F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Joe McDade, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, as he prepares to retire after 36 years of service to the country and his constituents. Throughout his 18 terms, Joe McDade played key roles in areas ranging from energy and the environment, to America's highways and national defense, all the while displaying grace and dignity under sometimes adverse circumstances. In the 10th District of Pennsylvania, Joe McDade is known as a friend to his constituents, a man whose work as a Member of this House always aimed to help the individuals who sent him here. Among other things, he fought to create better opportunities for small business, to help former coal miners re-train for new careers after many mines closed, and to ensure that local hospitals, highways, and schools were the best that they could be. As a member of the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee, he addressed issues including alternative sources of energy in order to limit dependence on foreign oil. He devoted considerable effort to funding environmental infrastructure improvements such as sewage treatment facilities and flood control. Joe McDade's contributions reach the national level as well. As a member of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee during the 1980s, Joe played a key role in crafting defense and national security legislation. It is in no small part a result of his work that the U.S. was able to achieve a peaceful end to the Cold War from a position of strength and readiness. I join my colleagues today in congratulating Joe McDade on a distinguished career. He has been a positive force for this nation and for this House. I wish him continued success in his endeavors and a long and productive retirement.

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 ask unanimous consent to dispense with the call of the Private Calendar 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. 3332, the legislation just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. Does the gentlewoman from Texas have any further speakers?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3332, the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, amends the high-performance Computing Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for the next generation Internet program for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. It was passed by a voice vote by the Committee on Science on May 13, 1998. Today's Internet bears little resemblance to the original network that grew out of the work sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Programs Agency and later by the National Science Foundation. What started out as a relatively small but important network linking Department of Defense and research university computers has exploded into a highly integrated worldwide system used largely by commercial and other enterprises. From 1998 to 2002, for example, the number of Internet users worldwide is expected to grow from 148 million to 477 million. Over the same period business-to-business electronic commerce is expected to grow from $78 billion to $300 billion. The explosive growth in Internet traffic and its increasing importance to commerce and research has highlighted the need for new technologies to increase the speed and capacity of the system. Indeed the current system suffers limitations that could slow communications costing users both time and money. The NGI program will develop many of the technologies that will help the Internet keep pace with the increased demands placed on it. I have long been supportive of the NGI program in concept but was initially reluctant to endorse the program because the administration had not developed an adequate plan on how it would be managed and how the funds would be spent. It was only in July 1997 that a draft implementation plan was put forward by the administration, too late for the Committee on Science to authorize the program in the First Session of the 105th Congress. With the release of the final implementation plan in February 1998 the committee felt it had a justifiable basis to move ahead with legislation to authorize the NGI program. The result is the bill before us today. The NGI program will support R&D of advanced networking technologies to improve Internet performance, develop an advanced testbed network to demonstrate new technologies and use new technologies to develop more sophisticated Internet applications. One major goal of this program is to connect 100 NGI sites at 100 times the speed of today's Internet and to connect an additional 10 NGI sites at a thousand times the speed of today's Internet. Specifically the bill authorizes $67 million for fiscal year 1999 and $75 million for Fiscal Year 2000 for the NGI programs run by the following five agencies: Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Health, NASA and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. None of the money authorized is to be used for routine upgrades but only for research related activities. H.R. 3332 also authorizes research into improving Internet access for rural areas, minority institutions and small colleges and promoting technology transfer to the private sector. The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee is required to report annually to Congress and to the President about the NGI program's progress in these and other areas. In addition the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to sponsor a National Academy of Sciences study that will look at the effects on trademark rights of adding new top-level domain names and make recommendations on how best to protect trademarks in the growing cyberspace economy. Eight hundred thousand dollars is authorized for this study. H.R. 3332 is an excellent piece of legislation that will enhance a variety of fields and services including national defense, weather forecasting, air safety, telemedicine, the media, and education and research. And if that is not enough, it will also improve the quality of Internet service provided to the average consumer. I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague, ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) for cosponsoring this bill with me. I believe we have crafted a bill that will earn the support of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the capital, and I thank the gentleman for all the time and insight he has contributed to this legislation. H.R. 3332 is an important and timely piece of legislation, and I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3332) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the Next Generation Internet program, to require the Advisory Committee on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technology, and the Next Generation Internet to monitor and give advice concerning the development and implementation of the Next Generation Internet program and report to the President and the Congress on its activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about fairness to the American taxpayer that paid for the independent counsel's investigation. The American public, to be fair to them, ought to be able to see what the independent counsel has sent to Congress, pursuant to the independent counsel statute, free from spin doctors, free from talking heads, free from media hype. Let them see it in the form that it was sent by the independent counsel. I would point out that nobody is going to have a 1-minute advantage and a heads-up on this, because this will be released simultaneously to the American public, to the Congress, and to the President of the United States. Now, the 35 of us who are members of the Committee on the Judiciary have an awesome constitutional responsibility in discharging our duties and evaluating this evidence to see whether or not the President has committed an impeachable offense or not. I am not asking for a leg-up to start working on this awesome responsibility. I am asking for fairness. I am asking for an ability to be able to reach my own conclusions, free from the advice of people on the outside who have got axes to grind, and that is why I think that this resolution is fundamentally fair, because it strikes a balance between the openness that the American public expects this proceeding to be done, as well as the request that Independent Counsel Starr has made to protect certain individuals from undue conclusions, who are not involved in this process at all. This report contains the most important information concerning a President that the American people will ever have to consider, and the American people ought to be put it into this equation so that they can see what the independent counsel has found and they can judge for themselves. It is imperative that the Congress conduct the public's business in as open a manner as possible. The process laid out by the Committee on Rules is eminently fair. Congress, the citizens of this country, and President Clinton will begin their review process of Independent Counsel Starr's report at the same time. With the public dissemination of this material, the American people and Members of Congress can come to their individual conclusions regarding Mr. Starr's report. The resolution charges the Committee on the Judiciary with the awesome responsibility of reviewing the full referral by Mr. Starr to determine if there are sufficient grounds to recommend to the House that an impeachment inquiry be commenced. We are committed to conducting an impartial and independent review of the independent counsel's investigation and his conclusions, and will reach our own conclusions based upon that review, and it will be done in a nonpartisan manner. After evaluating Mr. Starr's evidence, the Committee on the Judiciary has two choices. Either it will find that there is no substantial evidence of impeachable activity by the President or it will recommend commencing a formal impeachment inquiry. This will be done not on a partisan basis, but on the evidence and on the law. I support the resolution.

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. 3824.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3824) amending the Fastener Quality Act to exempt from its coverage certain fasteners approved by the Federal Aviation Administration for use in aircraft, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments. The Clerk will read the title of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3824 requires the Secretary of Commerce to review the Fastener Quality Act to assess if its provisions are still needed and to report his findings back to Congress. The Senate amended H.R. 3824 to require the Secretary to specifically consider other regulatory programs which currently regulate fasteners in making his determination on the continued need for the Fastener Quality Act. Mr. Speaker, the Fastener Quality Act was signed into law in 1990. This well intended but misguided legislation requires a large percentage of metallic fasteners used in this country to be documented by a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) certified laboratory. Although the legislation has been on the books for eight years and counting, difficulty in developing the regulations of the Act have delayed NIST from implementing the regulations until this year. H.R. 3824, as passed by the Senate, amends the Fastener Quality Act by exempting certain fasteners produced or altered to the specifications of aviation manufacturers from the new regulations. Aviation manufacturers are already required by law to demonstrate to the FAA that they have a quality control system which ensures that their products, including fasteners, meet design specifications. Subjecting the proprietary fasteners of aviation manufacturers to a second set of federal regulations is redundant and unnecessary. In fact, the FAA has stated that doing so may even undermine the current level of aviation safety. In addition to exempting certain fasteners used in aviation manufacturing from the provisions of the Fastener Quality Act, H.R. 3824 has two other important functions. First, it delays implementation of the NIST Fastener Quality Act regulations until after June 1, 1999. Second, the legislation requires the Secretary of Commerce to transmit to Congress a report including recommendations or changes to the Act that may be warranted due to changes in the fastener manufacturing process. Delaying NIST's regulations until next year gives us the opportunity to take a closer look at the Fastener Quality Act, especially considering the scope seems to have grown significantly since the Act was crafted over eight years ago. Originally intended to ensure public safety, today, if NIST regulations were to be implemented, even every-day household products like garden-hose fasteners and window fixtures could be forced to comply with the additional burdens of the Act. Furthermore, the automotive industry projects the cost of compliance for the motor vehicle industry could be greater than $300 million a year without necessarily enhancing vehicle safety. As Chairman of the Committee on Science, I have pledged to hold additional hearings on the issue beginning next month. Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman Morella will again take the lead on these important hearings, and I would like to thank her for all her support and hard work to date on this important issue. We may find that changes in the fastener manufacturing process have diminished the need for the Fastener Quality Act. H.R. 3824 will give us the time needed to ensure that costly and redundant regulations do not go into force. H.R.3824 passed the House by voice vote on June 16, 1998. It has wide bipartisan support and has been endorsed by several business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. As the Chamber concludes in their endorsement letter, ``H.R. 3824 * * * is an important step to help ensure that America's manufacturing economy and consumers are not harmed by outdated or unnecessary regulations''. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999, includes funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Last year the Science Committee and the full House passed H.R. 1274, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Authorization Act of 1997. H.R. 1274 includes authorizations of $621 million for NIST and $7 million for the Technology Administration (TA) for FY 1999. H.R. 4276 largely follows those authorizations by funding NIST at $624 million, and TA at $7 million for FY 1999. As did the authorization, this bill gives priority to NIST's core laboratory functions, including a $4 million increase over the FY 1998 appropriated level for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account. STRS funds NIST's laboratories and the Baldrige Quality Awards. While the increase is less than the authorization, the increase is a recognition that running NIST's laboratory programs is the agency's most important function. By contrast, H.R. 4276 includes a $12 million decrease in funding for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), reducing the program to $180 million from the FY 1998 funding level of $192 million. While H.R. 1274 phased-down ATP funding from the $225 million appropriation in FY 1997 to $150 million in FY 1999, the trajectory of ATP's funding in H.R. 4276, if not the speed of its decline, is in keeping with the authorization. With respect to the Technology Administration, H.R. 4276 includes funding for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) despite the fact that the program was specifically not authorized by H.R. 1274. As expressed in the Science Committee's report accompanying H.R. 1274, I continue to have concerns that once EPSCoT is established, it will grow substantially beyond the $2.1 million contained in H.R. 4276. The program, which was initiated last year and has done little with its $1.6 million FY 1998 appropriation, is now slated to receive a 31% increase. Even with the increased funding, it seems unlikely EPSCoT will be able to help the 18 states it is designed to assist. I hope that EPSCoT is not allowed to grow into another very expensive Administration technology initiative. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276 also includes funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Without the benefit of the increased revenues from a non-existent tobacco settlement, and notwithstanding the very tight budget caps, Chairman Rogers and the Appropriations Committee have managed to increase funding for high-priority programs, most importantly local warnings and forecasts within the National Weather Service. This was made possible in part after an agreement was reached by the Appropriations Committee, the Science Committee and Secretary Daley to maintain the $550 million budget cap on the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) weather modernization program. I am also pleased that report language in the bill echoes the Science Committee's concern over adequate weather radar coverage for northwest Pennsylvania. I hope during the new fiscal year that NOAA will see the light and place a National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NEXRAD) system in this area that is so obviously necessary.

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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 379 and H.R. 2744, the two bills just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police who lost their lives Friday, July 24, 1998 defending the United States Capitol, the tourists who visit it, and the Members and staff who serve there. It is thanks to their dedication to duty that an already tragic day did not result in additional loss of life. It is thanks to their heroism, and the heroism of their fellow United States Capitol Police Officers, that the People's House is and can remain open to the American people. Today, flags fly at half staff over the United States Capitol to honor the fallen officers. Officer Chestnut, an 18 year veteran of the U.S. Capitol Police, had served in the U.S. Air Force. Detective Gibson was an 8 year veteran who was assigned to the dignitary protection division of the Capitol Police. Both officers leave behind a wife and children, as well as countless family and friends. At this very difficult time, it is my hope that they will find some solace in knowing that their loved ones died protecting America's hard-won freedom. Of this, they can be proud. Friday's criminal act should not result in calls to close the Capitol and have Congress work away from the citizens it represents. Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson gave their lives so the American people can visit their Capitol and see their Congress at work. The officers' sacrifice cannot have been made in vain. My thoughts and prayers, along with those of every Member of this House, are with the fallen officers and their families at this difficult time. Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut served their country well. The service and heroism they displayed is exemplary, and we will always be thankful for the sacrifice they made.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we are saddened to learn of the passing of one of America's great pioneers, Rear Admiral Alan Shepard. Admiral Shepard leaves an enduring legacy of heroism, perseverance, and dedication to the exploration of space ad service to his country. Admiral Shepard served as a Navy fighter pilot and test pilot before being selected as one of the first group of astronauts in 1959. As the commander of Freedom 7, Admiral Shepard became the first American to venture into space. Following his historic flight, Admiral Shepard was told he would never fly into space again. But he would not be deterred. Ten years later, he commanded Apollo 14 and was the fifth American--the fifth person--to walk on the Moon. Those who have worked with Admiral Shepard in both the formulation of space policy and oversight of America's space program came to appreciate his wise counsel and fine wit as he educated us on the complex issues involved. I am confident that his contributions to America's space program will not be forgotten by his countrymen. Admiral Shepard also served his country outside of the cockpit. Following his retirement from NASA and the U.S. Navy in 1974, he brought his determination and leadership to down-to-Earth goals, becoming a successful businessman and raising money for college scholarships so young Americans could grow up to become scientists and engineers. He was on the Board of Directors for both the Houston School for Deaf Children and the National Space Institute. This afternoon, Admiral Shepard's spacecraft, ``Freedom 7'' will arrive at the National Air and Space Museum where it will be on display in remembrance of not only his historic first flight into space, but of the lasting contributions of this great American to his country. And now, Admiral Shepard has joined his fellow crewman of Apollo 14-- the late Stuart Roosa--and we wish him fair winds and following seas, and offer our condolences to his wife Louise, and his daughters Laura, Alice and Julie.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Let me associate myself with his remarks. Voting down the Roemer amendment is essential if NASA is to stay alive. We have spent $22 billion already on the Space Station. There are several hundred thousand pounds of materials that are set and ready to go for launch. We should put those in orbit. We should not put them in a museum. I have a rather lengthy statement in support of the Space Station and against the Roemer amendment, which I will not give due to the lateness of the hour. Today, Representative Roemer is offering an amendment to cancel the International Space Station. While he has offered the amendment before because he felt this was a poor investment of taxpayer money, he is the unexpected beneficiary today of the fact that the Space Station has run into difficulty. Nevertheless, this amendment asks Congress to turn our backs on a commitment the United States made to 15 other countries investing billions on their contributions to the International Space Station. This would have us throw away some $22 billion the American taxpayers have already spent building the hardware for the International Space Station. Most of that hardware already exists. Several hundred thousands of pounds are being processed for launch into space at Kennedy Space Center right now. The Station's opponents would have us forego all of the scientific benefits that are going to flow from this unique research laboratory. Finally, it would turn us away from our future in the human exploration and development of space. That is not the vision of a space program that most of us have. It is not the space program that the American people want, and it is not the space program we should pass on to future generations. The responsible thing to do for the International Space Station is to offer solutions to the program's problems, which this body did last year in passing a two-year NASA authorization. That bill contained a decision-tree that would prevent these problems from continuing and offered commercialization options that would reduce the obligations the taxpayers face while preserving the scientific research they deserve. Since the President has declined to suggest a solution of his own to the problems created by Russia's involvement in the program or to enforce his own budget caps, Congress must hold the Administration's feet to the fire. The Senate has proposed one option of isolating the International Space Station in its own appropriations account in order to end the financial shell games that the Administration has been playing for the last few years. While this is an important step, we also need to hold the President to his promises. H.R. 4194 does just that, providing all of the funding for the International Space Station that the President originally promised us he would need. But, in holding the President to his original promise that the Station would cost no more than $2.1 billion a year, this bill reflects a lack of confidence in NASA's justification for program increases in the absence of meaningful reforms necessary to prevent further schedule slips and cost overruns. The decision to fund the International Space Station at $2.1 billion despite the Administration's $2.27 billion request reflects the reality that NASA's budget numbers for this program have no credibility. In recent years, NASA has a track record of revising their estimates just a few weeks after Congress funds the Station at their requested levels. I don't think anyone should be surprised that this budget strategy has worn thin. NASA has $400 to $500 million of carryover in the Space Station program which should satisfy any budget shortfall. Members who vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana will vote to provide an adequate level of funding while sending a message that NASA must get its fiscal house in order. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I feel the underlying bill continues our commitment to the human exploration of space while responsibly addressing the program management's flaws. I urge my colleagues to support human space exploration, our international commitments, and those who have dedicated themselves to get this research laboratory off the drawing board and into space.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4193, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, includes funding for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Coal Technology, Fossil Energy and the Energy Conservation Research and Development programs. Without the benefit of the increased revenues from a non-existent tobacco settlement, and notwithstanding the very tight budget caps, the Appropriations Committee has maintained or increased spending on important energy research and development programs. I am particularly pleased that the Committee has included report language directing the DOE to address in its FY 2000 budget, the House Science Committee's recommendation in H.R. 1277, the Civilian Energy Research and Development Act of 1997, with respect to peer-reviewed, cost-shared research. I also want to express my strong support for the bill's report language prohibiting any funds from being used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This language is consistent with the Administration's assurances that Senate ratification must precede actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol. Given the obvious problems with this unfunded, unsigned, and unratified Protocol, such a limitation is essential and timely.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

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

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. 2544, the bill just passed.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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