Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, for introducing this measure, for continually pressing for its passage, and for working so cooperatively with us while crafting it. He has single-handedly made this a priority issue for the entire committee.

I have to admit, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) first came forward with the idea for this bill, I thought the notion was, well, a little flighty. But through our hearings and other work on this bill, I have come to see this as one of the most important measures this committee will move this year. Let me tell you why. This is about a lot more than joyrides in space, although there is nothing wrong with such an enterprise. This is about the future of the U.S. aerospace industry.

As in most areas of American enterprise, the greatest innovations in aerospace are most likely to come from small entrepreneurs. This is true whether we are talking about launching humans or cargo. The goal of this bill is to promote robust experimentation, to make sure that entrepreneurs and inventors have the incentives and the capabilities they need to pursue their ideas. That is important to our Nation's future.

Those entrepreneurs, the kinds of folks who are inventing new rockets for cargo and who are endowing and competing for the X Prize, are doing our Nation a tremendous service; and, I should add, they also seem to be enjoying themselves. That is a winning combination.

So what do these people need from us? The simplistic answer is they just need government to get out of the way. But, as usual, the truth is a little more complex. The innovators need and are seeking a government regulatory regime that will provide predictability, a regime that can offer stability and support to help them attract private capital; and the general public needs such a regime as well to ensure that the public at large faces no undo health or safety risk from any flights. In short, this industry requires government regulation, but not so much regulation as to stifle it.

This bill, which has been painstakingly negotiated with all interested parties, strikes the proper balance. It

recognizes the industry's need to experiment. Indeed, it creates a new regulatory instrument to encourage that experimentation, while recognizing the obligation to protect the crew and the general public.

I should add, since I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will bring this issue up a little later, that this regulation can be provided without any increase in the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration. That bears repeating: without any increase in the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration.

We will be accepting the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I would note that the Congressional Budget Office reached the same conclusion, that no additional funding is needed to carry out this bill.

I should also add that under this bill the government will go beyond creating a stable environment for these entrepreneurs. The bill extends the existing provision of law under which the government indemnifies the companies undertaking these flights for set amounts and purposes. In keeping with past congressional practice, we are extending indemnification temporarily for 3 years, in this case; and we are also asking for a study to determine how to end indemnification without harming the industry. I do not think the government should be taking on the risk of this enterprise forever.

So this is a very fair, balanced, carefully crafted bill that will help a budding industry and protect the public. The result, over time, should be the development of new ideas and ways to take humans into space on sub-orbital rockets.

We are still a long way off from making rockets common carriers like airplanes, but we need to promote the experimental work. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for working with us on the jurisdictional issues that the bill presented. I also want to thank the staff who worked on this bill, particularly one of our new staffers, Tim Hughes, who has become an expert in this area of law. I wish to thank both sides of the aisle, Democrats under the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my fellow Republicans under me, for working so cooperatively for so long to bring forward a product that results in encouragement for a budding industry and gives optimism as we look to the future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the driver behind this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. He is correct in stating that this legislation seeks to put in place sufficient Federal regulation to protect the general public while also promoting this important new industry.

I thank the gentleman for that question.

This is a very important issue on which we have worked extensively with industry and the executive branch in developing this bill. As currently drafted, H.R. 3752 incorporates definitions promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration to distinguish between suborbital rockets, which are under the jurisdiction of FAA's Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transport, and other aerospace vehicles which are regulated by another part of the FAA. That said, I would be happy to keep working with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and other interested parties as the bill moves forward to revisit the important issue of how best to regulate hybrid vehicles that are engaged in commercial human space flight.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my amendment. I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). This is a straightforward managers' amendment.

The amendment makes technical changes to the bill. It also creates one inadvertent but substantive drafting error. Correcting the bill will make it clear that the Federal Aviation Administration retains its current authority to waive the requirements to obtain a license, while also making it clear that that authority does not extend to flights that carry humans.

Finally, the amendment removes the requirement that crews sign reciprocal waivers of liability. This amendment is not controversial. It is bipartisan, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to accept the amendment. We accept the rationale and the intent and we are pleased to accept this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3389, and I want to thank Ms. Hart and Mr. Miller for bringing it before the Science Committee.

I'm especially pleased to be able to support this bill because I was co-author of the law that created the Baldrige National Quality Award, and that measure has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.

The Baldrige National Quality Program is so much more than an award. It is an entire philosophy that has helped--and continues to help make our companies and our nation more productive and competitive.

The Baldrige Program has been described by CEOs as ``the most important catalyst for transforming American business,'' and the publication containing the Baldrige criteria has been hailed as ``probably the single most influential document in the modern history of American business.''

Opening the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award to non-profits will not only enable them to compete against for the coveted Quality Award, but it will allow non-profits to participate in the Baldrige Quality process. This will help all of the non-profits that compete for the award assess themselves scientifically, become more innovative, make the best use of their employees, serve their customers better, and hold their enterprises to a higher standard.

Non-profits play a significant role in American society. When they improve, we are all better off. I'm pleased to note that my own state of New York has already instituted a non-profit category in its Governor's Award for Excellence. The Empire State Advantage, which runs the state-level quality program, strongly supports this bill.

It gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues Ms. Hart and Mr. Miller in opening up the competitive process to non-profits. I urge passage of this bill.

Offered By: Mr. Boehlert

Amendment No. 1: In section 3(c)(5), strike ``by striking''

and all that follows through ``, and the item'' and insert

``by striking `License applications' and inserting

`Applications', and the item''.

In section 3(c)(12), strike ``is amended'' and all that

follows through ``by adding'' and insert ``is amended by

adding''.

In section 3(c)(17)--

(1) in subparagraph (A)--

(A) strike ``crew,''; and

(B) strike ``and'';

(2) in subparagraph (B), strike ``employees,'.'' and insert

``employees'; and''; and

(3) add at the end the following new subparagraph:

(C) by adding at the end the following: ``The requirement

for space flight participants to make a reciprocal waiver of

claims with the licensee or transferee shall expire 3 years

after the first licensed launch of a launch vehicle carrying

a space flight participant.''.

In section 3(c)(18)(B), strike ``employees,'' and insert

``employees''.

In section 3(c)(19)--

(1) insert ``(1)'' after ``70113(a)''; and

(2) strike ``, but not'' and insert ``but not''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science may have until February 18, 2004, at 5 p.m. to file the following late reports: H.R. 3551, Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2004; H.R. 3752, The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004; H.R. 1292, Remote Sensing Applications Act of 2003; and H. Con. Res. 189, Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and Supporting an International Geophysical Year-2 (IGY-2) in 2007-2008.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for introducing this resolution and for calling attention to the memory of great Americans and an Israeli.

Husband, McCool, Anderson, Brown, Chawla, Clark, Ramon, One year after their tragic deaths, their names remain seared in our national memory.

Of course, their loss is felt most deeply by those who call them mother, father, husband, wife, neighbor, friends; but they are an inspiration to us all. Their deaths have not been in vain. They have prompted young people to think about what they can be when they grow up and about how Americans take great risk in striving for great achievement.

Our Nation's space program is built on the dreams and aspirations of an exploring people willing to take risk. This Congress is proud of our explorers, those who have returned and those few whom fate has held back.

With this resolution we honor the seven men and women who flew the Shuttle Columbia's final fateful mission. They will never be forgotten. Their memory will live in the hearts and minds of all Americans, and explorers throughout the world will always think of them as they gaze towards the heavens with wonder and amazement and awe.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Marathon Varsity Field Hockey Team for their outstanding performance this season. Winning the State Championship will remain a vivid moment of victory of each one of the team's members--for without their collective talent and dedication--it would not have been possible.

The long list of season accomplishments is truly something to take pride in. Breaking the state record with 68 consecutive wins, making the lady Olympians third in the nation with such an amazing winning streak, brings pride not only to Marathon but brings pride to the entire state of New York.

Head Coach Karen Funk deserves special praise for leading this fine group of student athletes to the highest possible achievement in the New York State Class C conference. Through Coach Funk's leadership these young ladies have proven that hard work and dedication on the practice field and in the classroom can produce champions on the playing field and in academics.

The 2003 Marathon Field Hockey Team: Ashley Abbatiello, Caitlin Barber, Shanna Barrows, Nikki Billings, Staci Billings, Rebecca Bliss, Grace Chrysler, Megan French, Jamie Gofgosky, Brittni Griep, Danielle Griep, Katie Gutchess, Leslieann Gutchess, Stefanie Hatch, Ashley Holbrook, Emily McDonald, Theresa Parker, Jacki Rose, Margo Stone, Frankie VanDeWeert, Sarah Veninsky, Katie Yudiciatis, Coach Karen Funk, JV Coach Patti Trabucco, JH Coach Sue Malmberg.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 610 and I urge my colleagues to approve it and send it to the White House for the President's signature.

This measure is a top priority of the entire administration, especially, of course, of the NASA Administrator. We have taken more than long enough to turn the bill into law.

The need for this bill, it seems to me, is beyond dispute. Events of the past year have highlighted NASA's need to attract and retain the best workforce imaginable, and yet NASA is on the brink of losing the talent that it already has.

Within just 5 years, 5 years, fully one-quarter of NASA's workforce will be eligible to retire. It is no wonder that the General Accounting Office has repeatedly cited strengthening human capital as one of NASA's top management challenges. We must stem the tide of the brain drain. S. 610 is a targeted, carefully crafted, moderate approach to giving NASA additional tools to meet that challenge. The bill does not make any radical departures from current law. Rather, it modifies and expands existing workforce authorities so that NASA can compete with the private sector in the labor market. That is just common sense.

Will changes in civil service laws solve all of NASA's workforce problems? Of course not. But NASA will not be better prepared to recruit and retain the workforce it needs if it is competing with one hand tied behind its back, as it is with current law.

This bill began as a proposal from NASA. We went over that proposal with a fine tooth comb, accepted some provisions, rejected others, and modified many more to clarify and target the new authority.

As a result of those negotiations and additional work in the other body, we

have finally ended up with the noncontroversial product that is before us today. A bill eagerly awaited by the administration, a bill that faces no opposition from organized labor, a bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

In short, this is a bill that will make a real difference to NASA and the work we charge it to do without taking any untested approaches or crossing any ideological trip wires.

I should note that the bill before us is nearly identical to my original bill, H.R. 1085, as reported by the House Committee on Science almost 6 months ago.

The most significant difference between the two measures is that S. 610 no longer includes a provision that would have increased the number of employees who could participate in a personnel demonstration project. We are trying to minimize the number of people that can be in a pilot project. If we do not limit the number, we end up having a universal project. NASA was never able to give us any sense of how it would use the requested new authority, and I have no regrets that it has not remained in the bill.

I probably should also point out that we never included in H.R. 1085 authority the administration sought to allow private sector employees to work as government employees for a set period of time. This reverse Intergovernmental Personnel Act program seemed destined to confuse further the line between contract and government workers that already bedevils NASA.

The result of these kinds of decisions, once again, is that we have before us a bill that is not the least bit controversial, but is no less significant for that. It took a lot of work to get us to this point, but it will be worth it.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the rest of the Committee on Government Reform for working so closely with us on this measure. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) had his own NASA provision as a part of a larger workforce bill, H.R. 1836.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), our new ranking member, for getting us off to such an amicable start. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) all these years, and I welcome him to this position of new responsibility and authority and am confident he will serve us all well in this post and will carry on the tradition that we have established in the Committee on Science of working across the aisle, working together to sort out things, to minimize our differences and maximize the opportunities we have to address real problems and deal with them responsibly.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) was willing to look at this bill afresh in light of the work we had done with the Senate and events that had transpired since our markup. As a result, we are coming to the floor as a team. Not everyone in this Chamber would have been willing to do that, and I greatly appreciate it.

I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, who contributed important scholarship provisions to the bill, and to welcome the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the new ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned, this bill is ready for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments that might arise and to give this bill the overwhelming support it deserves and that NASA so needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a very valued member of the Committee on Science.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my remarks by thanking our very capable staff of the Committee on Science on our side, David Goldston and Chris Shank, and this was the last bill worked on by our deceased former counsel, Mr. Barry Berringer, who always gave so much, such great value added to the committee with his outstanding work.

We cannot function in this Congress without the commitment, the ability and the hard work of dedicated professional staff, and we are blessed in the Committee on Science. But we are not the only ones. All across Capitol Hill, the people and the background are there every single day working hard to prepare us to deal responsibly in shaping public policy.

So I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the staff for their outstanding work.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters to and from myself and the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform regarding the appointment of conferees on this bill.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Government Reform,

Washington, DC, January 27, 2004.

Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in

developing the H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003.

As you know, the Committee on Government Reform reported the

bill, H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security

Personnel Improvement Act. Included in that Act was Title

III, Subtitle B, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. The House is scheduled to consider S. 610,

the Senate companion to H.R. 1085 tomorrow. Although S. 610

has been held at the Speaker's desk it is my understanding

that the bill would have been referred to the Committees on

Science and on Government Reform.

I support moving this important legislation forward

expeditiously; however, I do so only with the understanding

that this procedural route should not be construed to

prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's or the

Committee on Science's jurisdictional interest and

prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform

should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a

conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you

include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration of S.

610. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this

matter.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for his explanation of the amendment. The gentleman from Arizona is a very thoughtful Member, and he contributes significantly to the deliberations of this body. However, let me say a couple of things.

First of all, this legislation will give flexibility to NASA to work within the existing constraints. No new money, we are not coming up with a ton of new money or anything else. We are saying they have an existing budget for personnel and they have more flexibility with it. We are treating them like a business. I think that is very important.

We have to stem the tide of this brain drain. It is very serious. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) pointed out, within 5 years, 25 percent of the workforce is eligible for retirement. We have 15 percent eligible for retirement right now. Those over 60 outnumber by three to one those under 30. It is a very serious problem. We tried to address it in a very responsible way. We did not address like some people around here suggest we address problems, give them a blank check. We did not do that. We said, no, they have to use their existing personnel accounts, no additional money; but we give them flexibility. Having said that, let me point out something else. There is a very practical reason why we should not accept this amendment and should go forward today. We have to get the bill to the President for his signature. This is a bill that has passed unanimously in the Senate, a bill that is going to pass by substantial margin here in the House, hopefully unanimously.

If we amend it, here is what is going to happen. This is something which has been cooking for months now. We just got the amendment today, and that is why I appreciate the explanation. I had not seen the amendment before. We received a thorough, sound, reasoned explanation; but if we pass this amendment, the bill is amended, and it goes back to the Senate, and we start all over again back and forth like a ping-pong match. We have preconferenced this bill. We worked it out with the Senate. They send it back here, we vote ``aye'' today, it goes to the President, he signs it, and we get on with the job of giving NASA the flexibility it needs.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his thoughtful presentation.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Reclaiming my time, that is within the existing personnel allocation. This is not additional money, additional to the $2 billion. They are saying if NASA took advantage of all these programs, scholarships, retention incentives, moving expenses, the types of things that happen every single day in the business community, they have to do it with the existing personnel budget, no new money.

I am like the gentleman from Arizona, perhaps not as fiscally conservative, but I am moving in that direction. But the point is this does not add money; it allows more flexibility. The estimates that the gentleman from Arizona are referring to are estimates on what this could cost from the existing budget by using the flexibility that we are proposing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, that is a legitimate concern expressed by the gentleman. Let me assure him, this is not additional money. This says to NASA, using your existing personnel allocation, we are giving you flexibility.

We say constantly, why does government not operate more like business, like they do in the real world? We are trying to give NASA that opportunity. We are not giving them a blank check. We are not giving them the key to the Treasury. We are just saying, existing dollars, you have more flexibility to retain the workforce you need to do the job we expect you to do.

My counsel just advises me, it depends on what the appropriators do in future appropriations. But the answer is clearly ``no.'' I know what the gentleman's intent is, his intent as I understand it, and that is why I appreciate the thoughtful presentation he gave on the floor today. I wish we had had it earlier. As Chairman Rohrabacher has said, he takes a back seat to no one in being concerned about how we spend money around here.

So I agree with the basic intention. It is not to have additional money spent for NASA on personnel. It is to give them flexibility on the existing money we appropriate for them. Who knows, with the President's vision outlined, for this new Mars vision, eventually a generation or two ahead of us and the Moon in this generation, if the Congress decides to be supportive of that, there are going to be budget differences; but I want to assure the gentleman that our intent is to give NASA the flexibility to use existing dollars, not to add to the allocation or appropriation for NASA on personnel or any other thing.

That is right.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the resolution offered by my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier); and I thank him for working with me to ensure that the resolution recognizes the contributions of Cornell University in upstate New York. One of the outstanding attributes of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the way it works with academic and private-sector scientists at universities throughout the United States, and indeed the entire world. Efforts like the current mission to Mars are truly team efforts in which our entire planet reaches out to other worlds.

We are already seeing the results of that teamwork with the stunning images of the Martian surface that the aptly named Recovery Spirit is beaming back to Earth. Now Spirit is beginning to examine a rock called Adirondack, named after a well-known feature of the upstate New York landscape. We look forward to the other rover, Opportunity, touching down successfully next week and beginning to explore another side of Mars.

The details of the Mars mission are at once mundane and other- worldly, simple to recite, yet mind-boggling to contemplate. Each of these Rovers weighs about 400 pounds and is about the size of a golf cart. Each is fitted with sensitive scientific equipment designed to survey the geology of Mars and help an international team of 150 scientists back here on Earth determine whether water was ever a part of the Martian landscape and whether the planet could once have supported life.

This team of extraordinarily dedicated scientists is led by Dr. Steven Squyers of Cornell University. Dr. Squyers and his team developed the scientific instruments the rover missions carried. They operate them by remote control from over 15 million miles away here on Earth, and they are the chief investigators who will sift through the voluminous streams of data that the Rovers beam back to us daily.

The faculty and students at Cornell who are participating in this wondrous mission of discovery are clearly taking delight in their historic opportunity, and we are blessed to have the benefit of their years of hard work and dedication. I congratulate them and the scientists and engineers at NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for their stunning success in the rover missions.

Even though the work on the Martian surface has just begun, the team at JPL and Cornell University have already provided us with priceless inspiration and new ways to see our universe. We look forward with great anticipation to sharing their achievements in the coming days and years.

Mr. Speaker, the people of New York's 24th Congressional District and America suffered a terrible loss on November 20, 2003. U.S. Army Captain George A. Wood, originally of Marcy, New York, died while valiantly serving his country in the War in Iraq. He paid the ultimate price to ensure our liberty. He gave his life so that the people of Iraq could live without repression and fear--and he gave his life so that Americans could feel safe to live their lives under a blanket of freedom. That freedom comes with a high price and we are eternally grateful for his dedication and commitment to the ideals that we hold dear.

Captain Wood personified the qualities and dedication that make our U.S. military the greatest armed forces in the world. As a young man in the Mohawk Valley, Captain Wood excelled in both academics and athletics. He was known as a ``history buff,'' going on to earn a bachelor's degree from the Ivy League's Cornell University. He continued his education by earning master's degrees at both State University of New York-Cortland and State University of New York- Albany. Captain Wood's athletic endeavors led him to captain the Notre Dame Junior-Senior High School football team in his senior year. He hoped to one day share his love of football as a coach at the West Point Military Academy.

Captain Wood was assigned to the Army's 4th Infantry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas. He was killed while on patrol when his tank rolled over an improvised explosive device.

I ask my colleagues in the House, and all Americans, to extend our prayers and sympathy to his wife Lisa and their 3-year old daughter Maria, Captain Wood's mother and stepfather Maria and Michael Babula of Marcy, New York, as well as the rest of his family. Together we honor this fallen American hero.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the State University of New York College at Oneonta women's soccer team for their come-from-behind, emotional victory to win their first ever NCAA National Championship on November 11, 2003.

The tying goal scored in the final seconds of regulation will forever remain a great moment in Red Dragon history. It will also remain a vivid moment of victory of each one of the team's members--for without their collective talent and dedication, it would not have been possible.

Head Coach Tracey Ranieri deserves special praise for leading this fine group of student athletes to the highest possible achievement in women's Division III soccer. Through Coach Ranieri's leadership these young ladies have proven that hard work and dedication on the practice field and in the classroom can produce champions on the playing field and in academics.

I take great pride in representing the State University of New York College at Oneonta. What I find truly special is while the opponent in the National Championship Game, The University of Chicago, boasted a lineup that featured players from across the country; Oneonta's roster was almost completely comprised of New Yorkers. What pride they bring not only Oneonta, but to the entire State of New York.

The 2003 Oneonta Women's Soccer team: Amanda LaPolla of New Hartford, NY; Jami Leibering of Kendall Park, NJ; Laura Morcone of Mechanicville, NY; Holly Bisbee of Burnt Hills, NY; Patricia DiMichele of Centereach, NY; Alissa Karcz of S. Huntington, NY; Kelly Stevens of Rochester, NY; Cassie Perino of Patchogue, NY; Sanada Mujanovic of Centereach, NY; Patricia Jeager of Baldwin, NY; Liz Fermia of Rochester, NY; Leslie Small of Clifton Park, NY; Rose Velan of Stamford, NY; Brooke Davis of Grand Gorge, NY; Sarah Tauber of Valley Stream, NY; Cristina Gaspar of New Rochelle, NY; Alex Desousa of Blauvelt, NY; Candance Grosser of Levittown, NY; Meghan Putnam of Syracuse, NY; Colleen Wolbert of Rotterdam, NY; Corinne Tisei of New Hyde Park, NY; and Brittany Gates of Syracuse, NY.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1152) to reauthorize the United States Fire Administration, and for other purposes.

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 S. 1152, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise in support of the U.S. Fire Administration Reauthorization Act, which began life in the House as H.R. 2692, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), subcommittee chairman. Most Americans have never heard of the U.S. Fire Administration, but it has enhanced the protection of all of our communities, our neighborhoods; and firefighters know the agency well.

The funds we are authorizing in this bill will continue to train our local firefighters both at the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg and in State and local training centers. These funds will also help promote residential fire sprinklers, fire prevention activities, and other activities that save lives. The U.S. Fire Administration has also administered the FIRE program, which helps our local fire departments purchase desperately needed fire equipment. It is one of the most successful Federal assistance programs devised by this Congress or any previous Congress.

One of the great things about this program is that the politicians, and I have fondness for politicians, but the politicians are sort of taking a back seat. It is the people involved, the firefighters themselves in every day protecting our homes and our neighborhoods and communities that established the criteria for this massive grant program and do the actual evaluating. It is a program with unquestioned integrity. I say that because I have watched it in operation, and all of our congressional districts across the country are taking advantage of it, not for selfish reasons but to protect our people in their homes, in their neighborhoods, in their communities, where they live.

I will tell my colleagues a personal experience in my own congressional district. Utica, New York, had an arson rate three times the national average. It was a serious problem in New York. I sat down with the previous administrator of FEMA and said, let's work with this community because this is a serious problem and it has to be addressed and it is far beyond the ability of the individual community to come to grips with it in any meaningful way without some added guidance and inspiration and, quite frankly, some financial support from beyond our borders. FEMA did it. We did it. Collectively, Utica has enjoyed its best day in the last couple of years. The arson rate is down dramatically. People feel more comfortable and safer in their homes. It is all because of some work that came out of the U.S. Fire Administration.

I would say for a whole lot of the right reasons, I urge approval of this bill which will help our localities in very tangible ways, meaningful ways that touch the lives of individual families. We owe it to our firefighters both paid and volunteer. Incidentally, let me just stress, paid and volunteer. I have heard some people suggest on occasion that we have professional firefighters and we have volunteer firefighters. There is no such differential. We have paid and unpaid but those volunteers from coast to coast are some of the most dedicated, professional, able, committed people we will find anyplace. Thank God for the volunteer firefighters of America. That is not to indicate I do not appreciate what the paid firefighters do day in and day out or making a professional career of it, but those volunteers in communities all across this land do outstanding work, give of their time and their talent and their energy to protect us and our communities. I want to salute them, and I want to dedicate passage of this bill to them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to add something here. There was some confusion about section 204(c) of this bill regarding coordination of firefighting training activities.

I want to clarify that the reference to ``other Federal agencies'' in this section includes the Office of Domestic Preparedness and does not conflict with the counterterrorism training provisions in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

I also would like to place in the Record at this juncture an exchange of letters between me as chairman of the Committee on Science and Chairman Young of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I also serve on that committee, too, so in some respects I am writing to myself. This is an exchange of letters that further clarifies it.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, November 21, 2003.

Hon. Sherwood, L. Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee in matters contained in S. 1152, the

United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act of

2003.

Our Committee recognizes the importance of S. 1152 and the

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,

while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain

provisions of the bill, I agree not to request a referral and

allow the bill to be considered in the House under suspension

of the rules. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual

understanding my decision to forego a sequential referral

waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy

of this letter and of your response acknowledging our

jurisdictional interest will be included as part of the

Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the

House.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Research Subcommittee and a real friend of the firefighters.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 189) to authorize appropriations for nanoscience, nanoengineering, and nanotechnology research, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 189.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.189, the Nanotechnology and Research Development Act. This bill began its life in the House as H.R. 766, which I introduced with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and which the House passed back in May by the overwhelming margin of 405 to 19.

The text before us today reflects 2 months of negotiations with the Senate to come up with a final version of the bill. The Senate amended S. 189 with the text of that agreement, and it is that compromise we will be sending on to the President today.

This bill is endorsed by a wide variety of high technology and academic organizations including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Semiconductor Industry Association,

Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and the Association of American Universities.

The idea behind this bill is simple yet powerful. The American economy will grow bigger if America's scientists and engineers focus on things that are smaller. The U.S. is the leader in nanotechnology and New York under Governor Pataki is in the front ranks of that world leadership. We must remain in the front as this new field starts remaking the marketplace.

This bill has four salient aspects designed to help ensure continued U.S. leadership: It authorizes the President's National Nanotechnology Initiative; it emphasizes the need for broad interagency participation and stronger interagency coordination, especially in the presentation of program budgets; it underscores the need for interdisciplinary research and for shepherding research from the laboratory to the marketplace; and it ensures that research and public discussion on the societal and ethical consequences of nanotechnology will go on concurrent with, and as part of technology research and development.

The nanotechnology program will be a model of government, industry, university, cooperation, coordination and interdisciplinary research with public involvement.

I wanted to thank the many Members who helped contribute to this bill but particularly to my cosponsor, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and my partner, the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), as well as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Research, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and his ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Last but not least, I want to thank my staff who labored so long and hard on this bill and on the many hearings on the subject. Peter Rooney, Dan Byers and Elizabeth Grossman deserve special recognition, but the entire staff of the committee minority and majority has been actively engaged.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Speaker, let me say I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for his partnership, and it has been a cooperative effort; and all of the efforts on the Committee on Science reflect that cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who has been a real leader for our side on this issue of nanotechnology.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time; but before I yield back, I urge everyone to take the enlightened approach and support this very important initiative. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6. I say sadly because the Nation needs a balanced, forward-looking energy policy. Our economic and national security depend on our energy security. That's why I was so pleased when President Bush and Vice President Cheney took a step that their predecessors hadn't and challenged the Congress to come up with a sensible energy plan.

Unfortunately, we have failed to live up to that challenge. What we have instead is a bill that purports to be what it is not. We hear that H.R. 6 is forward-looking, but in reality it just protects the status quo. We hear that H.R. 6 is balanced, but in reality it is weighted heavily toward fossil fuels. We hear that H.R. 6 is fair, but in reality it is replete with targeted subsidies and tax breaks and projects. We hear that the process of writing H.R. 6 was open, but in reality that was not the case.

I don't have time to list all the provisions that could prove my point. In fact, I'm sure Members will be finding provisions for years as their constituents call about problems that will be traced back to this bill. All I will point out now is that what is missing from this bill is as problematic as what it contains. This bill has no fuel economy standards for cars; it has no renewable energy goals for utilities. Indeed, it has nothing much at all that will make us more energy independent and secure.

We've missed an opportunity with this bill. This bill will not give our Nation more energy, but only more regrets.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 279, recognizing the significance of the 30th anniversary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program. I congratulate Mr. Ehlers for introducing it.

The AAAS has literally incalculable contributions to this institution and the nation. It has enabled scientists to have a better understanding of the governing process--both the fellows themselves and scientists with whom they interact--and it has improved the governing process by enabling Congressional offices to better understand scientific information and scientists.

The fellows program has also been an entry point for many of the best staff we have on Capitol Hill. We recognize the value of the AAAS program daily on the Science Committee, where ten of our staff members began their careers on the Hill as fellows. To take just three prominent examples, the minority chief of staff, Bob Palmer, and both my deputy chiefs of staffs, John Mimikakis and Peter Rooney, were AAAS fellows. Hopefully everyone will view that as an advertisement for the program.

I look forward to the speedy passage of this resolution and to the continued success of the AAAS program of the fellows themselves.

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. BOEHLERT: Committee on Science. H.R. 1856. A bill to

reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and

Control Act of 1998, and for other purposes, with an

amendment (Rept. 108-326 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.