Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the gentleman that offered this amendment that the subcommittee did not ignore the President's request. We honored the President's request, and I think the desires of the Congress to the best of our ability, given our allocation. The President requested a $675 million increase in NSF. He also requested a 20 percent increase in HUD and substantial increases elsewhere in the budget. There was no way, given the available resources that we had, to meet that request. However, what we did do was we increased funding for NASA, increased funding for HUD, increased funding for the Veterans Administration, and we increased funding for the National Science Foundation. In fact, we increased NSF by almost $170 million. That is a substantial increase. The budget is now over $4 billion. We believe strongly in investing in science and technology. I think that our conference has been clear and our record strong on supporting investments in science. However, we do not have unlimited resources. We are constrained by the allocation. I would add that if funds are made available at the end of this process as we go into the conference that we will look, and I know the gentleman from West Virginia feels the same way, we will look strongly at providing those resources for further investments in technology. At this time, we do not have those funds available to us, and for that reason, I would reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment and to reserve the time in opposition.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2001 on June 20, 2000, House Report 106-683. This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under section 302(f) of this act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. WALSH. I do.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and since I have no further requests for time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. I continue to reserve, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). As we all know, there is no offset for this, but we are certainly sensitive to the desire of the gentleman to provide these funds where they are needed. Unfortunately, we do not have the additional funds to provide under our allocation. If, perhaps, later in the process, additional funds come available, we would be happy to work with the gentleman to resolve this. At this time, I must continue to hold a point of order against him. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for his advocacy. If EPA refuses to withdraw the TMDL rules and issues final rules with an effective date that will occur before enactment of this legislation, I will work with the Senate in conference to ensure that the TMDL regulation in effect today remain in place.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) can be assured that the committee intends States to move forward as expeditiously as possible, with the development and implementation of TMDLs under current regulatory authorities. This is one of the primary purposes of the $130 million increase in funding for State Clean Water programs under section 106 of the Clean Water Act. The committee expects States to use these resources in part to fill the data gaps identified by GAO in their March 2000 report on data quality and to develop and implement TMDLs that are scientifically and legally defensible.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished ranking member of the full Committee on Science and a strong advocate of the Space Station program. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would delete funding for the International Space Station and reallocate the funds to various worthy programs in other portions of the bill and designate a portion of the savings for debt reduction. While I may agree with the plea for additional funds in some of the programs proposed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), I must oppose the amendment. Terminating the Space Station would end what could be the most significant research and development laboratory in history and cause upheaval in the Shuttle program for years into the future, effectively terminating NASA's Human Space Flight program. It would also render useless over a half million pounds of hardware, much of which is already in space. Mr. Chairman, there are broad and important applications for the Space Station, not the least of which is that there will be schoolchildren all over the world who not only will be able to watch with great interest the progress, but they will see the cooperation that the nations of the world have formed to launch this expression of man's hope for the future. The intrinsic value of the inspiration that it will provide to our young people is incalculable. We have children in my school district in Syracuse who will be providing an experiment that will go on the Space Station. They will be watching it, monitoring it, using the Internet to conduct their research, and working with colleges and scientists throughout the world. These young people are the people we need to get involved in space and mathematics. The Space Station will help us to do that. In addition, termination of the contracts for the Space Station at this time would subject NASA to liability of about $750 million. And the amendment makes no provision for these costs. I believe it is important for everyone to understand where we stand today with regard to the Space Station. The prime contractor has completed nearly 90 percent of its development work. U.S. flight hardware for missions through flight 12A is at the launch site at the Kennedy Space Center awaiting either final testing or launch for assembly. In addition to Russia, the second largest infrastructure provider, the other international partners remain committed to the station program, having spent over $5 billion to date. The Russian Service Module is on schedule for a summer launch. This element will allow a permanent crew to be placed in orbit later this year. NASA is actively encouraging commercial participation in the station program, having just concluded a major multimedia collaboration. Mr. Chairman, within one year, the station will be inhabited by three international crew members. In five years, the station will be complete and serving as an outpost for humans to develop, use, and explore the space frontier. We have come far, and soon the station research will be underway. Now is not the time to stop this incredibly important program. I ask all Members to oppose the Roemer amendment Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I understand it, there would then be provided a total of 30 minutes in the aggregate, 15 minutes a side, on this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for clarification.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, if I could inquire of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), it is our understanding that he has several other amendments that have time allocated for them; and if he would withhold from offering those amendments, and if my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) who was a part of this agreement would agree, we could provide the additional 10 minutes to this amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.