Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, due to a family obligation I missed the last 4 votes on Friday, April 20, 2007. I would have voted as follows: Putnam Amendment--``No''; Price Amendment--``No''; Motion to Recommit--``Nay''; Final Passage of H.R. 1257, Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act--``Aye.''

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

To the members of the Virginia delegation, I am here with a heavy heart, as all of you are. This is the kind of tragedy whose ripples will affect the faculty, the staff, law enforcement, Blacksburg and the State of Virginia for a long time.

Eight years ago tomorrow we had Columbine in my area. I live about 2 or 3 miles from Columbine. The emotions that I feel and the grief that I feel for you bring back a lot of memories. I wish I hadn't seen this play before; I wish I didn't know this script. But I can assure all of you, if you need anything, you have friends in Colorado. We have been through this before.

It is a difficult time. There will be mourning; there will be finger pointing; there will be all sorts of things. And I would just say to all of you, we feel your pain. Your sons and daughters are our sons and daughters.

We will be there, whatever you need. We have been through this. The disbelief and the despair that all of us feel today, we felt 8 years ago. If we can help in any way, you have friends in Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 3 months, this new Democratic House has paved the way for a new direction in America.

During the first 100 hours, we passed legislation increasing the minimum

wage, giving the Federal Government the ability to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices, making college more affordable by cutting interest rates in half on student loans, and fully implementing the 9/ 11 Commission's recommendations.

We have provided valuable oversight of the Bush administration's failings at both the Justice Department and at Walter Reed Hospital. Had we not conducted oversight hearings of the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed, several incompetent administration officials would still be on the job.

Then, last week, we approved an emergency supplemental spending bill that provides critical funding for our soldiers and our veterans while holding the Iraqi Government accountable for taking control of Iraq.

And this week, we will pass a budget which is balanced within the next 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, the American people asked for a change and a new direction, and this Congress is delivering.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act. This bill finally addresses the security of our Nation's rail and mass transit industries, and it has been put together in a bipartisan fashion.

The bill includes commonsense provisions that require transportation providers to conduct thorough risk assessment and threat mitigation plans. It also develops security training guidelines for front-line workers who are the eyes and ears on the ground.

Finally, it gives over $1 billion in Federal grants for first responder training, for purchasing of emergency response equipment, interoperable communications systems and cargo and passenger screening equipment. These steps identify where we are vulnerable and give the right people the training and equipment to make us less so.

I also commend the committee for adopting the two amendments I introduced.

The first, which I introduced with the help of Congressman John Salazar from Colorado, adds Transportation Technology Center, Inc., in Colorado to the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium so that it can bring its expertise in providing additional security to rail and mass transit systems. As the Nation's premier rail training facility, this will give greater ability to respond to rail disasters.

My other amendment is one that I worked on with my friend from California, and it clarifies Department of Homeland Security rules on what crimes constitute security risks for employees during a background check, and it provides a redress process for individuals who feel they were unfairly fired or terminated.

Mr. Chairman, the security of America's railroad and public transit systems are too important to ignore any longer. This bipartisan, commonsense bill will drastically improve our security.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

I certainly would, sir.

Yes, I concur with your description of my amendment. I thank you for the question.

First, I would like to thank the committee and my friend from California, because we worked out language that would prevent preemption of Federal, State or local laws for security background checks.

Furthermore, these requirements only apply to Department of Homeland Security guidelines. Private employers may conduct subsequent or alternative security background checks, looking for other crimes, based on their employment agreements or other applicable laws.

However, if a person is adversely affected by that security check with regard to his or her employment, the employer may not use Homeland Security as the impetus for that adverse decision.

This section addresses the concerns brought to our attention at a hearing on the impacts of background checks on the transportation workforce. Additionally, it provides a redress process modeled after the transportation worker identification card program that carefully balances the importance of background checks while protecting the Nation's critical infrastructure.

Good evening to my friends from the freshmen class. And I just want to say I listened to my friend from Minnesota as well as my friend from Vermont, and the reason we are here, the reason Mr. Ellison is here, the reason Mr. Welch is here, Mr. Klein is here, Mr. Hodes is here is because this Nation wanted checks and balances, and checks and balances means accountability.

There has been no accountability in Washington for the last 6 years; and as a result, we have had a variety of problems that have continued to arise again and again and again and again. And we can start with the no-bid contracts in Iraq, and the fact that there is some $10 billion that has evaporated into the ether. That is the kind of thing that we have to stop, and that is the kind of thing that the people of America voted to bring a Democratic Congress into being so that there were checks and balances to these no-bid contracts; checks and balances to a loss, a complete loss, of $10 billion, the whereabouts of which we are going to try to find, as the Congress of the United States of America is supposed to do, so that we act as a counterbalance to the executive branch. We aren't just here as a rubber stamp.

So start with Iraq. Let us talk about Katrina and the response that was just a horrible failure by this administration to a massive disaster in the United States of America, and the response after the disaster occurred has also been a disaster. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, it is clear that now we are 19 months after the hurricane which basically decimated New Orleans and many cities along the gulf coast, and yet we have not reconstructed, renovated, rebuilt much of the housing that was completely obliterated in that storm. So not only was the initial response a poor one, but after that the response has been very minimal and has to be improved. That is what checks and balances are about.

Checks and balances are when an administration, for whatever reason, releases the name of a CIA agent to punish her, to punish her husband, to whatever. It is completely wrong and needs to be stopped. And that is why people expect accountability in our government and they like checks and balances.

We have had revelations, Mr. Klein, over the past 2 or 3 weeks as to some of the conditions, particularly at Walter Reed but other veteran hospitals. Again, checks and balances and accountability would rein in excesses or neglect, one or the other. We have seen far too much of it. And we, as part of this freshmen class, are bringing those checks and balances back.

Now, obviously the other side doesn't like it. My friends on the Republican side, today they have been complaining with no end as to the approach we are taking to bring benchmarks to this war in Iraq. And they are complaining and complaining and complaining. But, finally, there are going to be checks and balances on this President and the way he has conducted the war in Iraq.

We are supporting our troops. We are supporting the veterans, and we are bringing conditions and accountability to the administration and accountability to the Iraqi people, as it is time for them to pick up what we have been carrying now for the last 4 years.

The American people understand checks and balances. They were tired of one-party government that led to excesses and neglect. We are here to provide accountability. That is exactly what we are doing. The administration doesn't like it. My friends across the aisle don't like it. But that is what the people sent us here to do, and that is precisely what we are doing.

And with that, Mr. Klein, my friend from Florida, I would like to yield back to you or to any of our other friends who are on the floor with us tonight to talk about why we are here.

Madam Speaker, I do have a point that I want to make. The power of the Federal Government is awesome, and if anybody is on the receiving end of the power of the Federal Government, you have a tough hill to climb. So the reason the people expect their U.S. attorneys and their government to operate in truth and honesty and in justice is because that power is so great, and when it is abused, the trust of the people goes right out the door, and without the trust of the people, we don't have much of a government here.

The people, in their unbelievable wisdom, maybe that is a little over the top, but the people in their wisdom chose to elect a Democratic Congress and a Democratic Senate because they know checks and balances can stop that kind of abuse. And we are seeing it now.

It is a shame that we see that U.S. attorneys, who could have been fired for any reason except for reasons that might ultimately be unethical, were being let go and were being threatened. That is just wrong, because the administration wanted to see the power of the Federal Government come down on somebody they didn't like.

I think I was elected to bring change to this Nation, a new direction to the Nation and positive things to this Nation, whether it is energy independence or assist with a whole variety of things concerning change in the direction in Iraq. I did not come looking to go on a witch hunt and to continue to do that.

The people obviously wanted checks and balances. They wanted oversight and accountability. Something like Walter Reed or something like we have just had with the Justice Department, those are things that just appeared now. These are not us going back and trying to dredge up old issues. These are things that have happened because of the neglect of the administration. These are things that appear, and we need to deal with them now.

I think the question is judgment. Before there wasn't good judgment. There wasn't oversight. There wasn't accountability. There weren't checks and balances. The people expect this from its Congress and from its Senate with respect to the White House.

Walter Reed is a shame. It is a shame. It is supposed to be one of our finest medical institutions anywhere in America or the world. It is there for our bravest men and women who have served us valiantly and have been harmed and hurt in a variety of ways, psychologically, physically, and we need to make sure that a place like

Walter Reed really does provide the care and the service and the best quality of medical services that we can provide, and not what has occurred.

The Congress today is something that gives Americans a chance for accountability, gives us a chance to deal with this administration on a straight-up basis, and the fact we are here, we are going to see improvements, just the fact that we are here, because it isn't just a rubber stamp anymore. There really is oversight.

Good morning, Madam Speaker.

This week, the House Budget Committee will prepare a Democratic budget that begins the process of fixing a fiscal mess created by President Bush and congressional Republicans over the last 6 years. This is not something that can be done in one year. After all, it took the prior Congresses and administration 6 years to turn a $5.6 trillion surplus into a $2.8 trillion deficit. That's a fiscal collapse over a 6-year period of more than $8 trillion. The misguided budget priorities of this administration have forced the President to borrow more money from countries like Japan and China than all of his 42 predecessors combined. That is not only a budget concern but also a serious national security concern.

It's time that we get our fiscal house in order. The Democratic budget will restore fiscal sanity here in Washington by actually balancing the budget over the next 5 years. This is something that the Republicans were not able to accomplish over the last 6. The Democratic budget will bring about change and a new direction in sound budgetary policies.

Mr. Chairman, I think our friends on the other side of the aisle have framed this in a way that I think is legitimate, which is, how long will this relief be extended. We talked about this in committee. And my feeling is the relief has got to be extended until we actually get on the job.

Mr. Neugebauer mentioned the fact that there has been a substantial amount of money appropriated and obligated to repairing and reconstructing these homes in New Orleans, but a very small portion of it has yet to be extended.

We had a debate over a couple of sections; one, that vouchers, it has been 18 months or 19 months now, shouldn't be available for people outside of New Orleans; and now we are saying those same vouchers shouldn't be available for them in New Orleans. The problem that we have here, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the job hasn't been done. There have been mistakes, missteps, miscommunication. Eighteen months seems like a long time, but very little has been done to reconstruct or renovate or rebuild the homes for so many people that were displaced. That is the bottom line here.

The bottom line is, coming from Colorado, coming from my background, my faith, we want to help people who are poor, we want to help them if they have been displaced by a huge natural disaster. They haven't been able to return because, through no fault of their own, things haven't been rebuilt or reconstructed. I can't see why we would want to strike section 306 because we haven't gotten the job done. Not through any fault of the people who have been dispersed throughout the country, but because of some problem either between the administration and the State of Louisiana or whatever. That is what has got to be straightened out here. We can't cut out this section and look ourselves in the mirror thinking that we have done the job.

The people that were displaced are entitled to return to New Orleans, they are entitled to return to these homes, and that is what this bill is about. That is why we brought this bill. You know, in a perfect world, everything should have been done by now, but it has not been finished, not anywhere near it. So we have got to step forward again.

We aren't trying to outdo ourselves. We are trying to finish what all of you started 18 months ago; but for whatever reason, we can blame the administration, we can blame the State, we can blame a lot of things, but it hasn't been finished. Our job is to finish the job and allow people to return to their homes in New Orleans as quickly as possible and not to cut this section 306.

So I am going to urge the House to defeat this amendment. I understand Mr. Neugebauer's desire to be fiscally responsible, I couldn't agree with him more. But the fact of the matter is the money is out there, things haven't been finished, and these vouchers are important to keep for the people.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

After 4 years, billions of dollars and thousands of lives, President Bush is once again asking Congress to reward failure with a blank check for the war in Iraq. Many of my Republican colleagues are more than willing to give the President anything he wants, but Democrats refuse to be a rubber stamp for the President's failed policies and, instead, want to finally require Iraqis to take control of their country. And yet the President has threatened to

veto legislation that contains his own benchmarks for success in Iraq, ensures our troops have the training they need, and fully supports both our veterans and our soldiers wounded in combat.

Our legislation also commits additional funding to fighting the forgotten war in Afghanistan. Over the last 4 years, the Bush administration has redirected funds and troops away from Afghanistan, forgetting that al Qaeda and the Taliban were the ones that attacked our Nation in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats will not allow President Bush to continue to pursue these failed policies. We will insist on a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in that chair, Mr. Speaker, because you and I, I think, are here because people in this country wanted a new direction. They had had enough. They wanted a change. And they want a new direction in how this country is being run. And if there is a single subject where they want a new direction, it is on Iraq.

Now, we have a resolution before us tonight that is a vote of confidence for our troops and a vote of no confidence for our President's policies in Iraq. First and foremost, I want to say that I support our troops and will fight to make sure they have the equipment they need and deserve. What they require on the battlefield they must have. What they need when they come home we must provide.

However, our troops are entitled to sound public policy with a realistic mission that strengthens America's national security interests. I am opposed to the President's proposed surge of sending 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I believe that we have taken our eyes off the necessary war in Afghanistan and against terrorism by the costly distraction of nation-building in Iraq.

We must be seeking Osama bin Laden. That is where our attention must be focused. But this surge is not a change in direction, but it is more of the same.

The President has not listened to the American people. He has not listened to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group or even to our senior officers such as Generals Powell, Abizaid, and Hoar.

Now, my opponent and I in this last election debated the issue of a surge. How my opponent knew that there would be a surge, that is beyond me. But he supported the escalation and I opposed it. And I still oppose this surge, because in my opinion it is too little too late.

The people of the Seventh Congressional District of Colorado spoke loud and clear. They questioned the President's policies in Iraq. Americans elected a new majority in Congress to act as a check and balance, and not a rubber stamp of the President's policies, especially those in Iraq.

It is time to turn over security to the Iraqi people, press forward with diplomatic efforts, create a multinational reconstruction effort and redeploy our troops from Iraq by the spring of 2008, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

It is time for Iraq to take responsibility for its future. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress and all of the Members to vote in favor of the resolution that is before us tonight.

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue debating a bipartisan resolution that voices this Congress' opposition to the President's troop escalation plan. We are not alone in our opposition to the President's plan.

Military leaders have raised concerns since the framework of this plan was announced at the end of last year. Here are a few examples. In testimony before the Senate in November, General John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command said, ``I do not believe that more American troops right now is a solution to the problem.''

Retired General Joseph Hoar stated last month, ``The new strategy reflects the inability of the administration to get it right. The proposed solution to send in more troops will not work. It is far too little and too late.''

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

Mr. Speaker, those are all men who have been on the frontlines. They join us in opposing the President's escalation plan.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the White House received a new National Intelligence Estimate from our intelligence agencies that confirms what we already know: The situation in Iraq is bad and likely to get worse. The NIE report concluded that the U.S. has little control over the day-to-day developments in Iraq and that there is a strong possibility of further deterioration.

The report also refutes the President's claim that we could begin to see progress from his troop escalation within the next 6 months. Instead, the President's own intelligence experts expressed deep doubts that the Iraqis will be able to gain any real control over their militias within the next 18 months.

They also stressed that the major security problem is not the presence of al Qaeda but instead is the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence. The intelligence officials make clear that the political accommodations are crucial to reducing sectarian tensions, but the report concludes that the parties are unwilling or unable to make them at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Congressman Pallone.

We did have a chance to hear our friends from the Republican side of the aisle. They talked about how they could manage the budget, how this President's budget was great and good for America. But last November, the people of this country cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Republican budgets, and they asked for and voted for a change in direction of this country.

Let's just start with where this Republican President and the Republican Congress left off last fall when we had the elections. Under George Bush, under this presidency, we have had another $3.9 trillion added to the debt of this country. The debt on each one of us now is about $29,000 per person and rising every day under this White House and the Republican Congress. There was nowhere near a balanced budget at any time over the last few years, just continuing to dig us deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.

The people of this country saw it. They didn't want anymore of that, because they understand that, right now, because of that debt that has been incurred over the last few years, the interest that we pay on our debt now dwarfs what we spend on education, veterans' benefits and homeland security, to just name a few, because we are spending so much, because we borrowed so much. The President and White House has proposed a budget where we continue to borrow and spend and drive our country farther and farther into debt.

They talked about how they could manage the budget so much better. My friends here know they didn't even finish the budget. We had to take a mess that was left over by the Republican Congress and really the White House where they didn't finish their business. We had to deal with it last week to try to get our budget in order.

The Democratic Congress really is changing the way business is being done here in our Nation's Capital because we are addressing budget problems. And we are going to show that we really do believe in making health care a priority and not just giving lip service to it.

So I would like to yield back to Mr. Pallone or to our friend, Representative Castor, for their comments, and then I would like to talk about how the President's health care budget affects the people in Colorado, my fair State.

Our chart in this instance shows the number of uninsured now exceeds the cumulative population of 24 States plus the District of Columbia, so all of those States that are in red and the District of Columbia, we have more people who don't have insurance. Under the budgets that have been proposed by the President and have been passed or just sort of glossed over by the prior Congresses, we have seen an assist to the wealthiest people in this country, while at the same time the people in the middle, the hardworking people of this country, have found themselves finding it harder and harder to make ends meet and have health insurance for themselves and their families.

My friend from Wisconsin is so right on this subject. It really is, where are your values? They are reflected in a budget. Now, as I said earlier, they didn't pass a budget last year. But last week, we passed a budget, and we wanted to show this country how much veterans mean to this country. And instead of cutting benefits, we raise benefits for our veterans.

We are changing the direction of this Nation because we know what the values of this Nation are, and they aren't reflected in the President's budget. They weren't reflected by the Republican's failure to deal with a budget last year. But they were reflected in what we did last week in taking a budget that hadn't been dealt with by the prior Congress and showing the world, showing this country, showing your State, my district, that we care about our veterans. And in this budget that the President has given to us for next year, again, this President has cut veterans benefits and medical benefits over the next 5 years.

I would like to yield back to my friend from Wisconsin.

Would the gentleman yield? I think the gentlewoman from Virgin Islands has something to say on this, too, but a couple of things.

In Colorado, on the point you are talking about, the SCHIP for kids, we have 176,000 kids who are at risk in this instance, and based on the President's budget, we cannot keep up with them. We cannot continue to provide them with the care that they deserve.

And as some of you know, I have a daughter with a chronic illness, and luckily, through my law firm, we had a good insurance program for all the trips to the emergency room and the different things like that. So we see on the one hand poorer kids, uninsured kids that are at risk, they are not going to be served, and under this President's budget, as you were saying, those of us who were fortunate enough to have a good insurance policy for kids with chronic illnesses or whatever might affect us, we are going to be taxed on this.

The President has said this budget, and some of his people have said this is a balanced budget with no new taxes over a 5-year period. Well, it is not a balanced budget, and there are new taxes on a lot of people, as you said, who have contracted for, worked for good insurance policies, and at the same time he says we are going to help the underinsured and the uninsured. What we see under the budget, it gets cut as well.

I thank my friend from New Jersey. Just for me, this past election was, the people wanted a new direction. They wanted checks and balances back in this country. They wanted a different perspective to be brought to the values of this Nation. As my friend from Wisconsin and my friend from New Jersey, my friend from Florida said, this budget that the President has presented reflects his values, but I don't think it reflects the values of this country.

Just as we did last week with the concurrent, with the continuing resolution, with the budget that we passed last week, we are going to reflect what I believe are the values of this country, whether it is with veterans. And I just notice, in the President's proposed budget, he is increasing medical care fees for military retirees. The budget increases enrollment fees and deductibles under TRICARE. I can tell you, as I have gone around, my area, Golden, Colorado, Brighton, Aurora, wherever it might be in the suburbs of Denver, those military retirees are already complaining about increases in TRICARE and cuts in benefits that come with respect to that, that we haven't fulfilled the promises that we have made for the great service that we have received from these men and women in our Armed Services.

Now, you know, what are our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to expect? We are going to provide them with the best care and the best service that we can. And we have got to show prior military retirees that same respect. We have got to do it for our troops now. I question the President's budget on these things. We are going to change the direction of this Nation. We are going to show what our values are, and they are the values of the people of this country. I am glad to be here, to be a check and balance on this current administration.

Absolutely, I will agree. We are not going to cut and run from our veterans. We are going to fulfill the promises that we have made to them for the services that they provided to our country.

Your colleague would agree with that, that our troops are giving us the greatest service, the greatest sacrifices, and they deserve better policies from those who are leading them, particularly, the White House and the administration. Our military is doing great, and we have got to live up to that greatness that they are providing.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, tonight we will hear the President give his State of the Union address, and I expect and I am confident that he will address energy issues.

I had a meeting this morning with an Assistant Secretary from the Department of Energy, and I believe that we are going to have a chance to have bipartisan effort, Democrats and Republicans, coming together with the President to deal with energy efficiency, renewable energy, and redeveloping and re-energizing our distribution grid throughout the country. This is going to be good for all of America, no matter what side of the aisle you might be on, because it is good for national security. It is good for the climate, and it is good for jobs across this country.

In the Seventh Congressional District of Colorado, which I represent, the suburbs of Denver, we have the preeminent laboratory in America and in the world in the National Renewable

Energy Lab. And with this focus on energy conservation, renewable energy and distributing energy in a way that is reliable, we will make this country more secure. And I am confident that the President is going to focus on it, as will we in the Congress.

I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here today. It is an honor for all of us to be here today, to be Members of Congress. We were all sent here, I think, to bring change to this Nation and bring a new direction to this Nation. I am proud that we have been a part of really a bipartisan effort. As Democrats, we have been part of a bipartisan effort to change the way this country is being run. In this last 100 hours, with Nancy Pelosi really pushing us to the maximum, we have taken care of things that have been stymied, stalled and stopped in prior Congresses.

We have dealt with minimum wage that sat on the shelf for 10 years. We dealt with renewable energy which for my district is fantastic. We have the National Renewable Energy Lab. It is time for us to change our priorities and have a more diverse portfolio of energy sources so that we aren't relying on the Middle East all the time. It is good for national security, it is good for the climate, it is good for jobs.

We dealt with student loans. As I said a couple of days ago, I was at a dive meet this past weekend, one of my kids was in a dive meet, and a woman came up and thanked me because we were reducing the rate of interest on student loans because she had one daughter in college, another one coming up, a single mom, and this was going to help their family educate and really build for the future.

One of the things that I was most proud of, and I am talking to the gentleman from Tennessee because he participated in this, was on the stem cell bill. I felt so proud because that is what Congress, that is what the democratic system is all about. There was a bipartisan bill that passed legislation to allow for further stem cell research that holds out so much promise for so many people. One of my kids has epilepsy. We talked about that. Diana DeGette and Mike Castle, one a Democrat, one a Republican, worked very well together to bring about a bipartisan solution to something that will help so many people across this country.

There were other things. There was 9/11. I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. And for us to finally pass the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission after years of it sitting there without any implementation by the Republican Congress was a great change. I am just happy to be here, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know exactly how you would like me to proceed, but I wanted to ask the gentleman from Tennessee if he feels that there has been the activity and the action and the change in direction of this country that the people in his district elected him to bring change.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize three researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the premier national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research.

The American Chemical Society recently honored Arthur Nozik, a senior research fellow at NREL, with a special tribute of accomplishments in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B.

During the past 30 years, Dr. Nozik has earned a leading position in the fields of photoelectrochemistry, semiconductor-molecule interfaces, nanoscience and quantum size effects in semiconductors and carrier dynamics in semiconductor quantum dots and quantum wells. He has written more than 160 peer-reviewed publications, 35 book chapters and has edited or co-authored several books in these fields.

Dr. Nozik has been awarded 11 U.S. patents. He also invented a novel photochemical diode for splitting water to generate hydrogen, and the identification of several important solar photoconversion approaches using hot carrier effects, size quantization, and superlattice concepts that could, in principle, enable a leap in efficiency of solar energy conversion.

Dr. Nozik, who joined NREL in 1978, received the 2002 Energy Research Award of the Electrochemical Society. He was a senior editor of The Journal of Physical Chemistry from 1993-2005 and is a fellow of both the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

NREL solar energy researchers Sarah Kurtz and Jerry Olson have spent the past 20 years developing the multi-junction solar cell. These solar cells have demonstrated higher solar energy conversion efficiency than conventional silicon cells and are already the choice for most space applications. For their contributions to the field of photovoltaic energy, Kurtz and Olson have been recognized as laureates of the Dan David Prize, given by the Dan David Foundation in cooperation with Tel Aviv University and the French Ministry of Culture and Communication. They and other winners will share $3 million in prize money.

The photovoltaics community has made tremendous progress during the last 30 years. In the past few years, the investment in concentrator systems using high-efficiency, multijunction solar cells has mushroomed. Although this investment is not yet reflected by large installations, the Dan David prize recognizes this technology for its future promise to transform energy markets.

I'm enormously proud to have NREL in my district and equally proud of the work of these three scientists.