F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1231) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the United States Fire Administration, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 112) to provide for the conveyance of certain property from the United States to Stanislaus County, California.

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. 112.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Walter Capps as well. Congressman Capps served on the Committee on Science for the last 10 months, and I got to know the quality of this individual during our rather lengthy meetings in an attempt, successfully, to achieve bipartisan policy to advance the cause of science and education. Mr. Capps was a tremendous asset to the committee, not only because of his ethical principles, but also because of his background in education and knowing what works in the educational arena and what does not. But I think the true mark of this man was a conversation that I had with him about 4 months ago after a very long, productive and bipartisan session in the Committee on Science, where he told me that he was so pleased with seeing how Congress should work actually working out. After our session in the Committee on Science was over with, he said he was invited to participate in a meeting by some people on the Democratic side of the aisle who were not quite as bipartisan in outlook as Mr. Capps was, and the Committee on Science has been. And he said, ``You know, after seeing how productive the Science Committee was working on a bipartisan basis, I just could not attend the meeting to try to disrupt the operations of the House.'' Walter Capps was one of the most principled people I have ever met, and this House and this country has really suffered a great loss with his passing.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that I learned of the death of Walter Capps, my colleague in the House and a member of the Science Committee, which I chair. Walter died yesterday of an apparent heart attack after arriving at Dulles airport upon returning to Washington from his California district. Before his election to Congress, Walter was a professor of religious studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He also established and taught the first college course on the Vietnam war. His lifelong commitment to education was evident to everyone who knew him. His experience as an educator was a tremendous asset to the Science Committee and our work to improve science and math education. I was particularly impressed by the integrity and honesty that Walter Capps displayed at all times. I recall a conversation I had with Walter after a particularly successful bipartisan markup we had in the Science Committee earlier this year. He told me he was impressed by the bipartisan spirit and focus on policy over politics and he hoped that it would catch on in the House. Displaying the integrity that I particularly admired in Walter Capps, he indicated to me that he was going to skip a meeting later that day with Members of his own party that he believed to be intent on promoting partisan politics. Walter was a pleasure to work with and will be missed as both a friend and a colleague. I know that all of the Science Committee members would want to join me in extending our sympathy to his wife, Lois, and three children, Lisa, Todd, and Laura.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, last week in a bipartisan effort, the Committee on Science favorably reported H.R. 2429, as amended, a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer Program [STTR] through fiscal year 2000. This week, the Committee on Science and the Committee on Small Business, again working in a bipartisan fashion, have agreed to incorporate H.R. 2429 into H.R. 2261, the Small Business Programs Reauthorization and Amendments Acts of 1997. I would like to thank the ranking member of the Science committee, Mr. Brown, the Subcommittee on Technology chairwoman, Mrs. Morella, and the ranking member of that subcommittee, Mr. Gordon, for their efforts to reauthorize STTR. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, Mr. Talent, for the great cooperation he and all his staff have shown in working with the Science Committee to reauthorize STTR. STTR was started as a pilot program in 1994. STTR was enacted to provide high technology, small businesses across the country an opportunity to receive Federal R&D funding for ideas that were originated in, and developed in cooperation with, nonprofit research institutions such as universities. It is financed by a 0.15 percent set-aside from the extramural R&D budgets of five agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. These ideas are developed under STTR in three phases. Phase I is a 1- year grant of up to $100,000. It is primarily used to research the viability of a technology. After phase I, a company may apply for phase II funding. Phase II is a 2-year award, of up to $500,000. Phase II award winners will further develop the technology--with the goal of achieving phase III. Phase III is defined as commercialization of the technology, including use of the technology by the Government. STTR funds are not used for phase III. H.R. 2429 will reauthorize STTR at its current set-aside of 0.15 percent through fiscal year 2000. The measure also makes some significant improvements to the program. H.R. 2429 requires the STTR participating agencies to include STTR in their annual performance plans, as required by the Results Act. This plan will result in each agency defining program goals and setting out metrics to measure these goals. I believe that the plan will give Congress a clearer picture of the effectiveness of the STTR Program. In addition to the performance plan, H.R. 2429 requires each agency to include programs under 15 U.S.C. 638 in their strategic plan updates, again a requirement under the Results Act. The STTR program has been criticized in some circles for the disparity of awards among States. To address this concern, H.R. 2429 mandates the Small Business Administration to develop an outreach program for small businesses and universities from States that have not received 20 or more STTR or Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] awards in the previous 2 fiscal years. I do not favor mandating a set- aside for these States, but I do believe that through this program we will see an increase in the number of award applications, which should serve to strengthen STTR. Finally, H.R. 2429 assures that the Committee on Science will be added to the list of committee's receiving the Small Business Administration's annual report on the STTR and SBIR Programs. I am pleased that H.R. 2429 will be incorporated in its totality into H.R. 2261. It is also my understanding that the Committee on Science will have an equal number of conferees as the Small Business Committee on the STTR provision, when and if conference occurs with the Senate. I look forward to working with the Small Business Committee in representing the House position on the STTR Program.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 910, the bill just considered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is correct again.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is correct.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 910) to authorize appropriations for carrying out the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Senate 910, an act to authorize appropriations for carrying out the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 is nearly identical to H.R. 2249, a bill reported out of the Committee on Science by voice vote on July 29, 1997, and discharged from further consideration by the Committee on Resources on August 1, 1997. S. 910 is the result not only of a bipartisan effort but also a bicameral effort to craft legislation that is in the national interest. This legislation is strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program has been successful in increasing our understanding of the science of earthquakes, where earthquakes are likely to occur and how the built environment is impacted by the ground shaking and other effects of this phenomenon. Because of what this program has taught us over the years, measures have been taken at the Federal, State and local levels to mitigate the effect of potential earthquakes, reducing our risk and vulnerability. Despite these advances, much more remains to be done. Many areas of this country face an earthquake threat that could result in the loss of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic damage. Early in 1995, Kobe, Japan suffered just such a catastrophe. Over 6,000 people lost their lives in that earthquake, and the economists have estimated the economic losses at over $200 billion. The legislation we have before us today will do much to further our understanding of the effects of earthquakes and enable additional mitigation to occur. Specifically, S. 910 enables the program to continue its good work in earthquake research and hazards mitigation. This legislation authorizes approximately $105 million in fiscal year 1998 and $108 million in fiscal year 1999 for the four NEHRP agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. In addition, the bill provides $3.8 million in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for the U.S. Geological Survey for the operation of the global seismic network. There are several other provisions of this legislation I would like to highlight which I believe will strengthen NEHRP and provide for a more robust earthquake science and engineering research infrastructure into the next century. First, the legislation authorizes $8 million specifically for the U.S. Geological Survey's external grants program. This action is consistent with the Committee on Science's ongoing efforts to recognize and support external competitive peer review programs within the science agencies. Second, the bill requires the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a prototype, real-time seismic hazard warning system which will enable our Nation's vital lifelines, such as electric utilities, gas lines, and high speed railroads to receive warnings in advance of an earthquake. It is hoped that these warnings can be provided in time to shut down the lifelines, thereby guarding against the catastrophic effects that occur when such facilities are ruptured or damaged by earthquakes. Third, this reauthorization requires an assessment of regional seismic monitoring networks to determine the state of facilities and equipment. Fourth, the bill authorizes the Director of the National Science Foundation to use funds to develop Earth science teaching materials and to make them available to local elementary and secondary schools. This is consistent with the increased emphasis which the Committee on Science is placing on all science education for grades K through 12. Fifth, the legislation directs the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to approve hazard assessment of seismic zones throughout the United States and report to the Congress. Sixth, the bill requires the Director of FEMA to assess and report on disaster training capabilities and programs offered by the agency. And finally, the bill requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to work with the other NEHRP agencies to develop a plan to effectively use earthquake engineering research facilities, which includes upgrading facilities and equipment and integrating innovative testing approaches. Mr. Speaker, S. 910 is a well thought out bill which has broad bipartisan support as well as the support of the earthquake science and engineering communities. Before closing, I would like to thank and commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], my committee's ranking member, for his work on this legislation and his abiding interest throughout his congressional career in earthquake-related research and mitigation. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, who share jurisdictions on portions of this legislation, for their timely efforts in bringing this reauthorization to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of my colleagues for the passage of Senate 910, and I reserve 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. 1903.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1903) to amend the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to enhance the ability of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to improve computer security, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today, in a bipartisan effort, the Committee on Science brings to the floor H.R. 1903, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997. I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. George Brown, the Subcommittee on Technology chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Constance Morella, the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. Bart Gordon, as well as the 25 other members of the committee who cosponsored this bill. The Computer Security Act of 1987 gave authority over computer and communication security standards in Federal civilian agencies to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 strengthens that authority and directs funds to implement practices and procedures which will ensure that the Federal standard-setting process remains strong, despite its increasing reliance on a network infrastructure. The need for this renewed emphasis on the security of Federal civilian agencies is underscored by a recently released report from the General Accounting Office. The 1997 Report on Information Management and Technology highlighted information security as a Governmentwide high-risk issue. It stated that despite having critical functions, Federal systems and data are not adequately protected. Since June 1993, the GAO has issued over 30 reports describing serious information security weaknesses at Federal agencies. In September 1996, it reported that during the previous 2 years, such weaknesses had been determined for 10 of the 15 largest Federal agencies. For half of these agencies, the weakness had been disclosed repeatedly for 5 years or longer. Much has changed in the 10 years since the Computer Security Act of 1987 became law. The proliferation of network systems, the Internet, and web access are just a few of the dramatic advances in information technology that have occurred. The Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 addresses these changes and provides for greater security for the Federal civilian agencies that base their buying decisions for computer security hardware on NIST standards. Specifically, H.R. 1903 requires NIST to encourage the acquisition of off-the-shelf products to meet civilian agencies' security needs. Such practices will reduce the cost and improve the availability of computer security technologies for Federal civilian agencies. The bill strengthens the role played by the independent Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board in NIST's decision-making process. The CSSPAB, which is made up of representatives from industry, Federal agencies, and private organizations, has long been considered a vital part of NIST's standard-setting process on emerging computer security issues. Strengthening the board's role will help ensure that the Federal Government benefits from private sector expertise. H.R. 1903 establishes a new computer science fellowship program for graduate and undergraduate students studying computer security. It provides for the National Research Council to study the desirability of key infrastructures. The NRC would also examine the technologies required for establishing such an infrastructure. Further, the bill requires the Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to actively promote the use of technologies that will enhance the security of communications networks and electronic information; to establish a clearinghouse of information available to the public on information security threats; and to promote the development of standards-based infrastructure that will enable the widespread use of encryption technologies for confidentiality and authentication. Finally, H.R. 1903 establishes a national panel to discuss digital signatures. The panel will explore all factors associated with developing a national digital signature infrastructure based on uniform standards. Mr. Speaker, Members will notice the old section 7 directing NIST to assess foreign encryption products has been removed, to satisfy the concerns of the administration and my colleagues on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I trust this action will help assure that all Members can support this legislation without reservation. Mr. Speaker, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 1997 will ensure that Federal civilian agencies enjoy the highest standard of information technologies, both for transmitted and stored data. The protection of this vital data is necessary for the security of all Americans. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2429, a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR] Program through the fiscal year 2000. I am joined on the bill by Chairman Talent and Ranking Member LaFalce of the Small Business Committee, Science Committee ranking member George Brown, Chairwoman Morella and Ranking Member Gordon of the Technology Subcommittee, Subcommittee on Government Programs and Oversight Chairman Bartlett and Ranking Member Poshard, and Science Committee member Tom Davis. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Talent of the Small Business Committee for his efforts to ensure a smooth reauthorization process for STTR, a program over which our two Committees share jurisdiction. It has been a pleasure working with him and his committee staff. STTR was created as a pilot program during the 1992 reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research [SBIR] Program. The program requires Federal agencies with extramural R&D budgets in excess of $1 billion to set aside 0.15 percent of that budget for technology transfer from Government to small business. This set-aside provides funding for ideas, that are cooperatively researched and developed by small businesses and nonprofit research institutions, such as universities. Five agencies currently participate in the STTR Program. They are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation. In fiscal year 1995, the STTR Program issued a total of 260 awards, totaling over $33 million. STTR's authorization will expire on September 30, 1997. H.R. 2429 will extend the program's life through fiscal year 2000, the same year the authorization for SBIR expires. STTR and SBIR have similar structures. The programs are divided into three phases. Phase I is the development stage of the idea. Awards for this phase may total up to $100,000 in both programs. Phase II allows for further development of the most promising ideas from phase I. These awards can be as much as $500,000 in the STTR Program, and $750,000 in the SBIR Program. The final phase, phase III, is the commercialization of the product, or the use of that product by the Federal Government. The STTR and SBIR set-asides are not used for phase III grants. Unlike SBIR, STTR requires the participation of a research institution in all its awards. STTR was designed to take ideas that originated in universities and laboratories, and develop them through a cooperative agreement with a small business entity. Under SBIR, universities can play a limited role in the program, but their participation is not required. While STTR and SBIR are similar programs, they differ vastly in scale. In fiscal year 1995, SBIR made over 4,000 awards totaling over $800 million. In fiscal year 1997, SBIR grants will total over $1 billion. SBIR was created in 1982 to increase the participation of small, high-technology companies in Federal R&D. This was done by requiring Federal agencies with large R&D budgets to set aside 2.5 percent of their extramural research funding. In the first 3 years of the program, STTR has awarded 784 grants totaling just over $115 million. These relatively low totals make it impossible to accurately measure the success of the program. However, there appears to be enough anecdotal evidence that the program is working to warrant its extension for an additional 3 fiscal years. At that time, it is my hope that the Science Committee, working with the Small Business Committee, can do a thorough review of not only STTR, but also the $1 billion SBIR Program.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on this matter and on other important issues in the future. As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source award.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing with my colleague on the House Science Committee, Mr. Brown, legislation to reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program [NEHRP]. Since its inception in 1977, NEHRP has contributed greatly to what we know about the science of earthquakes as well as to reducing our Nation's vulnerability to earthquakes. Earth science and seismological research performed through NEHRP has produced maps and seismic data from which we can determine seismic risks in a given location. And, NEHRP helped to develop the knowledge base that enables design and construction of new structures that are less likely to collapse during an earthquake. The bill we are introducing today enables the program to continue its good work in earthquake research and hazards mitigation. Specifically, this legislation authorizes approximately $105 million in fiscal year 1998 and $107 million in fiscal year 1999 for the four NEHRP agencies, the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], the United States Geological Survey [USGS], the National Science Foundation [NSF], and the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. In addition, the bill provides $3 million in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to the USGS for operation of the Global Seismic Network [GSN]. There are several provisions of this legislation which I would like to highlight which we believe will strengthen NERHP and provide for a more robust earthquake science and engineering research infrastructure into the next century: First, the legislation authorizes $8 million specifically for the USGS's external grants programs. This action is consistent with the Science Committee's ongoing efforts to recognize and support external programs within the science agencies. Second, this bill requires the Director of USGS to develop a seismic hazard warning system which will enable our Nation's vital lifelines such as electric utilities, gas lines, and high-speed railroads, to receive warnings in advance of an earthquake. It is hoped that these warnings will be provided in time to shut down the lifelines, thereby guarding against the catastrophic effects that occur when such facilities are ruptured or damaged by earthquakes. Third, this NEHRP reauthorization requires an assessment of regional seismic monitoring networks to determine the state of facilities and equipment. Fourth, the bill authorizes the Director of NSF to use funds to develop earth science teaching materials and to make them available to local schools. Fifth, the legislation directs the Director of USGS to improve hazards assessments of seismic zones in the United States. Sixth, the bill requires the Director of FEMA to assess and report on disaster training capabilities and programs offered by the agency. Seventh, finally, the bill requires the Director of NSF to work with the other NERHP agencies to develop a plan to effectively use earthquake engineering research facilities, which includes upgrading facilities and equipment and integrating innovative testing approaches. Mr. Speaker, the legislation Mr. Brown and I are introducing today is reflective of the Science Committee's bipartisan efforts on behalf of Federal science and technology programs. The bill is a manifestation of a jointly shared goal to ensure that the Nation has a vital earthquake research enterprise which will continue to greatly contribute to better earthquake awareness, more widespread and effective earthquake mitigation, and ultimately, a reduction in lives and property lost from this hazard.