Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished congregation, St. Stephen's Armenian Apostolic Church of Hartford-New Britain, Connecticut, which is celebrating its eightieth anniversary on November 6, 2005. The Church is also honoring in memoriam Aram ``Otto'' Bayramian, a beloved parishioner and extraordinary leader.

St. Stephen's is the oldest Armenian church in Connecticut and one of the oldest in our Nation. Armenians began immigrating to the United States in large numbers in the late 19th century when troubles in their historic land, now part of Eastern Turkey, began mounting. They brought their Christian faith with them and began conducting religious services in rented churches. Fundraising for St. Stephen's began in 1912, but it was interrupted several times by world events. The groundbreaking took place in 1925, the culmination of many years of arduous work.

St. Stephen's is honoring extraordinary parishioners during its 80th birthday celebration and the event's special honoree is Aram ``Otto'' Bayramian, who died in 1996. He served St. Stephen's with distinction for more than 20 years.

Otto's father, Umrah Bayramian was one of the founders of St. Stephen's. Otto, a lifelong resident of New Britain, was one of the most respected business and community leaders in the region. He was a decorated veteran of World War II, flying eight subpatrol and 40 missions successfully, retiring as a Captain in the Air Force.

Upon returning home, Otto joined his father in the family business, founding the Epicure Market in Farmington, Connecticut. It became known as the ``gold standard'' in the food business throughout Connecticut.

Otto graced the stage of the theatre, including the New Britain Repertory, the Mark Twain Masquers, the Producing Guild, and the Waterbury Civic Theatre.

He was an organizer and Charter member of the Joel Eshoo Post 1 Assyrian American War Veterans which was established in 1946.

His great love was St. Stephen's Church and he did everything possible to strengthen its future.

It is highly appropriate that as St. Stephen's celebrates its founding 80 years ago, that the life of Otto Bayramian and his countless contributions to the betterment of St. Stephen's is celebrated as well.

It is also fitting that the Church's three archdeacons, Aram-Sumpad Khachoyan, Sebouh Asadourian and Edward Varjabedian are being honored for their 25 years of dedicated service on the altar. The Annual Youth Award recipient is choir member Maral Firkatian, and parishioners Dirouhi Avakian, Mary Boornazian and Susan Shabazian will each be presented with certificates of appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring St. Stephen's Armenian Apostolic Church of Hartford-New Britain on the occasion of its 80th anniversary, honoring the life and contributions of the beloved Otto Bayramian, and in extending thanks to those being honored at the anniversary celebration.

Our Nation has been enriched by the lives and the faith of generations past, as well as parishioners of St. Stephen's today. We are unmistakably a better community and a more decent Nation because of the Church, because of Otto Bayramian and because of the contributions the Parish continues to make.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Farr and I rise today to honor an extraordinary citizen of our community, Jack Baskin. Throughout his life, Mr. Baskin has made significant contributions to the betterment of Santa Cruz County and he is held in the highest regard throughout our region.

Jack Baskin, now a retired engineer and general contractor, was born in upstate New York, the son of immigrants. During the Great Depression his family made many sacrifices in order for him to go to college, and he was the first member of his family to do so. He attended the University of Colorado where he studied mechanical engineering, later transferring to New York University where he earned his B.S. in aeronautical engineering.

After serving as an aeronautical engineer during World War II, Mr. Baskin moved West

and in 1948, acquired his California Professional Engineers License. He settled in Central California, and founded Jack Baskin, Inc., focusing on building affordable housing in the San Francisco area, in Santa Cruz and in Watsonville.

Jack Baskin is dedicated to his community and has given generously to it. Among the local organizations that are beneficiaries of Mr. Baskin's time and donations are Cabrillo College and Dominican Hospital. He was the founder of the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County, and he has participated in many other organizations for children, families, and senior citizens. The University of California, Santa Cruz, UCSC, has been a long time recipient of Mr. Baskin's extensive contributions. His donations have supported computer engineering, instruction in the arts, the Institute of Marine Sciences, Shakespeare Santa Cruz, an endowed chair in psychology, and a scholarship in literature. Mr. Baskin chaired the UC Santa Cruz Foundation for 2 years and remains a trustee. His commitment to education is memorialized by two prominent buildings named in his honor on the UCSC campus.

Jack Baskin is a model citizen and a highly respected member of the community. Thousands of individuals have benefited from his generosity and dedication to higher education and community health care.

Mr. Speaker, Jack Baskin's life is an eloquent statement about what one committed citizen can do. We ask all our colleagues to join us in honoring him for all he has done to strengthen our community and to make our country better.

I thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I want to point out something that is in the underlying bill which authorizes the President to designate Federal lands that might be suitable for the construction of an oil refinery.

Once he has made a designation, the land must be leased for the construction of a refinery. The refinery would be permitted under expedited procedures with limited judicial review. Although the manager's amendment requires the President to conduct an analysis of the suitability of the site, there is no obligation that he take the analysis into account before designating Federal property as suitable for a refinery. So there is no requirement that there be an opportunity for citizen input.

The sponsors of the bill did bar the President from designating lands that are part of the National Park System, the National Wilderness System and national monuments.

But they failed to place language in the bill that would protect millions of acres of other equally sensitive lands, including national forests, the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, the National Wild and Scenic River System, the National Trail System, and the National Landscape Conservation System.

I offered an amendment that was turned back by the Committee on Rules that would have protected these lands which have been set aside for the American people. I cannot imagine why a President would want to clear the path for building a new refinery in Chincoteague, Virginia; the Great Bay Refuge in New Hampshire; or in Arkansas's Cache River Refuge. My question is, why would Congress want to give him the chance?

Vote against the rule. This is a bad bill for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and in support of the Democratic substitute. I would like to start out by saluting the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for having the courage as a Republican to stand up and to take the position that he has.

I think it is a sad day when the Republican Party is no longer holding on to the environmental mantle. One of my predecessors, Pete McCloskey, was a great champion in the Congress on those issues, and I think it is regrettable that that is where the Republicans are today, because if there were more that would stand up, we would be able to put into place a bill that would really serve the American people well.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita only exacerbated what has been happening to consumers in our country for the past year. Weeks before Katrina hit, consumers were paying higher and higher prices at the pump. In California, prices climbed $1 between January and August. They rose 50 cents in a month's time between July and August, with prices rising to well over $3 a gallon. I paid close to $4 a gallon in my congressional district just a week ago. Consumers in other parts of the country have seen similar hikes.

If we look at what the Washington Post recently reported, it is painfully evident that the oil industry and the refiners have profited handsomely. The money going to crude producers has climbed 46 percent over the last year. For refiners, revenues have increased 255 percent in one year, from September 2004 to September 2005.

The last time I remember seeing revenue increases like this was when Enron, Reliant and other gougers were raking in their profits during the so-called California energy crisis. And the explanations are also too familiar. We are being told again we are paying the price for having too little capacity. It is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The record shows otherwise. It is economics, not regulations, that have led to the shortfall in capacity.

I hope everyone will support the Democratic substitute. It is the legislation that will really put the gougers' feet to the fire and do something about it. I urge everyone to vote for the substitute and against the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Pombo bill and in support of the reforms in the substitute amendment offered by Representatives George Miller and Sherwood Boehlert.

The Endangered Species Act is a cornerstone of environmental protection. I'm very proud that one of my predecessors in the Congress, Pete McCloskey, was a leader in enacting this bipartisan law.

After more than 30 years, it's worth reevaluating and updating this law to better meet its objectives. I understand some of the frustrations that constituents have with the current law, but I don't think we should throw ``the baby out with the bathwater'' as the underlying bill would do.

While critics rightfully point out that we need to do more to help endangered species recover so they can be removed from the endangered list, the fact is the Endangered Species Act has been highly successful, with 99 percent of species listed under the ESA being saved from extinction.

I have very deep concerns about the bill before us today.

First, the bill requires the Federal Government to pay developers' costs in complying with the Endangered Species Act whenever even a portion of a property is impacted. There's no limit on the compensation payments that would be paid. The Congressional Budget Office has said this is a new entitlement that will increase spending by billions of dollars and establish a dangerous precedent. Imagine, for example, the Federal Government paying a factory owner for the costs of complying with the Clean Air Act when a decision is made to expand the plant. That's the principle this bill will establish. It's an extraordinary mistake.

Second, the bill removes protections against the use of hazardous pesticides. It's estimated that 67 million birds die each year from the effects of pesticides. These protections must be kept in place. One of the reasons the Endangered Species Act was adopted in the first place was to address declines in the population of the bald eagle caused by

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Peter Uccelli, Jr., who died on Thursday, September 22, 2005, at the age of 84, in California.

Pete Uccelli was born and raised in South San Francisco and served our Nation with the Army Corps of Engineers in the Philippines during WorId War II. He moved to Redwood City in 1949, and in 1954, purchased property that became Pete's Harbor. In 1973, he and his wife Paula opened the Harbor House Restaurant.

I had the privilege and pleasure of working with Pete Uccelli during my tenure on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and I've always been proud to call him my friend. He was a kind and generous man who was deeply devoted to his community and extraordinarily generous to individuals and organizations. The list of community groups that benefited from his largesse is long and broad, a reflection of his big heart.

Pete was the beloved husband of Paula, loving father of Richard, Sharon and Patricia, father-in-law of Debra and Ron, grandfather of Stephanie, Rhonda, Dot, Veronica and Michelle, and great-grandfather of Becky, Ryan and Ariana Rose. He was the dear brother of Alice Marsili and Norma Falletti and also leaves behind many loving nieces and nephews.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sympathy to Paula Uccelli and the entire Uccelli family. Pete Uccelli was a national treasure, someone who loved his community and his country abashedly and gave all of himself to make them better. He will always be missed but never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Andrea Leiderman, an extraordinary resident of the 14th Congressional District who was taken from us at the age of 46 on Sunday, September 11, 2005.

Andrea Leiderman graduated from Gunn High School and Vassar College, and went on to earn two master degrees from the University of California at Berkeley. She was a dedicated community activist and a committed public servant. She worked to serve others from the age of 10, when she started a childcare group in her parents' living room, to her work in public and government relations for Kaiser Permanente.

Andrea Leiderman served her community as a trustee of the Foothill- DeAnza Community College District, and served on the boards of the Mission City Community Fund, San Jose Chamber of Commerce Local Issues Advocacy Committee and the College of San Mateo President's Council on Advancement. She served as chair of the Working Council of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and as a member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our deepest sympathy to Hayes Anderson, Andrea's loving husband, Drs. Herb and Gloria Leiderman, Andrea's distinguished parents, to her brother and sisters, and to all those who had the privilege of knowing Andrea. She will be missed and never forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the San Mateo County Medical Association as it celebrates a century of service to the people of San Mateo County, California.

In response to an invitation from the California Medical Association, a handful of Peninsula physicians met in the front parlor of the Union Hotel in the City of San Mateo, California., on December 22, 1904, to discuss the creation of a local society. The doctors reconvened on January 16th of the next year and elected the distinguished Dr. Harry Garritson Plymire of South San Francisco as their temporary President. The first official meeting of the San Mateo County Medical Society was called to order on September 12, 1905, and 16 physicians were listed as charter members. The constitution of the new organization stated that its purpose was to ``promote the science. and art of medicine while conserving and advancing public health.''

The Society incorporated as the San Mateo County Medical Association in 1992 and it continues its constitutional mission of promoting the art and science of medicine and advancing public health. It publishes a pictorial directory of physicians as well as 10 editions of a bulletin each year. Various Association committees examine medical issues to interpret current practices and foster new professional insights. Together with the California Medical Association, the San Mateo County Medical Association shares the primary goals of organized medicine for the State of California: To educate and serve physicians, promote quality health care for the people of the State and create a strong voice on health care issues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the San Mateo County Medical Association and all of its members, both past and present, for their extraordinary service to our community and out country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Edward Leo Coyle as he celebrates the centennial of his life on September 27, 2005.

Edward Leo Coyle, known to his friends as Ed, was born on September 27, 1905, on Mount Pleasant Avenue in Columbus, Ohio. He was the youngest of five children born to William and Anne Bradley Coyle.

Ed Coyle attended Catholic schools and after graduating from high school he attended Ohio State University. After graduation from Ohio State, he followed in his older brother's footsteps, attending the University of Cincinnati Law School. He passed the Bar in 1930 and entered the legal profession at the start of the Great Depression. He joined his brother William in the practice of law, and served as Special Counsel to the Ohio Attorney General.

Ed Coyle married Winifred S. ``Teddy'' Johnson in 1936. The couple had two children, a son Ed and their daughter Nancy, now Mrs. Joseph Huber, a resident of the 14th Congressional District. He now has four grandsons, Michael and Jim Coyle and David and Matthew Huber, as well as three great grandsons, Jacob, Justin and Ryan Coyle.

Ed Coyle was employed as a lawyer for the Curtiss-Wright Company during the war, and then practiced law in his own office until 1950 when he and his family moved to southern California. He joined Bank of America and

served as a Trust Officer in charge of the Glendale District Trust Department until his retirement in 1970.

In 1976, Ed and Teddy moved to Palo Alto where Ed became a member of the Senior Group at the Palo Alto Golf Course, playing until he was 90. He gave generously of his time and talents as a volunteer at the Senior Center, counseling others on financial issues. Today although he suffers from neuropathy, he keeps up with his grandsons and walks each day at the Stanford University Track.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Edward Coyle on his 100th birthday and recognizing his countless contributions to our community and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lewis Platt, the leading Director of the Board of the Boeing Company and the former Chairman, CEO, and President of Hewlett Packard, who died unexpectedly on Thursday, September 8, 2005.

With Lew's death, our nation has lost one of the leading lights of the business world, a prominent member of the Silicon Valley community, and a wonderful human being.

Lew's death at the age of 64 is a shock to those of us who were privileged to work with him and know him well. He was a person whose example and guidance will be greatly missed. His decency, his integrity, and his common touch made him stand out in a business world known for the archetypal hard-charging executive.

Lew's legacy will be most closely linked with Hewlett Packard, where he worked for more than 30 years. He began his career there as an engineer and rose through the ranks to lead the company from 1992 to 1999 as its CEO.

Lew was a product of the ``HP Way,'' the ``walking-around'' style of management pioneered by Bill Hewlett and David Packard that encouraged employees to bring their ideas to top management. He embraced the HP Way and was known to eat lunch regularly with employees in the company's cafeteria. He eschewed the privileges enjoyed by most executives of major corporations and unlike most, he always flew coach.

He knew the dividends that the HP Way could bring, and he was able to guide the

company to tremendous growth during his tenure. Business Week named him Top Manager in 1995. Lew was also a pioneer in working to elevate women to top executive posts and was recognized with the Catalyst Award in 1991 for his efforts.

In writing about Lew this Monday, Business Week praised him again: ``Platt was respected, admired, and just plain liked by HP employees, customers, and even rivals. Platt was genuine, self-effacing, and honest. He was quick to give personal accolades to others, and to accept criticisms . . . with grace.''

It was his integrity, I think, that brought Boeing to seek his leadership at a time when it was beset with controversy at its highest levels. Leading the company's Board, he was able to provide critical stability when it was needed most.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to know Lew Platt and to work with him. He was a gentle man with a superb intellect. He was taken from us too soon and had so much more to give, but he leaves a rich legacy of family, of leadership and of extraordinary contributions to our community and our country. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and work of this good man and extending to his wife and entire family our deepest and sincere sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 5 years in the making, the energy bill passed by the House should have provided a vision for addressing our long term energy needs.

Instead, the bill sacrifices our long term economic, national, and environmental security for the short term advantage of oil companies and other energy producers.

Thankfully, some of the most extreme provisions were deleted from the final bill. The provision to give oil refiners liability protection for the damage done to drinking water supplies by the gasoline additive MTBE was removed from the bill. If this provision had been adopted, local communities would be responsible for $29 to $85 billion in cleanup costs resulting from MTBE contamination.

The provision opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling was also dropped, but the Majority leadership has promised to pass it in separate legislation.

Despite these omissions, the bill remains deeply flawed. New provisions were added and key policy challenges were not addressed.

The bill fails to address our growing dependence on foreign oil. Today we import more than half of the oil we use, and in 20 years, nearly 70 percent of our oil will come from overseas--whether or not this bill is signed into law.

By doing little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we're making ourselves dependent on OPEC and countries that might not share our interests.

This is a concern shared by a number of national security experts of diverse political viewpoints. In a letter to the President sent on March 24th of this year, the Energy Future Coalition (which includes former Reagan Administration National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former Reagan Administration Assistant Defense Secretary Frank Gaffney, and former President George H.W. Bush's Counsel C. Boyden Gray) stated:

The Unites States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a

risk to our homeland security and economic well-being.

With only two percent of the world's oil reserves but 25

percent of current world consumption, the United States

cannot eliminate its need for imports through increased

domestic production alone.

Since 40 percent of the 20 million barrels of oil we burn every day is used in passenger automobiles, we should be increasing automobile fuel economy requirements, but efforts to add those requirements to this bill were rejected.

Compounding the problem, the bill doesn't invest sufficiently in renewable alternatives. Only about 20 percent of the bill's $11 billion in tax incentives will go toward developing renewable energy resources which can replace fossil fuels.

The bill fails to address high gasoline prices. Rather than reducing gas prices, the bill guarantees that they'll go up by requiring that at least 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gasoline by 2012-- triple the current level. According to the Energy Information Administration, the independent forecasting agency within the Department of Energy, this mandate could force consumers to pay an extra $1.7 billion per year once it's fully implemented.

The bill weakens coastal protections and threatens the environment.

The bill requires an inventory of oil and natural gas resources in offshore areas where drilling is now prohibited, allowing pre-drilling activities in these areas. This includes Coastal California.

The bill undermines the ability of states to ensure that liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals are properly sited and operate safely.

The bill provides oil and gas drilling operations exemptions under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The bill fails to address global climate change.

The bill fails to compensate Western consumers for overcharges by electricity generators. The National Energy Policy developed by Vice President Cheney was billed in part as a response to the Western ``energy crisis'' of 2000 and 2001, but there was never an effort to compensate consumers for the market manipulation that occurred in California and the western U.S. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission arbitrarily limited the amount of refunds consumers could receive. My repeated efforts to add language to fully compensate consumers were rejected.

Conclusion. Energy touches all aspects of public policy: Public health, the environment, the economy, and national security. In the coming years and decades, the global competition for non-renewable energy resources will become more frantic. The bill passed by the Congress does not respond to that challenge, and it is comprehensive only in the sense that it contains a hodge-podge of special interest provisions that will benefit each segment of the energy production industry. Supporters of the bill have said that after 5 years we can't afford to kick the can down the road. With this bill, that's exactly what's happened.

Mr. Speaker, for 4 years we've been debating what to do about the malpractice premium crisis. We clearly have a problem but what's not so clear is what the solution should be.

I'm a Californian, and in my State, we have a law titled the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, MICRA, that has been mentioned many times on the floor. This law was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor in 1975. It's been on the books ever since, without a single change. MICRA has contributed to stabilizing premiums in California, but without other reforms, we would still be facing the same skyrocketing increases as other States.

The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, HEALTH, Act of 2005 has been described as a Federal version of MICRA. I respectfully dispute this assertion.

The HEALTH Act places a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for suits against physicians, insurers, HMOs and nursing homes as well as drug and medical device manufacturers. MICRA limits that cap solely to physicians. The Health Act also places a cap on punitive damages. MICRA does not.

One of the reasons MICRA has worked is because it's prescribed in its scope. If we're to get to the heart of exorbitant medical malpractice insurance, we have to focus our efforts on those who truly need our help. I'm concerned that extending these provisions to those outside of the physician community may have a harmful effect on patient care and on our legal system.

Patients must also be fairly compensated for any wrongs that befall them, but this bill also uses MICRA's cap level of $250,000, which has not been updated for inflation since the law was passed in California in 1975. When adjusted for inflation, $250,000 from 1975 is now worth only approximately $68,000.

This bill also does not contain any mechanism for studying the insurance industry and its role in the premium crisis. A review of the insurance industry is critical to understanding the problem and possible solutions. While MICRA was enacted in 1975, premiums in California continued to rise. MICRA did not address, collectively, the problem of rapidly escalating premiums faced by California doctors. Only because California voters enacted stringent insurance rate reform after tort reforms failed did doctor's premiums fall.

In 1988, California enacted insurance reform law, Proposition 103, which has saved physicians and other medical providers hundreds of millions of dollars by regulating the premiums insurance companies are allowed to charge. Premiums dropped and stabilized in the years following passage of Proposition 103. I urge my colleagues to accurately look to the experience in California. My State enacted both tort limits and insurance reform.

This is a multi-faceted problem. If we are to truly help physicians, we have to look at this issue from all angles and implement solutions across all levels.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Paul Edward ``Ed'' Hughes who died Sunday, July 17, 2005, at his home in Sunset Beach, North Carolina.

Mr. Hughes, who retired to Sunset Beach in 1992, was serving his third term on the Sunset Beach City Council. He was born in Pennsboro, West Virginia in 1926 to John and Mary Hughes, and grew up in Baltimore, Maryland. Ed served in the Army Air Corps during the Second World War and later graduated from Loyola College, where he was named an All-American in lacrosse, playing on the All-South team in 1948 and 1949. He later received his master's degree from the University of Pennsylvania.

Ed Hughes moved to Wilmington, Delaware in 1958, where he taught at Tower Hill School for 34 years, chaired the History Department and served as Dean. Over the course of his tenure he introduced anthropology to the school curriculum and headed the summer school program. He wrote a book about his founding of the Junior Humanities program for gifted inner-city students, a model project for which he received the Hollingworth Award. He was a head basketball coach for 14 years, coached football, and started the golf team.

Ed Hughes was a candidate for President of the City Council in Wilmington, Delaware and chaired the Republican City Committee. He was a frequent lecturer on current events and world affairs at Crosslands in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania and was a longtime manager of the Hagley Museum on the Brandywine River. He was a devoted husband, a proud father of five, a golfer, and in later life, a painter. He loved crossword puzzles, his golfing buddies and a good steak.

Ed Hughes is survived by his wife of 54 years, Jody Hughes, his daughters Mary and K.C. Halpern, his sons Paul, John and Mark, as well as seven grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of knowing Ed Hughes. He was a gentle man with a superb intellect and a wonderful wit. He was a man who was content with his life and achievements, most of all his magnificent children and theirs. Ed Hughes loved his family, his community and his country. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and works of this good man and in extending to his wife and entire family our most sincere sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia to explain his unanimous consent request.

Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about H.R. 3423, the Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act, which is being considered today. I am the lead Democrat, along with my colleague, on the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), who is also my neighbor across the hall from me in the Cannon House Office Building.

In 2002, former Representative Greenwood and myself introduced the Medical Devices User Fee Modernization Act. It passed the House unanimously, and it was signed into law by the President. The goal of the bill was to eliminate FDA's backlog in approving new medical devices so that doctors and patients could more quickly benefit from them.

While the law required device manufacturers to contribute toward FDA's cost in evaluating and approving new devices, the program was contingent on the Federal Government paying its fair share. If Federal funding did not reach the trigger level, the program would be eliminated. This legislation fixes the trigger so that the user fee program can continue.

Specifically the bill will reduce the rate of user fee increases to the single-digit range for the remaining 2 years of the program. It will help small medical device companies, which is very important, because the small companies operate differently under different circumstances than the larger ones. The small device companies, it helps them to afford the cost to submit new medical devices for FDA review and approval. And finally, the bill will enhance labeling and tracking of reprocessed single-use devices. So this legislation before us only authorizes the program for 2 more years.

It really is a significant accomplishment, and it allows us to now concentrate on making the device approval process even better in 2007. And I know that both of my colleagues, both the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the subcommittee chairman, as well as my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), are committed to that.

I want to thank Ryan Long with Chairman Barton's staff; John Ford, who is seated here to my left, with Ranking Member Dingell's staff; and for Vanessa Kramer of my staff who has worked so hard on this. And it is because of all of them and their hard work that this bill has successfully reached the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayes) Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to pay tribute to the excellent work being carried out daily by the men and women at NASA Ames Research Center, located in my district in California's Silicon Valley.

For over half a century, NASA Ames has been one of the world's premiere research labs, leading the scientific community in a wide range of endeavors as it provides vital support to NASA's core missions.

Located in the Silicon Valley, our nation's cutting-edge technology center, NASA Ames has created partnerships with leading universities and high-technology industry leaders, and brought the scientific, academic, and business communities together in multifaceted efforts to expand knowledge and explore the unknown.

As NASA begins to rise to the challenges laid out in the new Vision for Space Exploration, NASA Ames will lead the way in mission-enabling research within its core competencies of astrobiology, advanced supercomputing, intelligent adaptive systems, entry systems, and air traffic management systems. All but entry systems are uniquely resident at NASA Ames, and they represent the critical skills, facilities and people that are needed to meet NASA's mission, including the Vision for Space Exploration.

Over the last decade, NASA Ames has taken full advantage of its strategic location to create new partnerships between the private sector and federal researchers. Following the disestablishment of the Naval Air Station Moffett Field in 1991, NASA took the initiative to develop on existing federal property the NASA Ames Research Park, which today is home to over 30 companies and over 13 universities conducting collaborative research with NASA.

Thanks to this forward-thinking model for federal land reuse, major new construction plans are in motion, including a plan by the University of California to build a 120,000 square-foot Bio-Info-Nano Convergence Research & Development Lab, a project which I have been proud to support.

Mr. Chairman, I, along with many of my colleagues, have expressed deep concerns in recent months over proposed cuts to science funding within NASA's budgets. While some shifting of funding priorities is to be expected as NASA prepares to implement its new Vision for Space Exploration, my core concern has been the danger we face in losing the long-term viability of NASA's Science mission, and the risk we face in harming our Nation's ability to lead the rest of the world in scientific and high-technology innovation.

I'm pleased that the bill before us addresses my concerns in three key areas. The increases in science funding will go a long way toward ensuring the long-term viability of NASA's in-house research and development capability. To protect NASA's top-notch talent and critical skills, the bill protects Civil Service workers by blocking any layoffs until February 2007. To ensure we honor our commitment to the International Space Station, the bill expresses the Sense of the Congress of the important need to complete the centrifuge aboard the station, an important component of the Space Station Biological Research Project, which has the potential to yield enormous benefits for human systems understanding, a critical need if we are going to safely send astronauts to Mars and back.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill for NASA and our nation's innovation capability as a whole. I consider NASA, and the irreplaceable staff, expertise, and abilities housed at NASA Ames Research Center a national treasure, and one that deserves our fullest support as it continues to shape the technologies and understanding that will guide our nation in the 21st Century.