determination of punitive damages would eliminate multiple or inconsistent awards arising from multiforum litigation. At the same time, however, trial attorneys will have the opportunity to go before juries in their home states for compensatory and actual damages. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a hearing on this measure which will take place before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. The legislation speaks to process, fairness, and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for litigators. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Multidistrict, Mulitparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999 when it is reported to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 1999, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the nineteen preceding years I have served in the Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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 and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1553.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), which would add nearly $27 million to the bill's already generous fiscal year 2001 authorization level. This bill recommends an increase of $61.1 million, or 4.6 percent, above the fiscal 1999 appropriated level for fiscal year 2000, then an additional increase of $67.1 million, or 4.8 percent, above the fiscal 2000 recommended level for fiscal year 2001. It is consistent with the administration's request, and also consistent with my pledge to provide stable and sustainable R&D funding over the next 5 years for programs under the Committee on Science's jurisdiction. I would just point out that I have been talking about 3 percent increases overall for science. This bill has 4.6 percent in the first year and 4.8 percent in the second year, which is over that recommended amount. While I understand the gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, I also believe it is unwise, while we are trying to sustain the balanced budget caps in order to preserve and protect social security. I simply cannot be a party to an amendment that threatens the well-being of our senior citizens, and consequently, I urge rejection of the Costello amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, with regret, I must oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). While not binding, the gentleman's sense of Congress amendment telling the National Weather Service that it should not close any local Weather Service office for any reason whatsoever is in direct contradiction to the provisions of existing law. It will have a chilling effect that could well bring the service's modernization efforts to a halt, with potentially disastrous consequences for public health and safety. I would remind the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Indiana that this bill improves forecast accuracy for tornadoes by 10 percent. The reason we are able to do that without busting the budget is by making the Weather Service more efficient. The Weather Service plan for its modernization and associated restructuring was approved overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 1992. Already this multibillion dollar effort has resulted in dramatic gains in the service's capability to predict severe weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, severe thunderstorms, damaging hail, and high winds, and in dramatic gains in its ability to further ensure the public health and safety. The only way this multibillion dollar modernization effort was and is affordable is because Congress also directed the Weather Service to consolidate its sprawling network of local Weather Service offices. The savings from this consolidation effort allows the modernization effort to proceed. Congress also established an elaborate procedure to ensure that local Weather Service offices were not closed in a willy-nilly fashion and were not subject to partisan politics. For example, the Secretary of Commerce may not close, consolidate, automate, or relocate any field office ``* * * unless the Secretary has certified'', ``certified that such action will not result in any degradation of service.'' In addition, a public review process was also established, and, as an additional protection, Congress created a 12-member modernization transition committee comprised of five members representing the National Weather Service, the Department of Defense, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and several members from civil defense, public safety and labor organizations, news media, pilots, and farmers. This committee may review any certification proposed by the Secretary of Commerce to determine if a degradation of service might result. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would have the implied effect of overriding this elaborate and fair public process. In addition, as I said earlier, it would have a chilling effect that could well bring the service's modernization efforts to a halt with potentially disastrous consequences to public health and safety. We simply cannot afford to complete the National Weather Service's modernization effort and to operate the new system without the parallel restructuring of Weather Service field offices. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to support the committee's effort to complete the modernization.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to tell my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), as well as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who has a similar concern, that the Committee on Science is aware of the NOAA Modernization Transition Committee process and commends NOAA for its efforts in this regard. The committee is also aware of the efforts of various communities that maintain local weather coverage and shares the gentlemen's view and their concern about the degradation of service that may result from closing Weather Service offices. Consequently, the Committee on Science strongly urges NOAA to continue to aggressively work with local communities in developing comprehensive strategies that will allow high-risk communities to effectively respond to occurrences of severe weather. I can add that the Committee on Science is known as doing tough-love oversight, and this is one of the areas where the committee will be doing some pretty tough oversight because we do not want NOAA modernization to result in a huge degradation of service, particularly in the high-risk areas. I know the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) represents one of those areas, as does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).