Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Science, I am an avid supporter of programs that encourage the youth of America to push the limits of innovation. One such program is the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge.

In 1999, Discovery Communications, Inc., designed the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge to help address America's chronic underachievement in K-12 science and math. The annual national contest responds to evidence that our students' academic performance and interest in science declines dramatically as they become older, particularly during the middle school years.

The Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge attempts to reverse that decline by identifying and honoring America's top middle school students with a demonstrated ability in leadership, teamwork, and scientific problem solving. More than 9,500 middle school students have accepted the challenge and have competed for the title of ``America's Top Young Scientist of the Year.'' Since 1999, scholarship awards for the students have totaled more than $500,000, and challenge winners have participated in science-related trips to far-off places, including the Roslin Institute

in Midlothian, Scotland and the El Yunque rain forest in Puerto Rico.

On September 14, 2005, Discovery Communications, Inc., announced the 40 middle school students who will advance to the finals of the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge. Selected from more than 1,700 entrants, the finalists represent an elite group of young Americans who have demonstrated exceptional creativity and communications skills in their original science research projects. The 40 finalists will come to Washington, D.C. during October 15-20, where they will take part in the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge finalist competition at University of Maryland's Cole Field House. There, they will compete in team-based, interactive challenges designed around the theme of ``Forces of Nature.'' The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on October 19, 2005.

The finalists for the 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge are: Iftin Abshir of Littleton, CO; John Bolander of Memphis, IN; Pinaki Bose of Fort Worth, TX; Kelsey Burnham of Okeechobee, FL; Shireen Dhir of Kathleen, GA; Brendan Dwyer of Northport, NY; Heather Foster of Beverly Hills, FL; Anudeep Gosal of Orlando, FL; Joanna Guy of Oakland, MD; Mary Hedberg of N. Attleboro, MA; Joshua Jones of Titusville, FL; Taylor Jones of Maryville, TN; Melanie Kabinoff of Boynton Beach, FL; Spencer Larson of Springville, UT; Gregory Lavins of Solon, OH; Melissa Luga of Hilo, HI; Elijah Mena of Gales Ferry, CT; Camden Miller of Fairview, TX; Lucia Mocz of Mililani, HI; Alyssa Ovaitt of Weston, MO; Susan Pasternak of Santa Barbara, CA; Jacob Perry of Livingston, MT; Sarah Pierz of Clarkston, MI; Sabrina Prabakran of Fort Myers, FL; Nilesh Raval of Saginaw, MI; Roberto Rios of Mayaguez, PR; Aaron Rozon of Kapa'a, HI; Colleen Ryan of Chillicothe, OH; Brittany Sheehan of Bluffton, OH; Katherine Smith of Malabar, FL; Narayan Subramanian of Saratoga, CA; Adrian Tatulian of Orlando, FL; Bailey Terry of Newcastle, WY; Neela Thangada of San Antonio, TX; Nilesh Tripuraneni of Fresno, CA; Sheel Tyle of Pittsford, NY; Alexander Uribe of Eagle Mountain, UT; Ruslan Werntz of Coppell, TX; Garrett Yazzie of Pinon, AZ; and Robert Zane of Honolulu, HI.

At a time when science and technology plays such an enormous role in our lives, I believe it is imperative that we continue to support and nurture the next generation of young scientists. I would like to congratulate these students for their dedication and hard work and wish them all good luck and good science during the 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge.

I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett). You will notice during this presentation the colleagues of the gentleman have constantly, as I have, referred to him as doctor. The reason we do so is out of respect for his background, his knowledge; because that Ph.D. that he has indicates he is a very distinguished scientist. So he is not just talking about some pet theory or some gut reaction. He is talking about facts, scientifically produced evidence; and I applaud the gentleman for that, and I want to compliment all of my colleagues for participating in this special order.

In sum and substance, I think the viewers might say, what do I take out of this tutorial? It has been a great academic exercise and the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) has presented a compelling case why we should all be concerned about peak oil. But if you are watching this in your living room someplace across America you might say, what does it mean to me right now? What does it mean to my family right now and what can I do about it?

Let me suggest something that everyone can do. They can write their

Representative in Congress and urge their Representative to support CAFE standards. What are CAFE standards? Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE. That is where you get the acronym. That is, the Federal Government should require the automobile industry, the manufacturers of automobiles, SUVs, light trucks, all of these vehicles that traverse our Nation's highways which we are so dependent on, we should require them to be more fuel efficient.

We have tried mightily to convince our colleagues of that basic fact using some of the facts that the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) made in his presentation about peak oil, pointing out that we have 25 percent of the world's energy consumption but we have only 5 percent of the population and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we are consuming 25 percent of the world's energy output. Now, something is wrong there.

I would suggest we are on a collision course with disaster and we have to do something very meaningful about it. We are consuming 21 million barrels of oil a day in the United States. 21 million. We import 14 million barrels of oil a day. So we are starting every single day with a couple of problems on our hands.

Number one, if we are importing 14 million barrels of oil a day and oil is costing $60, $65 a barrel, that means we start each and every day somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 million, three-quarters of a billion dollars in the hole, in the red in our balance of trade deficit. And ironically, we are sending, as you have heard from previous speakers, so much of that money to countries where we are not quite certain what they are doing with the money. And the saddest part, as we have heard from our chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, some of that money that we send abroad to purchase this oil from less than enthusiastic embracers of our democratic ways, ends up in the hands of people who are trying to undermine everything that is so dear to us that we cherish.

So, in effect, you could make an argument that we are helping to sponsor terrorism by sending so much of that money abroad to countries that do not really give two hoots about our way of life, and some of that money ends up in hands that are intent on doing us harm. That is established. That is a fact. That is not just a pet theory.

Now, in addition to creating further pressure on our balance of trade, sending all of this money abroad, we are also doing something that is mind boggling to me. We are concentrating all of our efforts not on how we can conserve energy, but how we can consume more and find new sources of energy. Now, that is important. We have got to constantly be searching for new sources of energy but we ought to think in terms of how we can conserve energy, and making our vehicles more fuel efficient is a way to do it.

Now, back in the mid-seventies I was a member of the staff here in Congress at that time when CAFE standards were first introduced into the American lexicon. The opponents of that fought every step of the way, screaming and scratching, do not do it. If you force CAFE standards, and we only did it minimally, very modestly initially, said the opponent, that will put a death knell in the domestic auto industry. As a matter of fact, they asserted, if you do that, within 10 years all Americans will be driving compacts or subcompacts. That did not happen. You know it did not. So do I. So do the facts verify that. But they opposed it every step of the way, and these same forces are trying to oppose it today.

Now, what are their arguments? Well, the one argument they trot out is to make vehicles more fuel efficient the only way to do it is to make them less safe under the theory that you have to make them lighter, therefore less safe. Unmitigated nonsense. That is not my theory. That is not the theory developed by the Committee on Science of which I am privileged to share. That is the scientific consensus embodied in papers produced by the National Academy of Science, the most distinguished scientists in America.

Now, everybody in this body loves to say ``we are for science-based decision making'' until the scientific consensus leads to a politically inconvenient conclusion. Then they want to go to plan B. So the safety argument is phony on its surface.

The next big argument, well, if you require the American domestic auto industry to make more fuel efficient vehicles, SUVs, light trucks, passenger cars, well, that is going to cost jobs. How is it going to cost jobs? I think the American public would challenge more to go to the showroom to buy vehicles that are more fuel efficient because you know what? At today's price when you fill up, I filled up my vehicle today, $56 for one tank of gasoline. Do you know what $56 means to a lot of families in America? It means, boy, they have got to make some hard choices and they are going to have to go without something just to pay the gas bill. And most Americans just are not driving around on a Sunday afternoon drive to look at the scenery. They are going to work. They are going to church. They are taking the kids to school. They are going to the doctors. They are doing what they have to do. They do not have a choice. They have got to fill up their vehicle and they have to drive to places their family has to go.

So if you make more fuel efficient vehicles, they are not going to stop suddenly buying the vehicles. They are going to buy more because they are going to see, wow, this will get me farther on a gallon of gasoline. This will mean I do not have to fill up every week. Maybe I can fill up every 2 weeks. My family budget will be stretched.

Then the argument, the business, if it requires to make them more fuel efficient, and I have shot down the safety argument and I have shot down the jobs argument and they say we do not have the technology. The technology is there, it is on the shelf. We have got to continue research to develop new ways to do things even more efficiently. But the fact of the matter is off-the-shelf technology is there that if employed by the domestic manufacturers or by manufacturers any place, we can make the vehicles more fuel efficient.

So we work to the advantage of national security, make us less dependent on foreign source oil. Incidentally, I do not like the fact, I do not think any American likes the fact that a group of people can get together someplace a half a world away, they can get together and decide to turn off the spigot or reduce the flow on the spigot. That plays havoc on the domestic economy. The prices go up through the ceiling. We have all experienced $3 plus a gallon for gasoline. Some predictions indicate that it is going to go even higher. It is down temporarily.

I filled up today and it is down to $2.89 a gallon. I thought, gee, some relief is on the way, but 2 weeks ago it was $3.29 a gallon. But the fact is if we deal in a responsible way with the CAFE standards, we will provide a benefit to the consuming public from coast to coast. Not that the Federal Government is saying, look it, Detroit, and I use that as a euphemism for the domestic manufacturers, you cannot make SUVs anymore. That is nonsense. There are a lot of people that want SUVs. They have got families. They have got things they cart around in addition to the kids and all the supplies for all the events. They need bigger vehicles. But they want bigger vehicles that are more fuel efficient. You can get them with existing technology. So I would argue that this is an idea whose time long since has come and we are making progress.

In the 107th Congress when I first offered my amendment to increase the CAFE standards from an average of 25 miles per gallon up to 33, that is the current version of it. It was somewhat different back in the 107th Congress. We got 160 votes from Republicans and Democrats alike. And then in the 108th Congress we went up to 162 votes. Not much progress. Then at the beginning of 109th Congress we got 177 votes. Guess what? That was before we had $3 a gallon gasoline.

Now, I would submit that the votes are there to finally pass CAFE standards but what happened? We had a vote last week on another energy bill and my amendment to increase CAFE standards was not given a rule which would allow open, public debate on the floor and a vote by the people's House. I was denied that opportunity. But I am going to be persistent. I am going to keep at it. One of the reasons I am going to keep at it is because the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett)

has pointed out with his presentation on peak oil this is a serious matter that demands our collective attention and we have got to deal with it in a responsible way.

So I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) for his support, for his leadership in dealing with a very important issue for all Americans, energy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 3893 will increase the deficit, harm the environment, undermine the States and give charity to oil companies, while doing virtually nothing, virtually nothing, to help consumers.

The whole premise of this bill is faulty: Refining capacity in U.S. is increasing. Let me repeat that: Refining capacity in the U.S. is increasing, and it has been increasing for a decade.

Yes, the number of refineries has declined, but that is irrelevant. Saying that we have less refining capacity today because we have fewer refineries is like saying that we have fewer crops today than we did in 1920 because fewer Americans are farming. It just does not make sense. It does not pass the laugh test.

Not only that, the marketplace offers incentives, and plenty of them, for oil companies, all the incentives they need to build more refineries. They have record profits and demand for their products keeps increasing. Refining capacity is likely to increase even more with or without this bill responding to the market demand.

But with this bill, we burden taxpayers by sending their hard-earned tax dollars into the pockets of oil companies through rebates and special payments. With this bill, we interfere with environmental rules designed to improve public health. With this bill, we take away, take away, authority from the States and local governments.

What we do not do with this bill is take any steps to reduce demand for oil, the only step that will actually reduce the price of gasoline, not to mention to make our Nation more secure.

I urge opposition. The priorities are all wrong.

Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished colleague from Utah for whom I have great respect, I point out that the infield for the Cleveland Indians has improved significantly since his reference. In fact, at shortstop they have a very able player, and they are hot in the middle of a pennant race. That assurance to the gentleman is very important, as is this assurance: both bills offer landowners technical assistance, but it is only the bipartisan substitute that allows the Secretary to give priority to smaller landowners who cannot afford expensive consultants.

Having said that, I rise in strong support of the rule and in strong opposition to the base bill which we hope with a substitute, the bipartisan substitute, to improve substantially and make it a product worthy of the support of the entire House.

But, frankly, we should not be having this debate today. The current version of the bill was not available until Monday afternoon. Everyone concerned with endangered species both inside and outside of government has been scrambling to understand what is H.R. 3824. The Congressional Research Service, a bunch of outside groups that we look to for some advice and counseling, they are scrambling. There has not been enough time for Members to fully digest the bill or work out any differences. I do not think that it should go forward in this manner. There is no reason for this rush except to limit discussion and maybe confuse us as we try to understand the full implications.

The other body is not exactly about to rush to judgment with a measure on the floor. We should not be dealing with the most fundamental rewrite of an environmental statute in 15 years in this manner. There are so many areas of agreement that we have, let us find common ground. I urge opposition to the base bill and strong support for the bipartisan substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct a couple of things. First of all, this is mandatory spending we are talking about. Secondly, we do not allow the taxpayer protection in this bill that is allowed in highway cases. That is important to distinguish between the two.

Mr. Chairman, we are all in agreement. There is broad and justifiable consensus that the act is overdue for reform, but reforming the law should not be a euphemism for gutting the law, and that is exactly what the bill would do.

The list of areas of disagreement are very strong, but I would also point out that we in the substitute bill embrace many of the provisions in the base bill because they need to be addressed in a responsible way and, in many cases, we take the exact language. But section 13 is totally unacceptable. That is the big controversy; opening up an open- ended entitlement, putting the taxpayers at great risk.

I urge opposition to the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill. I have no quarrel with the stated purpose of the bill--to reform the Endangered Species Act. Chairman Pombo is correct, there is broad and justifiable consensus that the Act is overdue for reform.

But ``reforming'' the law should not be a euphemism for ``gutting'' the law, and that's what this bill would do. I urge my colleagues to look beyond the descriptions of the bill and to examine the bill itself.

The most advertised feature of the bill is that it gets rid of the current ``critical habitat'' provisions of the law and replaces the habitat requirements with flexible, comprehensive, science-based ``recovery plans.'' Sounds pretty good. And it would be pretty good if that were a full description of what the bill did. But what the sponsors have obscured is that, under the bill, the recovery plans are utterly unenforceable. No one ever has to abide by them. Not only that, the plans will be written through a process that guarantees delay, but does not guarantee that the best science will be used.

So is there a way to get rid of the current ``critical habitat'' burdens and to use recovery plans without weakening the law? Of course there is. And our Bipartisan Substitute shows how. We eliminate all the provisions of current law that require critical habitat designations just as in H.R. 3824, but we make recovery plans enforceable and we ensure that they have strong scientific basis. That's how you get real reform while still protecting real species.

It's not impossible to balance the need for reform with the need to protect species. But instead, we have a bill before us that is balanced in its rhetoric, but not in its effect.

The bill weakens just about every feature of law designed to protect species--for example, the review of federal actions to make sure they do not unduly harm species.

Now I am not trying to suggest that H.R. 3824 is all bad news. In fact, many of its provisions--the incentives for landowners to protect species, the public information requirements, the requirements to better involve the states--are largely improvements to the law. That's why our Substitute includes all those provisions, often in language identical to that in H.R. 3824. So we commend the Resources Committee for so many of the bill's provisions and we embrace them.

But there is one provision of H.R. 3824 that our Substitute does not include at all. And that's Section 13, which creates an open-ended entitlement that will open the federal treasury to provide mandatory payments to developers. This is a bad idea on philosophical and legal grounds, but this is an especially bad time to expose taxpayers to such a burden.

We don't have to endanger taxpayers in order to reform the Endangered Species Act. We don't have to make it easier for species to become extinct to reform the Endangered Species Act. All we need to do to reform the Act is to make sure that common sense isn't trumped by ideology.

I urge my colleagues of defeat H.R. 3824, which just waves the banner of reform to distract attention from its actual content. Vote instead for real reform. Vote for the Bipartisan Substitute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute. I want to thank all of our co-sponsors for their support, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

That is a pretty good sampling of Congressional centrists because there is a moderate, targeted solution. Our substitute truly reforms the Endangered Species Act without endangering any species or the American taxpayer. And that is where it differs from H.R. 3824.

But before I describe the differences, I want to emphasize the similarities. Both the bill and the substitute eliminate the current requirements for setting aside critical habitat and rely instead on recovery plans to save endangered and threatened species. They are identical. Both the bill and the substitute offer new financial incentives and legal protections to landowners to save species. Both the bill and the substitute require greater involvement of States in decisionmaking involving species. Both the bill and the substitute ensure that the public will have greater information about and a greater role in the decisionmaking.

In fact, while it is hard to quantify, I would guess about 80 to 90 percent of the language in the substitute is identical to the base bill. That is because we developed the substitute by reading through the base bill, once we could seize a copy, and by incorporating into our substitute every word of H.R. 3824 that we possibly could.

What we could not accept was language weakening the Act by, for example, making recovery plans unenforceable, sit on a shelf, gather dust or making it too easy for the Federal Government to take actions that would harm species. And most of all what we could not accept was the new mandatory spending required by this bill which would open the federal purse to developers while eliminating basic taxpayer protections.

I laid out my specific concerns for that provision during the general debate. I urge support for the substitute and opposition to H.R. 3824 as presented.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a valued member from the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), an informed and valued member of the Committee on Resources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

This all boils down to a principal difference. There are a number of differences, but a principal difference. The substitute does not have the controversial section 13 in it; the base bill does.

Here is something that could actually happen under section 13. A developer could buy a parcel of land knowing that part of it could not be used because of the presence of endangered species. The developer then could request permission to build, say, a hotel on the property without doing much more than outlining the proposal on the back of an envelope. The developer would not even have to try to get necessary State permits or local zoning variances before submitting a claim.

When the Federal Government says that the hotel could not be built, that developer could get a payment from the government based upon what his appraiser said it was worth without providing much evidence that the project was realistic or serious. Then the developer could propose to build a landfill on the same site and go through the same process again and get money from the government again. Then the developer could propose to build a store on the same site and get money from the government again because the store could not be built.

In the meantime, the developer could proceed with the same project on other portions of the property, make substantial profits on his property, and never have that affect the steady stream of payments coming from the government from what was always known to be a problematic site.

This is no exaggeration, and it shows how right the provision is for abuse. The bill puts the taxpayers at risk. That is why the same concerns that we have expressed to our colleagues on the floor today have been expressed by the administration in the Statement of Administration Policy, which is otherwise supportive of the bill, in part because of the provisions that we also have in our substitute. The Statement of Administration Policy warns: ``The new conservation aid program for private property owners provides little discretion to Federal agencies and could result in a significant budgetary impact . . . The bill would affect direct spending. To sustain the economy's expansion, it is critical to exercise responsible restraint over Federal spending.'' We want to help exercise responsible restraint by eliminating section 13.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt about it. The Endangered Species Act has to be revisited. That is the responsible thing to do. The Committee on Resources has put a lot of hard work into and has come up with a product that, in many respects, is just wonderful, necessary. That is why we embrace the product. But section 13 is absolutely, totally unacceptable for a whole lot of very good reasons, and it is unacceptable to the taxpayers of America because, boy, does this impose a burden on them.

I urge support for the substitute. It is responsible. It is bipartisan. It is thoughtful. It eliminates section 13. It provides more opportunity for good science. It emphasizes the need of small property owners, and we want to help them.

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

Madam 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. 250, as amended.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 250, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and all the members of the Committee on Science on both sides of the aisle who contributed so significantly to this bill; but before I begin to speak about the bill, let me say something about the rule because I was not available to participate in the debate.

The Committee on Rules acted reasonably, following my request, for not making the amendments on the Advanced Technology Program in order. We did debate ATP fully in committee. I suspect we will debate ATP again during a motion to recommit. This is not a subject on which anyone has been denied process.

But our goal with this bill is to improve the lot of American manufacturers. ATP is a controversial issue that will weigh down the progress on this bill. There is no reason for that to happen. We ought to debate this bill on its merits, which are not contested, and then handle ATP separately. I support ATP. I helped create the program. I will work with the appropriators to try to keep it funded. But I also support this bill, and I see no reason to kill this important bill to allow a political debate on ATP.

Now, let me turn to the bill we are actually debating. This bill passed the House by voice vote last year, and this time around we should have enough to get time to get this measure to the President's desk. I expect another strong show of support from the House today.

It is easy to see why this bill has garnered such overwhelming support. It deals with a real problem by bolstering successful programs and authorizing innovative new approaches based on those programs. The problem the bill addresses is the decline of U.S. manufacturing. Our Nation needs a diverse economy, and that economy must include manufacturing. We cannot be wholly dependent on others for the goods that enable American families and American businesses to function. Manufacturing provides high-paying jobs and helps us hone our technical edge. Yet the signs of manufacturing decline are all about us.

So what can we do? Well, for starters, we can be sure we are adequately funding programs that have already proven themselves successful at helping domestic manufacturers. This bill does that by authorizing funding for the laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, for its Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and for the Advanced Technology Education program of the National Science Foundation.

All these programs have proven track records. NIST, the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory, has long been a reliable partner of the private sector, conducting research needed to keep American industry at the cutting edge of technology. The MEP program, which provides technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers, has helped ensure that smaller businesses can apply the latest advances in technology and manufacturing know-how. Every study of this popular program has found that it has saved and created new jobs. And the ATE program has channeled critical funding to community colleges to enable the U.S. to have the technical workforce we need to retain manufacturing jobs. So this bill targets money to programs that have truly made a difference in helping American manufacturing.

But we cannot rest on our laurels, because the U.S. manufacturing sector is still not as robust as we would like. So while being mindful of fiscal constraints, and we have to be mindful of that, our bill authorizes pilot efforts to see if programs like MEP can be made even more effective. We create a program that would bring manufacturers and universities together to conduct research on specific problems of concern to manufacturers. We create fellowships to encourage more students to pursue research in areas related to manufacturing. In short, this is a targeted, practical bill that will provide real assistance to the Nation's manufacturers.

For that reason, the bill is endorsed by the National Association of Manufacturers, and I urge my colleagues to continue their overwhelming bipartisan support for this meritorious bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the very distinguished author of this bill. And I say that with some reservations, because as is the habit of the Committee on Science, bills are reported out after very thorough and complete consultation with the minority, and so a lot of fingerprints are all over the bill. But the driving force behind this very important legislation is my distinguished colleague from Michigan.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), one of the most outspoken and effective advocates for manufacturing.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is a leader in the manufacturing and steel caucuses, and so many other caucuses that are involved with protecting American jobs and growing American jobs.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), who is one of the Members who gets it, who understands how important it is to protect our manufacturing base.

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

Before I close on a bill that we can all be proud of, Republicans and Democrats alike, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this bill over the past several years, including, not exclusive, but including Olwen Huxley and Amy Carroll, and particularly Eric Webster of our committee staff.

I want to give special thanks to Mr. Webster, who is leaving the Hill this week, after 12 years, to join the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We are sure Mr. Webster will be just as effective at prodding NOAA from the inside as he has been for us, and that is very effective. We will sorely miss Eric Webster, who started in my office several years ago as an intern and became our top legislative assistant and also worked for the very distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) as legislative director before coming to the Committee on Science. He has added immeasurably to the products that we have produced in our committee, and all of us want to thank him for his efforts. And we want to wish him, his wife Natalie, and daughter Gabriella, all the best as they go forward in this new chapter in the continuing saga of ``Eric Webster Comes to Washington.''

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

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) for bringing forward the proposal that led to this amendment. And let me thank him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for working with us to craft this amendment in a way that should avoid controversy.

This amendment is designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to help save lives in future hurricanes, goals we obviously all share. The amendment would accomplish its goals in two ways.

First, it authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to establish a special effort to help Katrina victims by drawing on all the resources of the nationwide network of MEP centers. The MEP centers have a wide variety of ways to help businesses that have had losses or have been wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. We all want to do everything possible to help gulf coast businesses and their owners and customers to get back on their feet, something that is critically important, brought to my attention once again very vividly in a meeting this morning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

The Katrina program would also waive the usual matching requirements for assistance, as neither the States nor the businesses are in a position to provide such a matching payment now. I should add that we do not expect this program to be particularly costly as it draws on existing MEP resources, and the MEP program as a whole costs roughly $100 million, not a number that stands out in comparison to the mega numbers we are hearing about necessary hurricane relief.

The second part of the amendment draws on the expertise of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate why buildings and other structures failed during the storm. This is a traditional role for NIST, and it has played it many times after building failures and has resulted in greater understanding of building performance and stronger building codes. We ought to be learning from this hurricane to prevent future losses of life and property in storms to come. A NIST investigation is the best way to do that.

This bill is silent as to what legal mechanisms NIST should use to carry out its investigation. I would prefer and I know my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that NIST invoke the National Construction Safety Team Act that was signed into law after the World Trade Center collapsed. But the bill does not mandate that NIST take that approach.

In short, this amendment instructs NIST to take reasonable, affordable steps to help the victims of Katrina and to prevent losses from future storms. I urge its adoption.

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

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I think this amendment enhances the bill. It adds to the quality of an already good bill, and we are pleased to accept it.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment, particularly the timing of it. It is very significant. I understand the gentlewoman will be asking for a rollcall vote, and I will proudly vote ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this might have been a reasonable amendment a couple of years ago, and, guess what? We are used to expecting reasonable amendments from my distinguished colleague from Connecticut. Back then, all of us, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) were calling on the administration to bring more focus on the Commerce Department to the problem of manufacturers. Quite frankly, I do not think they were paying enough attention. But guess what? The administration heeded our calls. It created a new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on manufacturers in the Department, and it did so in a streamlined way.

So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this issue. We have won what we were seeking: someone in that Department of Commerce to focus attention on manufacturing. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) wanted it, I wanted it, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) wanted it, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) wanted it, we all wanted it, and they listened. It is not too often that the administration listens to the Congress. The legislative branch is sometimes considered politically inconvenient for the executive branch. This time they listened.

Indeed, the Larson amendment would override or duplicate the administration's efforts, it is hard to tell which, and reorganize the Department yet again. That is a waste of time and money; it is utterly unnecessary.

Now, the gentleman from Connecticut may respond that the Assistant Secretary appointed by the President has not accomplished very much. That person certainly has his hands full, and I am not going to debate his performance here. But if the gentleman is arguing that creating a new Assistant Secretary has not done any good, how is that an argument for his amendment? Why does he think that creating the similar positions he is proposing would be a panacea?

The way to help manufacturers is not by creating more bureaucracy in downtown Washington. What we need to do is fund programs that help manufacturers. That is what this bill would do by aiding the successful programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

If anything, the Larson language would actually impede this program. It would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, when we want NIST to have as much of its own funding and latitude as possible. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson's) new officials would be in a position to siphon money away from this and interfere with its programs. How would that help manufacturers?

Let us speed this bill along and not weigh it down with new bureaucracies who would detract from the very programs we are trying to augment.

The House soundly defeated this amendment last year. We defeated it in committee this year. That was the right decision, and it is time to dispense with this amendment again.

Having said that, let me say that does not diminish one iota the respect I have for our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is one of the most valued members of the Committee on Science. But, having said all of the above, I have to once again indicate how reluctant I am to oppose the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) because of my affection and respect for him; I am not really opposing the gentleman, I am opposing his amendment, and I urge its defeat.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

Mr. Chairman, I will make one comment. I have been here 22 years, and I go home every single weekend. I take great pride in that. I have never had a constituent say to me, I want you to create a new Under Secretary within the Department, and I want you to change the title of an Assistant Secretary.

All they want are results, and we are beginning to get results. And we have got to add to that impetus, and we are doing so with the base bill. I urge the adoption of the base bill and opposition, reluctantly, to the Larson amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset there are some things that I love in addition to my wife and family and everybody else. I love technology education. I love our community colleges.

It is easy to understand why this amendment is being offered, and it is easy to see why it needs to be defeated. It is easy to see why it is being offered, because it provides additional support to a very good program, the Advanced Technology Education program of the National Science Foundation.

As someone who has pushed for years at NSF to do more for community colleges, and when I first came here 23 years ago, community colleges were not even on the radar screen at NSF, but, boy they have got the message, and they are doing an outstanding job; and they recognize the capabilities of community colleges. And they understand the importance of the Advanced Technology Program, and so do I. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

But it is easy to see why this amendment needs to be opposed. Now, that may sound strange, but let me explain. We have already demonstrated our support for Advanced Technology Education quite tangibly in the base bill, H.R. 250. The bill would increase funding for ATE not by 2 percent or 5 percent or 10 or 20; it is a third over 3 years.

And the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) deserves a lot of the credit for ensuring that the additional funding was in the bill. But I will not let him claim all of that credit, because guess what, all of the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognized the importance of technology education and recognized the value of our community colleges in providing that education.

But now he wants to up the ante. His amendment would increase ATE funding by 70 percent. That is right: 70 percent over 3 years. Where is it going to stop? We do not have enough of this money. We cannot manufacture it fast enough. That would be an extravagant thing to do at any point, but it borders on the absurd in today's budget climate.

Such an increase is unrealistic, and it would make ATE a higher priority than other education programs at NSF, a step I am not prepared to take given our needs across the spectrum of science and math education programs.

So I would urge my colleagues to use their common sense in reviewing this amendment. Is a 33 percent increase in authorization levels not sufficient in this fiscal climate? I think it is pretty generous. I urge opposition to an amendment that I think is excessive.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), for whom I have the highest regard, he said if all we are going to do is fund it at about the current level, that is not good enough.

I would agree that is not good enough. That is why we are increasing it by 33 percent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this motion to recommit a textbook example of how the perfect is the enemy of the good. Personally, I support the Advanced Technology Program, although I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. But I support this bill, and the Members on the other side of the aisle support this bill as well.

We all want to demonstrate our support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which has served so well and the other programs authorized in this bill so we can facilitate assistance going to American manufacturers who desperately need it. That has been the entire tenor of the debate today.

But now, as we are on the verge of accomplishing our mutual goal of helping manufacturers, we have before us a motion that will have the effect of killing the bill. That is not speculation. We know that disputes over ATP are why this bill died in the Senate in the last Congress. We know that the administration adamantly opposes ATP and will block the progress of this bill if ATP is included.

A vote for this motion is not a vote for ATP; it is a vote to kill a bill that will help American manufacturers. And killing this bill over ATP would be especially irresponsible because the Congress will have other chances to save the ATP program. For starters, we will vote on appropriations for the program. It is not clear at all how the gamesmanship behind this motion will benefit the ATP program. It just make it more of a political football. It is very clear how that gamesmanship works to the detriment of the bill and the aid it will provide to American manufacturers, so I urge my colleagues to vote down this politically motivated amendment.

We will have other chances to debate ATP. We will not have another chance for this bill, which in its current form has widespread bipartisan support. Let us put politics aside and make some real progress. Defeat the motion and support H.R. 250.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to come to the floor, as I just left Colonel Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence and the rest of the STS-114 crew; and they are an inspiration to all of us, not just those of us in this Chamber but to people around the world.

I stand today in support of the resolution offered by my colleague and good friend from the great State of New York (Mrs. Maloney).

This resolution recognizes the valuable contributions that women have made at NASA and particularly praises those who played a role in the success of STS-114. The accomplishments of the STS crew are the result of a rich history of women in NASA. Long before STS-114 women like Sally Ride, the first American woman in space; Kathryn Sullivan, the first American woman to perform a space walk; Mae Jemison, the first African American in space; and Shannon Lucid, the previous American record holder for the length of time spent in space on a single mission, they pushed the boundaries of human space flight.

Women have also paid a dear price in the name of human space flight. Christa McAuliffe, Judith Resnick, Kalpana Chawla, and Laurel Clark will always be remembered for their courage and heroism. And Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence and the rest of STS-114 crew stand on the shoulders of those great women who came before them, and this resolution rightly recognizes that fact.

Once again, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for introducing this important resolution, and I commend all of my colleagues for paying attention on the floor today to something that is really important, not just to today, but for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert this wonderful statement, developed by a very capable staff, in the Record, but let me just speak a couple of minutes about something that I think is really important.

While we salute the magnificent team of people that made STS-114 possible, and I am not just talking about Colonel Collins and her crew, I am talking about all those dedicated professionals in NASA all over the country. They are a part of a team that developed the success story, but I want to salute the American taxpayers for supporting this mission with their hard-earned tax dollars.

A lot of people will say to me what is all this about space, this Buck Rogers stuff, flying in the heavens? I will tell my colleagues what it is about. It is about finding new ways, better ways, to do things for the most important planet in the universe, the one we live on, the planet Earth.

We derive so much from that investment in space right here at home on the planet Earth, and Colonel Collins and all the other team provide a constant source of inspiration to our young people to pursue career opportunities, to master the science and math disciplines. It is wonderful. And if the United States of America hopes to maintain its preeminent position in the international marketplace, we have got to do better. What better example of what can be achieved than the dedicated, committed, outstanding crew of Space Transportation System 114?

It is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues in congratulating them and all of their associates in the NASA family and all those contractors, all the thousands of people who made possible this wonderful success story.

I want to congratulate the entire NASA return-to-flight team and the seven members of the crew of STS-114 for the recent successful completion of their 14-day mission on the Space Shuttle Discovery. Specifically, I would like to congratulate Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot Jim Kelly, Mission Specialist Charlie Camarda, Mission Specialist Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist Soichi Noguchi (SO-ee-chee NO-gu- chee), Mission Specialist Steve Robinson, and Mission Specialist Andy Thomas on the successful completion of their test flight to the International Space Station.

We commend the crew for the risks they take in furthering our Nation's goals in space exploration and we recognize them for the fine examples they set in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. This flight was the first since the Columbia accident more than 2\1/2\ years ago and represents the culmination of a tremendous amount of work by government and contractor engineers, scientists, technicians, and operators. This flight also brought more than six tons of much needed supplies to the International Space Station. The return-to-flight team and crew is to be congratulated for this important step in moving our Nation's human spaceflight program forward.

I would like to thank the Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee for introducing this resolution to recognize the significant achievements of the NASA team and the crew of STS-114.

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. 3070.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3070. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for the magnificent work he has performed as chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and the lead author of this bill. Without the gentleman's steadfast determination, his insight and openness to compromise, we would not be here today.

I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and our subcommittee ranking, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their leadership and willingness to compromise, and I want to thank all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this bill. It is truly a team effort and it shows what Congress can accomplish if we work together in an open- minded and cooperative manner.

Now, I have opened my statement by focusing on compromise but I do not want anyone to think that this bill represents some kind of random hodgepodge of competing views. H.R. 3070 is built on firm central principles that will give clear direction to NASA.

What are those principles? First, Congress endorses the President's Vision for Space Exploration. The United States will work to return to the Moon by 2020 and then will move on to other destinations. We will build a new Crew Exploration Vehicle that, among other tasks, will service the International Space Station. And the bill allows the Space Shuttle to be retired no later

than 2010, which we must do if the space program is to continue to make progress.

Obviously, we hope and pray for the safe return to flight of the Space Shuttle now scheduled for next Tuesday. The Space Shuttle is a magnificent machine and our current space program is dependent on it, but it is not our future in space.

The second principle on which this bill is founded, and it is every bit as essential as the first principle, is that NASA is a multi- mission agency with vital responsibilities in space science, earth science, and aeronautics. Those programs are NASA's most successful efforts. They bring enormous economic and intellectual benefits and they create every bit as much excitement among students and the general public as do the human space flight programs.

This bill recognize the centrality of those programs and authorizes them at a greater level than the administration has proposed. The bill specifically endorses the Hubble space telescope repair mission, assuming, and this is important, assuming the NASA Administrator determines that the mission would not impose any unreasonable risk. And the bill treats these programs as priorities to be evaluated on their own merits, not in terms of the human space flight program.

The third principle behind this bill is an understanding that NASA is in a period of transition and that Congress needs much more information before we can make detailed decisions on the future of the agency's programs. For that reason the bill asks NASA to develop a vision for aeronautics, a prioritized list of science missions and a plan for its workforce and facilities. We require more joint planning with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy.

We explicitly list the numerous basic reports that Administrator Griffin has promised to provide by September, including, most significantly, reports on the number of remaining shuttle flights and their mission, the final configuration of the space station, the cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the plan for what we will do on the Moon, and the plan for Project Prometheus, and that is not even the full list. We have a lot of oversight work ahead of us.

The fourth principle of the bill is that NASA has to try new ways of doing business if it is to remain innovative. This is a point that the former chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) always hammered home and it is an emphasis of the gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) as well.

NASA has to be open to entrepreneurs. NASA needs to see how much it can gain from an expanded prize program which is authorized in this bill.

NASA needs to work with international partners on the Vision for Space Exploration.

So this is a bill built on solid principles that will give NASA a solid foundation from which to launch its many missions. We can all be proud of our space program, which has been a symbol of and contributor to the Nation's technological prowess. This bipartisan bill will ensure that that remains the case, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate on H.R. 3070.

July 20, 2005.

Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,

Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3070, the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization

Act of 2005.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike

Waters.

Sincerely,

Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

H.R. 3070--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005--As reported by the House Committee on Science on July 18,

2005

Summary: H.R. 3070 would authorize appropriations for

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

activities for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Assuming

appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that

implementing H.R. 3070 would cost $33 billion over the 2006-

2010 period. The legislation would extend NASA's authority to

indemnify or insure developers of experimental aerospace

vehicles from damage claims by third parties. That provision

could increase direct spending, but CBO estimates any such

costs would be insignificant over the 2006-2015 period.

H.R. 3070 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector

mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal

governments.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated

budgetary impact of H.R. 3070 is shown in the following

table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget

functions 250 (general science, space, and technology) and

400 (transportation).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before actually yielding to this next speaker, because I feel it is most important for Members to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) took over the subcommittee and totally immersed himself in the work of it. He is traveling around to all the NASA centers; he is interacting with the employees. And not just the top guys, but all the way down the line. This guy is proving by performance that he is outstanding in his leadership, and for that I thank him very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his remarks and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for his remarks.

A lot of people will look at this bill and wonder how we got here today, with seemingly widespread support, and I think that will be proven when the vote actually occurs, because we started out with clear differences. We are not talking about petty cash, we are talking about $30-plus billion over the next 2 years, but we got to this point because we reasoned together.

The professional staffs, and I emphasize the word, and Members worked in a bipartisan manner to fashion compromise, and this is the product that we have here today.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important outstanding issue that does need to be resolved, and it is my intention to address it in the final version of the bill.

As Members know, H.R. 3070 as originally introduced mandates that prize contestants keep their intellectual property, although NASA may negotiate a license. The gentleman's substitute would require that prize contestants choose one of two alternatives: Either agree to give NASA a royalty-free license in order to accept the prize or waive the prize in exchange for the right to negotiate a royalty agreement with

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), a valued member of the committee. All members on the committee are valued, but this guy is valued for so many reasons. One is because he brings intellectual curiosity to the committee and he also brings it with a sense of wit that has us smiling even at some of the most tense times.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the former chairman of the subcommittee who helped immeasurably to get us where we are today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a very valuable

member of the committee, relatively new member; but he brings to the committee the leadership qualities he demonstrated in the Florida legislature, and we frequently turn to him for counsel as we are dealing with these thorny matters.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who has contributed so much for so long to the workings of the committee.

Just let me say to the gentleman from Illinois how much we value his many contributions to the committee and how much we look forward to a continuing productive working relationship.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the gentlewoman from Virginia more. Aeronautics R&D must remain a vital component of NASA's mission, and the bill before us contains several provisions to reverse, as the gentlewoman said, the downward trend. First, we increase the authorization numbers for aeronautics above those requested by the administration. Incidentally, the gentlewoman should take some credit for that because I know how strongly she feels about it and her representations to the committee have not gone unnoticed.

Second, we direct NASA to develop a national aeronautics policy to help guide the agency's investment in the years ahead and to ensure that we have the proper people and facilities to support these efforts.

Finally, we direct NASA to better manage its wind tunnels and test facilities to ensure they are accessible and cost competitive. The Science Committee is committed to ensuring that aeronautics remains a key part of NASA's mission, and we look forward to working with the gentlewoman now and in the years to come to keep aeronautics front and center.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me conclude by thanking all the staff who worked so hard on this bill. That is a lot of credit to go around. I want to thank David Goldston and John Mimikakis and our new chief counsel Sara Gray. They all worked so very hard. And our Space Subcommittee staff led by Bill Adkins. That staff includes Ed Feddeman, Tom Hammond, Johannes Loschnigg, Ken Monroe and Roselee Roberts, Shep Ryan and Kristi Karls, all of whom have put countless hours into this bill. We sometimes need to stop and think about it all. We will work maybe into the evening, sometimes into the wee hours of the morning and then we shake hands and we say, Okay, staff, take care of it. And we go home and sometimes they do all-nighters. They are truly dedicated. They are also very professional, Democrat, Republican.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

And I want to thank Tim Brown of the Legislative Counsel's office who was very helpful to us. I also want to thank Dick Obermann and Chuck Atkins. They worked with us to craft on a bipartisan basis a really outstanding bill. I also want to thank Dave Ramey and Deena Contreras from the personal staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert). What a splendid job they did.

Let me end this by thanking the NASA team. He may be gone, but he is not forgotten, the former Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, who gave so much to the program. The new Administrator who has taken over the reins. He is providing clear direction.

So many members of the committee like to talk about the equal opportunity society we have. We have got equal opportunity in spades within the NASA program. It excites so many people. I take great pride in pointing out that when the Space Shuttle returns to flight, the commander of that ship will be a New Yorker, Eileen Collins. What a wonderful role model she is for all of us. The NASA team is just particularly good.

Chris Shank, another former member of our staff, and Tim Hughes, they did a lot to help. There are so many thank-you's to go around, but most of all we all thank this great Nation of ours for making possible this opportunity.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my amendment, which I am offering along with my partners in this endeavor, the gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). This amendment makes many technical and clarifying changes to the bill, some of them sought by NASA. It includes specific language sought by a number of Members, including the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Most importantly, this amendment fully funds the President's request for exploration for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, not by cutting other programs, but by adding to the bottom line of the bill. I want to thank the administration and key members of our committee, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) for working with us on this amendment.

The amendment also specifically recognizes our hope for return to flight. It gives NASA flexibility on the crew size for the space station and clarifies provisions relating to cost reporting on major programs, and raises the threshold for a major program to those with a life-cycle cost of at least $150 million.

The amendment, like the underlying bill, represents a bipartisan effort, and it has the full support of the administration. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Space.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan manager's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment only because it is procedurally necessary. I do not oppose the amendment. As a matter of fact, after careful examination of not only the language but the intent, we are pleased to accept the amendment. And I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York for offering this amendment. I think it enriches the bill.

We, because of the proximity of our offices and the frequency with which we have to travel from the offices to the floor, often find ourselves on the same path at the same time. And let me say to my colleagues, I can think of no one who is more ardent in her support of small business and her determination to help us enrich bills, no matter which committee we might serve on.

So I tell the gentlewoman I thank her for offering this constructive amendment, and we accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that the gentlewoman intends to withdraw this amendment as she did at committee. The bill already recognizes, and I think this is very, very important, the importance of minority colleges and universities in several other provisions. But I am happy to work with the gentlewoman to see if some version of this language might be included in the final version of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time the gentlewoman has. Because I just want to demonstrate the spirit of comity and good relations.

Mr. Chairman, I will let the gentlewoman proceed with her time; and then if she exhausts her

time, I understand the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) feels very strongly about this in support of it and he would like to have a minute or so, so I would be glad to yield that time. So I will let the gentlewoman proceed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a valued member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

I guess the amendment is withdrawn but let me say, I marvel at the ability of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to stretch 60 seconds into 5 minutes.

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

As a preamble, let me say one of the things I am proudest of in my 23 years in this great institution is the record that I have tried to establish to expand opportunity for all, and I have worked diligently on every committee on which I have served to expand opportunities for minorities.

This committee recognizes the importance of that as the members of the committee will tell the gentlewoman who has offered the amendment. We are concerned. We care. We back up our words with deed. But I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

This amendment proposes to take scarce Federal funds to build buildings for private industry. I cannot imagine why we would use taxpayer money in that way. The idea is apparently for the Federal Government to build buildings on the campuses of minority institutions, which is an undefined term by the way, that would then in some way be turned over to the private sector.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, reading from the language of the amendment. ``The Administrator shall establish and carry out a pilot program to make grants to minority institutions for the development of physical facilities and infrastructure to be provided by NASA prime contractors for use in the performance of research, development, test and evaluation.''

I am not quite sure we can understand that. We on a bipartisan basis have some real problem with this language.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Reclaiming my time, there are some real problems with the drafting of this amendment because I am reading specifically language from the amendment. ``Development of physical facilities and infrastructure to be provided to NASA prime contractors.''

Maybe then the gentlewoman should withdraw the amendment and make sure we are understanding fully the clear intent of it so that we can work on it in a constructive manner in conference. But with that let me continue my statement because I have made a clear offer.

The Federal Government has pretty much gotten out of the business of funding the construction of campus buildings because we simply do not have the money, and funding research and equipment is a better use of Federal funds. But funding construction in this manner where the final user of the building would be private industry makes the notion even more questionable. And the language of the amendment, quite honestly, is so vague that it is not clear how anyone would benefit from this unusual financial handout. That is not the way we should be handling the taxpayers' money.

Let me once again offer to the gentlewoman in the spirit that this committee always operates, we will be glad to work with her on clearly defining the language and the intent so that as we go to conference committee, then perhaps we can come to some area of agreement. But as it now stands, I strongly oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

What does ``development of physical facilities'' mean then in the author's mind?

I would propose in response to the gentlewoman that she withdraw the amendment and we work in the spirit of bipartisanship to refine it so we all clearly understand what we are talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to state that we will accept the amendment, and I want to thank the gentlewoman for working with us on the language of the amendment. We will work with her and NASA to draft language in the final version of the bill that will ensure that whistleblowers have the protection they need at NASA.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3070, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the Women's Rights Movement. Today marks the 157th anniversary of the first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York.

Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and hundreds of other influential women planned, organized, marched and petitioned to achieve women's suffrage. These women produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which urges women's equality with men before the law, in education and employment. The declaration also was the first pronouncement demanding that women be given the right to vote. Their efforts brought the issues of equality and freedom to the forefront and forced people to examine the roles and rights of women in society.

In a time when the United States is spreading freedom and democracy across the globe, we must honor the women who helped establish gender equality right here at home. These women exemplify courage and their fight for freedom must be remembered and celebrated.

The recent success of the Iraqi people in their quest to vote is continued proof that all people want to have a say in the way their government functions and represents its citizenry. The United States must continue its quest for freedom and democratic rights for all people.

I am proud to have the Women's Rights National Historical Park and the National Women's Hall of Fame in my Congressional district. The Women's Rights National Historical Park is comprised of the Wesleyan Chapel (the site of the first women's rights convention), Declaration Park (which displays the full text of the Declaration of Sentiments), and the Stanton Home. The National Women's Hall of Fame is a tribute to some of the greatest women in the history of the United States. The Hall continues to honor women's achievements and bring women's accomplishments to the foreground by annually inducting women whose contributions to society have been of great value to the development of their country. I encourage all people to visit and learn more about the women and the events that led to women's equality in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I note the committee's strong support for parallel electric hybrid buses. I agree, we must encourage the use of low-emission technologies as a way to reduce air pollution from our Nation's bus fleet.

I would like to point out that series-type hybrid systems, although they operate differently from parallel systems, strive to meet the same goals. Regardless of their operating systems, I believe there is value in these technologies and hope the chairman will join me in encouraging their use. I would welcome any comments the Chair might care to make.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the arts motivate and inspire people of all ages to engage in learning, and that is what this is all about. Students who take regular arts courses are proven to score on average 90 to 100 points better on their SATs than students that do not take arts classes. Students that attend arts courses are shown to have better attendance, lower dropout rates, participate in more community service and have a higher self-esteem. That sounds to me like a pretty darn good investment in the youth of America.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment.