Excerpts from House Floor Debate on VA/HUD Appropriations Bill
On June 25 and 26 the House considered H.R. 3666, the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 1997. Below are some quotes that may give a sense of the floor debate. "//" means paragraphs have been combined in the interests of space:
General Comments on the bill:
JERRY LEWIS (R-CA), Chairman, House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee: “To suggest that last year’s appropriations process was comfortable for either Mr. Stokes [The House VA/HUD subcommittee ranking minority member] or myself would be to suggest some kind of fantasy land. It was a painful process....// I want Members to know that this year we have been operating in a different environment...and are most pleased to say that we have produced a product that very much reflects the bipartisan spirit...// So, Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to present H.R. 3666.... I do not intend to speak very long today because this bill, as it did in the subcommittee and the full committee markup, should draw wide bipartisan support on the floor.”
On NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth:
JANE HARMAN (D-CA): “Mr. Chairman, as you know, Mission to Planet Earth is one of NASA’s most important and relevant programs. It will benefit our environment by providing scientific information on global climate change. It will benefit our economy by providing farmers with a better understanding of how climatic conditions like El Nino can affect their crops. I understand the budget constraints under which the subcommittee must operate...but I am very concerned by the proposed $220 million cut in this bill, especially in light of the National Research Council’s recent review of the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program and NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth, which stated that further budgetary cuts would hurt Mission to Planet Earth.”
LEWIS: “I am indeed aware of the National Research Council’s recommendation which states that the program requires an adequate and stable level of funding. I would like to ensure the gentlewoman and the House that I agree with this recommendation and believe that Mission to Planet Earth must have sufficient fiscal year 1997 funds to succeed.// As the gentlewoman knows, there is strong bipartisan support for Mission to Planet Earth and its programs in the Senate. When we go to conference with the Senate on the VA-HUD bill, I expect to spend a lot of time dealing with this program.”
On Roemer amendment to reduce space station funding by $75 million - rejected:
LEWIS: “There is no question that the public supports our work of man’s presence in space. The gentleman’s relatively small amendment would...significantly impact the upgrades and maintenance of space shuttle...[and] affect the flights of space shuttle. We need to have funds available to make sure as we go forward with this work, we do it with all of the equipment that is necessary.”
TIM ROEMER (D-IN): “That is precisely one of the reasons why we are interested in seeing that the space station have some of the cut put to their program, rather than continue to decimate the shuttle safety program, science programs in the NASA account, see cancellation of other programs take place within the NASA budget. We are seeing the NASA budget go down...to about 11 or 12 billion in the next century. And the space station is a 16-ounce Texas steak that is being jammed into a sardine can of a shrinking and squeezed NASA budget.”
On Walker amendment to shift $9.1 million from NSF Salaries/Expenses account to Research and Related Activities - approved:
ROBERT WALKER (R-CA), Chair, House Science Committee: “What this amendment does is merely conforms the NSF salaries and expense account to the House-passed authorization level and moves the freed-up money, the $9.1 million into the NSF research account where it is authorized. In other words, it takes the money out of the bureaucracy...and puts it into university research....// The reason for doing this is because the administration has been playing election-year politics with this account.... [T]he administration actually takes salaries and expenses up in 1997 and then drops them off a cliff out to the year 2000...”
GEORGE BROWN (D-CA), Ranking Minority Member, House Science Committee: “The amendment will harm what is widely recognized as an efficient and well run Federal agency that has the vital role of supporting basic research and education.// With NSF, we have the unusual situation of a Federal agency that is the inverse of a bloated bureaucracy. For the past 10 years, as its workload has doubled, the agency had held its staffing level constant, while learning to work smarter.// ...[I]t increases the research budget for NSF while simultaneously degrading the ability of the agency to administer the extra funds. The losers will be the researchers at universities and colleges throughout the Nation who rely on NSF for support. If this amendment succeeds, they can expect delays in proposal reviews and awards.”
STEVEN SCHIFF (R-NM), Chair, House Science Subcommittee on Basic Research: “Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that even if this reduction takes place, the National Science Foundation ought to be able to find ways, other than laying off personnel, to cut its overhead. But I would point out that if we are creating really such a disaster...then it is off the Richter scale what the administration will do to the National Science Foundation if their complete budget recommendations are followed.”
