Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order and the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thomas), ranking member, as well as their staffs, for their good work on this bill and for working with me on this important issue.

My amendment would permit the Department of Energy laboratories to team with a university or consortium of universities when competing for Department of Homeland Security's Centers of Excellence. Currently, the DHS Science and Technology Directorate prohibits DOE laboratories from contributing to university proposals for Centers of Excellence solicitations.

My amendment would allow DOE labs to participate as partners with universities in preparation of Centers of Excellence proposals. This is only if the university or universities want the DOE lab to participate. It is not my intention to take anything away from universities or have Centers of Excellence located anywhere but at the universities. Under my amendment, universities will remain the lead on the Centers of Excellence proposals.

As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Securities of the Committee on Appropriations, I want to state that I fully support the Centers of Excellence program and have advocated for increased funding every year.

My concern arises from a faulty policy decision by the Science and Technology Directorate to prohibit DOE labs from partnering with universities to bring their expertise to complement university proposals.

I have heard that the Department of Homeland Security opposes my amendment. That is unfortunate, but I know that we are on the right track for six reasons.

First, DOE labs, even the ones that are intramural, are not and have not been involved in strategic planning and program development of Centers of Excellence and university programs.

Second, these labs are only intramural to those DOE legacy programs under the Office of Research and Development mostly dealing with chemical, radiological, biological, and nuclear threats within the funding that comes to Office of Research and Development for those missions. This funding is all done at national laboratories where the classified nature of the research needs to happen at a secure Federal research facility.

Third, to say that an intramural DOE lab has insider information on the Centers of Excellence program is simply not accurate.

Fourth, why do DOE labs have the ability to be eligible to partner with universities post award if requested by the university? What is the difference between pre award versus post award? How do universities write a proposal? The Department accepts it, makes the award to the university, and then after it is awarded, the university changes the proposal to add a DOE national lab that was barred from contributing in the first place. That makes no sense.

Fifth, it is my understanding that these Centers of Excellence are eligible for renewal, so there is a question that is still not clear. If a university that wins the Center of Excellence picks the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for instance, to partner post award, would that preclude Science and Technology from considering that university from competing again or getting a renewal contract?

Finally, what happens when a university has a contractor at a DOE national laboratory such as the University of Tennessee and Battelle, which manage the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, or the University of California that manages Lawrence Livermore, does that not preclude these universities from ever being considered for Centers of Excellence proposals?

When we created the Department of Homeland Security Science and Tech Directorate, this was not the intended result. The Federal Government should encourage our excellence in academia to partner with our excellence at our national labs.

The Science and Tech Directorate's use of the national labs is still unclear. Congress needs to work together on this and challenge these decisions by making DHS more accountable so their decisions are made with good, common sense. We need these changes in this authorization bill, and I urge the adoption of this amendment.

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

Well, then, I appreciate that. Maybe we have worked these things out. That is great news, and I will just go ahead and yield back the balance of my time and move the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for yielding to me.

Let me say how encouraged I am that five senior Republicans would come together tonight to share different perspectives on the need to secure our energy sources in this country and to help bring the American people along to some of the reforms that are necessary, I think, to secure our future in the world and to create more opportunity. I believe that we have done a lot of good things on this side of the aisle, but I think that we have a whole lot left to be done. And before this energy bill gets back from conference, I think we all need to advocate for quite a few changes.

Let me say that energy and economic development are hand in hand. The gentleman from South Carolina invoked the name of Bill Gates. I would submit that the reason that we balanced the budget a few years ago for a few years in a row was not because we cut spending. We did hold the line on spending for like 3 consecutive years and kept the growth of spending below inflation. But it was because we actually led the world in a particular area of our export economy and information technology and we created such a robust U.S. economy that revenues surpassed expenses, and we balanced the budget. And I would challenge the country that the one great area that we can do that again, as we look over the next 10 to 15 years, is in what I call ``entech,'' energy technologies. Because there are so many energy needs around the world as the population explodes, as third-world countries become industrialized, as people are more mobile, and this global economy that we all live and operate in is increasing the demand for energy, the whole world is looking to us for leadership. And it is an export potential in manufacturing that could lead to the most robust U.S. economy that could actually increase revenues so greatly, because we are so productive, and we are solving the world problems. We could balance the budget again. I do not believe, given today's needs, we can cut spending enough to balance the budget because of homeland security, because of entitlement spending. As a matter of fact, if we eliminate all of the nondefense discretionary funding, we still would have a deficit in this current fiscal year. So we have got to grow this economy, and energy technologies are the way to do it.

Energy, as we have heard already, is a source of many of our problems. But I have get got to tell my colleagues, energy is also the source of the solutions to a lot of our problems, and I am looking forward to the development of technologies. And when we look at this continuum, I love the combination of history and knowledge on energy, but think about the next 100 years and think back on the last 100 years. Man has only been flying a little more than 100 years. That ought to blow people's minds that, in less than 100 years, we can go from Kitty Hawk to people routinely being catapulted into space with a hydrogen system, catapult them into space. They stay out there for a period of time. They reenter the earth's atmosphere in a big ball of fire, and then they safely land and walk away. And except for two great tragedies with Challenger and Columbia, this became routine in less than 100 years. Where are we going to be with technology in the next 100 years? Children ought to look forward to their future. The Jetsons, which was a cartoon we watched, could very well be a reality within the next few decades.

Transportation, though, has to be at the forefront of the energy revolution in this country because two-thirds of the petroleum is used in the transportation sector, and as the gentleman

from South Carolina so well articulated, we have got to look for solutions. I am encouraged by the development of hybrid vehicles. It is the bridge to the hydrogen economy as it develops, and right now, there are more and more automotive systems, cars and light trucks, that are moving to hybrid technologies, both foreign and domestic. And next year, the American consumer will have a host of options.

One of the things that I regretted about the energy bill, and I think several of our colleagues here on our side did not vote for the House version, and I believe we will be able to vote for the conference report when it comes back soon, because the House version did not include the tax incentives to stimulate renewables, alternative fuels, did not extend the tax credit for these hybrid vehicles. And, frankly, we have got people waiting in line, and we need to incentivize more of that so that the manufacturers will be encouraged to make them and consumers will be encouraged to buy them, and we did not do enough in that bill. As a matter of fact, here is what folks need to know, because I have met with President Bush recently and listened to him on this issue: When he sent his proposal over here, 72 percent of the tax incentives in his energy plan were for renewables and energy alternatives, and he really wanted to rachet this up. But, by the time the House got through with it, they had lowered that 72 percent to 6 percent and replaced a lot of the renewables and alternative energy sources with oil and gas. And when they asked the President what he thought about that he said, You do not need to incentivize oil and gas; $2.35 a gallon will incentivize oil and gas. They have got incentives. It is called the marketplace. We need to incentivize the alternatives to oil and gas.

And that is really what we are excited about here, and I believe, when the Senate finishes its work, brings this back, the Republicans in Congress and quite a few good Democrats will come together and pass an energy bill that really moves us towards these alternatives.

Let me tell my colleagues that I look to the private sector to see what they are doing because there is some division at DOE as to whether or not hydrogen is safe and if hydrogen is the solution, and there are still some question marks behind it. But GM and Shell, they do not just throw their money away. They are interested in the bottom line. And they now have 40 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road, a permanent hydrogen station in New York City, a permanent hydrogen station here in Washington, D.C., to demonstrate what can be done.

The challenge, we have heard some of the challenges; another challenge is cost. These units cost $400,000 each. We have got to find ways to bring that cost down to a $40,000 or $50,000 each so that it is cost-effective for the American consumers to jump across this bridge to the hydrogen economy.

I have said that I believe our tax code is the best way to encourage and incentivize manufacturers and consumers to move towards these new sources of energy. Our energy independence, though, is a homeland security issue. I co-chair the Renewable Energy Caucus here in the House, and in the last Congress, we got over half the Members. It is very bipartisan; about 60 percent Democrats, 40 percent Republicans. Many of my colleagues here, I think all of them are members of it. It is so important that we do these things, but I also serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. Our energy security is a top homeland security issue. As a matter of fact, former national security advisers all came together last month and signed a letter to the President of the United States saying that energy security is a crisis and that it is a national security issue and that we need to address it with the highest level of priority. And there are several crises floating around. We are spending a lot of time talking about them. In my view, this energy issue is right at the end of our nose in terms of a crisis. We have got to mobilize quickly so that we can secure our independence. I do not want to be reliant on the Middle East for petroleum for two-thirds of our transportation needs. And the sooner we act, the sooner we are going to be stable and secure. It is a very important national security and homeland security issue.

We talk about natural gas. The prices have spiked so quickly that now we look at photovoltaics. We look at solar panels for home construction, and because of the rise in natural gas prices, they become cost-effective to put them on their house early. They make solar energy panels in Memphis, Tennessee. Sharp Solar does. And in a lot of places that are cold in the winter, now where natural gas has gone to $7, I think, we can actually put in our building materials these energy-efficient technologies. Go to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado and see the breakthroughs. One will be stunned as to how quickly, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has said, these things are advancing. A host of things. Wind power, we are building more and more windmills in the Tennessee Valley. TVA has the green power switch option. More and more consumers are signing up for that. Pay a little more but know that they have got totally renewable energy coming into their home. It is a popular thing. And, frankly, Republicans leading with a national energy policy for the first time since the late 1970s are doing the right thing for the environment.

But that brings me to a problem we have, and that is in the electricity sector, the cleanest, most efficient electricity in this country is nuclear. In France, these people are very environmentally sensitive. They actually get it, and over 70 percent of the electricity in France is provided by nuclear, but they do prototype their design. They eliminate the margin of error, and they do the same thing over and over again. We need to do that here, and we need to go back into the nuclear business. We have the waste stream problems worked out with Yucca Mountain. We need to be bold enough to say, if we are going to secure our energy sources, and the main thing is there is absolutely no emissions with nuclear. We have clean air. We could actually participate in Kyoto if we would replace fossil with nuclear, and we are smart enough to do it. Dadgum, if the French are smart enough to do it, then we are smart enough to do it.

The House Republicans have a strong energy plan. By the time we finish, we are going to do extremely well. We have got several deliverables from renewable energy and energy efficiency, moving to the hydrogen economy, making sure that our electricity grid is reliable, expanding nuclear power and cleaning up the coal technologies in this country. I am proud to serve with these men and advocate for energy security. I believe we are going to actually send that bill to the President and do the right thing, grow the economy and hopefully ultimately have revenues pass expenses again.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, once again today, the Speaker of the Whole House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), has proven that he is a decent, fair, humble, and, today, magnanimous person, putting the institution first.

The truth is neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas. There are good and decent people in both parties. But we are not your enemy. Al Qaeda is our enemy. We are competitors. We need to stick together and pursue unity and reconciliation. Sometimes that means setting your own beliefs aside, which the Speaker did today for the purpose of the institution, holding it up above our own view of how things should be done.

I have spoken out when I thought we were going in the wrong direction, but in this case I, frankly, think the rules proposals were reasonable. And if one Member's foot was not in a snare today, I think a lot of Members over here would have agreed to them. But that is not a discussion point anymore.

I appeal to both sides. Let us make sure that this ethics conflict does not turn into a circular firing squad. It is not in our country's best interest and it is not in this institution's best interest. Let us pursue, as much as we can in the competitive battles we fight on ideas and our agendas, let us pursue reconciliation and unity, especially when it comes to the ethics of this great institution, putting it above either party's political agendas. It will serve our country well, and the Speaker should be commended.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make remarks on the subrogation provision in the Price Anderson section of H.R. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a provision in this bill that I have some concerns with.

I have the pleasure of representing the Department of Energy sites in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This site is a natural asset that not only has a vitally important defense mission, a growing and prominent science mission, but an ongoing active environmental cleanup activity. I am proud of the caliber of contractors we have in Oak Ridge and the work they do for our country.

I have some concerns with Section 612 in the nuclear title of this bill.

This provision, dealing with Price Anderson Act indemnity, is reportedly designed to make DOE contractors more ``financially accountable'' for their actions in support of the DOE nuclear mission.

The fact is that there are already a wide variety of mechanisms in place to ensure DOE contractor accountability: from civil penalties of up to $110,000 a day; to stop work orders; to contract terminations; to criminal fines and imprisonment. There is no evidence that additional sanctions are needed.

In the 48-year history of Price Anderson, no government contractors have been found to have engaged in ``willful misconduct.''

Are we willing to ask the government's best contractors at all levels, the ones we want involved in this business, to face significantly increased financial risks that have and will likely remain uninsurable?

I believe that we presently have sufficient mechanisms in place to hold the contracting community accountable. The inclusion of this provision in the final Energy bill will have the opposite effect as intended. Rather than adding to financial accountability it will drive the most prudent and best performing contractors out of the DOE nuclear market.

I do not want to imagine a time when the activities at Oak Ridge are not being conducted by the most qualified DOE contractors.

If Section 612 was enacted, I fear that it will have a detrimental impact on not only the defense mission of DOE, but on most of the government's nuclear science activities.

I look forward to working with Chairman Barton and the Energy and Commerce Committee to perfect this provision as we head to Conference with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I am torn, I will have to tell you. I support the President, and I support the President's request for a national energy policy.

But he sent a request for $6.7 billion of tax incentives, 72 percent of which was for renewables and energy efficiency; and this base bill has 6 percent of the total for those two very important functions given the crisis that we face today.

I am the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. Over half of the House are members. We asked for four amendments last night to ratchet this back up some, just a little; and all four were denied. That is not right.

Yet there are so many important things in this bill. So I am torn. I do not want to vote against the new residential personal 15 percent tax credit for photovoltaics that does not exist today, or the 20 percent tax credit for homeowners to install energy-efficiency improvements to their home, or Charlie Bass's billion dollar rebate program for investment in renewable energy.

But I am telling you, all of it together is 6 percent instead of 72 percent that our President asked us for. I am

for the President. I am for his plan. And I hope that the conference report after we work with the Senate has it all in there, because no one in this House wants an energy policy more than me. I have worked for a decade as an appropriator on those important investments, yet I asked for amendments to improve this bill, and every one of them was denied.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to move the process forward. I want to get to the Senate. But I want a bill that is good for America. And I want the President's proposal. I want the 72 percent on renewables and energy efficiency and alternatives and clean fuels, extend the tax credit so people will drive these hybrid cars. This does not even extend that tax credit. It is not enough. We need to do more.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to just speak about the issue of being here in the first place. When I was home for a couple of days, several friends asked questions about this case. My mother even called to inquire.

Like the gentlewoman from Colorado, I am just an earnest layman, not a lawyer or a physician, even though I have been very impressed from both sides with the input from the distinguished lawyers and physicians that are in these Chambers, and I think we should come often now as technology develops exponentially and just ask questions of ourselves about medical ethics and where we really are.

I reject the notion that this is about politics. I do know something about politics, and I would say this is not good politics for either side. This is about life and death.

I do believe that this is somewhat about ideology, though. The gentleman from Massachusetts said so, and I believe there is a culture of life that many conservatives are willing to stand for.

I frankly think that many liberals for a long time used every tool at their disposal to push their perspective, and I am glad conservatives are finally figuring out that that needs to be done from time to time. I think this is a thoughtful process; I think it is a necessary process. I think the Federal representatives, when we face these issues, should not hide or shirk the responsibility. We should come here.

Now, I am concerned about the separation of powers and the tenth amendment, and I have a record for a decade of standing on almost a libertarian platform on some of these issues. But I do not think we are going too far here. This is a review. It is simply a review. It is a reasonable step.

To the gentleman from Massachusetts, you have a living will. To the whole country, if you do not want your family in this dilemma, and you should not, get a living will, so that it is clear, so it is not questioned, so that you will not have a case come to the floor of the House with you. The lesson here is everyone in this country should have a living will, so it is cut and dried, so we know, and the legislative bodies in Florida or Montana or Washington, D.C. will not have to be involved.

Mr. speaker, due to a family commitment in Tennessee, I was not present for two votes today, Thursday, March 3, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 841--Continuity of Representation Act and ``aye'' on final passage of

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is good to see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on the Committee on Rules, managing the bill.

I also recognize the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for 6 awesome, fair, reasonable, very effective years as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I cannot think of a better gentleman in the House than the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and he has goodwill from every corner from this place and all across the country for so many of the right reasons, and I am grateful for his leadership. I am also grateful that he is going to continue working on the Committee on Appropriations in the days ahead.

We are here today before Thanksgiving finishing all of the years' appropriations work because the staff on the majority and minority side did a lot of work while we were gone being reelected, and I am grateful. My 8 years on the Committee on Appropriations have seen these things slide beyond Thanksgiving, even into the next Congress, which this year we should be proud we are not allowing to happen.

And it is complicated. We have honored the President's request to hold the line on spending. It was a big issue, and we have spent too much in previous years. This year we actually can take pride knowing we are meeting the responsibilities and not spending too much and holding the line on excess riders.

I know there are some differences today over individual aspects of this bill, but, overall, it is a fairly clean product, considering the history of this body. Both sides, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the professional staff can take a lot of pride in knowing that we have got a good work product here and we are meeting the responsibilities of the government.

We are doing it in a timely manner, compared to other years. While we are 6 weeks into it, the fact is this is early compared to previous years. I am very proud of that work.

I am grateful, most importantly, to the staff. There is a changeover when term limits set in, and some staff may leave. I am not going to mention names but just say this staff on the Committee on Appropriations, minority and majority side, deserve a lot of credit. It is a 24/7 job, and they do an outstanding job for the country, and I am grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

We will hear a lot of demagoguery tonight and some just downright nonsense, but this is a beautiful thing if we look at the bipartisan coalitions that came together to bring this about. And as a representative from the great State of Tennessee, we are very pleased that farmers and growers of tobacco can finally move on after suffering for so long with the inequities that they have and that we are one of those seven States where sales tax is where most of our revenue comes, but there has not been any deductibility for 18 years of sales tax; and yet we do not have an income tax, and our sales tax is almost 10 cents on the dollar.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who worked in a very fair manner with Members from both sides of the aisle. There was a lot of involvement here. And to the gentleman from upper east Tennessee (Mr. Jenkins) for really carrying this tobacco settlement through. The Senate spoke. The House spoke. We worked it out, and frankly, the tobacco companies now have to step up and put the money up to do this so that the growers and farmers are not penalized anymore in the tobacco business.

But this sales tax equity is a beautiful thing. Politics is the art of the possible, and I am encouraged tonight that, even though it is near the end, there is almost an election here, people from both sides have worked together.

I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for carrying his sales tax issue and bringing a coalition today. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) was the champion. And the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our majority leader, really helped us bring this about. And it is right for all of the people of this country because it really affects all 50 States, not just the seven States that have sales tax, because every State has the option of taking the income tax deduction or the sales tax deduction. This is good for America; $635 million of economic impact on the tobacco settlement alone for my State. That is important.

We need to support the rule and pass the bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time, and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy) for her 10 years of service here in the House. I have been here the whole time she has been here. She has grace and is decent and kind and has done an outstanding job for her people back in Missouri.

This is a very important issue. I founded the Congressional Fitness Caucus 2 years ago, and cochair it with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for this exact same purpose, to try to encourage healthier lifestyles all across the country, particularly with young people, but especially here, where health insurance companies can join us and fight the obesity epidemic. Madam Speaker, Type 2 diabetes is climbing in this country.

The human body is made to move. People need to watch what they eat and live healthier lives. We need to encourage it, and the entire health care delivery system needs to kind of change its approach to more preventive care; emphasizing maintenance, checkups, and all kinds of ways to take better care of ourselves to lower health care costs.

There is no way Medicare and Medicaid, which are the Federal Government's responsibilities, can sustain the trends we see today in chronic health care problems associated with obesity. It is now on a par with tobacco as the number one killer in America, obesity-related illnesses. We have to get our arms around it. But I think it is going to take changing the paradigm and the culture, and it is going to take a national campaign.

I, too, want to commend Secretary Tommy Thompson. He got his own body in better shape and now he is leading by example and carrying this message. The President is probably the most fit President in the history of our country. We all need to use our own walk to exhort the advantages of just moderate increases in physical activity and better diet and nutrition.

Health insurance agencies or companies stand to gain a lot from their bottom line by promoting wellness, a holistic approach to better living. We can all take simple steps. America on the Move is a national program that Secretary Thompson helped start.

In Tennessee, where I am from, we are towards the bottom in terms of health. We are in the fried chicken belt. But we have Tennessee on the Move, which is a grass-roots effort to promote wellness and physical activity. Again, this is going to have to be done on a variety of fronts across the country, so that all these little fires will burn together for a healthier America.

I cannot think of a better legacy for my colleague from Missouri to leave than to encourage people to live a healthier life, to enjoy the quality of life, better sleep, increased productivity in the private sector and in all of our lives, but particularly with our children. They need to know the consequences early on of inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle. Get out of doors. Go play the game. Do not play it on the video; go play it yourself. We need to encourage more physical activity.

Again, this human body, all human bodies, were made to move. Burn more calories and ingest fewer calories. With small, simple steps we will not face the problems associated with obesity in the future.

Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan effort and I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for leading this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

This is an emotionally charged issue and I can understand why. I think it is important, though, that we adhere to the facts. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) used the words ``fallacious'' and ``ludicrous.'' It is ludicrous to suggest that if we had a gun ban all across the country, that the bad guys would not have guns and that the good guys would then be better off. It is ludicrous to suggest that bad guys that do not honor the law are not going to always have guns in this society.

It is fallacious to insinuate to people that somehow they are going to be safer if you ban guns. There are no facts to back that up. Gun control does not work. I am not interfering in the District of Columbia, that is a fact everywhere in this country. Gun control does not work. There is no science to show that it works. As a matter of fact, what the truth is that when we control guns, the bad guys have plenty, and there is a gun culture, and the good guys cannot defend themselves.

In the State of Tennessee, my father-in-law has a right to carry, and our family is safer because he does. We are in a new world. The last time that 3,000 innocent American lives were lost on September 11, guns were not used. Airplanes and fuel was. It was the most destructive, violent act in our country's history in this homeland. Guns were not there. I do not know what is next, but I think people have a right to defend themselves, and gun control simply does not work. Public policy should not be based on emotion, and this is emotionally charged. It should be based on science, facts, logic, and the truth. The truth is this policy does not work.

I just came back from Africa. I was in Dar es Salaam and Johannesburg; dangerous cities. Interestingly, they remind me that the city I work in here is more dangerous than the cities there. Let us be honest about this, and let us rise above the emotion. Gun control does not work anywhere, including the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am a very proud sponsor of H.R. 2966, the Right to Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2004.

Pack and saddle stock animals were a critical element in many early Americans' livelihood. Today's bill directs the Secretary to provide for the management of public lands to

preserve and facilitate the continued use and access of horse and saddle stock animals on such lands, including wilderness areas, national monuments, and other specifically designated areas where there is a historical tradition of such use.

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue final rules to define the meaning of a ``historical tradition of use'' by pack and saddle stock animals on federal lands.

Defining managed recreation of this historical practice within our national forests is critical in recognizing the cultural contributions and precedent of pack and saddle stock in our public lands above simple recreational use.

I believe that horse and saddle stock hold a unique place in our heritage. We must pass this bill to ensure its historical preservation and continued enjoyment as a national pastime.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, just to add that this is one of those rare opportunities for the Appropriations Committee and the Ways and Means Committee to meet at the water's edge. Sometimes we put limitation amendments on appropriations bills and they strike those through a point of order, which they have the right to do here. Yet they chose to agree with us and say that this GAO study needs to be completed and all the science needs to be brought to bear before this rule is actually implemented.

Let me just say that one of the greatest areas of innovation in our health care delivery system in this country is inpatient rehabilitation hospitals where virtually every family in America has had somebody benefit from one of those hospitals, and they are wowed at what we are doing. It is a very fluid area of health care. It is changing every month because of new technologies and new procedures. Yet some of these rules are antiquated in these 13 categories. They need to be changed based on what is happening in health care, not a bean counter at OMB saying, we only have this much money or we want to reduce this much money, therefore, this is what you are going to be reimbursed for.

In our health care delivery system, we need to reimburse wherever the innovation is, wherever the patient is, wherever the need is, wherever the cure is; and that is what this does is allow science to prevail and not some arbitrary limitation that is set down the street by any administration or any government bureaucrat.

That is, frankly, where the Congress is doing its job to weigh in, because we are sensitive to these things; and, frankly, sometimes the Appropriations Committee can be very helpful by using the power of the money flow and the appropriations process to say, wait a second, stop the trains, we are going in the wrong direction.

This is a win-win. Congratulations to all and thanks especially to Ways and Means for letting us live to fight another day on behalf of patients and inpatient rehabilitation hospitals across the country. I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). It is always a pleasure to work with them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I thank all of those involved for bringing this legislation to the floor in the form of a conference report.

I have to come to the floor, though, saying it is frustrating for me as a Member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations that it took a year to get the bill from the House floor back to the House floor in the form of a conference agreement, since time is very much of the essence.

Also I want to tell a story. About a year ago, when I brought ``Buy America'' provisions to the floor trying to insert them in this legislation, received assurances from Secretary Thompson and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) that every effort would be made to buy America where possible in all of the implementation of not just Bioshield, but all of the different treatments and antidotes that fall under Bioshield or not. Then later in the fall I had an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services in my office, and I spoke about the treatment for a radiation event and how that was going to be procured. It is called Prussian Blue, and I was told that that was still in the process of being competed.

Little did anyone know in the room under this interagency working group that a month earlier, an exclusive contract had already been committed to procure Prussian Blue and fill up our stockpiles to a German company.

I have got to tell you, in Tennessee that does not go over very well, when there are U.S. manufacturers prepared to do this and time is of the essence. The FDA, HHS, DHS, we need to coordinate better. I am very concerned about ceding the responsibility to interagency working groups and not having an accountable person.

This is billions of dollars. It is, frankly, late. We have been appropriating the money. It cannot go forward, and time is of the essence. We are going to the conventions, and the threats are real, and we do not have the stockpiles full.

I commend the authorizers; but, darn, everybody involved needs to move quicker because we do not have the stockpiles full of these treatments, and many of them are available and on the shelf by U.S. manufacturers. I was in Tampa, Florida, a week ago Monday; and I saw those treatments, and they are not on the streets of New York or Boston or across the country, or in Athens, Greece; and U.S. manufacturers can export them.

We have the best technology in the world. We do not have to lean on the French or the Germans to fill up our stockpiles for treatments in the event of more terrorism. It is not just Bioshield, it is Chemshield and Nukeshield. It is all of the major threats.

So, yes, vote for this. It is long overdue. Move it quickly to the President's desk. And then get the administration to coordinate better together.

I called Assistant Secretary Simonson today. I said, I need to talk to you. I am still waiting for the phone call. The legislation is on the floor. I am on the subcommittee. I am waiting

for the phone to ring. We need action. The American people demand no less. This is the most target-rich environment in the next 4 months that we have ever faced in the history of this country. Let us get it on.