Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Mr. Barton and Mr. Gillmor in introducing this compromise version of treaty implementation legislation, which reflects many long hours of serious negotiation between our staffs.

I entered into those negotiations because I believe it is important for the U.S. to be a party to these important treaties to help protect the global environment. This is a view shared by both the environmental community and the chemical industry. The U.S. ought to maintain its traditional leadership role in this area, first, to protect our own national interests and to protect our citizens from hazardous pollutants that circulate globally, but also to improve health and the environment around the world.

The bill we are introducing today is a genuine compromise. It's not what I would write if I were drafting a bill alone, and it reflects movement by Mr. Barton and Mr. Gillmor away from their original vehicle, H.R. 4591. No doubt further improvements could be made to it, but it should serve as a marker to show the way in the next Congress. This bill should demonstrate that it is possible to write worthy implementation language without opening the ``can of worms'' involved in rewriting all of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA. But the regulatory mechanisms created by this bill should not be seen as a precedent for other environmental statutes.

Let me make one more general point before getting into the interpretation of specific sections: I am cosponsoring this bill because I believe it will enable and facilitate the regulation of pollutants, not stymie that regulation. Quite properly under this bill, the U.S. cannot be forced to regulate a chemical by any international body. But the bill should pave the way for the U.S. to regulate additional dangerous pollutants. If the processes set out in this bill are used primarily as barriers to regulation, then that will mean that the bill is being misinterpreted or abused. The bill does require thoughtful and thorough analysis, but that is not intended to prevent any regulation from moving forward.

With that general precept in mind, let me focus on the important language in the new section 503(e)(1) of TSCA. The language calls for regulation ``to the extent necessary to protect human health and the environment in a manner that achieves a reasonable balance of social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits.'' There are two distinct ideas and processes encapsulated in that language. First, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is to determine whether a substance needs to be regulated ``to protect human health and the environment.'' Then, separately, it needs to determine precisely how to regulate that substance--i.e, the ``manner'' of regulation''--taking into account ``social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.'' I want to say this directly here to clarify language that was intended to make the same point in the Committee report that was filed on H.R. 4591.

The sponsors also want to make clear that the consideration described in the new section 503(e)(2)(A)(v) of TSCA is meant to direct EPA to consider, among other things, both the domestic and international benefits that would flow from U.S. regulation of a substance.

Now let me turn to two important differences between this bill and H.R. 4591. First, we have entirely rewritten the new section 503(e)(4) of TSCA to clarify its intent, to drop the controversial and contested notion of ``weight of the evidence,'' and to remove any implication that that paragraph was creating a new legal or scientific standard of review. Language in the committee report on paragraph (4) does not apply to this bill.

The paragraph (4) in this bill is designed primarily to ensure transparency by requiring EPA to describe the information that was used in its decision-making and the quality of the information on which the agency based its decision.

Second, this bill clarifies when State preemption occurs. Section 6(e) now makes clear that no State preemption occurs unless and until a regulation that has been promulgated under the new section 503 of TSCA has gone into effect. No action short of that and no action under any statute other than TSCA can trigger preemption under this bill.

I greatly appreciate the openness the Energy and Commerce Committee has demonstrated during the negotiations on this bill and the courtesy they have extended to me and my staff. I hope this bill paves the way to U.S. full participation in the important treaties covered by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my generous colleague for yielding me that time, and I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their kind words. It has been a great privilege to serve in this institution, and one of the things I take special pride in is my friendships across the center divide. So I thank you most sincerely.

I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Commission of Independent Colleagues and Universities. Fifty years ago, half a century, the commission was established in my home State of New York with the goal of strengthening private, not-for-profit higher education institutions, a goal I wholeheartedly support and have worked tirelessly to achieve.

New York has a long and proud tradition of higher education, and the CICU has worked day after day, week after week to improve and strengthen that legacy.

Since 1956, enrollment in the independent sector has doubled from 225,000 to nearly a half a million today, 460,000. The 109 independent colleges and universities that make up the commission are spread throughout New York State and the entire educational system. The consortium is led by several of our Nation's most notable institutions, including Columbia, NYU, Cornell, RPI, Hamilton, and many others, including, and pardon my understandable pride, the best of the lot, my alma mater, Utica College.

Together, these institutions award over half of all undergraduate and three-quarters of all graduate degrees in New York, as well as training almost 90 percent of our professional students. That is quite a record of achievement.

As the lead sponsor of this resolution, I thank my colleagues from New York for joining me in honoring the Commission on Independent Colleagues and Universities. I am confident that CICU will continue to help improve educational opportunities throughout New York State and the Nation for many years to come, and that is one of the most worthy of goals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in just about 2 weeks, we will reach the second anniversary of the devastating Indian Ocean tsunami that began off the coast of Indonesia and resulted in the deaths of at least 150,000 people and injuring and dislocation of millions more. It was an event that stunned the entire world and eventually prompted an enormous outpouring of international aid. Among other things, the event was a reminder of the often forgotten but awesome power of nature, which we ignore at our own peril.

But an acknowledgement of nature's power does not mean that we are powerless. Quite the contrary, we needlessly seal our own doom if we fail to take steps that can reduce the significant impact of natural disasters at home and abroad. And in the case of tsunamis, which by definition travel across the seas paying no mind to international borders, the approach has to be global to be effective.

The tsunamis that can cause damage in the U.S. are just as likely to begin overseas as off our own coast. And in addition to humanitarian concerns, the U.S. pays a high price both in aid and in threats to international stability when cataclysmic death results from tsunamis overseas. So we need to take action to improve the understanding of tsunamis by both scientists and the general public, to improve our detection of tsunamis, and to improve our ability to issue warnings about approaching tsunamis, and to ensure populations know how to respond to such warnings.

Happily, we are not starting from scratch in any of these areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration already runs research, detection, warning, and outreach programs, and the administration began augmenting those programs in 2005 after the Indian Ocean tsunami. But we need to ensure that the focus on tsunamis continues even as memories of the 2004 tragedy fade, and we need to further strengthen the administration

program along the lines of expert advice we have heard at Science Committee hearings. The experts were particularly concerned that more be done in the area of outreach so that the public understands more about tsunamis and what to do if one is approaching. They also called for more research so we could predict tsunamis and their paths more accurately.

I should add that tsunamis are not a theoretical threat for the U.S. The seismically active west coast is particularly vulnerable and has experienced tsunamis in the past. Even a small tsunami can cause damage. An earthquake off the coast of Japan last month produced a tsunami that hit California with wave surges of only 5 or 6 feet, but it caused an estimated $700,000 in damage in just one town.

So we need to maintain and strengthen the Nation's tsunami programs. That is exactly what H.R. 1674 would do; it would give specific continuing congressional direction to efforts in tsunami research, prediction, detection, warning, and outreach, the full spectrum of needed activities. The bill would also improve congressional oversight of the program by requiring updates on the condition of tsunami monitoring equipment and several studies of the overall effectiveness of the tsunami program.

This is a good, carefully targeted, economical, bipartisan bill. I wish to thank my cosponsor, Jay Inslee, for all his hard work and persistence on this bill. He understands well how his constituents in Washington State could be in harm's way for a tsunami. I also want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Science Committee who, as usual, contributed to the bill which passed the committee long ago by voice vote. I also want to thank the Transportation and Infrastructure and International Relations Committees for working with us on their jurisdictional claims. And, finally, I want to thank Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Dan Inouye and their staffs for working with us to put together a compromise bill. This bill is ready for Senate action and should go to the President for signature this week.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to act now to prevent future tragedies from tsunamis. We can't prevent tsunamis, but we can greatly limit the loss of life from them. This bill will help us do just that, not just in the U.S., but abroad, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1674, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to Mr. Wu how much I appreciate his kind remarks. We are partners on the Science Committee in a bipartisan manner to bring forward an agenda from that committee that not only does the committee proud, does this Congress proud, but does this Nation proud.

And one of the privileges of being the chairman of the Science Committee is to work with my fellow chairmen like Don Young, and I happen to be a senior member of that committee. I appreciate his leadership, don't always follow it, but I really do appreciate his leadership. We have had a good, constructive working relationship in so many areas, and particularly on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who is a real leader not just on the Science Committee but in this Congress. We benefit greatly from his special experience as a scientist, a physicist, a respected member of his profession, but also a respected colleague. When Vern Ehlers talks, we listen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank Mr. Inslee for those very kind comments. I want to thank all my colleagues. It has been a great privilege to work with you and for you and for this great institution.

I also want to observe, before we bring this to a close, the great work of the staff on both sides of the aisle who have labored long and hard, almost 2 years on this bill alone. We don't give enough recognition to the staff. Those of us who are more visible, we come before the House and we are recorded on C-SPAN and everybody says they are doing some good deeds. But the real driving force behind so much of what we do is the very able professional staff that we literally are blessed with, both Democrat and Republican.

And this comes from a former staff member, but I came to Capitol Hill 42 years ago as a starry-eyed young staffer. I got 3 years off for good behavior. I was elected county executive back home, and for the past 24 years I have been privileged to serve in my own right as a Member. But in those 42 years, one of the most dramatic changes, and people are asking me this all the time as I am taking leave, what has changed about the House and about Congress, this institution? One of the most dramatic changes that is so often overlooked is a change for the good, for the positive, the very high degree of professionalism so evident in the staffs of the committees. And I take the Science Committee as a classic example of how it should be done by all. The professionalism, the hard work, dedication on both sides of the aisle.

And we are going into a new chapter. We as Republicans are going from the majority to the minority. The Democrats are going from the minority to the majority. And people are saying, well, what is going to change? Well, I will tell you what is not going to change in the Science Committee. It is the working relationship across that center divide, the professionals who day in and day out prepare us for the debates, the hearings, and for the activities that we are about. That is not going to change. The Democrats will have a few more and the Republicans will have a few less, but I guarantee you this: As the next Congress comes to a close and people are looking back on its performance, I fully expect that the Science Committee once again will be one of the stars in this Chamber.

So with that, let me say to my colleagues on the committee how fortunate I consider myself to have had the privilege of working with and for you over the years, and as I say to all my colleagues in this Chamber, I urge your support for H.R. 1674, as amended. It is a bill that demonstrates that when we work together, we can accomplish so much for so many.

Mr. Speaker, I insert an exchange of letters between the Committees on Science and International Relations in the Record.

I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle, who have labored for more than 2 years on this bill. That includes Eric Webster, who has since moved on to NOAA, and David Goldston, Sara Gray, Chad English, and especially Amy Carroll, who has worked tirelessly to keep this bill moving forward.

Congress of the United States, Committee on International

Relations,

Washington, DC, December 6, 2006.

Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing regarding the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on International

Relations in H.R. 1674, the Tsunami Warning and Education

Act, as proposed for consideration under suspension of the

Rules of the House.

The Committee on International Relations recognizes the

importance of H.R. 1674 and the need for the legislation to

move expeditiously. Therefore, I will not stand in the way of

floor consideration. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to allow the bill to come to the floor waives,

reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the

Committee on International Relations, and that a copy of this

letter and your letter in response will be included in the

Congressional Record when the bill is considered on the House

Floor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I just want to draw attention briefly to one important item.

This bill amends the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 over which the Science Committee shares jurisdiction. That act provides for an inter-agency research program on pipeline safety, and that program has proved quite fruitful. This bill maintains that program and even clarifies and expands some of its tasks.

What this bill does not do is provide explicit authorization levels for the work that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology will need to do to carry out its portion of this program. The language, which originated in the other body, excluded funding for NIST because NIST funding has not been independently appropriated but, rather, has been provided by the Department of Transportation to carry out particular tasks. We on the Science Committee are fine with this arrangement. But I want to say explicitly here that we expect NIST to continue to receive funding from DOT to carry out its vital work on pipeline safety and standards.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding public servant, Mr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield, Director of the National Weather Service's National Hurricane Center. Since 2000, Mr. Mayfield has been the face and voice Americans trust for information about hurricane forecasts and warnings. He led the National Hurricane Center tirelessly during a time of many intense hurricanes hitting our highly populated coasts, including the record-breaking 2005 hurricane season that saw 28 named tropical storms.

For each tropical storm or hurricane, Mr. Mayfield and the staff of the National Hurricane Center work around the clock gathering information about the storms and constantly improving the projection of the storm's track. As a storm nears the U.S. coast, they often spend days at a time at the National Hurricane Center making sure that the public continues to receive vital forecast and warning information, even as their own families and properties may be in the storm's path.

Mr. Mayfield has served our Nation for 34 years, beginning in 1970 as a meteorologist for the Air Force before joining the National Weather Service in 1972. He is internationally recognized for his expertise in forecasting hurricanes. But, Mr. Mayfield also goes above and beyond his responsibility as a hurricane scientist. He dedicates much of his time to educating communities about the risks of hurricanes and making sure that the public understands the information in hurricane forecasts and what they need to do to protect themselves from these dangerous storms. Both his forecasting efforts and community service have been recognized with awards from many prestigious organizations.

I thank Mr. Mayfield for his more than three decades of service to this country and for the countless lives his hurricanes forecasts and warnings have saved. I also thank his family for the sacrifices they made to support him in this demanding job and wish him a long and relaxing retirement.

One final note. My wife, Marianne, contends that Max Mayfield is her favorite federal employee--and that, alas, probably includes me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 993, a resolution to applaud the goals and activities of National Cyber Security Awareness Month.

Information technology is becoming a critical part of our society, from wireless phones and blackberries to electronic medical records, and public trust in the security and reliability of these systems is necessary for the U.S. to realize the economic and societal benefits of new technologies.

Cybersecurity is also an important part of homeland security. The Science Committee has heard testimony from energy, electric power, and telecommunications companies about their dependence on information systems and their concerns about the nation's vulnerability to cyber attacks. The connectedness of the Internet means that each person not only must protect himself in cyberspace but also that each person's cybersecurity efforts contribute to the nation's overall state of cyber and homeland security. Progress is being made, but we as a Nation still have a long way to go.

Cybersecurity has long been a priority of mine, and I am proud to represent New York State, which has long been at the forefront of developing new cybersecurity tools and training people in information security.

In my district, the Air Force's Rome Laboratory is a world leader in cybersecurity research programs to strengthen and protect the systems used by the military, and to develop forensic tools used by law enforcement at all levels. The laboratory also hosts innovative cybersecurity education programs including an annual Cyber Security Boot Camp to train ROTC cadets and civilian undergraduate students from all over the country in cutting edge cybersecurity techniques.

The Cyber Security Boot Camp has also led to the creation of a high school-level course in cybersecurity being taught at Rome Catholic High School in my district. This 20-week elective course will soon be accredited by the New York State Board of Education and can serve as a model for cybersecurity education nationwide.

As part of National Cyber Security Awareness Month, the University of Rochester hosted the 10-day Rochester Security Summit in collaboration with higher education, business and industry partners, and New York State ran a Poster Art Contest, open to all 4th and 5th grade students in the State, for art that illustrated how to use computers and the Internet safely.

I urge my colleagues to support adoption of H. Res. 993.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks and best wishes to Pamela Baldwin, a lawyer who served in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, CRS, for many years, and who, like me, is now retiring.

Pam's title at CRS was Legislative Attorney, and her specialty was environmental law, and it often seemed that her specialty was all of environmental law. She was a trusted advisor to the Congress, in general, and to me and my staff, in particular, on a dizzying array of issues--the National Environmental Policy Act, endangered species, wilderness and public lands, oil and gas drilling, forestry, mining, and coastal land use.

And she worked on all of these issues the same way--painstakingly, tirelessly, drawing on deep knowledge and with an unswerving dedication to objective analysis. She knew both the theory of law and how it was being applied in practice by federal agencies. And she could discuss complex and abstruse legal matters in a way that even a Congressman could understand.

In short, in a time of deep partisan and ideological division, Pam was exactly the kind of expert we needed--someone who knew the facts and was willing to state them, no matter how much pressure she faced to do otherwise. And she was always willing to make herself available, on a moment's notice, seven days a week, to help inform the policy process. That's not an exaggeration. In fact, Pam had been hoping to retire for several months already, but had been asked to stay on. My staff made sure to take full advantage of the extra time and kept her busy during these recent months.

She did all of this with unfailing good humor, a wry sense of the world, and a constant ability to be surprised but not thrown by what might turn up in legislation.

Pam played an invaluable role at CRS, and the Nation is better for it. This is not the time to list the number of questionable provisions that might have made it into law if not for Pam's analysis, but they are many. Not just the Congress, but the Nation, owes her a debt of gratitude. My staff and I will miss her greatly, but we will remember what we have learned from her. I wish her the best in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill is a bad idea that comes before us periodically but, happily, has never been enacted. And I hope it meets a similar fate this time.

This bill is, quite simply, an effort to take away the rights of each and every property owner who wants to alter or even block an unwanted development. It should really be called the ``Private Property Rights Obliteration Act.''

If you are a homeowner and you would like a new mall or a new apartment building to be a little smaller so it does not overwhelm your neighborhood with traffic and all the other attendant problems, this bill will make it next to impossible for you to succeed. If you are a homeowner and you don't want a bar to be built right around the corner from your house, this bill will make it almost impossible to succeed. If you are a small businessman and you want to control where a big-box store is going to be built, this bill will make it almost impossible for you to succeed.

In 2000, the last time we debated this, the developers, quite rightly, described this bill as a hammer to the heads of local officials who are trying to guide and manage development. It is a very dangerous bill.

It is also a very odd bill. Here we have supposed conservatives begging Federal courts to intervene in the most local of matters. Why? So that the developers can scare localities into not doing their most fundamental jobs.

Now this time around, the proponents of the bill have come up with some new ingenious arguments for the bill. The only problem is that these arguments are wildly inaccurate. So let me make this clear to my colleagues: This bill does not deal at all with eminent domain or property seizures or the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. Let me restate that, it is so important: This bill does not deal at all with eminent domain or property seizures or the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which was decided years after the bill was written.

This bill is only about localities exercising their zoning authority. It is not about localities taking property by eminent domain.

And by the way, the substantive problem in Kelo was that a developer was kicking people out of their homes. This bill would only strengthen the hand of developers to an unprecedented degree.

So let us not undermine our Nation's neighborhoods and localities with this unprecedented and radical change in law. Let us listen to all the local governments and environmental groups that have always opposed this bill. Let us make sure our constituents retain their ability to shape their own neighborhoods. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, but I rise mostly to praise the Members who have contributed to it: Chairman Judy Biggert, and Congressmen Lamar Smith and Mike McCaul not only wrote the excellent provisions of this bill, but it's been their persistence that has enabled it to come to the floor today. I also want to recognize my ranking Member, Mr. Gordon, and his colleagues, who have also contributed provisions to this bill.

This bill should be one of the easiest votes we cast this Congress and certainly today. The bill commits our Nation to conducting more research and development on the technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That includes biomass, solar, wind, hydrogen, and hybrid vehicle technologies. It's a non-controversial list; indeed, it's a must-do list.

Many of the provisions in the bill originated with the President's Advanced Energy Initiative.

This bill is quite frankly the bare minimum we can do; it establishes the R&D foundation we need to build from. I urge my colleagues to support this valuable measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1215, and I want to congratulate our colleague, Dr. Gingrey, for having introduced it. Dr. Gingrey was one of the most active and effective members of the Science Committee during the 108th Congress, and, while he is no longer with the committee, we continue to work closely with him on a variety of issues, including this green chemistry R&D legislation before us today.

There's really only one unfortunate thing about the green chemistry bill--and that is that none of us thought of doing this before. Green chemistry is such an obvious area on which to focus that it should be clear to anyone--and everyone--that more needs to be done in this field.

The majority of environmental protection laws passed by Congress focus on command and control activities--limiting the spread of pollutants, cleaning up waste, or assessing fines to polluters. These are all necessary approaches to environmental challenges. But I believe in the old adage--``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' If we reduce to ounces the quantity of toxic chemicals we use and produce in the first place, then we won't have to worry as much about cleaning up pounds of toxics downstream.

But while the environmental benefits of applying this approach to our industrial processes are clear, green chemistry innovations provide more than just environmental benefits--they can save companies money and give them a competitive edge as well. With the right ideas applied in the right areas, green chemistry is truly a win-win strategy.

A good example is the work of Pfizer, which won a 2002 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award for redesigning the manufacturing processes used to produce the anti-depression drug ``Zoloft.'' By applying green chemistry principles to the manufacture of Zoloft, Pfizer was able to eliminate 730 metric tons of toxic chemicals from the production process. The result: improved worker and environmental safety, reduced energy and water use, and a doubling of overall product yield that contributed significantly to the economic bottom line.

This is just one example. There are dozens of other creative and exciting environmental solutions that are being driven by the application of green chemistry principles. Companies like Dow, DuPont, and Kodak are leading industry into a new era of the way it thinks about chemical and manufacturing processes.

And with a relatively small amount of Federal effort, we can leverage industry efforts and significantly accelerate development and application of green chemistry solutions.

This bill does just that. It takes a sensible, targeted approach to putting some Federal dollars behind green chemistry pollution prevention efforts. It builds on existing programs at a number of Federal agencies to transform those small and scattered efforts into a focused, coordinated, and enhanced national program.

The result of that program should be the generation and dissemination of new ideas and new people, leading to the adoption of more green chemistry practices and the creation of more green chemistry products, by industry.

Now I know some would like this bill to go further. And there's no doubt that there are additional barriers to green chemistry that the government action could help attack. But those government actions are complex and controversial and should be taken up in other bills.

For now, let's take care of first things first. Let's make sure that the government is doing everything possible to ensure that green chemistry research and development is getting the attention it deserves, to ensure that education programs are designed to teach more students and practicing chemists and chemical engineers about green chemistry, and to ensure that new ideas are broadly disseminated.

This is a thoughtful and effective piece of legislation that takes a step we should have taken long ago--making sure that government R&D and education programs promote the kind of chemistry that is in the national interest.

I urge everyone to support Dr. Gingrey's bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act. Drought may seem like something that is easy to detect but hard to do anything about. But that turns out to be wrong on both counts. It's tricky to figure out when a drought is developing; but if one knows a drought is on its way, one can take thoughtful steps to change water use to mitigate drought's often severe economic--and environmental--consequences. So we need to pay more attention to this costly phenomenon, and Mr. Hall's bill, building on existing Federal efforts, will enable us to improve drought forecasting and monitoring, which will save billions of dollars. While apple growers in my State are doing well today, they faced expensive and debilitating drought just 4 years ago, and will face it again in the future. In fact, in the last 5 years, every State in our Nation has faced drought. This bill will give all of our States the tools they need to reduce the impacts of future droughts.

I am pleased to support H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act. I commend Mr. Hall and Mr. Udall for this important and bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5136.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5450. Virtually every group that has looked at ocean issues has concluded that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be able to function better if it had a clear basis in law. That is what this bill, an organic act, would provide. It would give this key science agency, which was created by executive order, a firm legal basis for its full range of activities and responsibilities. That is hard to argue with.

The bill, which was introduced by Dr. Ehlers, who has been its tireless champion, would also strengthen science at NOAA, pretty darn important, which makes sense, since NOAA is a major science agency. The bill also would greatly improve oversight of the agency by ensuring that Congress and the public get the information needed to evaluate NOAA's organizational structure, its facilities plan, its budgeting and its satellite programs.

As usual, this bill is the result of bipartisan cooperation on the Science Committee, and I am very proud of that. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this legislation.

We obviously have more work to do before this bill is enacted, including work with our colleagues who have jurisdiction over NOAA's resource management programs, such as fisheries. We want an organic act that covers all of NOAA's activities.

But this is a good start, a solid bill that will strengthen the agency, which will only improve the important services NOAA provides to our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5450. Once again, let me commend Dr. Ehlers for his leadership on this very important issue, and let me commend the minority side for their outstanding cooperation and, in many instances, their leadership too.

Mr. Speaker, I have to start with a confession. And here is the confession: Bob Feller is one of my heroes.

I say that unabashedly. It is not because to me as the ultimate baseball junkie I appreciate the great game and the great players; it is not just because baseball's mecca, the Baseball Hall of Fame, is the epicenter of my district. No, I appreciate and applaud Bob Feller for all the things he has done on the diamond, but he is one of my heroes because of the person that he is, the guy inside.

I have been privileged to get to know Bob Feller quite well over the last several years. As a matter of fact, Memorial Day 2002, when the Baseball Hall of Fame announced the policy that forevermore all veterans would be admitted free into that shrine, the mecca of baseball, they had a special ceremony to recognize the greats of the game who served in the military when the Nation needed them most. And it was my high honor to present Bob Feller's submission.

There is there in the Hall of Fame this plaque, a great big plaque with some of the greats of the game, Ralph Kiner, Warren Spahn, Phil Rizzuto, all people who served in time of the Nation's need. But the one that got the most attention was Bob Feller. And I will tell you this, think about the dynamics. In 1941, 23-year-old ace of the Cleveland Indian staff, he won 23 games that year. His record was 23- 15. What would that command in today's market? He would have 14 agents and he would have a gillion dollars' worth of offers from every club in the major leagues because pitching is such a premium. So this ace, this admittedly acknowledged one of the best in the business anywhere, 2 days after Pearl Harbor, became the first member of Major League Baseball to pack his belongings and sign up for his Nation. And he served with great distinction all during the war, World War II, in the U.S. Navy. And when he came back, he resumed his career. You know the rest of the story, so many of my colleagues have said it so well. He was just absolutely a breathtaking talent on the mound.

Mr. Gingrey reported on his father-in-law mesmerized by what he saw. He was just wonderful. But that typifies the inner man. He is wonderful every single day of his life, in his personal life, and I am privileged to salute Bob Feller and his very fine partner, his wife Ann. They are truly great Americans.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 892) recognizing the dedication of the employees at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Michoud Assembly Facility, the ``Michoud Hurricane Ride-Out Team'', who risked their lives during Hurricane Katrina's assault on southeast Louisiana, and kept the generators and pumps running to protect the facilities and flight hardware, and whose dedication kept the Michoud Assembly Facility an island of dry land, which made it possible to resume External Tank production less than 5 weeks after the storm passed, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 892, as amended, the resolution now under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 892, as amended, which recognizes the dedicated employees of NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility, the Michoud Hurricane Ride-Out Team. Knowing full well the potential for disaster and the impending danger they faced as Hurricane Katrina bore down on the gulf coast, 38 dedicated and heroic individuals put themselves in harm's way to save the Michoud Assembly Facility which is of vital importance to our Nation's civil space program.

Located just 15 miles from New Orleans' French Quarter, this facility is where NASA constructs the space shuttle's external tanks. Before the shuttle, this facility was where NASA manufactured the gargantuan tanks on the Saturn rocket that took us to the moon, and in the future, NASA plans to use the facility to construct the rockets that will return us to the moon.

These brave 38 individuals risked life and limb to protect this valuable facility that ensures our Nation's preeminence in space. Facing 178 mile-per-hour winds that ripped large chunks of surrounding buildings clean off, the intrepid ride-out team kept to its motto, ``not on our watch.''

By keeping generators and water pumps running throughout the storm, they managed to prevent the facility from flooding and preserved important flight hardware that has kept the space program on track. Because of the ride-out team's efforts, the facility was up and running only 5 weeks after the storm had passed. All of us watched the drama unfolding on television.

After just 3 months, nearly all of the 2,000 employees had returned to the facility despite the fact that 600 of them had lost their own homes.

By saving the facility and returning it to operation as quickly as they did, they were able to get to work right away on the external tank modifications necessary for the second return to flight mission that took place successfully, I might proudly boast, this month.

Many of these individuals have rightly earned NASA's exceptional bravery medal from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, but they are also worthy of the House's commendation as well.

So it is with a great deal of pride in these dedicated Federal employees, who had so much on the line, not just in their careers, but in their personal

lives, that I rise in support of this much overdue resolution, because as Administrator Michael Griffin stated earlier this year, ``not all of NASA's heroes fly in space.''

Madam Speaker, these heroes have their feet rooted solidly on the ground and work so hard to do so much for so many. I proudly salute them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the dean of our delegation for yielding.

I just want to say that all of us who were privileged to know and work with Tom Manton during his seven terms in this House of Representatives share a deep sense of personal loss. He was an absolutely outstanding individual. And I think Mayor Bloomberg of New York probably best described him in a very simple way. He said he was a ``classy guy.''

He was a guy who demonstrated in so many different ways his unflinching loyalty and his deep commitment to and faith in all of those things that he really believed in, his heritage, his religion, his party, his profession, his country, but, most of all, his family.

I think we are the lesser for Tom Manton's passing, but we are the greater because he touched our lives.