Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1665.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' H.R. 976 does not end health care inequality, but it will provide continued coverage for children not covered by Medicare but whose parents cannot afford to buy insurance and whose employers do not provide it.

These children--currently 6 million of them--are now eligible for coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)--but that program is set to expire at the end of this month. If Congress does not act, these six million will no longer have access to quality, affordable health insurance. This bill responds to that urgent need.

This legislation would assure continued coverage for those now enrolled and would provide coverage for an additional four million children who currently qualify, but who are not yet enrolled under

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2881 and urge its approval.

The version of H.R. 2881 that is before us today is the product of a constructive, bipartisan collaboration between the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Science and Technology Committee.

I want to express my appreciation for the fine work done by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members and staff, and in particular Chairman Jim Oberstar and Ranking Member John Mica, along with the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee (and senior member of the Science and Technology Committee), Jerry Costello, and Ranking Minority member Tom Petri. I appreciate the cooperative efforts that made this merged bill possible.

I also want to thank Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member Ralph Hall, and my good friend and Ranking Member on the space and aeronautics subcommittee, Representative Tom Feeney, for all of their hard work on H.R. 2698, the Federal Aviation R&D Reauthorization Act of 2007--which was unanimously passed by the Science and Technology Committee earlier this year and which has now been incorporated into the bill we are considering today.

The Science and Technology Committee majority and minority staff has done great work on this bill and I would like to thank them

as well, especially Richard Obermann, Ed Feddeman, Tim Athan, and John Piazza for their hard work. I am pleased that H.R. 2881 will reauthorize a range of important R&D activities at the FAA--including R&D related to aviation noise and emissions reduction--establish new R&D initiatives in some key areas, and include provisions aimed at strengthening the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative and the interagency Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which has the responsibility for planning and developing NextGen.

Because of my limited time, I would like to highlight just two of the new initiatives in the bill that I think are especially important.

First, the bill establishes an interagency research program to better understand the impact of aviation on climate change. This is a serious matter, with both economic and quality-of-life implications, and thus I believe that this research effort is critically important.

Second, the bill establishes a multi-agency research program to conduct research on the impacts of space weather on aviation and air passengers. This is motivated by the increased importance of space weather to aviation, especially with the increased incidence of flight operations over the polar regions.

Mr. Chairman, while I could spend all my time discussing the important provisions from H.R. 2698 that have been included in H.R. 2881, I would be remiss if I did not discuss several other features of the bill that I think are important. It is clear, I think, that enhancing the Nation's aviation needs while addressing unique challenges of individual communities is not an easy task. I believe that this bill moves our Nation's air transportation system forward while being understanding of the obstacles that face each state and locality.

In June, the Department of Transportation (DOT) reported that only 72.5 percent of domestic flights by the largest U.S. airlines arrived on-time from January to April of this year. This is the worst showing since DOT began reporting on-time performance in 1995. Robust investment in aviation infrastructure is crucial to increase air capacity and decrease fight delays. I am pleased that this bill provides for increased funding for a number of FAA capital programs, including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).

Passage of this legislation is vital to the health of the Nation's air transportation system and the continued economic vitality of Colorado. I am especially pleased that the bill designates a program within FAA to improve safety and efficiency of radar coverage in mountainous areas. While the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the FAA have already begun such an endeavor, this bill will further cement and provide funding for enhanced radar coverage at mountain airports in Colorado and elsewhere. Not only will this program increase safety but it will also provide multi-modal benefits by reducing congestion on highways due to flight diversions or denied service.

Mr. Chairman, it is no exaggeration to say that the Nation's air transportation system is critical to our economic well-being, our international competitiveness, and our quality of life. I believe that H.R. 2881 will help maintain its continued vitality and safety, and I urge Members to support the bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Expanding American Homeownership Act. Homeowners in Colorado and nationwide are facing a crisis and passage of this bill will ensure continued access to responsible, safe, and affordable mortgage options.

There are serious problems with our country's mortgage lending market. Foreclosure rates are rising, housing prices are stagnating and too many Americans are surprised to find their monthly payments on the rise. While the difficulties in the lending market have so far been concentrated in subprime loans, which generally go to borrowers with limited or damaged credit, these problems have caused serious and sometimes irreparable economic damage to families and communities of all income levels throughout the Nation.

I am pleased that this legislation modernizes the Federal Housing Administration, FHA, to provide lower monthly payments for borrowers who make on-time payments, raises the loan limits on FHA loans and allows the FHA to vary premiums based on their credit risk. These provisions, among others, will allow consumers to choose a more reliable mortgage as opposed to other mortgages that could impose excessive rates and fees, prepayment penalties, and reset terms that can result in exorbitant interest rate increases.

While this bill is not a complete fix for the problem, it is an important step in the right direction. It is vital to provide FHA with the flexibility to respond to the mortgage crisis to help families in Colorado and the Nation to retain and purchase or a home. I urge a ``yea'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of Dr. Ronald Sega, Under Secretary of the Air Force, and to recognize him for his distinguished public service as Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, from August 2001 to July 2005; and as Under Secretary of the Air Force, from August 2005 to August 2007.

As the Chief Technology Officer for the Department of Defense, Dr. Sega interacted with the Executive Branch, Congress, industry, academia, and other Federal agencies to develop strategies and support plans to align scientific research and engineering development with Department goals and objectives to ensure U.S. military technological superiority. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Nation, he established the Department of Defense Combating Terrorism Technology Task Force to spearhead the rapid development and fielding of defense capabilities critical to the successful execution of military operations in support of the global war on terrorism. Dr. Sega established Department of Defense technology focus areas on energy and power technology, surveillance and knowledge systems, and in the National Aerospace Initiative to guide investment and capitalize on emerging technological opportunities. Dr. Sega's tireless efforts and diplomacy significantly advanced Defense Department international engagement and cooperation.

As the Under Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Sega oversaw, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, the recruiting, training, and equipping of approximately 690,000 airmen and a budget of approximately $110 billion committed to the effective integration of air, space, and cyberspace capabilities in support of the Nation's defense. As the designated Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space, Dr. Sega developed, coordinated, and integrated plans and programs across the national security space enterprise instituting a back-to-basics approach to space acquisition which redistributed risk from system procurement to early-stage science and technology activities. He also established the Operationally Responsive Space Office to launch, activate, and employ low-cost satellites to provide surge capability, to reconstitute or augment existing constellation, or to provide timely availability of tailored or new capabilities. As the Air Force Senior Executive for Energy, he led the development of the Air Force Energy Strategy to incorporate energy consideration in all Air Force operations. Dr. Sega instituted best business practices in defense space acquisition, championed advances in the science and technology workforce, and tirelessly supported the Nation's men and women in uniform.

Dr. Sega is an extraordinary leader, patriot, and intellectual whose distinctive accomplishments reflect great credit upon himself and the Department of Defense. I am particularly pleased that he will return to Colorado to share his skills and experience as vice president at the Colorado State University Research Foundation and as a professor of systems engineering at Colorado State University.

I hope my colleagues will join me not only in recognizing the past accomplishments of Dr. Sega but also in wishing him all the best in his future pursuits.

Mr. Chairman, while I have some concerns about this bill, I will vote for it because I think on balance it deserves to be approved as a necessary step toward needed improvements in the current law.

I am far from expert in the intricacies of patent law, so I have listened carefully to those with more knowledge, including several companies employing substantial numbers of Coloradans that utilize patents in various fields. While they are not unanimous, most of them have urged support for the legislation.

I have also noted that the passage of the legislation, as a step toward needed improvements in the current law, is supported by the Consumers Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and other groups including the Financial Services Roundtable.

At the same time, I have listened to the concerns expressed by others who have raised a number of objections to the bill and think that its defects are so serious as to merit rejection of the legislation in its current form.

I take those objections seriously, but I have decided that nonetheless the better outcome today is for the House to pass the bill and for further discussion of the points they raise to occur in the context of debate in the Senate and then a conference between that body and the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Weather Mitigation Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act. This bill will increase and enhance research and development in weather mitigation to better understand its effectiveness in addressing drought in our country.

The western part of our country, including my own State of Colorado, has experienced drought conditions in recent years. Efforts have been made to address drought recovery, preparedness, and alleviation. Weather mitigation, which means the use of artificial methods to change or control the natural formation of cloud forms or precipitation forms, causing, for example, snowpack augmentation or rain enhancement, could also contribute to solving this problem. However, little fundamental research has been done to better understand weather mitigation and modification.

The National Academies of Science report Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research, released in 2003, noted that there is no scientific proof that weather modification or mitigation is effective; however, the report attributes this to a lack of understanding of ``critical atmospheric processes'' that have caused unpredictable results with weather mitigation, not a lack of success with such efforts. The report called for a national program for a sustained research effort in weather modification and mitigation research to enhance the effectiveness and predictability of weather mitigation.

There is currently no federal investment in weather mitigation, though there are private funds that are largely going toward unproven techniques. My bill, similar to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, establishes a federal research and development effort to improve our understanding of the atmosphere and develop more effective weather modification technologies and techniques.

In my own State, the Denver Water Department, which has been impacted by the prolonged drought conditions, implemented a cloud seeding program to help increase the snowpack in its watersheds along the mountains of the Front Range. This was not a major program, but it was an attempt to modify the drought conditions for the benefit of the over 2.5 million people in the Denver area that are served by Denver Water. This bill would help augment these types of efforts by promoting greater research into how best to employ such techniques in a safe and effective manner.

Specifically, the bill creates a Weather Mitigation Advisory and Research Board in the Department of Commerce to promote the ``theoretical and practical knowledge of weather mitigation'' through the funding of research and development projects. The board will be made up of representatives from the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a higher education institution, and a state which is currently supporting operational weather modification projects.

In Colorado, a large portion of our water source comes from the snowpack runoff each year. A better understanding of weather mitigations has the potential to enhance our snowpacks, and thus assist in addressing drought concerns.

But the needs for this research extend beyond the western United States. The need for this research is becoming even more urgent with the reports that other countries are successfully exploring this area of research. China in particular has focused on the possibility that weather mitigation technology would allow the government to control the weather during the Beijing Olympics in 2008. The Chinese already spend more than $50 million annually on weather mitigation. As the weather conditions in China can have an impact on North American weather as well, we must understand how these changes will change our weather. This is quickly becoming an issue of national and economic security.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the expansion of the research and development of weather mitigation and urge a swift passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Greater Cooperation with Local Governments in Water Project Analysis Act.''

This bill would require the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, when acting as a lead federal agency for analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, of certain water projects, to grant ``cooperating agency'' status to affected subdivisions of state governments if they seek that status.

The bill would apply to analysis of any project involving diversion of water from one river basin to another river basin and to any local government with jurisdiction over any portion of such a project.

Its purpose is to ensure a ``seat at the table'' for these local governments, to make sure they have the fullest opportunity to provide input regarding the potential impacts of such a project.

It's important to note that this bill would not give any state subdivision a ``veto'' of the water diversion project. It would only ensure the subdivision's more direct involvement of the analysis of such a project.

While the term ``cooperating agency'' is not part of the statutory language of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, has issued regulations providing for that status in order to implement the NEPA mandate that Federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analyses and documentation do so ``in cooperation with State and local governments'' and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.

As CEQ has noted, ``Studies regarding the efficiency, effectiveness, and value of NEPA analyses conclude that stakeholder involvement is important in ensuring decision-makers have the environmental information necessary to make informed and timely decisions efficiently. Cooperating agency status is a major component of agency stakeholder involvement that neither enlarges nor diminishes the decision-making authority of any agency involved in the NEP A process.'' (Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies from James Connaughton, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, January 30, 2002).

Having the status of a ``cooperating agency'' does involve some responsibilities as well as opportunities. But it is understandable that local governments often seek to be granted that status--and, at least with regard to the kind of projects covered by this bill, I think that if a local government seeks it, it should be granted.

I was prompted to introduce this bill by the experience of Grand County, located on the west side of the Continental Divide, in connection with two water diversion projects involving some east slope communities and interests that possess rights to water that originates in and flows through Grand County.

Both of these projects have important implications for communities and activities in the county, so I joined with the county in requesting ``cooperating agency'' status to the County for both of these projects.

However, due to the discretionary nature of granting such status, in one case the County status was granted, in another it was denied.

One of these projects is the Moffat Collection System Project. The Denver Water Department owns and collects water in various streams that flow west from the flanks of the Continental Divide. The Department then pipes this water through a water tunnel associated with the Moffat Tunnel, which is also a railroad tunnel.

In 2004, the Denver Water Department began an effort to increase the volume of water it collects and sends through this Moffat Collection System. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency on this project and began the necessary NEP A work. And when Grand County requested ``cooperating agency'' status for this project, the Corps denied their request.

The other project is called the Windy Gap Firming Project. This project also diverts water from Grand County to the eastern slope. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is the prime beneficiary of the water from this project, which is designed to increase the water collection and diversion from Grand County using features such as Lake Granby, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand Lake, and the Alva diversion tunnel.

In this case, the lead Federal agency conducting the NEPA work on this project was the Bureau of Reclamation. Again, Grand County sought ``cooperating agency'' status--and in this case, the Bureau of Reclamation granted the County that status.

This bill responds to this discrepancy by removing the discretion of either the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation to deny a request for ``cooperating agency'' status by a county or other local government having jurisdiction over any portion of such a project.

In other words, under the bill if a county or other similar subdivision of a state requests ``cooperating agency'' status regarding a transbasin-diversion water project located within its jurisdiction, the Corps or Bureau, if acting as the lead agency under NEPA, would be required to grant that request.

I believe that it is important for counties and other subdivisions to be involved in the important issues affecting them, such as transbasin water diversion projects. I do not believe that allowing them more direct involvement in these issues should be up to the will of the lead Federal agency if they have made a decision to seek such status.

Madam Speaker, I have reservations about this bill, but I will vote for It today.

It has just been introduced, and we have had only a short time to review it. And those of us who do not serve on the Intelligence Committee have had to depend on news reports and the debate on the floor for information regarding the events that have led to its being considered today.

We have been informed that Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has asserted that under current law there is a critical collection gap in our electronic surveillance capabilities, and that the administration

wants that gap to be addressed through legislation.

The bill before us evidently is intended to respond to that request. It would make clear that no warrant or court order is required for our intelligence agencies to monitor communications between people located outside the United States, even if those communications pass through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States. The point of this clarification is to resolve doubts about the status of communications between foreign persons located overseas that pass through routing stations here in the United States.

I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at individuals in the United States.

The bill requires the Attorney General to submit procedures for international surveillance to the FISA Court for approval and authorizes the court to issue a ``basket warrant'' for individuals or foreign powers, including al Qaeda, outside the United States based on a review of those procedures without making separate determinations about individuals to be subject to the surveillance. Under the bill, there would be an initial 15-day period when international surveillance can begin while a ``basket warrant'' is submitted to the FISA Court. It allows for up to two 15-day extensions while the court rules and allows the court to compel cooperation by carriers during that period. And it requires the Justice Department's Inspector General to conduct and provide to the court and the Congress an audit every 60 days of communications involving any U.S. persons that are intercepted under a ``basket warrant.''

In general, I am wary of the concept of ``basket warrants,'' which are not normal under our laws. But I am prepared to support this part of the bill on the understanding that it is limited in scope and not applicable within the United States and with the expectation that the question will be revisited if the audits indicate a need for reconsideration of this part of the legislation. In this context, I am glad to note that this legislation will expire in 120 days. I think that is appropriate in light of the very short time we have had to consider the bill and the importance of the subject. This sunset clause means that we will be required to revisit the issue and will reduce the likelihood that any errors caused by today's expedited procedure will persist for an undue period.

Madam Speaker, the administration is not fully supportive of this bill and evidently would prefer a broader grant of authority for surveillance. I am prepared to consider their arguments, but in the meantime I will vote for this bill in order to provide an immediate response to the problem they have identified and to advance the measure to the Senate for further consideration.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to strongly support the conference report for H.R. 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science, COMPETES, Act of 2007.

Science, technology, engineering, and math STEM, research and education are the key to

much of our country's success for the last 200 years. America has long been a center for science and engineering discovery--in the last few decades alone, American ingenuity has transformed our Nation and the world with the personal computer and the internet. Going forward, new innovations will continue to be critical, both in maintaining a solid industrial and economic base and increasing our standard of living.

Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, play a key role by funding cutting-edge research and training the next generation of scientists and engineers. And nothing will occur without federal investment in STEM research and education--we must continue this strong Federal support to reinforce our global competitiveness and our prosperity.

As a cosponsor of H.R. 2272 and a House conferee, I am proud to say that this legislation will set us in the right direction. It will help strengthen and improve research and education efforts at NSF, NIST, DOE's Office of Science, and the Department of Education, as well as update the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and recognize the important role that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, plays in STEM education and research. This bill will help to ensure that the United States continues to be a science and technology leader.

H.R. 2272 includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally competitive in many industries.

NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and engineering center for significant research across the Nation. The increase in research funding will help the scientists here expand our knowledge about topics ranging from nanotechnology to material science.

A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality of research performed at NIST. In fiscal year 2007, NIST-Boulder will begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST will need further funding in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. H.R. 2272 authorizes this critical funding.

I am also pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and gradually increases funding for key technology transfer programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and the Technology Innovation Program, TIP, formerly known as the Advanced Technology Program, ATP.

For NSF, H.R. 2272 will continue the effort to double its funding over a 10-year time period by authorizing almost $22 billion for fiscal years 2008-2010. The bill will also encourage the participation of more scientists who have not received NSF funding in the past through 1-year seed grants. By targeting these grants toward these new recipients, the legislation will help support early career researchers and encourage higher-risk research.

As co-chair of the STEM Education Caucus, I am also pleased that H.R. 2272 contains support and funding for NSF's STEM education programs. These programs include the Math and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce Scholarships Program, as well as several STEM education grants that focus on teacher professional development. These programs will help increase the number of well-qualified science and math teachers across the country, both through creating more teachers from current college students and by providing better training for the teachers already in our schools.

The bill will increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, providing nearly $17 million over fiscal years 2008-2010. The Office of Science funds much of our country's physical science and has helped advance our knowledge about energy, a critical issue of both national and economic security. This increase will keep the Office of Science on track to double its funding over 10 years.

As chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am pleased that H.R. 2272 contains a number of provisions that highlight the important role that the NASA can and does play in promoting innovation and competitiveness. To that end, the conference report includes language to ensure that NASA will be a full participant in all interagency innovation and competitiveness initiatives as well as STEM initiatives. That's important, because the record shows that past NASA R&D activities have contributed to the vitality of today's economy through NASA's development of a host of innovative technologies. In addition, NASA still has a ``brand'' that can inspire young people to pursue careers in science and engineering, and we should capitalize on that fact by involving NASA in interagency STEM initiatives whenever appropriate. The conference report does just that, and it also encourages NASA to use its undergraduate student research program to more directly engage college and university students in NASA-related research.

In addition to NASA's basic science and research programs, H.R. 2272 recognizes and endorses the significant role that NASA's aeronautics programs play in ensuring America's competitiveness. However, I think it is clear that investing in aeronautics is critical not only to our competitiveness, but also to our quality of life, the safety and efficiency of our Nation's air transportation system, and our military strength. We need to ensure that NASA continues to maintain its commitment to a meaningful and robust aeronautics R&D program.

Finally, H.R. 2272 notes the role that the International Space Station, ISS, if properly utilized, can play in helping to promote interest in math and science. It thus directs NASA to make concrete plans to implement at least some of the innovative educational projects proposed by an interagency task force that looked at the contributions that the ISS could make to STEM education. In addition, the conference report also directs NASA to come up with a clear plan to identify and support ISS research that can contribute to innovation and competitiveness. As was made clear at a recent hearing held by my subcommittee, NASA needs to do much more than it has been doing to get a good return on the sizeable investment that the Nation has made in the ISS. As was further pointed out at the hearing, the ISS offers a unique capability for research in a number of disciplines that could benefit both NASA as well as our citizens back here on Earth--but NASA needs to step up to the challenge of making sure that research is adequately supported.

I would like to thank House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, and the other conferees, for their work on this critical bipartisan legislation.

I think we all recognize that investing in basic research and STEM education is critical for a strong economy and national security, and H.R. 2272 will help us improve the critical support for STEM education and research. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Professor Marvin H. Caruthers on his recent selection as a recipient of the National Medal of Science. With this award Professor Caruthers officially joins the ranks of the finest minds to contribute to American science since Congress established the award in 1959.

Having held a faculty post at the University of Colorado at Boulder for the past 34 years, Professor Caruthers conducts the sort of cutting-edge research that consistently keeps CU-Boulder on the map for technological advancement and academic progress. The University deserves credit for creating an atmosphere that allows minds like Professor Caruthers' to flourish, and I can say confidently that the 2nd District, the State of Colorado, and the country at large all benefit enormously from that investment.

Professor Caruthers is the cofounder of both Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology company, and Applied Biosystems, a company that has commercialized Professor Caruthers' work on DNA synthesizing. While his research is extraordinary in its own right, making his findings commercially available is how this important work manifests as life- saving technology, advanced understanding of human biology, and high- tech jobs for American workers. Professor Caruthers' work gives us a textbook example of how advanced research becomes a guiding light for human advancement.

I hope my colleagues will join me in not only recognizing the past accomplishments of Professor Marvin Caruthers that have warranted his acceptance of the National Medal of Science, but also in wishing him all the best in his future pursuits.

I strongly support this amendment. . . .

I'd like to thank my cousin, Representative Tom Udall, as well as Representative Platts and the rest of our colleagues who have worked so hard to push forward a renewable electricity standard. Speaker Pelosi also deserves our deep gratitude for her support and for working side by side with us during these last few weeks. We all understand the importance of this critical amendment, and I'm proud to have been a longstanding part of this great effort as it culminates in a vote today.

As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure that the environment and consumers are protected.

So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally friendly sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. And that's what a renewable electricity standard, or RES, would help to do.

But it's not just about doing the right thing for the environment.

With almost all new electricity generation the last decade fueled by natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs. Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we shouldn't be forced to rely on these unstable regions to sustain our economy, nor do we have to.

The best way to decrease our vulnerability and dependence on foreign energy sources is to diversify our energy portfolio. Half of the States in our great Union have already figured this out and have made the commitment to producing a percentage of their electricity using renewable energy. But all of our States will benefit under a national standard, which will bring natural gas costs down nationwide, create new economies of scale in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to long-term investors.

The Udall-Platts amendment requires utilities nationwide to produce 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources by 2020. The amendment also allows up to 4 percent of that 15 percent requirement to be met with energy efficiency.

The amendment's definition of renewables is broad, including biomass--cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified animal waste and landfill gas, or biogas; and all types of crop-based liquid fuels. It includes incremental hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. The amendment also allows energy efficiency to make up 27 percent of a utility's targeted requirement. Every State has one or more of these resources.

The Udall-Platts amendment saves consumers billions of dollars. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and making them more available, it will help restrain natural gas price increases by creating more competition for those fuels.

The Udall-Platts amendment will spur economic development in the form of billions of dollars in new capital investment and in new property tax revenues for local communities, and millions of dollars in new lease payments to farmers and rural landowners.

Not least, the Udall-Platts amendment will reduce air pollution from dirty fossil-fueled power plants that threaten public health and our climate.

The amendment does not burden some regions of the country at the expense of others, as the utilities would have you believe. It creates public benefits for all.

The argument that the Southeast is disadvantaged by the RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--ignores the plain truth. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of the country that will see the most benefit from this proposal. According to Department of Energy's Energy information Administration, the technology that does best under a 15 percent RES is biomass. Already, 2500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills is not being used to generate electricity.

The Udall-Platts amendment gives States flexibility in achieving the standard.

Under the amendment, states can borrow credits against future renewables generation--for up to three years as long as they are repaid by 2020, which means the effective start date can be delayed and facilities ramped up more slowly.

The amendment gives three renewable energy credits for each kilowatt hour of power generated at on-site eligible facilities used to offset part or all of the customer's requirements. This means solar, small wind, and other distributed energy generation sources used in residential and business locations can earn triple credits.

The amendment also returns money to the States from alternative compliance payments for State weatherization programs, low-income energy assistance programs, and for encouraging the installation of additional renewables.

The amendment also lowers the initial target date for 2010 to 2.75 percent and makes the escalation to 15 percent more gradual so that utilities have more time to ramp-up renewable energy sales.

In summary, this renewable electricity standard will reduce harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy supply now, and will create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over the country.

It is good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for our country. I strongly urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3221 I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. It will begin the process of putting our country on a path toward energy independence, increased national security and economic growth, and addressing global warming. When combined with the legislation from the Ways and Means Committee, it will provide long-term incentives to boost production of electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, river currents, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion resources.

Other incentives will help expand production of homegrown fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and encourage more E-85 pumps to supply flex-fuel vehicles. The bill will encourage manufacturers to build more efficient appliances, help working families afford fuel- efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles, and help businesses create energy- efficient workplaces. It will encourage deployment of renewable energy by enabling electric cooperatives and public power providers to use new clean renewable energy bonds to help finance facilities to generate electricity from renewable resources. And it will help states leverage tax credit bonds to implement low-interest loan programs and grant programs to help working families purchase energy-efficient appliances, and make energy-efficient home improvements. Further, the bill will create an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train Americans for good ``green'' jobs that will be created by new renewable-energy and energy-efficiency initiatives.

I am glad the bill includes a requirement for a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), added by an amendment by my cousin Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. Todd Platts, and others, including myself. This is a great victory--the first time an RES has ever passed the House of Representatives--and it means that despite the strong opposition of those who prefer the status quo, the movement for positive change has grown stronger. Implementing a national RES will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security.

There are many other good provisions--but I am particularly proud of parts originating in two Committees on which I serve, which include many provisions based on legislation I introduced.

Science and Technology Committee Provisions

The part of the bill developed by the Committee on Science and Technology includes provisions from two of my bills that will help us mitigate and adapt to climate change, although the bill does not directly address reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Global Change Research and Data Management

Although we know that climate change is occurring, we still need economic and technical information as well as information about system responses and climate responses to design cost effective policies will achieve emissions reductions and avoid dangerous impacts of future climate change. Subtitle G, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007, will help provide this information. It will update and improve the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to provide more user-driven research and information. The USGCRP coordinates federal climate change research and has contributed much to our understanding of climate change since its creation in 1990--but we now need to expand this information and tailor it to the needs of decisionmakers confronted with management and mitigation challenges. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Inglis from South Carolina, who is an original cosponsor on the bill that this provision is based on, for his help in improving this language.

Carbon Sequestration Research

Carbon sequestration is one promising technology to help us address climate change. Coal and other fossil fuels have been and will continue to be an important energy source for our country, but coal burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. The carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program authorized in this bill will help us tackle this challenge. This provision will authorize the Department of Energy to conduct two separate projects, with up to five projects for carbon capture and up to seven projects to test for large-scale carbon dioxide injection and storage. Not only will this help us develop this technology and make it more economical, it will also help us understand the implications of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground.

We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we must not cause irreparable harm to our economy in the process. Both of these research provisions will help ensure that we have the technology and the information to address climate change.

Natural Resources Committee Provisions

The part of the bill developed in the Natural Resources Committee will ensure greater accountability from companies drilling for oil and gas on federal lands by, among other things, requiring more audits to ensure American taxpayers received all royalties owed and by ensuring companies that were erroneously given royalty-free leases for drilling will pay fair royalties. This part of the bill also authorizes a nationwide assessment of geological formations capable of sequestering carbon dioxide underground and a review of the potential for carbon sequestration in ecosystems. It calls for development of a national strategy to assist wildlife populations and their habitats and provides states with new funding to assist wildlife in adapting to global warming.

It also has sections based on my bill, H.R. 1180, the ``Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act'' regarding protection of surface owners, reclamation, and protection of water supplies.

Surface Owner Protection

In many parts of the country, the owner of some land's surface does not necessarily own the underlying minerals. And in Colorado and other Western States, those mineral estates often belong to the federal government while the surface estates are owned by others, including farmers and ranchers. This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. The surface-owner provisions are intended to address this issue by establishing a system for development of federal oil and gas in split-estate situations. It requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases. In addition, it requires that anyone proposing to drill for federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages. It is important to note that a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. While I support development of energy resources where appropriate, I also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for private property rights. That is what this part of the bill is designed to accomplish.

Reclamation Requirements and Water Protection

Another part of the bill addresses reclamation of affected lands. It would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coal-bed methane) under a federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. The bill also requires oil and gas operators to give the protection of water a priority by requiring them to submit a plan for water management when they file for a permit to drill. It also provides that oil or gas operators who damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--must remedy the damage or provide replacement water to the water users. And it specifies that water produced under a mineral lease must be dealt with in ways that comply with all federal and state requirements and includes language making clear it will not affect state water laws.

Water is a precious commodity in the arid, drought-ridden West--as important as our energy resources. We must not sacrifice our water in our zeal to develop oil and gas resources. This bill will help ensure it will be protected and reclaimed as we produce domestic energy supplies.

Oil Shale

The bill also includes provisions I helped develop regarding future commercial-scale development of oil shale. They are intended to make it more likely that any commercial development of oil shale occurs in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research and development work now underway.

Under these provisions, the BLM would not be faced with an unrealistic deadline for finishing the programmatic environmental impact statement that is now being prepared, but they would still have to go ahead and finish it. Then, the BLM will have a year--not just 6 months, as under current law--to prepare commercial leasing regulations. And, instead of final regulations, these will be proposed regulations, with at least 120 days for people in Colorado--and everyone else--to review and comment on them. The new bill also calls for developing an overall strategy for sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and it retains the current law's requirement for consultations with the Governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming before any commercial leases are issued.

I believe the environmental analysis being done by BLM will help everyone understand what will be involved in any commercial leasing program, even though it cannot and will not answer all the questions. But I believe that the timing of any oil shale development under the provisions of this bill will be a better way to proceed and more likely to yield a good result, as will the part of the bill that makes it clear that full environmental review will be required prior to issuing any specific commercial lease, which will remove doubts and lay the right foundation for future decisions.

Oil Shale Fund

In addition, the bill includes (in a separate part) the provision that I added in the Natural Resources Committee to establish a fund to help local governments pay for infrastructure and services made necessary by future commercial oil shale development. This provision reflects my concern about what large-scale commercial development of oil shale can mean for Colorado's Western Slope and the problems it could bring to that mostly rural part of our state. Coloradans remember the seriously disruptive economic impacts on our communities from previous oil shale development efforts. I think the federal government--if it is going to promote development of this resource again--should also learn from that experience and help mitigate any potential impacts from an oil shale program. That's what this provision is designed to accomplish.

Roan Plateau Provisions

Finally, I must mention the section dealing with the Roan Plateau planning area, in Colorado, which Representative John Salazar and I worked to have included. The Roan Plateau is not just another place. Nearly a century ago, it was set aside because President Wilson thought someday we would need its oil shale to fuel the Navy's ships. Of course, that didn't happen--and the area was mostly untouched until 1997, when Congress transferred it from the Energy Department to the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Since then, the BLM has leased 12,000 acres for oil and gas drilling and has worked on developing a plan for the rest. The bill would not affect any of the lands that have already been leased. And it would not even affect all of the lands that are still untouched. Instead, it would affect only the Federal lands on the top of the plateau--the highest and most sensitive part of the area.

It deals only with the lands on the top of the Roan Plateau itself. That's where you find the stands of aspen and spruce trees and the headwaters of streams that support five rare, pure populations of our native cutthroat trout, in stretches above and below two of Colorado's highest waterfalls. And those lands on top are the prime places for wildlife, including herds of deer and elk. That's why they are so important to hunters and anglers--not just from the Western Slope but many visitors as well--who every year generate millions of dollars for the local economy. And that's why protecting them is supported by sportsmen and sportswomen--for example, the Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers--and such groups as Trout Unlimited as well as by many other people across Colorado--from Battlement Mesa and Basalt to Silt, Salida, and Saguache--who want to slow BLM's rush to lease every last inch of the Roan Plateau.

Neither Rep. Salazar nor I am against energy development. But we are for balance. There is an energy boom in Colorado, with the administration pushing BLM to lease as much and as fast as possible, although thousands of acres already under lease remain undeveloped. As we develop the energy we need, we should remember that places like the Roan Plateau are important not just for their riches of oil and natural gas but also for riches in the form of streams, trees and other plants, and the fish and wildlife populations that depend on them for habitat. We need to assure that the energy ``boom'' does not mean a ``bust'' for those values--for from that bust there may be no recovery. That is the rationale for the Roan Plateau section of this bill. It does two things. First, it requires that each lease of federal land on the top of the Roan Plateau have a ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation. That means the oil, gas, or other minerals must be accessed from another location through directional drilling--for example, from non-federal lands or lands elsewhere in the Roan Plateau planning area.

Second, this part of the bill requires the Treasury Department to report how much has been collected in royalties from already-leased lands in the Roan Plateau planning area, and requires the Interior Department to tell us how much work remains to be done to clean up contaminated areas so as to recoup the funds the federal government spent for infrastructure in the lands before they were transferred to the Interior Department. To understand the reason for requiring these reports, remember the terms under which the lands were transferred from the Department of Energy. To pay for needed cleanup work and to recover infrastructure costs, the transfer legislation says the normal sharing of mineral royalties with the relevant State will not start until it is certified to Congress that the federal government has received enough to cover (1) The cost of all needed environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities, (2) the costs incurred to install wells, gathering lines, and related equipment and (3) any other costs incurred by the United States on the lands. The required reports will provide Congress with an update of the amount of royalties that have been collected and how much work remains to be done. With that information, we will have a better idea of whether the time has come to revisit the transfer act with an eye to allowing the State of Colorado to start receiving part of the royalties from mineral leases in the area.

Madam Speaker, I have been working for several years to achieve passage of the surface-owner, reclamation, and water-protection provisions of this bill. And Representative Salazar and I have worked to protect the most sensitive part of the Roan Plateau. These provisions help provide for balance in energy development in Colorado and across the West and were developed through listening to the concerns of landowners, water users and communities. I strongly urge their approval--along with the rest of this excellent legislation--by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot vote for this bill.

The bill is intended to provide a temporary response to the request of Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, for legislation to address what he says is a critical collection gap in our electronic surveillance capabilities.

I think Congress should take such action. That is why on August 3rd I voted for the House version of the legislation. That bill was supported by a majority of the House. However, it was considered under a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote, so our Republican colleagues, taking their lead from President Bush, were able to block it--and so now we are considering this different version, which has already passed the Senate.

Like the version I voted for earlier, this bill would make clear that no warrant or court order is required for our intelligence agencies to monitor communications between people located outside the United States, even if those communications pass through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States. The point of this clarification is to resolve doubts about the status of communications between foreign persons located overseas that pass through routing stations here in the United States.

I have no reservation in supporting this clarification to help resolve questions related to changes in communications technology since enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. And I think it is useful that the bill reiterates that individual warrants, based on probable cause, are required when surveillance is directed at individuals in the United States.

However, this Senate bill would go much further than the House version. It would allow interception, without warrants, of communications between someone in the United States and a foreign party suspected of involvement in ``foreign intelligence'' matters, which is broader and less precise than the requirement that the party be suspected in connections to a terrorist group such as al-Qaida.

I am not convinced such a sweeping grant of authority is justified, and cannot support it.

The bill does require a warrant from the special FISA court for surveillance of a U.S. resident who is the chief target of the surveillance. And the bill requires involvement of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as the Attorney General, in approving surveillance, rather than just the Attorney General alone as the Administration wanted. In that regard, it is not as troublesome as it might have been. However, again, I am not convinced that its safeguards of Americans' privacy and civil liberties are adequate.

I greatly regret that our Republican colleagues made it impossible for the House to pass a better version of this legislation. I recognize that the bill before us is not a permanent measure, but will expire in six months. Nonetheless, while I do think Congress should

act on this subject, I cannot support this bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' The CHAMP Act addresses many problems that we currently have in our health care system. It does not end health care inequality, but it will increase coverage for low income children, and it will stave off payment cuts for hardworking physicians, while increasing choices for seniors and strengthening traditional Medicare.

I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and this act is a step in the right direction. The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is set to expire on September 30, 2007. This year, six million children have health care because of CHIP. If Congress does not act, these six million will no longer have access to quality, affordable health insurance. This legislation also provides coverage for an additional 5 million children who currently qualify but who are not yet enrolled under CHIP. These children are in working families with parents who either can't afford insurance or have jobs that lack health care benefits.

Despite claims by some, this bill does nothing to ``expand'' the CHIP program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility requirements for CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools and incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.

It has been said that the CHAMP Act creates an entitlement for illegal immigrants. But in fact the CHAMP Act does not change existing law, which states that undocumented immigrants are not eligible for CHIP or regular Medicaid. And the CHAMP Act explicitly states that it provides no federal funding for Medicaid or CHIP for undocumented immigrants and requires audits of all State programs to ensure that federal funds are not being spent on undocumented children.

The CHAMP Act will protect and improve Medicare by increasing fiscal responsibility and ensuring access to doctors for seniors and those with disabilities. Currently experts agree that Medicare Advantage (MA) plans receive, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in traditional Medicare. Overpayments to certain plans can exceed 50 percent. By phasing out these overpayments over the next four years the Congressional Budget Office estimates that billions of dollars will be saved each year. While, increasing the solvency of Medicare and simultaneously reversing the catastrophic 10% payment cuts to physicians who serve Medicare patients. By reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, wasteful spending will be reduced while increasing patient access to physicians.

Medicare Advantage plans originally sought to give beneficiaries more choices at a lower cost. However, overpayments to MA plans do not increase benefits but rather pay for the administrative costs, marketing costs and profits for private plans. The CHAMP Act levels the playing field by decreasing premiums for those enrolled in traditional Medicare.

By curbing the overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, this legislation decreases the cost for preventative health services for seniors, eliminating co-payments and deductibles for these vital services while saving lives and money. Further, this bill includes $3 billion for the rural health care safety net. This ensures access to quality care for those in rural America.

The health of our children is vital to the success of our society. The CHAMP act will raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 45-cent increase means that 1,381,000 fewer children will take up smoking. Adults, too, would be less likely to smoke, which means fewer smoking-related illnesses and lower health costs. Estimates are that this tobacco tax increase will result in long-term health savings of $32.4 billion and 669,000 fewer smoking related deaths.

The CHAMP Act has the support of the American Medical Association, American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association, National Rural Health Association, American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, American Nurses Association, Families USA, National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare.

I am proud to vote for this bill that seeks to protect those that are most vulnerable in our society by increasing health insurance coverage for low-income children and protecting and improving coverage for those enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe we must ensure access to

quality and affordable health care; this has been a top priority for me as eastern Washington's Representative in this House. I wholeheartedly support renewing the SCHIP program, which was originally created under Republican control of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. Ensuring health care for low income children who need it the most should be our priority.

I also wholeheartedly support access to health care for seniors--but unfortunately, because of partisan politics, a vote for this proposal is a vote to kick over 157,000 seniors off their Medicare advantage plans in Washington state.

Further, if this rule and this bill pass the House today, two hospitals in my district, North Valley Hospital in Tonasket and Mid- Valley Hospital in Omak, would be forced to close their doors to our community.

These hospitals were started by concerned physicians who banded together to provide health care in a remote region that is largely comprised of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This bill forces these doctors to sell their ``share'' of the hospital--which is less than 1 percent a piece--because it incorrectly assumes they are unethically self-referring patients.

That may be a problem in other parts of the country but not in Okanogan County. These two hospitals are the closest hospitals within 5,000 square miles and serve the county's 40,000 residents. There has to be a better way to prohibit unethical practices. Shutting down the only vehicle for health care delivery is not the answer, which is why I cosponsored an amendment to this rule that would have allowed these hospitals to continue to serve all residents--from kids to seniors--in Okanogan County. Unfortunately, this amendment was not allowed under the Democratic leadership.

Not only does this bill devastate the already delicate rural health care infrastructure in parts of eastern Washington, but it cuts deep in the pocket of seniors in order to pay for a runaway expansion of this children's health program that covers a 25-year-old adult.

Proponents of this bill might argue that it is necessary to kick seniors off of their Medicare plans in order to cover poor children. I would then ask them: do you consider a family of four making $82,000 dollars a year, a poor family? That is who we are covering here.

In eastern Washington alone, over 10,000 seniors would lose their choice in Medicare coverage to pay for this reckless expansion. They will be forced to find and pay out of pocket for their own prescription drug plans, pay for rapidly increased premiums, lose direct senior services, and have a harder time finding a primary care doctor because most prefer the Medicare Advantage payment rate.

Meanwhile, this rule and the underlying bill will make it easier for illegal immigrants to get health care--funded on the backs of middle class families and small businesses. Not only do this bill and the underlying rule slash $193 billion from seniors' health care, but its stealth tax increases will draw off money from every American with a health insurance plan. This rule endangers seniors in my community--Mr. Speaker, we can and must do better.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill.

The bill includes funding for many important programs, and while I think some do deserve more funding than the bill provides, I recognize that the appropriators had a challenging task in shaping the bill because of budget constraints. Overall, I think the bill is a good one and I congratulate Chairmen Obey and Mollohan for making these difficult decisions in a very constructive manner.

As Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, I am pleased that the bill includes $17.6 billion for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funding. NASA's work in human space exploration, space and earth science, and aeronautics plays an important role in advancing our knowledge, expanding our economy and inspiring Americans both young and old. I believe NASA performs important research which allows us to better understand our climate, our planet and the universe beyond.

I am pleased that the Committee funds NASA's Science Mission Directorate at $5.7 billion, an increase of $180 million over the President's request. This increase will help reverse the recent decline in funding for science at NASA. NASA research helps us better understand the universe at large, but it also greatly contributes to our knowledge of our own planet.

I am especially encouraged that the Committee recognized the recommendations of the National Research Council's recent Decadal Survey on Earth Science by targeting $60 million towards the highest priority missions recommended in that survey, as well as ensuring that work on critical climate instruments that were de-manifested from the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) can continue. The Committee specifically noted the importance of the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS), which is being built by the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in my district, and instructs NASA to continue to support this program. TSIS will ensure that we continue to receive important information on the sun and how it interacts with our climate--a data stream that has been continuous since 1979 and has contributed to our understanding of climate change.

I am also pleased that the Committee increases NASA's aeronautics budget by $146 million over the President's request. Progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the Nation's air transportation industry, which in turn is critical both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. The additional funding will help NASA contribute meaningfully to the development of the Nation's Next Generation Air Transportation System, which will enhance the capability of our air transportation system to handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next 20 years. Moreover, this bill recognizes that aeronautics R&D at NASA can help develop more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption compared to aircraft in commercial service today, and the bill provides funding to support that R&D.

This bill also provides significant funding for the President's exploration initiative at NASA by providing the President's full request of $3.9 billion. I support the President's Vision for Space Exploration and believe human space exploration is a worthwhile undertaking. The funding in this bill will keep the Crew Exploration Vehicle on track in FY 2008. However, I am concerned that the administration's current plan for the shuttle replacement system, the crew exploration vehicle (CEV), is not scheduled to be finished until 2015. This will leave a potential 4 to 5 year gap when the United States will be dependent on other countries to travel to and from the International Space Station. It is within the administration's power to send over budget requests in FY 2009 and FY 2010 to address this gap within the context of a balanced overall NASA program, and I hope that the administration will do so.

I am pleased that the Committee increases NASA's education programs to $217 million, up $64 million over the President's request. This increase will provide additional funds for the Space Grant program, which helps undergraduate students participate in cutting-edge research, and in the process trains and inspires the next generation of scientists. The Committee also provides $2 million for the NASA Aeronautics Scholarships program, which encourages more students to pursue graduate degrees in aeronautics. I helped create this program in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and am pleased that the Committee has recognized its importance.

The Committee provides $6.7 billion for space operations, which is a $100 million cut relative to the President's request. I understand that the Committee had difficult decisions to make, but I am concerned about the impact that these cuts will have on the International Space Station's reserves posture, as well as on the upcoming Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) procurement. I hope that it will be possible to address these problems when the House and Senate move to conference on this legislation.

Funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has one of its two laboratories based in my district in Colorado, is also an improvement on past years. I am pleased that the Committee met the President's request of $500 million for research, which will help fund components of the Innovation Agenda, such as nanotechnology and materials science.

I also support the bill's inclusion of $109 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and $93 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). MEP serves small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies nationally to enhance their ability to compete globally. Every federal dollar appropriated for MEP leverages $2 in state and private-sector funding, which means that a small federal investment of $109 million translates into more millions of dollars in benefits for the economy in terms of jobs created and retained, investment, and sales. ATP helps businesses develop high-risk, high- reward research into commercial applications that often have wider social benefits.

And, because of its importance for my own Congressional District, I am glad to note that the NIST budget includes $129 million for construction and specifically $28 million for the extension of building 1 at the Boulder facilities. NIST's Boulder laboratories were built in the 1950s and are in critical need of modernization to ensure the continuation of world-class research.

After several years of disappointing funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), I am pleased that this bill will set NOAA back on the right track. The Committee funds NOAA at $3.950 billion, an increase over both the President's budget and the fiscal year 2007 spend plan. There is certainly still room for improvement, but I hope that this is the first step forward for increasing NOAA funding.

The office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which funds the important work being conducted in the NOAA labs in my district, is funded at $410 million in the bill--an increase of $52 million over the President's request and $46 million over the FY 2007 spend plan. This funding will help NOAA continue to perform vital research in climate change and other areas.

In particular, I am encouraged that the Space Environment Center is being funded at the President's request of $6.2 million. While this funding is still below the $7.2 million that the SEC received in FY 2002, it is an increase over what Congress appropriated in FY 2006 and indicates that the Committee realizes the important work that the SEC does on space weather monitoring and prediction.

The bill also includes important funding for law enforcement, at both the federal and state level.

It rejects the President's proposal to slash the COPS program by 94 percent and instead provides $725 million, $183 million above 2007. This includes funding for such items as: $100 million for the COPS hiring program; $175 million for expanding DNA analysis and forensic crime lab capacity; and $85 million for beefing up enforcement in ``meth hot spots,'' places where meth is a serious problem.

Similarly, the bill includes $600 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to assist local law enforcement agencies and which the President's budget proposed to terminate. It also includes continued funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance program (SCAAP), which assists state and local governments with the costs of jailing undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes not related to their immigration status--another vital program the President's budget proposed for elimination.

The bill also rejects proposed cuts in the Violence Against Women programs and includes vital support for competitive youth mentoring grants, delinquency prevention grants, and Justice Accountability Block Grants.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that provides funding for many important purposes. It is good for Colorado and good for the country, and it deserves approval.