Congress: May 1996 Archives

The following Debate regarding Rep. Roemer's 2 amendments to H.R. 3322 is repeated verbatim from the 30 May 1996 Congressional Record

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title II?


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

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:


Page 24, line 20, insert `and' after `Administration;'.

Page 24, lines 21 through 24, strike paragraph (2).

Page 25, line 1, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).

Page 25, lines 13 and 15, and page 26, lines 4 and 6, redesignate paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively.

Page 26, line 14, strike `$498,500,000' and insert in lieu thereof `$230,700,000'.

Page 27, line 4, strike `$711,000,000' and insert in lieu thereof `$679,400,000'.

Page 38, line 14, through page 43, line 6, strike subtitle C.

Page 43, line 7, redesignate subtitle D as subtitle C.

Amend the table of contents accordingly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 1 hour, with the time equally divided between the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and myself.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will be recognized for 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I guess I ask for the patience of this body, since we seem to go through this argument on eliminating the space station a couple of times a year. Certainly people on both sides could dust off their talk from 1992 or 1994 and virtually give almost the identical talk for cutting the space station or for supporting it.

I am not going to give the previous speech, because it seems that we on the opposing side of the space station continue to get more and more arguments in favor of cutting the space station, especially from the scientific community. So let me give some background as to why this is not good science. This is not in the interests of the scientific community or in the interests of taxpayers in America today.

Mr. Chairman, Scientific American, which is one of the most distinguished periodicals written in the United States today, the June issue, has a very interesting article on the space station this month. Let me quote from it: `Scientific panels, such as the National Research Council's Space Studies Board, have warned that, although some interesting research will be

possible on the station, the expected returns cannot, cannot justify the facility's overall cost.'

Another quote from this `Science in the Sky' article in the Scientific American, dated June 1996: `To date, no large companies are planning major research or manufacturing efforts on the Space Station.'

We hear from a host of proponents of the space station that this is going to solve everything from cancer to AIDS, to making, manufacturing, and testing new crystals. This is absolutely not what Scientific American says. They go on to look at what is good in the space station and what, out of the eight original missions that the space station had, what are we going to do now, in 1996, from when it was first designed in 1984.

With regard to high-technology products, it says in Scientific American: `No larger companies are currently interested in manufacturing in space.' Astronomy, remote sensing for different platforms put on the space station, those are certainly gone now since 1984, but there is no research currently planned from inside or outside or anywhere on the space station.

On 28 May 1996, The White House released the following statement by Vice President Gore regarding H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act:

"Today the House of Representatives is considering legislation that would abandon a 50-year partnership among American industry, universities, and the federal government to support research, science, and technology. This partnership has been supported by each Congress and every President since World War II. That is why the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of NASA, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the President's Science Advisor, the Director of the Office of Management and I recommend that the President veto H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act. The act is bad for the economy, bad for the environment, and bad for the quality of life of the American people.

Americans understand that in a global economy, the only way to maintain America's competitive edge is to lead the world in innovation and new technologies. Investments in science and technology mean better jobs, higher wages, and a growing economy --not to mention new cures for diseases, new products that enrich our lives, and a better understanding of our global environment. Yet this bill would eliminate programs such as the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program, which works in partnership with American industries and universities to lay the groundwork for America's leadership in the new high technology industries of the future, and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the goal of which is to help our nation's more than 381,000 smaller manufacturers compete in the global high technology economy.

As bad as this bill is for the economy, it is worse for the environment. H.R. 3322 singles out environmental research programs throughout the government for deep cuts or elimination. The bill goes so far as to ban outright some areas of environmental research, such as indoor air pollution. There should be no mistake about it. This bill is nothing less than another extremist Republican attack on the environment.

This bill plays fast and loose with our economic and environmental future. And the Republicans cannot hide this attack behind their rhetoric about balancing the budget. President Clinton's balanced budget plan shows that you can balance the budget by 2002 while still investing in education, environment, and research -- areas critical to our future economic growth, environmental protection, and quality of life. H.R. 3322 is extreme legislation that would make unnecessary and unwise cuts in our country's science and technology programs, cuts that would abandon our country's historical leadership and place America's future at risk."



Monthly Archives

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries in the Congress category from May 1996.

Congress: April 1996 is the previous archive.

Congress: June 1996 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.