Mr. ROEMER. I certainly want to work with Mr. Walker because our staffs have been working trying to hammer out an agreement on this issue, but I would like to bring this up and refer respectfully to the Ranking Minority Member in terms of having discussion about many of the points that you just brought up.

I agree with much of what you just said, but I think that we should have a separate discussion on some of the technical merits of the flexibility in the plan and what to do with base closure situations, domestically and overseas. So I would ask that we divide the question and bring up separately the third paragraph of the en bloc amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is entitled to a division of the question, so we will divide the question and if there are no-if there is no discussion or amendments on the remaining part of the en bloc amendments, the Chair would like to put those at this time.

Is there such debate? If not, the Chair will put the remaining portions of the en bloc amendment and ask for a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed; no. The ayes have it and the remaining portions are adopted.

The Chair will now call up the separate portion referred to by the gentleman from Indiana and that is open for debate at this time, and the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate for me at this point to offer my amendment or should we first proceed to discussion of the separate language?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is the gentleman referring to his amendment labeled number two on the sheet before us?

Mr. ROEMER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be brought up in order next and the Chair would prefer to take them up in order.

Mr. ROEMER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, just, then, in reference to my amendment and to the differences between my amendment and the language that we are discussing here, and it is a simple amendment, and what I said before is that we tried to work out an agreement with Mr. Walker and his staff because we agree with about 90 percent of what he is attempting to do.

First of all, that there not be earmarks in this bill but that there be an evaluation of NEXRAD based upon technical merit. Secondly, that we have flexibility in this plan not to limit our ability to move these NEXRAD facilities around limited to 1994; that we don't do that in other areas, whether it be in defense or in education or in health care. We should not limit our flexibility and our resilience in terms of the NEXRAD facilities with the Weather Service and say we are locked into 1994 plans and facilities.

Thirdly, we want some flexibility in terms of defense base closures. We will be closing 33 bases in all, about 11 overseas, and to utilize the NEXRAD facilities to move those to the Weather Service or to utilize those in the commercial service, I think benefits and behooves both taxpayers and also local communities.

So I think that our language provides that protection from earmark. It includes flexibility to make adjustments after 1994 and it also deals, I think, more resiliently with what we have already decided to do and that is close some defense facilities and then to be

able to deal with that and move those facilities around to different areas of the country and be as cost effective as we can with that. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the language before us and support my amendment which I think improves the bill over'all.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Walker.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I mean I think what the gentleman is proposing causes us some substantial problems. We have authorized a total, beginning with fiscal year 1993, of $426,971,000 for the NEXRAD program. These new radar systems that the gentleman wishes us to now consider were not included in that figure. So we will have to increase that figure to accommodate the extra radar sites that the gentleman is proposing that we add to the plan.

That is a concern, because then the question becomes, is do we actually need to have this add-on spending for these sites. The fact is there is no scientific or technical justification for these new sites. And we are doing add-on spending then over and above that which we authorized for the program in order not to get an increased science or technical capability but because there are other considerations now that want to be brought into the fold.

Let me remind you that as these

Mr. ROEMER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALKER. I would be glad to yield in just a minute.

Let me add that as these excess DOD radars and so on have become available, we have already had people jumping in to get one for their States. In one case, George Mitchell has targeted one for Maine; we have one targeted for South Carolina by Senator Hollings. Already we are seeing a process here that will neither improve nor, I think even markedly help, the overall process.

I would also then refer to the fact that the Inspector General has told us not to do this. I have here a letter from the Inspector General at the Department of Commerce, and let me just read to you what the Inspector General said about this proposal.

He says: Because of FAA and defense downsizing, there are about 10 NEXRAD radars available as radars or spare parts. The Weather Service's original siting plan for radar units was independent of FAA and defense. Therefore, the Weather Service should not need additional radars as a result of these agencies' downsizing.

The department should do everything in its power to avoid additional radar increases to the present Weather Service modernization program. The reasons are simple. Each additional site not presently in the Weather Service design could add up to $10 million to the cost of the modernization.

The NEXRAD radar costs per se are only the beginning. Depending on other circumstances, increased costs could include sites, other equipment, buildings and staffings. It would not surprise me to see a $100 million increase in total cost over the next 10 years for an additional 10 radar installations.

The NEXRAD contract provides for the option of this conversion. Reducing these extra radars to spare parts would also save the government many millions now slated for spare parts procurement.

So the Inspector General is very clear that he does not think the sites are needed, he thinks they will be very costly, and if we are going to do something with these additional NEXRADs that are available, use them for spare parts that then you will actually save us money in putting the system into place and maintaining it over the next 10-year period.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ROEMER. Thank you. I would like to respond to that and say without any kind of confusion or obfuscation that I am not trying to earmark anything. I am not trying to give any kind of benefit to Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Hollings. We are not trying to specify where these facilities might be located. I do not have a defense base in my district.

The intent of this is not to propose extra sites or to propose extra money. All we are saying with this amendment is we want the flexibility within the National Weather Service to both not be limited in 1994 to the current plan but be able to develop a plan over the next 10 years to respond to different weather situations and disasters that may occur out there; to be able to move facilities back and forth; and to have some flexibility and resilience in the planning. We are not proposing extra money, we are not earmarking extra sites, we are not trying to make it easier to do that.

In fact, what this amendment does is it tries to base those locations, or the movement of those facilities, on technical merit, and we are just trying to take into consideration, Mr. Walker, what would happen when we do close some defense bases.

There are 33 that will be closed, and we think instead of throwing those things away, that we should be able to incorporate those into the National Weather Service's plan.

Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman

Mr. ROEMER. And they should have a plan.

Mr. WALKER. My amendment does that. My amendment saysit was included in the en bloc amendment-that these parts can be used as a part of the National Weather Service. I mean, it allows them to be used as spare parts in the system thereby saving us money, and I would say to the gentleman if what he is, talking about is potential modifications to the overall plan, we have now approved a schematic for this plan. That is what this committee did.

Now if in fact they want to change that plan in scientific and technical ways, if they want to change the kind of project, they need to come back to us and tell us that. They need to justify the changes in the plan and the additional expenses that that will obviously entail.

I don't think we ought to give them an open-ended authorization to change the plan any way they want whenever they want. I think that we ought to limit that, and my amendment is designed as a limiting amendment. It does not mean the plan could not be changed in the future. In fact, there may well be modifications, but those modifications should take place in consultation with this committee and we should have hearings and we should figure out whether or not the increased spending that would entail is in fact justifiable spending.

I don't think that we ought to give them a blanket authorization.

Mr. HALL. If the gentleman would yield. What would it do to your amendment, and would it be acceptable to the gentleman from Indiana if you dropped the pages, specifying the site appears on page D-10, D-11 or D-12?

Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman, the problem with that is that then-that what you have done is you have suggested that there are other sites that then can be done in the future without coming back to us for authorization, and that, I think, is one of the things we want to avoid. It is those additional sites that cost us $10 million apiece.

So this amendment is specifically designed to say that if you are going to go beyond those sites that are specified, you are going to have to come back here for a specific authorization to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to recognize other Members who would like to weigh in on that.

Mr. Cramer, do you desire recognition.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, yes. I would like to offer a comment here and I, too, am concerned, as I heard the testimony about the new network, about the possible gaps that might exist.

I am inclined to support Mr. Roemer's amendment because I can't see a better way to provide the kind of flexibility that I think we need to provide as we implement this national network.

I don't want to cost and add to this national network needlessly, but on the other hand I want to preserve an opportunity for them to be able to come back to us in some sort of orderly way and to use equipment that could be quickly available to them. Because as they said, there are certain parts of this that might be controversial and there could be gaps in communities like mine that have suffered enormously from tornado damage that would cause us to be very concerned about making sure that cost is not the absolute consideration but that the flexibility in this-I don't see any other way to do this, and I would inquire of the Ranking Member if he thinks his amendment accomplishes that, then give us information about how that process would work.

Mr. WALKER. I would say to the gentleman, it seems to me that what you are doing is if you back off the authorization presently in place you are creating disorder where there is presently order. We now have an orderly plan. The National Weather Service has come up with a plan for implementing radars. It may be in the 10 years it will take to put the NEXRAD system into place that they will want to make changes.

The orderly way of making those changes is not to have them done willy-nilly by the agency based upon who is putting the pressure on them at any given time, but to come back to this committee and justify whatever changes they want to make in the plan. And it seems to me given the nature of what we are talking about, we at that point will probably be willing to look at those kinds of modifications and be willing to approve the ones that make scientific and technical sense.

But to simply give a blanket authorization to the National Weather Service to add to the system and add perhaps millions of dollars worth of costs as we go, seems to me to be the wrong way in which to proceed. We have granted them $426 million, almost $427 million at the present time, and that is to put in place the

system that the design of which we know. That is the orderly proc

ess.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to make a brief statement on this. The intent of what we are trying to do in the en bloc amendments and this particular section is to conform to the modernization plan which has been adopted and which the Weather Service is carrying out. What has not been specifically emphasized here is that that plan is subject to annual updates and it will be changed each year.

It would be my preference to give due respect to the process by which the Weather Service determines where the appropriate radar sites are and that we have the opportunity to comment on that and discuss that with the Weather Service as they present their annually updated plans.

Now, I don't think we are too far apart with regard to our desire to have an orderly process which can be reviewed by the committee and which, if necessary, can add additional sites as required or as is feasible as a result of using surplus or spares or something of that sort.

I think we are close enough that we could probably work out some acceptable language here, and I would like to suggest that we proceed to adopt the language that we have before us in the en bloc amendments but to negotiate some additional language which we can submit as a committee amendment on the Floor and which I would be glad to support.

Mr. ROEMER. If I could ask the Chair to yield.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman or yields to the gentleman.

Mr. ROEMER. And I appreciate the gentleman trying to work out a compromise here, and meaning compromise in the best sense of the word, and we have been working with Mr. Walker's staff this week to try to do precisely that, and I would be more than willing to accept this language and work on both an amendment that we could offer on the Floor that would be acceptable to Mr. Walker as well as some report language that would talk about studying the utilization of defense assets as well.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is being very constructive and IMr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WALKER. Just checking with staff here, and it seems to me that in light of the comments that were made, we may be able to within the amendment. And if it is acceptable, I would ask unanimous consent to include it within the language, on line 3 of the language which we are considering, where it starts with thereof 102(b)(2)(A) or (B) shall be expended. If we said "subject to annual review" there, it would put the language in that the Chairman has referred to, indicating that this is something which is going to be reviewed on an annual basis, and would certainly leave the amendment, then, as something which is going to be looked at as a regular part of the process.

Mr. ROEMER. Would the gentleman still be willing to let us work on some report language, talking about the need for flexibility and developing long-term study of defense assets?