Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5143. And I want to congratulate Chairman Inglis for bringing forward this initiative and for pursuing it with both energy and open-mindedness.

This bill has moved swiftly through the Science Committee because Chairman Inglis has been, at the same time, relentlessly focused on his objective and open to compromise. That is how you get things accomplished in this town. We need more Members more able to pair those traits.

The H-Prize this bill creates would similarly allow the government and the Nation to be both focused and open-minded in pursuit of the hydrogen economy.

Establishing an H-Prize would encourage the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers and the public at large to focus on overcoming the many technical challenges that stand between us and a hydrogen economy.

At the same time, the H-Prize does not presume that any particular technological path will lead us to the hydrogen economy. The bill encourages any interested party to take on the technical risk needed to pursue their particular notion of how to improve their production, storage and distribution or use of hydrogen.

The National Academy of Sciences has encouraged the government to experiment with prizes for precisely this reason. Prizes can draw out new ideas from scientists and engineers who may not be willing or able to participate in traditional government research and development programs, while encouraging them, rather than the taxpayer, to assume the risk.

Congress has been following the academy's lead. For example, the NASA Authorization Act that was enacted last year created a prize program, and the space agency has been implementing it. All of these programs draw on several centuries of successfully using prizes to help spur technological development, from the prize to invent a way to measure longitude, a key to improving shipping, to the prize Charles Lindbergh won for his transatlantic flight. Our hope is that the H-Prize will result in a similar landmark achievement in the history of transportation.

I want to emphasize, though, that the prizes are just one tool we need to use to kick our Nation's addiction to oil.

Prizes need to be part of a balanced portfolio of measures to advance technology, a portfolio that needs to include regulations and tax incentives to create demand for new technologies, and traditional R&D programs to ensure a steady stream of work on a range of short and long-term technological questions.

Moreover, prizes are not the best tools to apply to all problems, but they are especially well suited to hydrogen, because we need to solve major long-term puzzles if the hydrogen economy is to become a reality. We need to elicit every possible idea from every quarter to do that, and we know it is going to take time to figure out what might work.

The bill structures the prize program to attack hydrogen questions in several ways: With biannual prizes for advancements to encouraging ongoing efforts and incremental progress, with biannual prizes for prototypes to encourage continuing work on integrating technologies as they develop, and with a grand prize to encourage work on the toughest show stopper, if you will, problems that could prevent us from using hydrogen as a fuel.

No one knows how all of this will turn out. That is the nature of research and the nature of a prize program. But we know that the potential benefits of hydrogen are worth the rather small investment required for a prize program. Hydrogen holds out the promise of becoming a clean, domestically produced fuel that could displace or even replace gasoline as the way we power our cars and trucks.

To achieve this, we still need to figure out how to affordably produce hydrogen using renewable energy, nuclear energy or coal with carbon dioxide sequestration, how to affordably store hydrogen on board a vehicle, how to make fuel cells and batteries more cheaply and have them operate more efficiently and how to distribute hydrogen economically.

That is a tall order, but it is exactly the kind of long-range effort we need. It is an effort that needs to be combined with proven short- range ways to reduce the use of gasoline like tighter fuel economy standards, which this House is likely to debate next week.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill, which was approved by the committee by voice vote. It is the right way to help see if we can radically change our energy future. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national security threat.

We have ways to use every weapon in our arsenal, and we need to use them to counter it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, and I want to particularly thank the Energy and Commerce Committee, especially Mrs. Wilson, for the leadership she has provided on this important issue, and for the helpful suggestions and work by Mr. Castle and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut and Mr. Kirk and their staffs. They helped put all this package together under the leadership of Mrs. Wilson.

This bill is far stronger than the price-gouging language the House considered last fall and could offer Americans true protection if price gouging is occurring. The bill will allow new suits under Federal law against retail and wholesale price gouging, and those suits can be brought by either the Federal Government or a State attorney general.

The penalties in the bill are significant, as they should be, and the bill allows criminal as well as civil penalties.

Finally, the bill would distribute the money from suits back to those who were harmed through State victim compensation funds.

So I think we have taken into consideration every criticism that was leveled last fall, and it has been addressed forthrightly. American consumers are demanding protection from price gouging. The President has echoed that call, and now Congress is heeding it. I urge adoption of the bill.

I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Barton and the committee and particularly Mr. Bass for his leadership and for facilitating staff discussions and providing very helpful suggestions as we fashion this bill.

I think this bill will not do any harm, and it could do some good. While regulations have not prevented oil refinery expansion and while regulations are not the reason that new refineries have not been built, it can't hurt to help streamline the process, as long as streamlining is not a euphemism for weakening environmental protections. And in this bill, I think we have hit the right balance.

This bill is a far cry from the bill the House debated last fall. Some of the commentary I have heard from opponents of the bill on the floor address the old bill. In this bill, the Department of Energy, which isn't even involved in refinery permitting, would have been able to impose a schedule on other agencies and States, and that schedule was designed to speed the process at all costs.

In today's bill, the new bill, the Federal Government will bring together all the permitting authorities to agree on a permitting schedule acceptable to all of them, and that schedule must allow for the full, substantive and procedural review required by law.

In last fall's bill, any legal proceedings were to be biased in favor of the refineries, even going so far as paying their legal costs. In today's bill, while we still create a new cause of action, a court, the Federal district court must consider the behavior of all parties, including whether the refiner has been cooperating fully with regulators, and then the court can do nothing more than impose a new schedule. And this bill explicitly preserves every provision of current environmental law, including the right to bring citizen suits.

So I think we have struck the right balance, and I urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, belatedly, to recognize the work of our long-time legislative clerk, Vivian Tessieri, who retired from Government service in February. While Vivian officially left her position a couple of months ago, in one sense this is not belated recognition because Vivian continues to be a resource to her successor as clerk and to everyone on our staff. Indeed, given how central Vivian was to all of our activities for so long, it could not be otherwise.

Vivian joined the Science Committee 29 years ago, in 1977, and served under 7 chairmen in a variety of capacities, becoming legislative clerk in 1991. Now to those who do not understand the inner workings of the Congress, the term ``legislative clerk'' cannot begin to capture the significance of that position. The legislative clerk is responsible for a whole range of activities that must be accomplished with timeliness and precision to enable legislation to move forward. The clerk is also the committee recordkeeper, the historical memory of the institution. And finally, the clerk is a public face of the committee, undertaking such tasks as calling the roll at markups and ensuring that votes are recorded properly.

In all her roles--ranging from the invisible to the highly visible-- Vivian was a model public servant. She undertook her responsibilities with care and enthusiasm; one could always assume that anything Vivian had to do would be done with the utmost attention to detail. In fact, Vivian was so proficient that it was only when she was getting ready to depart that we fully appreciated everything she had been doing. So many things just appeared to happen ``automatically'' as we moved legislation. But what ``automatically'' turned out to mean was that Vivian had taken care of matters before anyone else had even thought about them. The list of tasks she prepared for her successor, which she compiled with her usual attention to detail, was a lengthy and mindboggling assortment of activities.

But Vivian was valued for more than her extraordinary competence and professionalism. Everyone on the committee enjoyed working with Vivian because she is a delightful person. She is unfailingly pleasant and thoughtful and warm and considerate--a colleague that anyone would be lucky to have, especially during moments of stress.

The committee members and staff had several opportunities to express these sentiments collectively and individually to Vivian before her departure. But I believe it is important that we enshrine these thoughts in the Record and that we make sure that the public is aware that it is served by dedicated professionals like Vivian Tessieri.

The committee misses Vivian, but we know she is enjoying her new life. And we continue to benefit from her services, not only because we still call on her for help, but because we rely daily on all the documents she prepared and on all the records she oversaw throughout her many years on the committee. And we all continue to strive to match her dedication and disposition as we carry on without her.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 681, a resolution recognizing the importance of engineers and supporting National Engineers Week.

From the grandest of skyscrapers to microchips and the smallest of medical devices, engineers continue to design and construct products that are vital to our daily lives and our Nation's economy. Unfortunately, American students today are losing interest in engineering. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' notes that, ``after secondary school, fewer U.S. students pursue science and engineering degrees than is the case of students in other countries. About 6% of our undergraduates major in engineering; that percentage is the second lowest among developed countries.'' We need to get American students at all levels back into science and engineering classes. Our Nation's continued global and economic leadership depends on our ability to inspire the next generation of engineers.

H. Res. 681 recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week as an important part of educating and building a competitive workforce for the 21st century. For example, National Engineers Week exposes students that might otherwise never dream of a career in a technical field to opportunities in engineering through programs such as the ``Future City Competition'' (a contest for middle school student teams to design a visionary city) and the ``Global Marathon For, By and About Women in Engineering'' (a 24-hour long series of presentations intended to attract young women into the engineering workforce). During this week, students and professionals at all levels will be motivated to explore the vast opportunities open to them in the field of engineering.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the National Society for Professional Engineers for its ongoing efforts to educate children and adults about the importance of engineering. I would also like to thank Congressman Inglis and Congressman Lipinski for their leadership on this important issue. I ask that you join me in recognizing the importance of engineering in our daily lives and the positive impact of National Engineers Week by voting in favor of H. Res. 681.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw our colleagues' attention to the pending retirement of Marcia S. Smith from the Congressional Research Service after over thirty years of service to Congress. Marcia is one of the preeminent and most highly respected policy analysts in her field, and while she will remain an active figure in space and telecommunications policy at the National Academy of Sciences, her intelligence, expertise, objectivity and balance will be greatly missed on both sides of Capitol Hill.

Marcia Smith began her career at the Congressional Research Service in 1975, after graduating from Syracuse University with a degree in political science. She quickly became an accomplished and adept analyst in space and aerospace policy, rising to Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, first in the Science Policy Research Division, and then in the Resources, Science and Industry Division, of CRS. In her service to Congress, she has provided background and analytic reports, memoranda, committee prints and expert testimony to Members of Congress and committees of the U.S. Congress on matters concerning U.S. and foreign military and civilian space activities, and on telecommunications issues (and formerly on nuclear energy).

Marcia has been a mentor and advisor to over a dozen CRS analysts and researchers during her time in that organization. She was Section Head for Space and Defense Technologies from 1987-1991, and Section Head for Energy, Aerospace and Transportation Technologies from 1984-1985.

To give my colleagues an idea of how prolific and proficient Marcia Smith has been during service to Congress, she has authored or coauthored over 160 reports and articles on space, nuclear energy, and telecommunications policies and issues. She has testified as an expert witness before House and Senate Committees nearly 20 times, a significant number of those times in front of the committee I chair, the Committee on Science.

I would like to point out 2 instances in which Marcia has served both Congress and her country in an exemplary manner. In both instances, these were circumstances marked by tragedy--when the Space Shuttle Challenger was lost at launch on January 28, 1986, and again when the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry on February 1, 2003. Within hours of the Challenger disaster, Marcia was briefing congressional staff and talking to Members of Congress about the technical, policy, and human costs of this accident. She was widely interviewed and quoted by the national and international news media. And in the painful months following the accident,

Marcia worked with Congress to provide oversight, investigation, and new policy directions in our national space program.

In 2003, the unthinkable happened again--another shuttle disaster. And while this occurred on a Saturday, Marcia spent the entire weekend in her office, writing a report that detailed the Columbia program, what we knew then of the accident, and potential congressional outcomes for re-examining the purpose and scope of human space flight. This report was ready for Congress first thing the following Monday morning.

Let me also add that Marcia has helped Congress in so many other areas of space policy that has brought us as a nation forward. She has worked with us on the Mission to Planet Mars, international space policy and issues revolving around the International Space Station, and the President Bush's National Space Policy. She is an expert on the NASA budget, and has a working and encyclopedic knowledge of space launches and flights, going back to the Sputnik launches and the Mercury Program.

In addition, Marcia Smith has exemplified the type of professional growth and development that we in Congress have come to expect from senior-level policy experts at the Congressional Research Service. From 1985-1986, Ms. Smith took a leave of absence to serve as Executive Director of the U.S. National Commission on Space. The Commission, created by Congress and its members appointed by the President, developed long term (50 year) goals for the civilian space program under the chairmanship of (the late) former NASA Administrator Thomas Paine. The Commission published its results in the report Pioneering the Space Frontier.

Marcia Smith has continued her professional accomplishments even as she makes this transition in her career. She is a Trustee of the International Academy of Astronautics (and co-chairs the Space Activities and Society Committee, and is a member of the International Space Policies and Plans Committee and the Scientific-Legal Liaison Committee). She has been a member of the Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' Space Studies Board (1992-93, 1996-97). She is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). She serves on AIAA's Ethical Conduct Panel, and the International Activities Committee; was a member of the International Space Year Committee (1989-1992), the Public Policy Committee (1982-1989) and the Space Systems Technical Committee (1986-1989); was an AIAA Distinguished Lecturer (1983-1988); and was a member of the Council of AIAA's National Capital Section (1994-1996). She is a member of the Kettering Group of space observers. She is a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) and of the Association of U.S. Members of the IISL. She was President of the American Astronautical Society (1985-1986), on its Board of Directors (1982-1985), and Executive Committee (1982-1987,1988-1989). She is a Life Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Washington Academy of Sciences (Board of Directors, 1988-1989). She is a member of Sigma Xi (the honorary scientific research society). Ms. Smith serves on the editorial boards of the journals Space Policy and Space Forum, and is a contributing editor for the Smithsonian Institution's Air & Space magazine. She is listed in several ``Who's Who'' directories, including Who's Who in the World, Who's Who of American Women, and American Men and Women of Science.

Marcia Smith was also a founder of Women in Aerospace, was its President (1987) and member of its Board of Directors (1984-1990), and is an Emeritus Member. Women in Aerospace is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the advancement of women in aerospace and recognizing their achievements. In September 2003, I had the honor of presenting Marcia with the Women in Aerospace Lifetime Achievement Award. In my remarks, I commented that her unselfishness and service to her country served as models for everyone who works for Congress and therefore their country. That holds true today as it did then. And, as a founding member of Women in Aerospace, Marcia has clearly made a mark on supporting the role of women professionals in the space community.

Marcia once said of her position at CRS, that working for Congress, she was extremely busy, put in long hours, often became exhausted--but never bored. Members of Congress and the Committees they serve on have been the beneficiaries of this work ethic, high levels of thoroughness and competence, and keen analytical skills. I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize and thank Marcia Smith for the contributions she has made during her time with the Congressional Research Service, and her outstanding performance and service to Congress, and for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 1281) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for science, aeronautics, exploration, exploration capabilities, and the Inspector General, and for other purposes, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

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 the conference report on S. 1281.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this important conference report, the first NASA authorization in 5 years. We take up this conference report at a critical time for the Nation's space policy as NASA is laying out the policies and seeking the funding to set its course for the next decade and a half.

This bill will give the agency clear guidance while giving Congress important new tools for oversight at this pivotal time.

Most important, I believe this bill in its very first section makes clear that NASA is to remain a multi-mission agency with robust programs in science and aeronautics, even as it moves ahead with the President's vision for space exploration, and the bill also makes clear unequivocal endorsement of that vision.

The bill also ensures that Congress will have the information it needs to guide and monitor NASA. It requires a multiyear plan for aeronautics and science so that all NASA programs have a clear and well-articulated path, and it requires plans for facilities and workforce so we can see what assets NASA will need to achieve its goals.

The bill prevents any layoffs from occurring before March 16, 2007. The bill requires updated information on the cost of the crew exploration vehicle before NASA awards a development contract, and it requires that NASA provide a range of cost estimates for the CEV, along with the potential impact of each of those estimates on other programs.

The bill applies a version of the Nunn-McCurdy rules to NASA. These rules will not only require NASA to notify Congress early on of any significant cost overruns but will require congressional action if a program breaches a specific gap. This may turn out to be one of the most important provisions of the bill.

The bill also gives NASA the authority it has been seeking to offer larger prizes to encourage a broad range of private sector scientists and engineers to help NASA meet specific technological goals, and the bill establishes a new account structure that will make it easier for Congress to track NASA spending and to ensure that money is spent for the programs intended.

Finally, the authorization levels in the bill make clear that NASA cannot possibly accomplish everything that is now on its plate with the funding it is currently projected to receive. I should add that, for me, the authorization levels do not mean that NASA necessarily

should receive the authorized amount for fiscal 2007. The appropriated level needs to take account of tradeoffs and what is available to other agencies, particularly to other science programs, but the authorization levels do clearly mean that NASA will need to either get more money or to forego or delay activities.

I need to say, right now, even though no one will want to hear it during this debate, that I do not think we should accelerate the crew exploration vehicle development unless key Federal science programs are adequately funded. Launching the CEV in 2014 rather than 2012 will not damage the country, but allowing the erosion of our scientific enterprise will cause real and significant damage, but that is a battle for next year.

Right now, we should all come together to endorse this conference report, which will give NASA needed authority and guidance and will give Congress tools and a context for future debates.

This bill represents a true compromise. For example, I am not fond of several of the provisions relating to the international space station, but they were reasonable elements of a negotiated package that represents the broad range of views of NASA in this Congress. We were able to pull together such a package because everyone was willing to be reasonable. That is a commodity, reasonableness, that oftentimes is lacking in this body.

I want to especially thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) who sponsored this bill and who heads our Space Subcommittee, for his unlikely combination of persistence and cooperation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) who were true partners in their efforts, and I want to thank all the conferees in both bodies for their openness and hard work. It was not easy but here we are.

This is a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan compromise, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of the Space Subcommittee, a person who has worked very hard on this bill to bring it all together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), another very distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a long-time champion of

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons just cited by my distinguished colleague from Ohio, I remain an enthusiastic supporter of a robust aeronautics program at NASA. It provides so much benefit to the U.S. economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

(Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts for his observations, and I wish to add to his comfort level. Because on page 5 of our report, it points out in section D: Enabling humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations on a timetable that is technically feasible and fiscally possible.

As the gentleman well knows, my interest is in advancing the science agenda for the Nation. The good science that is part of the space vision does not guarantee a vehicle to go to Mars, it guarantees that good science goes forward.

I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff who have worked so diligently on this bill all year and who have been really on constant alert since the loss of the space shuttle Columbia. That staff includes David Goldston, John Mimikakis, Bill Adkins, Roselee Roberts, Tom Hammond, Ken Monroe, Johannes Loschnigg, Shep Bryan, Ed Feddeman, Christy Carles, as well as the minority staff, Chuck Atkins and Dick Obermann. They have been a team working together in common cause.

I would also be remiss if I did not thank Administrator Griffin and his staff, particularly Brian Chase, who are always available and who were willing to work to reach a compromise. And might I say how refreshing it has been to be so candid as Administrator Griffin has been. Administrator Griffin continues to do a superb job, and we hope this bill will help him do that job, even though, like all of us, he would not have written each provision the way we did. But in the final analysis, we have got a good bill that is worthy of the support of this House. We have got a good bill that is good for America because of the vitality it brings to the economy, and we have got a good bill because Democrats and Republicans worked it out together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 324) directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a technical correction in the enrollment of S. 1281, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 798) to provide for a research program for remediation of closed methamphetamine production laboratories, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 H.R. 798, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 798, legislation to combat an insidious aspect of the methamphetamine crisis, the environmental consequences and the potential harm to those with no connection to the drugs manufacture or use. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for their active pursuit and leadership on this issue, which is of great concern to States and localities that have to deal with the aftermath of busting meth labs.

Over the past decade, methamphetamine, or meth, as it is properly called, has spread across the country, killing individuals, destroying families, and devastating communities. We are all too familiar with the facts of the case. The meth epidemic needs to be attacked on many levels. But we also have to deal with the harmful residue that meth leaves behind in homes and in the soil.

Earlier this year, I visited with Sheriff Gary Howard of Tioga County. I was so impressed with what he told me that we invited him to testify before our committee. Tioga County is located in the southern tier of New York within my congressional district.

Between 1989 and 1999, a decade, he indicated that there were only four meth lab incidents reported for the entire State of New York. Since then, the number of seized meth labs has risen quickly and steadily, from eight in the year 2000, this is the whole State, to 73 in 2003. Of that number, most were found in Tioga County.

Sheriff Howard described the terrible human tragedies associated with meth use. He had our panel in the palm of his hands, including the inherent danger to law enforcement from paranoid and agitated addicts. But he also told me, and us, that anyone who lived near or had reason to visit these active and former meth labs was at risk from unseen hazardous chemicals and dangerous byproducts of meth production. During the manufacture of meth, harmful chemicals are released into the air and distributed throughout the surrounding area. In residential settings, these chemicals penetrate and adhere to countertops and floors. They are absorbed into furnishings and carpets and walls, and their toxic byproducts are frequently poured down the drains or spilled onto the ground, potentially contaminating the soil and drinking wells.

While few studies have been conducted on the long-term consequences of exposure to these chemicals, many of the ingredients used in the manufacture of meth are highly caustic and upon exposure are believed to damage the skin, the eyes, the lungs. They do serious damage to the body.

Yet, as witnesses testified before our Science Committee, we do not have the scientific knowledge to deal responsibly with former meth labs. Little is known about the risk of moving into a house that has been used as a meth lab; the best way to remediate a former lab so the building can be safely occupied; or the long-term effects on those living in the former labs, including but most specifically the children and the elderly. They are the most vulnerable.

States and localities are struggling to protect the public from the adverse effects of meth; yet there are no national guidelines on how to remediate a

residential lab for reoccupation or what levels of residues are safe. States have become increasingly concerned about the cleanup and remediation issues related to meth labs, and State officials and law enforcement officials have requested assistance in dealing with the growing number of small labs in their States, particularly those located in residential settings.

H.R. 798 should go a long way toward getting States the assistance they need to protect the wider population from meth residues. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish voluntary guidelines for the remediation of former meth labs. These guidelines will combine the best of all existing and new information to help States and local governments respond effectively to this growing problem. The bill also requires the EPA to support research to identify persistent chemicals of concern in the use and manufacture of meth, to determine the most effective cleanup and remediation techniques, and to develop assessment and remediation guidance for States and localities based on the short- and long-term consequences of these former residential labs.

Finally, the bill enlists the National Institute of Standards and Technology to support the development of new testing methods to help law enforcement identify and quantify the risks of meth lab sites in the field.

This is a sensible, targeted, bipartisan bill, which, for a modest investment, will help our State and local governments safeguard our communities from the consequences of these toxic neighborhood labs. For this reason, H.R. 798 has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Realtors, the National Multi Housing Council and the National Apartment Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition.

In conclusion, I want to thank the leadership, particularly Mr. Blunt, for enabling this bill to come to the floor, and I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his help in this matter. He heads the Speaker's task force dealing with the very sensitive subject of drug abuse prevention.

This bill will make a real difference in our communities, and I urge its passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel), a very valuable member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), a very valued member of the Science Committee but also one who is particularly knowledgeable about this subject matter and has made significant contributions to the development of this package.

(Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments of my colleagues, and as chairman I have had the privilege to sort of move the ball forward. But I think it is right that we acknowledge that the ball was put in motion by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Calvert of California. They have worked in tandem and partnership, and we have produced a good bill worthy of this House and our mission. I am hopeful that not only will we pass on a strong bipartisan vote the measure today but that the Senate will follow through with this. Senator Gordon and Senator Baucus on a bipartisan basis are working on it and with good reason.

The problem is meth is a national crisis. It started out small on the west coast; it now affects all 50 States. The producers, as Dr. Schwarz has indicated, can buy the product over the counter, all the ingredients to this; and then they rent an apartment or rent a motel room and quickly cook the stuff to make the final product. That is what we are concerned about. What about the atmosphere that is created?

They tend to go in the more rural areas of America, bypassing the big cities, because they figure there is an undue concentration of law enforcement officials there, and maybe they can get away with it in the more rural settings. They did not reckon on guys like Sheriff Gary Howard, who has got an outstanding record of busting these guys and carting them off to where they belong, to jail.

But then what? What happens to the property? The owner of the property, totally unaware of what was taking place on their property, I understand it, we can all understand that, and then the owner probably says, well, we will clean it up, we will vacuum the floor and paint the walls and it will be okay. Wrong. Not okay. We have got to do more studies, because the residue is there, and we have got to be concerned about that. That is what this is all about, a modest amount of Federal dollars to deal with a very real and meaningful problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1281) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for science, aeronautics, exploration, exploration capabilities, and the Inspector General, and for other purposes, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment to S. 1281, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report.

I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Hobson for working on behalf of the civilian research and development programs of the Department of Energy. Needless to say, I wish the bill could have been even kinder to those programs, but I know that Chairman Hobson pressed on their behalf.

I want, though, to bring attention to one concern I have about the conference report. The conferees dropped House language preventing an agreement on ITER, the international fusion project, from being finalized before March 1. This language, which I offered and the House approved by voice vote, was designed to prevent the U.S. from moving ahead with ITER until we had a consensus on how to finance the billion- dollar U.S. contribution.

You'd think that would just be common sense in this period of fiscal austerity when we are talking about cutting programs that Americans rely on. But the House language has been replaced by weak report language calling for a study by the Government Accountability Office.

I understand why, in the give and take of conference negotiations, my provision may have had to go away. But the issue is not going to go away.

I want to make clear to everyone concerned that I will do everything in my power to kill the ITER project if there is not an agreement by March that the domestic fusion program has to be scaled back to pay for

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their outstanding work in very difficult, challenging times. But this measure deserves our support, and I say that as chairman of the Science Committee. So I have a special interest, because it will bolster America's science and technology enterprise, it will foster innovation, and boost U.S. competitiveness.

Why do I support this bill? Let me count the ways, and this is by no means inclusive, but let me focus on the matters that I am most familiar with. It increases funding for the National Science Foundation to support more fundamental science and engineering research. That is the fuel that drives the knowledge economy, and that is what drives the American economy. It preserves the science and math partnership program at NSF, designed to improve the performance of local school systems in math and science education at a time we have been challenged as never before in our history.

It increases funding for the laboratory programs for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

And what does NIST do in addition to performing advanced science and engineering research? It develops the technical standards that advance measurement tools to help to keep American industry competitive. It preserves the very important Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps keep America's small manufacturers globally competitive, improving U.S. manufacturing productivity and saving American jobs. It supports a balanced program at NASA, including increased funding for aeronautics, as the previous speaker mentioned; and it increases funding for the National Weather Service, which provides lifesaving forecasting of hurricanes and other extreme events. I need provide no further example than Katrina.

At a time when government agencies at all levels were less than adequate with their response, the shining star in our crown was the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service. The Hurricane Center is under the Weather Service. They provided us with timely information well in advance of the hurricane hitting the coast of the gulf. It is what was done with that information that created the problems, not the information itself. That was provided completely and in a timely manner.

My congratulations go to the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from West Virginia. Under very difficult circumstances, they have recognized that we have to establish some priorities, and one of the high priorities that they have both given and this House should be giving is to invest in the science enterprise.

What is that all about? It is about our future. It is about opportunity. It is about jobs.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Superfund Revenue Reinstatement Act of 2005, a bill to reinstate the corporate environmental income tax, which expired in 1995. The bill will provide a dedicated stream of revenue for our Nation's communities as they struggle to clean up the Nation's dirtiest abandoned hazardous waste sites and recapture lost jobs where they are most needed.

First passed by Congress in 1980, the corporate environmental income tax provided a dedicated stream of revenue for the so-called Superfund trust fund. In 1995, the last year before this corporate tax expired, it raised approximately $700 million. At a rate of 12/100 of one percent on corporate profits over $2,000,000, the tax was virtually without any real impact on business, but supported worthy and rightful public purposes--creating jobs, rebuilding our urban communities, and cleaning up a legacy of unfettered industrial activity. The oil industry--not one company but the entire industry--paid just $38 million in 1995. That's about what is earned by the industry in the first hour of the first day of the new business year.

Reinstating the corporate environmental income tax would raise about the same amount of revenue as it did in 1995, according to estimates made by the Joint Committee on Taxation in 2003. That's a negligible burden to provide dedicated funds for restoring superfund sites. But those are estimates are a few years old. With corporate profits at current levels, the revenue derived could certainly be higher.

And, where are these superfund sites? In urban areas of course, where redevelopment is needed and where jobs are needed. But what's been happening? Industry is developing greenfields in the far out suburbs because they don't want to touch superfund

sites. And hundreds of thousands of brown-fields across the nation sit idle instead of being returned to productive use. Can we really continue to afford leapfrogging existing and valuable infrastructure to build anew?

That's why the Superfund needs dedicated revenue. In 1995 when the tax expired, the Superfund held a significant surplus, so few people were concerned. Today, however, as many had predicted, the surplus is gone. An empty trust fund, annual budget squabbles, recent budget cuts, and larger and more complex site cleanups have hurt the superfund program, slowing or delaying cleanups. The lack of dedicated revenue for superfund has also put pressure on other parts of the EPA's budget. That pressure surely has been felt by the Brownfields program, which is our premier program to bring sites back to productive use and hasn't yet been fully funded at authorized levels.

It is all the more distressing that we let the corporate environmental income tax lapse 10 years ago--forgoing $7 billion of dedicated funding for cleanup and redevelopment.

That is why it is time to rededicate ourselves to creating jobs, rebuilding urban America, and eliminating this core cancer in so many of our communities. And isn't it refreshing to advocate for a plan with worthy objectives and a method to pay for it!

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

Mr. Chairman, many of us who have been privileged to serve in this great institution for some time have been through this process many times. This is not the first or second or third. We have had BRAC after BRAC. But I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who observed this was the best BRAC of all. We are finally getting it right. This was the least political, most professional BRAC we have ever had. And that is a tribute to Chairman Principi and all of the distinguished members of the panel: Admiral Gehman; General Newton; former Congressman and colleague Jim Bilbray; Phil Coyle; Sam Skinner; General Turner; Jim Hansen, another former colleague who served with great distinction; and General Hill. This reads like a Who's Who list of distinguished Americans who are providing a very important service for our Nation.

The fact is DOD had too much physical inventory. It is costing DOD to maintain that physical inventory. It is costing the taxpayers. So understandably they wanted some realignment, adjustments; and there had to be winners and losers. As someone who has been on both sides of that issue, let me say I know what it is like. I can feel the pain of the losers. But I would say to those who are on the short end of the recommendation, one, you should have confidence that the recommendations were made once again by the least political, most professional BRAC we have ever had, a BRAC whose individual members, including the Chairman, were available not just to have a courtesy photo opportunity, but to hear out those of us who had presentations before that Commission.

They asked pertinent questions. They had on-site visits. They were very, very serious about their important work; and they were not alone. The highly dedicated and very competent professional staff of BRAC was even more accessible. You can understand when you get on the phone and you try to get a conversation with Chairman Principi or General So-and- So or Admiral So-and-So, a lot of people want to talk to them. I must say that I was fortunate to be able to talk to each and every one of them. I had quality time. But the fact of the matter is the staff followed through once again with on-site visits, and that was so very important.

The dedication and determination demonstrated by the Commission, its accessibility for individual members, their willingness to listen produced a product that I think we can all be proud of.

Let me once again address those who represent communities who are not treated favorably by the BRAC recommendations. I have been through that before with a magnificent Air Force base that dissolved back as a result of the 1993 Commission report, and in 1995 it actually closed down with a couple of exceptions. And there were some people in the community at large who wanted to write the economic obituary for that community, Rome, New York, and the surrounding areas. There were others, a lot of us, not just me, the mayor, the county executive, local officials, business communities, that were determined to make the best of a bad situation.

Today, that once-vibrant military installation, Griffis Air Force Base, is now a very vibrant business and technology park with upwards of 4,000 people gainfully employed there; but part of that installation involves an Air Force research laboratory which was set off as a containment area as a result of the decision to close the base in 1993, and the people at DOD and everywhere were wondering would this work.

It has worked in spades, and now the Air Force research laboratory, incidentally operating out of a $25 million state-of-the-art new facility, is the center of excellence for the entire Air Force in command, control, communications, and intelligence technology. It is an information directorate, and it not only services the Air Force well but it services a whole wide range of other activities. It is serving so well.

So BRAC looked at that and made the decision that some operations that had been located there should be transferred elsewhere in line with the overall scheme of the Air Force to consolidate like operations at a central facility. Some moved out; some moved in. The net result is maybe a gain of 15 to 25 jobs for Rome, New York. I am not supporting the BRAC because we have got 15 or 25 jobs. I am supporting the process and what it did and what it produced.

Let me tell my colleagues another story. At that same business and technology park, we now have a defense finance accounting service, and that employs exactly 382 people. DOD said, well, we want to consolidate, restructure. We do not need 26 locations all

over the country. We want to go down to three locations. That did not really make a heck of a lot of sense; and when all was said and done, when the BRAC looked at that, they recognized that maybe the answer was somewhere in between. Instead of going from 26 to three, they went from 26 to about five or six, consolidating, saving money, improving efficiency.

Guess what. This facility at Rome, New York, which incidentally is operating and out of a new $10 million state-of-the-art facility, was examined very carefully. They did not just listen to me, and they did not make a decision that was posited with that because I had a scintillating personality or I had some influence down here. Influence down here did not make much difference in this process.

What they listened to were the facts, and the facts are that when they examined all of the DFAS operations, in 16 measurable categories where you could quantify, where you could measure, where you could compare the output of one against the other, this installation was at or near the top.

A final BRAC decision, not only are those 382 jobs preserved, 600 additional are coming.

So I say it from the perspective of a proud Member of a district who is gaining, and I say it as a proud Member of this institution who identified with creating a process that is serving our Nation well; and therefore, I would strongly oppose the resolution to disapprove and urge that the movement go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amended version of S. 1713.

Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for working so cooperatively with us for so long on this issue, which is of great concern to both of our committees over which both of our committees have jurisdiction. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of our Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, who, as always, has helped to keep our eye on the ball and has pressed to make sure we got this done. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California's (Mr. Calvert) predecessor, who serves on both committees, played a similarly dogged role. And if one has been exposed to the Rohrabacher machine, they know he is persistent. All of us have cosponsored the bill before us today.

Finally, I want to thank the administration, including NASA and the State Department and the National Security Council, for being willing to consider a variety of approaches, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my ranking Democrat on the Committee on Science, for being a thoughtful participant as we examined different ways to deal with this issue.

The puzzle we had to solve with dealing with the Iran Nonproliferation Act was how to enable the U.S. to continue to man the international space station without reducing our vigilance with regard to nonproliferation. I have been clear all along that, for me, maintaining nonproliferation is a far more important goal than is continuing to have Americans aboard the space station.

But from the point of view of space policy, we had another goal here, too. We wanted to make sure that Russia, or any other foreign nation, could not bring our space program to a screeching halt or whatever the equivalent would be in the vacuum of space. Therefore, we wanted to try to write this bill in a way that would create an incentive for NASA to contract with new suppliers that would not be dependent on foreign technology to get U.S. personnel or supplies to and from the Space Station.

These are all tough goals, goals that have had their critics, goals that create winners and losers, goals that seek to balance competing national needs. And I think with this version of the Iran Nonproliferation Act, we have come as close as anyone possibly could to accomplishing our goals.

The bill enables the U.S. to continue to use the International Space Station unimpeded. The bill, in effect, allows the status quo to continue until 2012, when presumably the U.S. will have access to a new crew exploration vehicle to carry astronauts and commercial firms to move cargo. We will see if the budget enables that to actually happen on that schedule, but it is a plausible position.

The bill encourages NASA to find commercial firms that are not dependent on the Russians to carry cargo in the future by setting a specific end date for our current relationship with the Russians. And the bill minimizes the harm to the nonproliferation regime by requiring the act to be reviewed again in 2012, by making it clear that no individual entity that violates the act can receive U.S. money and by adding Syria to the countries listed in the act, and, finally, by requiring clear reporting of payments under the act.

The Senate deserves credit for moving all parties toward compromise; and our version, I would say, perfects that compromise by adding Syria and by making it clear that we have a true deadline. Under our bill, no funds can be used in violation of the Iran Nonproliferation Act after 2012, even if the funds are made available before 2012 and even if they are made available pursuant to an agreement that existed before that date.

So I think we are where we have to be on this bill in order that we are going to protect the space program while protecting the world from nuclear weapons. These issues are never easy and nonproliferation necessarily involves a lot of guesswork about what is and what is not working; but this is a responsible, thoughtful compromise.

In closing, let me again thank the Members of the Committee on International Relations and their staff, particularly Walker Roberts, for working so cooperatively with us and for continuing to push for tighter, but reasonable, language.

I want to thank our staff on the Committee on Science, particularly Bill Adkins, for ensuring that we always took into account all the implications of the proposed language.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which incorporates a truly thoughtful and effective compromise.