John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate at the outset that in title VI, as in all other titles heretofore discussed, we do not bust the budget in that we are completely consistent with the glide path toward a balanced budget. And we are in title VI as well. Mr. Chairman, this amendment affirms the ability of the National Institute of Standards of Technology [NIST] to perform its activities in environmental technologies, health care, information infrastructure, and construction technologies. It does not increase funding. Why am I offering this amendment? Because the Committee report implicitly directs NIST not to pursue programmatic research in these areas, because they do not consider them to be related to the core mission of NIST. Why am I concerned? The current language in the bill inhibits NIST from doing activities that support American industry and promote the health and welfare of all Americans. This language inhibits NIST from developing the measurement standards required for industry to develop chlorofluorocarbon substitutes. In addition NIST environmental technology standards help industry meet pollution emission standards and they provide more than 200 different Standard Reference Materials. The National Center for Industrial and Treatment Technologies puts it succinctly: . . . NIST is seen as filling a unique and vital role in the fundamental science and engineering of pollution prevention and clean technology development. It is foolhardy to inhibit our use of these advanced laboratories merely because the outcome of the work might pay an environmental dividend. The health of the American taxpayer and the environment deserve better than that. NIST health care program supports measurements that are critical to the accurate calibration of diagnostic equipment used in clinical labs around the country. These activities support clinical testing for measuring cholesterol, DNA testing, performing mammograms, and giving radiation treatment for cancer. NIST provides the services and conducts the research that forms the foundation for nationwide safety and quality assurance systems. Health and Human Services reported that retesting accounts for between 10-25 percent of the total annual health care costs (between 90-220 billion in [[Page H 10007]] 1992). Even a one percent reduction in wasteful retesting results in savings approaching $1 billion. Measurement technology and standards developed and produced by NIST will improve cost effectiveness by facilitating the development of innovative diagnostic and therapeutical tools to provide for more accurate diagnosis. As a letter from the president of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories states: Without backing up the accuracy of this extraordinary number of measurements made in industry and trade, we would be unable to compete in international markets; we could not assure proper functioning of products, safety and drugs and pharmaceuticals, and the efficiency of medical services staff. Report language inhibiting NIST from performing work related to construction standards ignores the fact that NIST is the principle source of technical information for construction and fire safety standards which provide the basis for fire and building codes. Every product of the work referred to by the committee report affects urgently needed new measurement methods, data, computer-based models or related tools as enabling infrastructure for evaluation of industry produced technologies, or information protocols to facilitate interoperability of industry produced construction products and equipment. The construction industry endorses NIST efforts regarding on-site automation and building services protocols. Many of these activities are conducted in cooperation with leading construction industry firms such as Bechtel, Caterpillar, Fluor Daniel, Stone & Webster, PlantSTEP Consortium, and BACNET Consortium. As the Portland Cement Association wrote it: NIST's construction industry programs would not be viable on a commercial basis because no one company could profit from any technology gains achieved. Finally, majority report language concerning NIST's information infrastructure is wrong. NIST provides key meteorology support through development of test methods, simulations, and reference prototypes, labs, and testbeds. NIST collaborates with industry to develop test methods, metrics, and tools to measure conformity to standards and interoperability which are key to the national infrastructure. Contrary to the committee report, these unique activities fall squarely within NIST's mission responsibilities. This report language cuts at the very heart of NIST's traditional activities which promote American industry's competitiveness and American's health and Welfare. There is nothing in the transcript of either the subcommittee or full committee markup, hearing testimony or staff reports to support the report language. The report demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of key NIST programs. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, these activities fall squarely within the core mission of NIST. I was not there the other day and, for example, they are developing an instrument to measure in very minute quantities some of the things that are being miniaturized now, such things that would go into one's body so a doctor can see to operate on one, such things as connected with all of the miniaturization that is going on in the computer world. There has to be somebody to develop an instrument to measure a standard so we know where we are. This language in the report inhibits that, and our amendment simply does not prohibit NIST from doing this in connection and in conjunction with industry.

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

Mr. TANNER. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania again, would he accept an amendment to my amendment to perform standards-related research? He said in the well a minute ago that is what NIST should be doing, and we are perfectly willing to say that in these 4 areas. This report language is very troubling to us.

Mr. TANNER. What are the committee assessments that certain specific things do not fit into the core mission? We have never on the committee been advised of what the gentleman is talking about here. That is why we have objected to the report language.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have made that offer twice.

Mr. TANNER. To perform standards-related research.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to reflect standards-related research.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, there was not one iota, we saw a chart at the end with no debate. There was not a witness that came forward on the internal programs of NIST, that I recall, that the committee said, ``What are you doing that for? That is not part of your core mission.'' There was none of that in our committee, nothing, not one word. What we are saying is this committee report language has a chilling effect on what the gentleman and I both want, and that is standards research out at NIST. We are willing to amend our amendment to say standards- related research and development in these four areas. I do not know how the gentleman could possibly object to standards-related research and development.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be more optimistic in remarks I have to make about H.R. 2405. It claims to trim corporate welfare, while maintaining support for university-based research. The rhetoric accompanying this bill claims that by maintaining funding at the National Science Foundation we are preserving our core investment in university-based research. At least in my State of Tennessee, the facts present a far different picture. According to a National Science Foundation report, in Tennessee NSF provides only 5 percent of the Federal obligations to universities, while the Department of Energy provides 18 percent of the Federal funds going to Tennessee. The 22-percent cut to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory means less Federal spending at Tennessee universities. In my conversations with officials at the University of Tennessee, cuts to the Oak Ridge Lab translate directly into cuts in Tennessee's research budget and access to research facilities. These cuts result in the College of Engineering losing one-third of its research funding, the Center of Biotechnology stands to lose almost three-quarters of a million dollars, and reductions to the Energy, Environment, and Resource Center could eliminate $6 million in research funds alone. Now these cuts, hiding behind the jargon of corporate welfare, directly impact university research in my State. I would now like to talk about title VI, the provisions regarding the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This bill provides no authorization and no funding for the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership at NIST. The elimination of these two programs sends the strongest signal possible to our business community that we simply do not care about the harsh realities they face today. It is a matter of fact that corporate research focus today is short-term and risk-adverse and our small and medium-sized manufacturers in this country face international competition on every street corner in America. As Michael Schrage, research associate at MIT put it, what is being advocated in this portion of the bill are ``science and technology policies that would have been deemed simplistic during the country's agrarian heyday.'' This bill would eliminate government-industry partnerships which enjoy widespread support among the private sector, professional associations, and the university community. The actions of the Committee on Science on title VI are not based on one private-sector witness or professional association person appearing before the Subcommittee on Technology who advocated eliminating those programs. Our major corporations are cutting research funding and focusing on short-term goals in response to the pressures of Wall Street. For example, a recent article in the New York Times of September 26, 1995, reported on the breakup of the AT&T laboratories, due to diminishing corporate interest on the brilliant breakthrough discoveries that might lead to an entirely new generation of products. In this global economy blindly eliminating government-industry partnerships which promote private-sector investment in long-term research and development with no immediate payback such as the market forces might demand is not only shortsighted in our opinion but dangerous. In closing may I say that Members here today should realize we are not talking about simply cuts in numbers of bureaucrats or the elimination of wasteful government programs. We are all for that. We are talking about cutting basic research at both Federal labs and universities, and cutting successful long-term industry-government partnerships. This is the real-time, life-size embodiment of the old axiom, penny- wise and pound-foolish. Under the cover of political rhetoric I am afraid we are doing something very dangerous to our country.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could be more optimistic in my remarks, but I cannot. H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995 claims to trim corporate welfare, while maintaining support for university-based research. But it does not. H.R. 2405 cuts civilian R&D Programs by 12 percent in fiscal year 1996, the first step in the majority's plan to cut Federal R&D spending by 33 percent over the next 7 years. The rhetoric accompanying H.R. 2405 claims that by maintaining funding at the National Science Foundation we're preserving our core investment in university-based research. At least in my State of Tennessee, the facts present a different picture. According to an NSF report, in Tennessee NSF provides only 5 percent of the Federal obligations to universities, while the Department of Energy provides 18 percent of Federal funds. Cuts to DOE's Health, Environment and Safety account and to Energy R&D will impact universities and colleges across the State--at Fisk University, Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee State University, Tennessee Technological University, the University of Memphis, the University of Tennessee, and Vanderbilt University. The 22 percent cut to the Oak Ridge National Lab also means less Federal spending at Tennessee Universities. In my conversations with officials at the University of Tennessee, cuts to Oak Ridge translate directly into cuts to the University of Tennessee's research budget and access to research facilities. These cuts could result in the College of Engineering losing one-third of its research funding, the Center of Biotechnology stands to lose almost three-quarters of a million dollars, and reductions to the Energy, Environment and Resource Center could eliminate $6 million in research funds for the University of Tennessee. These cuts, hiding behind jargon of corporate welfare, directly impact university research. And although we have been told that NSF will grow by 10 percent over the next 7 years, according to the University of Tennessee this will not make up the difference--there will simply be more competition for less funds. I would now like to address the provisions in title VI of H.R. 2405 regarding the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. This bill provides no authorization and no funding for the Advanced Technology program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership [MEP] at NIST. The elimination of the ATP and the MEP sends a strong signal to the business community that we don't care about the harsh economic realities they face today. Corporate research focus is short-term and risk adverse and our small and medium-sized manufactures face international competitors on every street corner in America. As Michael Schrage, research associate at MIT put it, what's being advocated are ``science and technology policies that would have been deemed simplistic during the country's agrarian heyday.'' We are eliminating government/industry partnerships which enjoy widespread support among the private sector, professional associations, and the university community. What has the Science Committee based it's actions on? Not the hearing record. Not one private sector witness or professional association appearing before the Technology Subcommittee has advocated eliminating those programs. Our major corporations are cutting research funding and focusing on short term goals in response to the pressures of Wall Street. For example, a recent article in the New York Times (26 September 1995) reported on the break-up of the AT&T lab, due to diminishing corporate interest on the brilliant breakthrough discoveries that might lead to an entirely new generation of products. We should not be blindly eliminating government/industry partnerships which promote private sector investment in long-term, high-risk research that is vital to our economic future. In closing, Members here today should realize that what we're talking about aren't simply cuts in numbers of bureaucrats or the elimination of wasteful Government programs--we're cutting basic research at both Federal labs and at universities, and we're cutting successful industry/Government partnerships. We should not be penny-wise and pound foolish. Under the cover of political rhetoric, we're in danger of indiscriminately chopping research and undermining a system that has for decades produced the best scientists and engineers in the world. I am all for fiscal conservativism and deficit reduction, but the need to cut the deficit is no excuse for setting aside common sense and good judgment. I urge my colleagues to support the conservative substitute for H.R. 2405.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern over recent press reports that the President is currently considering giving FDA the green light to assert regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products. The notion of FDA asserting regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products as drugs runs counter to statutory, regulatory, and agency precedence in this area. For decades, Congress has expressly reserved to itself the authority to regulate tobacco products. As one congressional report made clear: The clear mandate of Congress [is] that the basic regulation of tobacco and tobacco products is governed by legislation dealing with the subject . . . any further regulation in this sensitive and complex area must be reserved for specific Congressional Action. This position has long been acknowledged by none other than the FDA itself. As early as 1972, FDA Commissioner Charles Edwards testified that: ``[T]he regulation of cigarettes is to be the domain of Congress.'' Historically, the FDA has rejected petitions calling on FDA to regulate tobacco products noting that since manufacturers do not make therapeutic claims, tobacco products should not be declared ``drugs'' under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and regulated by FDA. This is a position which has been upheld in the courts as it relates to tobacco. Further, in every meaningful case on the subject of whether a product could be regulated as a drug, the courts have found that absent the therapeutic claims by the manufacturer, they cannot. Even Dr. Kessler has recognized that this issue raises serious public policy questions that must and should involve Congress. In February of last year, Dr. Kessler wrote anti-smoking groups stating: We recognize that the regulation of cigarettes raises societal issues of great complexity and magnitude. It is vital in this context that Congress provide clear direction to the Agency. These statements are equally applicable to tobacco products other than cigarettes. Congress has consistently rejected every attempt to give FDA the authority that Dr. Kessler seems to desire. Congress has considered and rejected numerous bills to give FDA regulatory authority over tobacco products. During the last Congress, a bill, H.R. 2147, would have amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. to regulate the manufacture, labeling, sale, distribution, and advertising and promotion of tobacco and other products containing nicotine, tar, additives and other potentially harmful constituents. * * * was introduced and rejected. In fact, on no occasion has a bill granting FDA authority to regulate tobacco products as drugs even passed out of subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, the FDA does not have the authority to regulate tobacco products as ``drugs'', absent the explicit authorization of Congress. Congress should be working meaningful to reduce access to tobacco products by minors.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, a while ago one of the Members who spoke here used the term ``extremist, mean-spirited, and shameful.'' Let me tell my friends that one of the most extremist, mean-spirited, and shameful remarks occurred in an interview by a Member of this body the other day in the Journal Gazette when he said, ``The only law they clearly established Koresh broke that I can see is that he had sex with a consenting minor,'' a little girl 10-year-old. ``Do you send tanks and government troops into large sections of Kentucky and Tennessee, and other places where such things occur? Since he viewed he was married, which then comes to the polygamy question, in other words, we are sending tanks in to enforce polygamy laws.'' By way of a strained explanation, he said, ``I implied something I don't believe. It was a wrong choice of words.'' May I say to the Speaker of this House, the people of Kentucky and Tennessee deserve an apology from someone who speaks for this body.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday on the floor on what I thought was a short-sighted amendment. But may I say to my friends, and I understand the arguments on the other side, but I would say in this new world order, this is probably one of the most short-sighted amendments we could adopt, and I say that for this reason: None of us can see the future. All of us know, realize, and understand that one of our roles as the United States of America today is as the leader of the free world. The least we can ask of our citizens, our young people in this country is to register. Most of our NATO allies have compulsory service. We ask only for registration. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friends, that is not too great a price to pay for our liberty. I would hope that we would reject this amendment out of hand. I used to serve in the Selective Service; we would have a ready pool if something untoward happens in this world. None of us can see the future, and I hope we reject this ill-timed amendment.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment. I realize the difficult task facing Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan in making cuts to the Department of Commerce. Mr. Mollohan was prevented from offering an amendment which would have ensured funding for commitments made in fiscal year 1995 and prior years. A goal which I might add is supported by the Technology subcommittee of the Science Committee which reported out a bill with bipartisan support authorizing the ATP all the Republicans on our subcommittee voting aye. Mr. Mollohan's amendment would give NIST the flexibility to try and meet these commitments. I understand that the current budget climate is not the time to expand the ATP program. However, we should do our best to ensure that those commitments made by the Government to the private sector are kept. We should not terminate this program mid-stream, after companies have begun projects, developed strategic business plans, and invested their own money based on a Federal commitment to a program that goes back to the Reagan administration. However, I believe the Advanced Technology Program should not be eliminated outright. At a time when American corporations are scaling back R&D spending to focus on short-term profits, and small high-tech entrepreneurs are finding it increasingly difficult to find needed venture capital, the Advanced Technology Program is a small, but important Government program to fill this gap and to help ensure the future vitality of our economy. We can argue the philosophy of whether or not the Government should engage in partnership with industry. But, I think we can all agree that we should do our best to ensure that the Government meets existing commitments. Keep in mind that the private sector puts up their money to fund this pre-competitive research. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition. This may be one of the more shortsighted amendments that we will address in this Congress this year. In a time of global competition, the Office of Technology Administration is the one place in the Federal Government where the government is an ally, not an enemy, of our businesses here in this country. The Technology Administration acts as a focal point for all industry concerns, both foreign and domestic, such as the activities of foreign firms and their parent governments, the unintended consequences of legislation and regulations, and, as I said, a rapidly changing global economy. The Office of Technology Assistance is an advocate for industry in this country, at a time when our American businesses need help from the Government, not a silent voice here as they struggle to meet this worldwide competition. This would be a disaster for this country. The Office of Technology Administration manages and oversees the very things that make our businesses competitive. In a time where the marketplace in this country is squeezing the ability of our firms here in America to research and develop products over a long period of time without a short, virtually lifespan payback, this is the very thing that other countries are doing to gain a competitive edge. So I would urge all Members to reject this shortsighted amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Commerce Department's Technology Administration serves several important roles in the Federal Government that assist the private sector in maintaining a competitive edge. We should not only provide social assistance but we should also assist the private sector which is the backbone of our economic vitality. More than ever before, U.S. economic growth and prosperity depend on technological innovation. Here are just a few of the responsibilities of the Technology Administration. First, the Technology Administration is the only Federal agency charged with maximizing technology's contribution to the U.S. economy. Too often in the past, technology development, particularly by the Government, has ignored business issues that affect the ability of the private sector to bring new technologies to the marketplace. The Technology Administration works not only to see that America leads the world in creating new technologies, but that Federal economic, tax, trade, and regulatory policies help our business community, not hinder it. Second, the Technology Administration monitors the policies of our foreign competitors to ensure that U.S. firms are not handicappeed in the global marketplace. The Technology Administration works to ensure that American firms have access to foreign government sponsored technology development programs, while protecting U.S. intellectual property rights. Third, the Technology Administration acts as a focal point for industry concerns, such as the activities of foreign firms and their parent governments, the unintended consequences of legislation and regulations, and a rapidly changing global economy. The Technology Administration is an advocate for industry in addressing issues which affect U.S. competitiveness. Finally, the Technology Administration manages three organizations vital to U.S. competitiveness: The National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Technical Information Service, and the Office of Technology Policy. Eliminating the Technology Administration will have a negligible impact on the Federal deficit, but it will deprive U.S. industry of an advocate within government at a time of intensifying global competition.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman evidences a basic misunderstanding here of what TVA is about. TVA stands on its own on its power production and the ratepayers who use the power in the Valley pay for that. You are not talking about the Federal Government being in the electric power business in 1995. I, quite frankly, to some degree resent this attack on one area of the country, because I think that we are all one country. My friend from Chattanooga before me pointed out very well that there are some things good happening in the Tennessee Valley because of TVA. We do not attack people because we do not have something that happens in Wisconsin or New Jersey. We do not have a lot of Coast Guard along the Tennessee River. We do not attack the the Coast Guard because they patrol in New Jersey and up in the Great Lakes. I resent this attack on a small southern area of the country. But more than that, what the gentleman's amendment will fail to do and what he does not understand is this money that is appropriated to TVA is because TVA is the agency of choice to fulfill some of the safety measures that must be undertaken by either the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, or others along 600-plus miles of the Tennessee River with dams and locks and those sorts of things. That is the kind of money we are appropriating, because the TVA can do it efficiently, and it is the agency of choice in this regard. There is a fundamental difference here between power money, which is not involved, and safety money, which is.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding. I do not think I will take all of 2 minutes. I did not intend to speak on this matter, but I served on a committee with Larry Hopkins from Kentucky some years ago as we tried to perfect the War Powers Act. I served in the Navy during the Vietnam war, and I went into the Navy in 1968. By the time I got off of active duty or discharged in 1972, I saw our country divided as maybe never before, at least since the Civil War. Now, as imperfect at the War Powers Act is, my friends, it does put the Congress in the mix to express the will of the people into the equation. I saw during those 4 years our country divided in a way perhaps it has not been since the Civil War. My friends, it does put the Congress into the mix to express the will of the people. Any administration, be it the Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon administration as it was in Vietnam, is going to get into matters that it cannot extricate itself. Never again let us go into war with bullets flying and people dying without the expressed will of the American people, at least with some resolution by the Congress, so that we do have that critical mass of popular support for whatever it is we may do. I really believe it is critical, even though it is imperfect, that we stay involved in the process.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Kasich for bringing a bill to the floor that we think we have an opportunity to make better. I would like to thank our minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, for giving the coalition this opportunity to be on the floor. All of us here in this House in the coalition that many of us belong to here came to Washington to try to get something done. People are tired of partisan political bickering. They are tired of the gamesmanship that is being played in this town while the country does not do very well. Our group, the coalition, has tried to make a difference, a commonsense difference, and I would suggest that this is a defining moment for us in this budget document. Let me say why I think that. Any business person in this country, man or woman, faced with a $4\1/2\ trillion debt and wondering how to right the wrongs that have been done in the past would say if only this would say this. It makes no sense to add another $160 billion on the debt as we go to ground zero. At 6 percent that is almost $10 billion more in interest payments alone that will have to be made if we adopt the Kasich approach. I can go home to Tennessee through West Virginia or Kentucky or I go home to Tennessee through Virginia and Tennessee. We both get to ground zero. There is a businesslike, commonsense way to take our deficit down in a way that makes sense, that spends less money, that ties revenues to expenditures, as any business person would do, and that is exactly what this commonsense, businesslike proposal does. I would recommend it to my colleagues. I hope they will consider it and I hope they will give it their independent thought and judgment. It deserves that.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean water reauthorization. I would like to say at the outset no one disputes the importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone that I know of dispute that the Clean Water Act has generally been a successful vehicle for improving the quality of our water. Having said that, I think that it is equally clear that some of the provisions of the act need reform. In my view the area of current law that is in most need of an overhaul is section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Over the years in our part of the country this section has been increasingly abused by Federal regulation and regulators. This abuse has made the wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land owners and has led in some cases to literally an assault on the rights of many Americans. This bill which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] have helped to author takes, I think, constructive steps to correct some of these problems. The new wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our valuable wetlands while pragmatically allowing development of property that is of no importance to our environmental concerns. Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in the House, and it would simply require compensation for landowners whose property value is diminished through government regulatory action. I think most everyone agrees that as protectors and defenders of our Constitution no one can countenance the taking of private property without just compensation. I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and west Tennessee in what is a rural district for relief from the burden of this out-of-control wetland permitting process. And I think this bill today is a most important step in this process.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], I believe ATP as currently structured easily meets the criteria. I have here an example from ATP's proposal preparation kit explaining what ATP does not fund. They do not fund precommercial scale demonstration projects where the emphasis is on demonstration that some technology works on a large scale rather than on R&D. They do not fund improvements of existing products. They do not fund product development. In short, ATP does fund the kind of long-term research and development which the committee report advocates.

Mr. TANNER. That is true. High-technology entrepreneurs have told us many times in hearings that ATP is the only U.S. program that is willing and able to meet their needs. Without ATP, they would have had to go overseas where foreign governments have established technology development climates that are more focused on future wealth than short- term profits.

Mr. TANNER. This is the very same question the entrepreneurs who testified before our committee raised. They have expressed dismay at this apparent inconsistency. It seems to me that if you are for this hydrogen program and its approach, which I support at the recommended level, one would automatically embrace the ATP program enthusiastically. These programs are good for our country, they are good for our technological base, and they have proven their worth in the private sector. I hope that the Members will bear that in mind today as we vote and review and vote on the programs like ATP and TRP later this session.

Mr. TANNER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. It is my understanding, the purpose of the bill before us is to fund research, development, and demonstrations in a particular technology that the bill's authors have chosen; namely, hydrogen. This work will be done primarily through government-industry partnerships, with industry supplying a substantial share of the funding. This is the same general formula used by ATP and TRP, except that their focus tends to be much broader; that is, ATP is applicable to many different technologies besides hydrogen. I would also like to add that the bill before us authorizes $31 million above the recommendation of the Hydrogen Advisory Panel. Although I support government-industry partnerships promoted by this bill at its recommended funding level, currently supported industry programs will be cut to pay for this inflated hydrogen program. Meaningful, constructive research at various labs around the country such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore will certainly have to pay the price.

Mr. TANNER. If my colleague would continue to yield, I believe that it certainly would. First let's look at the hydrogen program. It appears that the hydrogen program authorized by this bill generally meets these criteria, although there are some close calls. For instance, the bill as introduced authorized 15 different demonstration projects, including a hydrogen jet engine and economically feasible hydrogen vehicles. The bill before us today would still allow any of these demonstration projects to be funded. However, while the economics of these demonstrations may be questionable, the basic technology no longer seems novel. Therefore, this bill may in fact violate the committee's criterion related to technical feasibility. On the other hand, if the hydrogen vehicles developed under this bill were to utilize novel, renewable energy technologies, then we would certainly conclude that the program is within the scope of these criteria for discovery.