John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, all of those debates seem to be about black and white, Democrat and Republican. There is a gray area called the Blue Dog Democratic Coalition budget that borrows less, cuts spending and the deficits immediately, and we do not hear much about it. We tried to get it to the floor a time or two. There are not many of us, 21 or 22 at last count. We have tried to come here and master a difficult situation and not be held hostage by it, Democrat and Republican, black, white, blah, blah, blah. People are tired of that. We have a plan, the Coalition plan, that begins deficit reduction immediately. This does not. This asks the American people to borrow more money next year and the next year and does not reduce the deficit until the year 1999 and 2000. That is not what our country is about. We are trying to get our financial house in order. The Coalition budget, as has been alluded to before, borrows $150 billion less than this bill right now we are going to vote on. It seems to me a clear choice. If we want to balance the country's books, there is a way to do it. As the Nashville Tennessean, one of my hometown papers, said some time ago, conservative economics and a compassionate government are not mutually exclusive. It can be done. Twenty-three major publications across this country have recommended this to the Congress and we cannot get it to a vote. I wish Members would consider it.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, several days ago a group of Democrats and Republicans here in the House introduced a national welfare reform bill called H.R. 3266. It is unfortunate, I think, that we are wasting the time of the U.S. Congress debating what should or should not happen in Wisconsin. We have a process in place that works. Most everybody here has acknowledged that, to take care of these States that are doing their own and requesting waivers and so forth. We are a national body. If we are going to spend the time of this Congress on the floor on welfare, it seems to me we ought to be discussing a national welfare bill. We have introduced, a bipartisan group, H.R. 3266, that is consistent in many ways with the provisions of the Wisconsin plan. It has bipartisan support. The President has indicated he can work with us to resolve a few outstanding issues on that. It seems to me that if the Republican leadership wanted to help Wisconsin and all the other 49 States in this country, we could bring a national welfare bill to the floor like H.R. 3266 which gives not only Wisconsin but all the other States the ability to make the changes they need to make, want to make and vote to make, without all this nonsense and windbagging on the floor today about who said what or when. It is unfortunate that we are spending all this time to talk about what should happen in Wisconsin. They are entitled to vote on that. Even the Members from Wisconsin cannot agree. So I would just ask the leadership that sets the agenda around here, let us be a U.S. Congress and talk about a national welfare reform bill that will allow all the States to do whatever it is they want to do. We have that bipartisan bill in place and I wish we could get it to the floor. My colleague, Mike Castle, and I have introduced H.R. 3266, a bipartisan welfare reform bill which would allow real welfare reform to work. I would rather be here debating that bill because such a debate would be much more fruitful. This situation we are confronted with in this bill is quite unusual. There is a procedure in place for approving waivers which has proven quite effective in recent months. In fact, many waivers with provisions similar to those in the Wisconsin plan have been approved or are pending approval. Yet, the leadership has only chosen to bring this request for waiver to the floor. Furthermore, the other body has already indicated that it has no plans to consider this bill. So, this is it. This bill is dead as soon as we vote on it. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that this is not about welfare reform at all but rather Presidential politics. The President has indicated he supports the plan as described by Governor Thompson and some folks are hoping to embarrass or put the President in a box--so this is all much ado about nothing. But, since it is on the floor I will take advantage of this opportunity to make a few substantive points. In terms of the merits of this individual proposal--I agree with the basic blueprint or program outlined in the Wisconsin proposal as I understand it. The proposal includes a limit on benefits, requires work, as well as a guarantee of health care, child care, and whatever assistance might be required to move from welfare to work. In fact, the blueprint is consistent with the bipartisan reform bill Governor Castle and I have introduced. So, on it's face the plan is something I can certainly live with. But the question we should be looking at today is not whether the freestanding Wisconsin plan passes the test. The question we should be asking is how does this plan stand up when it is considered in the context of the national reform bill which has marked up in subcommittee. Once this is done, we see that the Wisconsin waiver no longer looks as good. In fact, we find that the plan has a fundamental flaw. The flaw lies in the phrase, ``based on reasonable budget estimates.'' Many jobs still do not provide comprehensive health care. Therefore, any reform effort must include health care to allow recipients to leave welfare for work. In addition, reform must include child care so that recipients are free to pursue employment. Last, reform must provide access to the resources and activities needed to move from welfare to work. On first reading it appears Governor Thompson's plan guarantees these crucial elements of reform. However, upon closer examination we find out that the guarantee is not really a solid guarantee, but a conditional guarantee. The guarantee is conditioned on reasonable budget estimates. Or, in other words the guarantee is only good as long as the money is there. This means that the proposal assumes Wisconsin will not have a recession and the Federal Government will provide all the money that is needed. This causes me great concern. Throughout this debate, I have criticized the Republican welfare bills because they did not provide sufficient funding. Now, I understand the budget constraints better than many people in this House and I have continuously worked to balance this budget. But, let's be honest--reform is going to cost more money in the short term. The facts are that the welfare bill which is moving toward the floor does not provide sufficient funding. This is not just my opinion but is backed up by a CBO analysis. No one can guarantee that there will never be a recession in Wisconsin or any other State for that matter. The Castle-Tanner bill recognizes this reality and provides contingency funds to give States access to extra, emergency funds in the event of a recession. The Republican bill would not provide enough protection for States in the event of a recession and put programs such as Wisconsin's at risk. Under the Republican bill the States will not be able to meet the participation requirements because the bill does not include enough work funding. And, although the Republicans have responded to our concerns in part and increased funding for child care, the increases have come at the expense of title XX programs and are still insufficient to meet the needs. Last, the Republican plan terminates Medicaid and transitional Medicaid along with AFDC. There was never a mandate for the end of Medicaid and it is impossible to have successful welfare reform without providing medical care. I support the right of the people of Wisconsin to decide their own welfare policies and the plan itself is consistent with the bipartisan bill I have introduced. And, since this bill is not going anywhere I will support this silly bill. However, we have the cart before the horse. We should pass the national reform bill first and then evaluate this proposal. In my opinion, our votes would be a little different then. Why? Not because the Wisconsin plan is not worthy of approval but because the plan won't work under the bill now moving to the floor. I believe that with our bipartisan bill and the Republican bill we are close to an agreement on welfare reform and I hope that we have an opportunity to address these issues I have outlined before the national reform bill comes to the floor.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of my 5 minutes. I just feel compelled to answer some of the charges, I guess we would call them, that have been made on the floor here today, all without any foundation, from the benefit of the standpoint of a hearing in our committee on these matters. Let me tell Members what industry says about the Advanced Technology Program, just a few things. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers continues its strong support for the ATP program. A significant amount of progress in technology transfer is the direct result of the ATP programs. These programs illustrate that government participation in the R&D arena can be both efficient and productive. The American Chemical Society: As the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren] alluded to, ATP support of market incentives encourages companies to invest for the long term in high-risk, high-payoff technologies. The American Electronics Association: ATP is based on government and industry cooperation and the development of technologies critical to America's long-term ability to compete in the global marketplace. The South Carolina Research Authority in Columbia, SC: By supporting research in high-risk, leading-edge technology, the ATP is advancing the state of the art, contributing to the growth of our economy. Finally, from a company in Valley Forge, PA: ATP is one vital approach to maintaining our science and technology leadership. These projects will never be undertaken without government support to challenge industry to take the higher technology risk. This could double or triple our R&D efforts on projects that are beyond our current core business and which we would otherwise never undertake. That says it better than any politician, Mr. Chairman. That says exactly what this amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] has offered is all about. And that is why this almost, well, I do not know the word to use, amendment, to mask what is happening here that has been offered by the chairwoman of our subcommittee to just limit it to MEP and then to cut that off saying no new centers, that is why it should be rejected. We ought to really and truly support American business in this country.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in the 5 minutes I have I will try to give the facts on this amendment and what it was meant to do. It was unanimously, Democrat and Republican, passed out of our subcommittee last year. Because of the comments of the previous speaker, one knows where the bias of the chair on our committee is toward these programs, and I do not need, I do not think, to elaborate on that anymore. Let me simply say this. Trying to separate fact from fiction, these are not corporate welfare grants, these companies put up 50 percent of the money as these ATP programs, Republican-administered, throughout the country. And let me further say this. In an independent Silber & Associates report, talking about the Advanced Technology Program, they said that it does indicate the program is achieving its objective; that there is no evidence that there is any linkage to any kind of political campaign, and that, furthermore, over half of the ATP cost-shared awards have gone to small businesses and more than 100 universities have participated in more than 157 projects. Now, we went through this in the subcommittee at great length. I am sorry that the chairman of the subcommittee did not choose to try to bring our bill that we thought was so good in a unanimous vote to the floor. The full committee never took up the unanimously passed bill in the subcommittee for reasons that have heretofore been expressed, and I would just simply say this. All we are asking for is a vote on this. Every person who has looked at these programs who is not an ideologue or has a bias of some kind has said the wave of the future, and I cited earlier when I was talking about the Council on Competitiveness, hardly a liberal claptrap organization, said that the wave of the future is to get away from this business of applied versus basic science. The wave of the future is to make government an ally of business in this country because the businesses in this country, because the vagaries of the marketplace are not going to be able to invest in blue sky research without some thought of a product that can be marketed to come back to them in the future for commercialization. Therefore, it behooves us all, government, industry, universities and Federal labs, to work together. That is exactly what these two programs do. They allow for industry to participate in blue sky research with the help of the Federal Government, so that if there is a technological breakthrough sometime down the line, American businesses will be able to take advantage of that in this worldwide marketplace. That it all it is. Furthermore, this amendment does nothing more than authorize these programs at whatever sum the appropriators deem necessary, because we cannot get in our authorization committee a hearing on this bill in the full committee, notwithstanding the fact it was passed unanimously by the subcommittee. Be that as it may, we do not run the committee, I understand that, but we have at this time an opportunity to let the Congress speak their will, not costing one dime, not one single cent, not a budget buster, only to say these programs ought to be authorized because unbiased experts have said they are working.

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

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the direction H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1996, will take this Nation. It purports to support basic science and end corporate welfare, but I believe the policies advocated by the bill look to the past rather than to the future. The bill would kill programs that support small business and create good, high-paying jobs in this worldwide economy. First, it eliminates the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program. MEP centers, as they are known in 42 States, assist small- and medium-size firms employing fewer than 500 workers to modernize in order to compete in the demanding global marketplace in the 1990's and beyond. This program has strong support of the business community, State and local governments, and the Congress. Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about big, multinational corporations. There are 381,000 small manufacturers who are struggling to maintain their competitiveness. Their competitors are just as likely to be companies in Asia or Europe as another company down the street. The MEP is a highly successful program for small business and this Nation. Second, the chairman of the committee wants to terminate the Advanced Technology Program. Although large corporations do participate in this program, approximately half of the ATP awards have gone to small businesses. Not only businesses participate in this program, but more than 100 universities are working on 157 ATP projects. This type of industry-government-university partnership is what nonbiased outside experts are recommending as the trend for the future. As Brian Rushton, president of the American Chemical Society, stated: The National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program is a vital component of our nation's technology competitiveness portfolio. ACS strongly urges Congress to continue to support ATP. ATP supports market incentives and encourages companies to invest for the long-term in high-risk, high-payoff technologies. Mr. Chairman, not alone in their view is the Council on Competitiveness. In its publication ``Endless Frontier, Limited Resources,'' it concluded as its central finding that R&D partnerships hold the key to meeting the challenge of transition our Nation now faces. Eliminating the ATM and the MEP program is not eliminating corporate welfare, it is just eliminating a commonsense approach to a comprehensive research policy. Although H.R. 3322 is supposed to be a comprehensive authorization for all civilian research and development science programs, it does not authorize the Department of Energy research. We have been told that we did that last year. They claim to have protected basic research; however, the DOE cuts in this bill damage all types of research. In Tennessee alone, the cuts to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Tennessee, such programs as energy conservation and the things that enable our companies to compete, will be cut another 13 percent in addition to what was done last year for a total of 45 percent. Mr. Chairman, I am as serious about deficit reduction as any Member of Congress. As a member of the coalition, I worked hard with them to develop a plan balancing our budget in 7 years. Everyone says it does. But we look at these policies in this bill, and it reminds me of 1950 rather than the year 2000. Finally, quoting from the Council on Competitiveness again, it said: Equally the report finds the United States has an urgent interest in resolving the polarized debate over the proper role, Federal role in research and development. Battles over the proper limits of Government activity have reinforced the outdated distinction between basic and applied research as the primary basis for decision making.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this substitute offered by Mr. Brown tries, I think, to achieve a balance between short-term, medium-term and long-term research goals in the Federal Government, and has done so in a sound, fiscally responsible manner. The bill represents a best effort to develop a research and development policy that reflects today's economic realities and the need to balance the budget. Mr. Chairman, our Government needs to be an ally of business, not an adversary, and the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] tries to make that truly come to pass. The amendment follows the advice of the recently released Council on Competitiveness report entitled ``Endless Frontier, Limited Resources.'' The report's central finding is that research and development partnerships hold the key to meeting the challenge of transition that our Nation now faces. Included in this definition of partnerships are the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle, the Advanced Technology Program, and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements. H.R. 3322 moves in a direction that is counter to the council's recommendations, and in my opinion, has potentially devastating consequences for our country's future. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself maintains the outdated distinction, again quoting the Council on Competitiveness report, between basic and applied research; and based on this distinction, eliminates funding for applied research and government-industry-university partnerships, which almost everyone who has studied this equation from a nonbiased point of view thinks is a shortsighted way to go in the future, and is not going to be at all helpful for the scientific community in this country. The Brown substitute authorizes at a level consistent with balancing the budget as has been stated in the blue dog coalition budget and, in my judgment, goes in the direction we need to go. Over and over again today we see business, because of the vagaries in the marketplace, unable to invest in ``blue sky'' research; that research that does not have in its immediate vision a way to bring a product to market and manufacture and market it commercially, in other words, get a return on investment. These partnerships then become all the more important for our country to maintain its technological and scientific base. With these partnerships, not giveaways and grants, but partnerships where industry working with government can both reap a reward from breakthrough, new technologies. This is serious business. The Brown substitute, in my judgment, is much more responsible to maintain and enhance on the scientific and technology base that exists in business, industry, and universities, and Federal laboratories across the country, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] for his leadership on the coalition on putting this budget together. We in the coalition have struggled for this entire Congress and we had the luxury, quite frankly, of being called sometimes a minority within a minority, to put forth a public policy document free of as much partisan politics as is possible in this city of Washington, DC. You will hear a lot of rhetoric. I will not get into it. The Republicans say this raises taxes, this does not, welfare is better or worse in our plan or yours. But my colleagues, there is one good reason why about 40 major newspapers and the Concord Coalition, which is a bipartisan group dedicated to the balancing of this Nation's budget, has endorsed the coalition plan. They have no ax to grind. They take it seriously. I really know of nobody who has credibility on this issue more in our country than the Concord Coalition. They say the blue dog budget is the way to go. Why? No. 1, we stop borrowing money quicker. We do not keep going into debt as both the Republican and the White House budgets do. That is uncontroverted. No. 2, we have in our plan an enforcement mechanism, the only one on the floor today. Mr. Chairman, I was here for part of Gramm-Rudman 2. We had Gramm- Rudman 1. We had the budget summit of 1990, all well-intentioned by good-meaning people to try to get something done, and what happened? We had a big announcement that things were going to get better and because of lack of enforcement, it did not happen. We put an enforcement mechanism in our budget. We are not interested in going out here and having a press conference and making an announcement that the budget is going to be balanced in 6 years unless it actually happens. We try to do it. Please support our plan.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would like to thank our staff folks who have helped put this together and thank the gentlewoman from Maryland again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. I want to thank Mrs. Morella for bringing this bill to the floor and say that it has been a pleasure working with her on this legislation. H.R. 2196 is the first significant update of Federal technology transfer laws in almost 7 years. H.R. 2196 builds on the experience of the Federal labs in developing partnerships with industry and is an important step in strengthening private-public partnerships for technology development. At a time when the pressures of the market and Wall Street are causing American companies to focus on short-term profits, government- industry partnerships allow them the chance to develop the high-risk, long-term technologies that are vital for our future economic well- being. We have reviewed the seven amendments the Senate made to the original text and they are perfectly acceptable. Some of the amendments were added for Senate jurisdictional reasons and others were requested by the executive branch. A number of Members from both parties spoke in favor of H.R. 2196 when it passed the House in early December--no one spoke in opposition to this legislation. Therefore, I will not review in detail the merits and provisions of this bill again today. Since the amendments to this bill are minor, and the bill as amended makes important strides forward for technology transfer at the Federal laboratories, in standards policy and for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I urge adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, almost six months go, claiming his desire to curb underage tobacco use, President Clinton announced that the Food and Drug Administration would be asserting regulatory jurisdiction over tobacco products. I share the President's concern for preventing tobacco use by minors. But, for the FDA to assume responsibility for this issue runs counter to statutory, regulatory, and agency precedence. I do not believe, it will prove effective in reducing underage tobacco use. The FDA's proposed assertion of jurisdiction over tobacco stands out as another example of the Federal Government attempting to assume powers rightfully within the purview of Congress and of the individual states. Congress has expressly reserved to itself the authority to regulate tobacco products, leaving the bulk of tobacco regulation to the states--including taxation, age of purchase, and certain aspects of tobacco use, including the manner and method of retail transaction. In its most recent action with respect to the regulation of tobacco, the ADAMHA Reorganization of 1992, Congress addressed this in the appropriate manner--it required states, as a condition for receiving certain federal grants, to enact statutes prohibiting tobacco sales to minors. Also required of the states are random inspections and certain reporting obligations. As a result of the congressional-established scheme, every state in the Union now has a law on its books banning tobacco sales to minors. But beyond this arrangement, Congress left to the States virtually every other aspect of underage sale of tobacco. All States accepting funds under the federal scheme remain free to enact or reject other steps relative to tobacco sales to minors. Proposed regulations for implementing this Act were issued on August 23, 1993. Last week, after nearly 2 years and 5 months, the Department of Health and Human Services finally promulgated its final regulations. The fact that it took the Department so long to set forth these regulations underscores the inherent limitation of Federal action and further demonstrates that Congress was on the right track when it gave to the states the primary responsibility for handling this complex problem. Still, FDA has attempted to seize jurisdiction over tobacco products. For nearly 90 years, and on at least twenty different occasions congress has specifically rejected proposed legislation to grant FDA jurisdiction over tobacco. This includes seven occasion over the last decade. During this same period, FDA itself has concluded on numerous occasions that it has no jurisdiction over tobacco markets without claims of ``therapeutic benefit.'' It has recognized that Congress never granted it such authority, and it has acted only where a particular brand of cigarettes carried specious claims that it would prevent disease or affect the structure of the body. Indeed, as recently as last year, FDA Commissioner Kessler stated that Congress would need to provide some new direction before the FDA could assert jurisdiction over cigarettes. Despite this long history of Congressional denial of FDA jurisdiction over tobacco, and the long history of FDA concurrence in this jurisdictional arrangement, the FDA is now without any legislation or other guidance from Congress whatsoever, attempting to assert jurisdiction over tobacco products. The FDA proposal cites 21 U.S.C., section 352 (misbranded drugs), section 360 (registration of producers of drugs or devices), section 360j (general provisions respecting control of devices intended for human use), section 371 (authority to promulgate regulations for the efficient enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), and section 374 (inspection of manufactures of food, drugs, devices or cosmetics) as authority. However, nowhere in these statutes is there any expression of congressional intent or grant of authority to the FDA to assume authority over tobacco sales to minors. The President recently addressed the Nation, sharing with American people his assessment as to the state of the nation--and the challenges the country faces in the coming year. Among the challenges he cited was reducing underage tobacco use. However, this is challenge which Congress has already addressed. With the promulgation of the final rule implementing the ADAMHA Reorganization Act of 1992, the tools for addressing this problem in the most effective and efficient manner are now in place. The Federal Government should continue to work with the individual states as they each undertake, as delegated to them under this Act, the challenge of preventing the distribution of tobacco products to minors. At the same time, for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the Constitutional framework of our government, the FDA must be prevented from assuming jurisdiction over this product. A precedent must not be set whereby a Federal bureaucrat, in contravention of the Constitution, can carve out for himself and his agency, rights and prerogatives specifically reserved by the Constitution to the Congress and the states.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, how much notice would the Chair give to the sponsor of the resolution? Would it be tomorrow or would it be Friday, or is it impossible for the Speaker to so advise at the moment?

Mr. TANNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I think this rhetoric today and all of the things that have been said point up the need for an American solution. In the unlikely event there is anybody still watching these proceedings, I think they are tired of listening to blaming of the President, blaming of this, blaming of that. It is not getting us anywhere. I asked Coach Adolph Rupp one time years ago if it was true that it was not whether or not you won or lost but how you played the game. He said, ``Well, I guess that may have some truth to it. But if that is totally the truth, why do they have a scoreboard at either end?'' I would suggest there is a scoreboard up at this end and a scoreboard here. If you want to balance the budget, bring any budget, the President's, Republican, coalition, bring it in here on an open rule. Let us sit in here, start the voting on amendments. If you get more than 50 percent, you win. It goes on. If you do not, it does not. Let us sit down and work and balance the budget. That is what people want us to do in this country. This business the President did or did not do this or did or did not do that, people are tired of that. They want us to go to work. In a democracy, thank God in a democracy, when the other fellow is as intellectually honest and sincere in his beliefs as you or I may be, the way you do things is sit down and you try to reach a consensus and compromise. You do not have to do that if you live under a dictatorship or under communism. But in a free country, no one gets their way on everything. Republicans run the House now. We understand that. But let us come in here with an open rule, sit down and go through item by item, as long as people can stand it, and sooner or later we will have a balanced budget for the American solution.

Mr. TANNER

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

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2196, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. I want to commend Chairwoman Morella for her continued and strong support of technology transfer from the Federal laboratories. We have worked on this bill in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation and it addresses gaps in our current technology transfer laws. This is a short bill, the sections dealing with technology transfer are only nine pages, yet it impacts an area of considerable Federal investment. This bill amends and improves existing technology transfer laws affecting more than 700 Federal laboratories. H.R. 2196 enhances the ability of our national laboratories to work with industry to develop and commercialize new technologies. Cooperative research and development agreements [CRADA's] represent a sizeable investment by the Federal Government and the private sector. Federal laboratories will have more than 6,000 active cooperative research and development agreements with industry and universities in 1995, representing more than $5 billion in Federal investment and matched by private sector partners. I have witnessed firsthand the importance of technology transfer in maintaining the vitality of our Federal labs and to the economy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee accounts for almost 20 percent of all CRADA's signed by DOE laboratories and contractors. Since 1990, Oak Ridge National Lab has: Invested more than $320 million in cooperative research with industry; signed more than 280 CRADA's--39 percent of them with small businesses; issued more than 152 technology licenses and has a patent portfolio of over 400 licensable technologies; and, applied for almost 100 patents per year. These activities have resulted in more than $80 million in sales and have generated $3.5 million in royalty payments to Oak Ridge. More importantly, technology transfer activities at Oak Ridge have fostered more than 55 new business and 3,000 private-sector jobs in the past 10 years--17 new businesses have been created as the result of CRADAs in the past 2 years alone. Additionally, the bill extends the time that Federal labs have to reinvest royalty payments for scientific research and development at the labs. At a time when we are cutting the labs' budgets, we should allow them to benefit from the fruits of their labors. The Federal labs are a national resource which should benefit all Americans. The labs have worked for the well-being of Americans since their earliest days and not only in terms of national security. It was in the early 1960's that a team of scientists and engineers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory working with industry developed a machine and a process that have since been credited with saving millions of lives a year worldwide. In less than 1 year this private/public partnership developed a process and machine for isolating and purifying viruses to create vaccines--most notably to treat influenza. The vaccines produced by this new process eliminated the sometimes severe side effects common with standard vaccines. Severe allergic reaction prevented the administration of the standard vaccine to the young and the old--the very people who needed it. The unique expertise of Oak Ridge scientists and engineers working with their colleagues in industry made this possible. We should strengthen and build upon the 30-year tradition of cooperation between the national labs and industry. H.R. 21961 makes it easier for the Government and industry to work together--each contributing their respective strengths. We have invested billions of dollars in our research infrastructure and we shouldn't just rely on luck and hope that this investment will be fully utilized. The bill provides needed incentives to promote public-private technology partnerships. H.R. 2196 deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for yielding this time to me. I want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us the time. I want to thank the Republican leadership for bringing forward a better CR than we saw heretofore, and I want to say that I speak for some Democrats who believe that we can balance the budget in 7 years and are prepared to support the CR tonight. But I want to say that we do not feel like we have a monopoly on wisdom and virtue and we do not think that either side here has a monopoly on wisdom and virtue. We think we ought to work together. This CR is a step in the right direction. It balances, or calls for a balanced budget, in 7 years. We think, if our colleagues will allow some of the minority to work with them and that if the minority will work with the majority, we think we can make an American solution, not a Republican or Democrat solution, to the problems that face us all as Americans. If this country goes under, it is not going to be just the Republicans or the Democrats going broke. It is going to be all of us, and we ought to set aside some of this partisan rhetoric that I hear from both sides, quite frankly, and try to get together here while we are here in the short time that we serve in public life and do something for the people that sent us here.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the fact that the month of November is National Home Health Care Month and National Hospice Month. Yesterday, November 6, I participated in a visit to a 32-year-old constituent who was diagnosed [[Page E 2134]] with Lou Gehrig's disease back in 1988. In August 1990, the disease had progressed to the point where Tim was completely immobile and Home Health Aides were ordered to assist Tim with his personal care. Currently, Tim's nurses visit him three times a week to assist his respiratory status and to monitor his overall condition. Two Home Health Aides visit daily to assist with bathing and personal hygiene. With the assistance of Homecare Health Services, Tim has been able to remain in his family's home. I would like to insert into the Congressional Record a letter that was given to me yesterday during my visit with this courageous young man, Tim Brewer of Big Sandy, TN. I want to thank you, Representative Tanner, for your letter and for your visit. I want to also thank the nurses and aides from Homehealth. I am sure you understand how important home health is to those of us who need it. I know the nursing home industry has a strong lobby in Washington, but I believe it is better for patients to stay home if they can, as well as being more cost-efficient for taxpayers. I know I have saved Medicare hundreds of thousands of dollars by staying home. I have only been hospitalized a few times and I have never had even the slightest bedsore. Being at home has also allowed me to be more active in my daughter's life. Please remind the Speaker of the House that the first cuts should be from fraud and inflated medical supply cost. Remind the House that real people are behind all the numbers. Please fight for home healthcare. Please come back to see me again. Thank you. Tim Brewer.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate something that has reverberated through this chamber and that is the Coalition budget gets to balance in 7 years every bit as much as the Republican budget gets to balance. However, ours is more responsible, it is wiser and fairer. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the Members that I do not know of any group of people who have more credibility on the wisdom of a balanced budget in this Nation than the Concord Coalition. Those of you who are listening, the Concord Coalition is a bipartisan group who came together because of their concern, all of our concern, about our national deficit and debt. The Concord Coalition has endorsed the Coalition budget today as being the better way to go for our country. In welfare reform, for example, we put people to work in a better way and faster than does the Republican plan. We do not rob the people who are trying to stay off of welfare of their earned income tax credit, the working poor, the people who are getting up every day and going to work, trying to stay off of the welfare rolls, that is simply the wrong way to go. They need a helping hand, a hand-up and not a handout. We do that in the Coalition budget. But more importantly, let me say that we were sent here for an American solution, not a Democratic or a Republican solution, but an American solution, representing people in our districts consistent with the national interests. Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The Coalition budget is an American solution to the disgrace that our national deficit has become. So when you hear all of this rhetoric about the Republicans have all of the answers, it is simply not true. Neither do the Democrats. This 23 maverick Democrats in the middle, as the Philadelphia Enquirer called us, have the American solution.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the coalition's alternative budget for a minute, because on the floor earlier today there was a statement made that the Republicans had the only budget reconciliation plan that got to a balance in 2002. That simply is not the case. Mr. Chairman, the coalition plan cuts spending first. We get to a balanced budget in 2002, borrowing about $50 billion less than the Republican plan will borrow between now and then. Mr. Chairman, we do something else that is responsible, fair, and wise. We send a signal to the military veterans of our country that we are going to keep their commitment. Our values are to keep the commitment from a grateful country to our Nation's veterans and we have military retiree subvention, so that they can use their Medicare at military hospitals or any other facilities they so desire. The important point to come out of this debate over the next 2 days, Mr. Chairman, is that our coalition budget gets to balance in 2002, in a more responsible, fair, and wise manner than does the Republican plan.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is saying, but if we read the report language, on page 24 the adjustments made in these 4 areas reflect committee assessments that certain existing or proposed program activities are or would have been insufficiently related to the core mission of NIST to justify the fiscal year 1996 requested funding. Those program activities fall into four broad categories: Information infrastructure, environmental technologies, fire research and health care. I do not recall in any of our committee deliberations anyone coming before our committee talking about the legitimacy of standards in these areas out at NIST, not one person. This is a committee report language conclusion, I guess, and we want to know what is the basis on which the gentleman makes this assumption. What specific activities that NIST has proposed does the gentleman object to? Finally, if I amend my amendment to say using available funds to perform standards-related research and development, would the gentleman accept that?