Table Of Content

THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE H.R. 1756, DISMANTLING ACT Y 4, SCI 2: 104/40 H.R. 1756i The Departnent of Conner... MARKUP BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U.S. ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 [No. 40] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science r '^S!^^^^ rary ^^cum entsOepr. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1996 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocumenLs,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052705-8 y\ H.R. 1756, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ^ " DISMANTLING ACT Y 4, SCI 2: 104/40 H.R. 1756/ The Departnent of Conner... MARKUP BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U.S. ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 [No. 40] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 93-758CC WASHINGTON 1996 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice.Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052705-8 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., GEORGE E, BROWN, Jr., California RMM* Wisconsin RALPH M. HALL, Texas SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JOHN S, TANNER, Tennessee CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania PETE GEREN, Texas DANA ROHRABACHER, California TIM ROEMER, Indiana STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. (Bud) CRAMER, Jr., Alabama JOE BARTON, Texas JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan KEN CALVERT, California PAUL McHALE, Pennsylvania BILL BAKER, California JANE HARMAN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan** DAVID MINGE, Minnesota ZACH WAMP, Tennessee JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts DAVE WELDON, Florida ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida LINDSEY 0. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN McCarthy, Missouri THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia MIKE WARD, Kentucky STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas ANDREA H. SEASTRAND, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania TODD TIAHRT, Kansas SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma WILLIAM P. LUTHER, Minnesota VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MARK ADAM FOLEY, Florida SUE MYRICK, North Carolina David D. Clement, ChiefofStaffand ChiefCounsel Barry Beringer, General Counsel TiSH Schwartz, ChiefClerk andAdministrator Robert E. Palmer, Democratic StaffDirector (II) CONTENTS September 14, 1995: Full Committee Markup: H.R. 1756, The Department of Commerce Dis- mantlingAct 1 (III) FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP—H.R THE 1756, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DISMAN- TLING ACT THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC. The committee met, at 1:15 p.m., in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker (chairman ofthe committee) presiding. The Chairman. Good afternoon. Pursuant to the notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measure, H.R. 1756, the Depart- ment ofCommerce Dismantling Act. The Chair would ask unanimous consent for the authority to re- cess. [No response.] — The Chairman. I also then would go on to without objection? [No response.] The Chairman. I am going to also do a short opening statement here. I would remind members that under the Rules, that both ma- jority and minority are limited to five minutes for opening statements, and we are going to try to hold the speeches to the mini- mum so that we can do this expeditiously today. Today we will mark up H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. This is an important step in the process of begin- ning to restructure the Executive Branch of government to be a more rational, forward looking and streamlined institution. When adopting the budget resolution, the House endorsed this particular position. In this Committee, we have been assigned the task of making sense of what happens to the scientific agencies after the dissolution ofthe Department. I have proposed in a substitute that is before you the creation of a new United States Science and Technology Administration which will provide a home for the agencies within our Committee's jurisdiction. By so doing, we are preserving our essential basic science assets which provide the foundation for a strengthened scientific estab- lishment. I would recognize IVIr. Brown for any opening statement that he might have. Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will try and emulate your brevity. (1) At the outset of today's markup, I would like to acknowledge some of the good and positive things that you have done in ad- dressing our responsibilities for H.R. 1756. Indeed, I want to express some empathy for you in the difficult task that you were given as Chair ofthis Committee. I refer to the profoundly misguided directive from your leader- ship to eliminate the Department of Commerce as a political trophy. The impression I was left with following the hearing last Tues- day was that, with the exception of the bill's author, there is al- most no support for the approach outlined in the Chrysler bill. The idea of selling off some of our most important research lab- oratories, dissolving NOAA, and so on borders on lunacy. Thus, you are faced with the difficult task of damage control. This boiled down to a bureaucratic form of the old game ofTwister as you search for a good place for NOAA and NIST to land. The Department of Commerce was gone, the Department of En- ergy was going, and the Department of Science was evidently not to be. I thus commend you for doing the right thing and trying to keep these agencies intact in your substitute amendment. Although I believe that your approach is far superior to the base text, I will also be compelled to vote against it since it is based on a faulty premise that we have something that is broken and needs fixing. No one has shown any evidence whatsoever that we will have a more cost-effective or more efficient government as a result of this bill. The burden ofproofsimply has not been met. However, it might have been possible to come up with an alter- native to the Chrysler bill that improved U.S. Government func- tioning in standards activities and in NOAA activities if you had used the expert opinion available to you inside and outside the government, but you did not. We have seen the repeat of a very unfortunate situation where your substitute proposal was not even available to the witnesses or to the Committee membership during the hearing process. The Committee cannot do its work if it is kept in the dark for months and then expected to perfect important legislation in just one day. What we are left with is legislation that is a complete disconnect from the extensive streamlining already undertaken by the Depart- ment of Commerce in the RIGO process and a bill that may do more harm than good. Now, Mr. Chairman, this Committee has not always worked in that fashion. Most ofwhat we have done in the past years and dec- ades actually has been done on a largely bipartisan basis. And I have, in my statement, some detailing of how many of the Acts that we are dismantling were done by bipartisan cooperation in both the House and Senate, and I would hope that we could con- tinue at some point in the future with that kind ofthing. But it has not been the case. I mentioned during the hearings on Tuesday that we have gone over most of the situation involving privatizing some of the agencies, such as the National Technological Information Administra- tion, and we had decided previously and based upon all the testi- mony that that was not feasible. We are revisiting that. We are about to make a lot of mistakes, Mr. Chairman, and I re- gret it very much. And, as I say, I have a great deal of sympathy for your responsibility in this regard. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. [The opening statements ofMr. Brown, Mr. Hayes, and Ms. Jack- son-Lee follow:] Statementofthe HonorableGeorgeE. Brown,Jr. attheMarkupof theCommerceDepartmentDismantlingAct September 14, 1995 Attheoutsetoftoday'smarkup,Iwouldliketoacknowledgesomeofthegoodandpositivethingsthat ChairmanWalkerhasdoneinaddressingourresponsibilitiesforH.R. 1756. Indeed, Ialsowanttoexpress someempathyforhiminthedifficulttaskthatwasgiventotheCommittee. Irefertoprofoundlymisguided philosophythattheRepublicanleadershiphasfollowedintargetingtheDepartmentofCommerceforapolitical trophy. TheimpressionIwasleftwithfollowingthehearinglastTuesdaywasthat, withtheexceptionofthe Bill's author, there wasalmost no support forapproach outlined in the Chryslerbill. The idea ofselling researchlaboratories, dissolvingNOAAandsoonbordersonlunacy. Thus the Chairman was faced with a difficuU task of "damage control". This boiled down to a bureaucraticformoftheoldgame "Twister"astheChairmansearchedforagoodplaceforNOAAandNIST toland. TheDepartmentofCommercewas"gone",theDepartmentofEnergywasgoing,andtheDepartment ofSciencewasevidentlynottobe. IthencommendtheChairmanfordoingtherightthingintryingtokeeptheseagenciesintact. Mymain criticismsarethathedidnotgofarenoughandthathecompoundedhisproblemsbytryingtogoitalone. The realissuehereisthat, notonlydidthepartsofH.R. 1756inourjurisdictionnotmakesense,noneofthebill makes sense. There is nocost savings, nopublic policy benefit, no management efficiency, and nogood reason at all to support this bill. I intend today to oppose this bill. Although I believe the Chairman's approachisfarsuperiortothebasetext,Iwillalsobecompelledtovoteagainstitsinceitisbasedonafaulty premisethatwehavesomethingthatisbrokenandneedsfixing. Noonehasshownanyevidencewhatsoeverthatwewillhaveamorecosteffectiveormoreefficient governmentasaresultofthisbill. Theburdenofproofsimplyhasnotbeenmet. However, itmighthavebeenpossibletocomeupwithanalternativetotheChryslerbillthatimproved U.S. governmentfunctioninginstandardsandNOAAactivitiesiftheChainnanhadusedtheexpertopinion availabletohiminsidethegovernmentandout,buthedidnot. Wehaveseentherepeatofaveryunfortunate situationwheretheChairman'sproposalwasnotavailabletothewitnessesorthecommitteemembershipduring thehearingprocess. Thecommitteecarmotdoitsworkifitiskeptinthedarkformonthsandthenexpected toperfectlegislationinjustoneday. Whatweareleftwithislegislationthatisacompletedisconnectfrom theextensivestreamliningalreadyundertakenbytheDepartmentofCommerceintheREGOprocessandabill thatdoesmoreharmthangood. Wehavenotalwaysworkedthisway. AnyonewhoknowsourCommittee'shistorywillTememberhow we have carefully and bipartisanly drafted legislative proposals, brought in a variety ofexpert witnesses, ivisedourlegislationinreactiontothattestimony,andoftenwrittenstatuteswhichhavestoodthetestoftime. Letmeciteafewexamples.