F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states, ``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive procedures.'' First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too many M&O contracts on a sole-source basis. However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301, which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management and operating contract for research and development activities at a federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is encouraging sole-source awards of M&O contracts for research and development activities at federally funded research and development centers rather than encouraging more competition. While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M&O contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards of M&O contracts for R&D. Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would address these concerns.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman does have my assurance of that. I thank the gentleman from California. I appreciate the new requirement that both the House appropriators and authorizers for NASA must improve future transfers.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and I reached an agreement on the NASA transfer authority contained in H.R. 2158 for the International Space Station which allows the NASA administrator to transfer up to $150 million from the science, aeronautics, and technology account and the mission support account to the International Space Station Program. This authority is contained on page 64, lines 8 through 22 of the Union Calendar bill. I agreed not to raise a point of order against the transfer authority in exchange for a commitment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] that any conference report to H.R. 2158 containing transfer authority language would require NASA to obtain approval from both the House Committee on Science, in addition to approval from the Committee on Appropriations. This agreement is critical to protect the oversight responsibilities of the authorization committee, and I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies for his assurances that will require the NASA administrator to formally request, justify, and obtain prior approval from the Committee on Science before utilizing the transfer authority contained in this legislation. In this way, the committees will be able to hold NASA accountable for any decision to transfer funds into the space station account. Is it the distinguished subcommittee chairman's commitment, based upon our agreement, not to support any conference report for H.R. 2158 which contains NASA transfer authority unless it also includes report language requiring prior approval, on a case-by-case basis, by the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Science of any transfers by NASA?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. So the President did not request it, but NASA is supporting the $100 million. I think the administration ought to get its act together and hope the amendment being adopted will help them do that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Did NASA, which is part of the administration, request the $100 million for Russian program assurance?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions. If the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] can tell the membership of the House, did the administration request this $100 million for NASA program assurance?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the amount for human space flight by $100 million to eliminate the request that has been made by someone for Russian program assurance in the Space Station Program. The $100 million was not requested either by NASA or by the administration, but suddenly appeared in the appropriation bill as a result of some negotiations that I do not think we really have gotten the full explanation for. Let me say that if this amendment is adopted, NASA will get every penny for the space station that it has requested. The amendment allows for the full funding of the space station, and I think that NASA ought to be held accountable for the request that it has made and to build the space station according to the budget line that it has announced for a number of years. The real shame that has occurred during the debate on this appropriation bill, in my opinion, is that some people have alleged that reducing the line for Russian program assurance places the space station in jeopardy. Let me say that I have consistently supported fully funding the space station since day one. That continues to be my position. I believe we need a space station led by the United States and that the space station design that NASA has been with for the last 3\1/2\ years is a good one. We ought to fund it, we ought to build it, and we ought to put it in orbit. On the other hand, I am very concerned that money in the reserves for the space station are being used to finance patching up failures of the Russian Government to do what it agreed to do, and by having $100 million extra in the space station account we are just encouraging the Russians to continue to delay and default because they know that the American taxpayer will end up picking up the tab for it. I am opposed to it. I think that the majority of the American people are opposed to it. This is a question of accountability of NASA. NASA should tell the Congress and tell the American public exactly how much the agreement that they made with the Russians is costing the American taxpayer. Giving them $100 million more in Russian program assurance will just delay that day of reckoning. I would urge the adoption of this amendment that just is a straight reduction of the $100 million, will be used to reduce the deficit if there is a lockbox amendment that ends up being approved. I think that this is prudent policy, and it also will make NASA accountable for the money that it spends.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Reauthorization Act of 1997. This legislation reflects a cooperative effort between the Committee on Science and the Committee on Resources to craft a Sea Grant reauthorization bill that is in the best interest of the program and of the taxpayers. I believe that the product of that effort, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 437 brought by the gentleman from New Jersey, achieves these goals, and I urge bipartisan support. This amendment is a 3-year reauthorization that adds or modifies various definitions, clarifies the duties of the program director, sets forth the duties of the Sea Grant institutions and certain types of entities conducting Sea Grant programs. The amendment includes merit reviews of grant and contract applications, repeals the Sea Grant International Program, which has never been funded, and reauthorizes the Sea Grant program at $54.3 million for fiscal year 1998, $55.4 million for fiscal year 1999, and $56.5 million for fiscal year 2000. It also authorizes, within these amounts for each fiscal year, up to $2.8 million for competitive grants for university research on the zebra mussel and up to $2.0 million for oyster disease research. The amendment also promotes efficiency and to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent on research and not on bureaucracy. It limits administrative spending to no more than 5 percent of the lesser of the amount authorized or appropriated each fiscal year, and clarifies that the maximum pay for voting members of the Sea Grant Board is determined by the Secretary of Commerce. Finally, the amendment prohibits the use of Sea Grant funds for lobbying, and requires the Secretary of Commerce notice the Committees on Science and Resources of any reprogramming of Sea Grant funds or reorganization of any Sea Grant program, project or activity. I believe the Committees on Science and Resources have crafted a noncontroversial bill that is good for the Sea Grant Program and good for the taxpayers, and urge my colleagues to support it. In closing, I wish to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], the chairman of the Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the subcommittee's ranking member, for their hard work on this legislation. I would also like to thank the Committee on Science's ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for his bipartisan support. I also want to commend the efforts of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], ranking member of the Committee on Resources; my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], chairman of the Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans; and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the subcommittee's ranking member, even though the calculator in the Committee on Resources on my age is way off, and I excuse them for that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's calculator is a little bit off, but we will excuse him for that.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].

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 would like to take this opportunity to set forth some of the history behind, as well as describe the workings of the Private Calendar. I hope this might be of some value to the Members of this House, especially our newer colleagues. Of the five House Calendars, the Private Calendar is the one to which all private bills are referred. Private bills deal with specific individuals, corporations, institutions, and so forth, as distinguished from public bills which deal with classes only. Of the 108 laws approved by the First Congress, only 5 were private laws. But their number quickly grew as the wars of the new Republic produced veterans and veterans' widows seeking pensions and as more citizens came to have private claims and demands against the Federal Government. The 49th Congress, 1885 to 1887, the first Congress for which complete workload and output data is available--passed 1,031 private laws, as compared with 434 public laws. At the turn of the century the 56th Congress passed 1,498 private laws and 443 public laws--a better than 3 to 1 ratio. Private bills were referred to the Committee on the Whole House as far back as 1820, and a calendar of private bills was established in 1839. These bills were initially brought before the House by special orders, but the 62d Congress changed this procedure by its rule XXIV, clause 6 which provided for the consideration of the Private Calendar in lieu of special orders. This rule was amended in 1932, and then adopted in its present form on March 22, 1935. A determined effort to reduce the private bill workload of the Congress was made in the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. Section 131 of that act banned the introduction or the consideration of four types of private bills: first, those authorizing the payment of money for pensions; second, for personal or property damages for which suit may be brought under the Federal tort claims procedure; third, those authorizing the construction of a bridge across a navigable stream, or fourth, those authorizing the correction of a military or naval record. This ban afforded some temporary relief but was soon offset by the rising postwar and cold war flood for private immigration bills. The 82d Congress passed 1,023 private laws, as compared with 594 public laws. The 88th Congress passed 360 private laws compared with 666 public laws. Under rule XXIV, clause 6, the Private Calendar is called the first and third Tuesday of each month. The consideration of the Private Calendar bills on the first Tuesday is mandatory unless dispensed with by a two-thirds vote. On the third Tuesday, however, recognition for consideration of the Private Calendar is within the discretion of the Speaker and does not take precedence over other privileged business in the House. On the first Tuesday of each month, after disposition of business on the Speaker's table for reference only, the Speaker directs the call of the Private Calendar. If a bill called is objected to by two or more Members, it is automatically recommitted to the committee reporting it. No reservation of objection is entertained. Bills unobjected to are considered in the House in the Committee of the Whole. On the third Tuesday of each month, the same procedure is followed with the exception that omnibus bills embodying bills previously rejected have preference and are in order regardless of objection. Such omnibus bills are read by paragraph, and no amendments are entertained except to strike out or reduce amounts or provide limitations. Matters so stricken out shall not be again included in an omnibus bill during that session. Debate is limited to motions allowable under the rule and does not admit motions to strike out the last word or reservation of objections. The rules prohibit the Speaker from recognizing Members for statements or for requests for unanimous consent for debate. Omnibus bills so passed are thereupon resolved in their component bills, which are engrossed separately and disposed of as if passed separately. Private Calendar bills unfinished on one Tuesday go over to the next Tuesday on which such bills are in order and are considered before the call of bills subsequently on the calendar. Omnibus bills follows the same procedure and go over to the next Tuesday on which that class of business is again in order. When the previous question is ordered on a Private Calendar bill, the bill comes up for disposition on the next legislative day. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to describe to the newer Members the Official Objectors system the House has established to deal with the great volume of private bills. The majority leader and the minority leader each appoint three Members to serve as Private Calendar Objectors during a Congress. The Objectors are on the floor ready to object to any private bill which they feel is objectionable for any reason. Seated near them to provide technical assistance are the majority and minority legislative clerks. Should any Member have a doubt or questions about a particular private bill, he or she can get assistance from objectors, their clerks, or from the Member who introduced the bill. The great volume of private bills and the desire to have an opportunity to study them carefully before they are called on the Private Calendar has caused the six objectors to agree upon certain ground rules. The rules limit consideration of bills placed on the Private Calendar only shortly before the calendar is called. This agreement adopted on June 17, 1997, the Members of the Majority Private Calendar Objectors Committee have agreed that during the 105th Congress, they will consider only those bills which have been on the Private Calendar for a period of 7 days, excluding the day the bill is reported and the day the calendar is called. Reports must be available to the Objectors for 3 calendar days. It is agreed that the majority and minority clerks will not submit to the Objectors any bills which do not meet this requirement. This policy will be strictly enforced except during the closing days of a session when the House rules are suspended. This agreement was entered into by: The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher], and the gentlelady from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]. I feel confident that I speak from my colleagues when I request all Members to enable us to give the necessary advance consideration to private bills by not asking that we depart from the above agreement unless absolutely necessary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.