Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. Primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) are genetic disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. The World Health Organization recognizes more than 150 primary immune diseases, which affect as many as 50,000 people in the United States. I am familiar with primary immune deficiencies because of a family in my district, the Driscolls. Kerstin and Dean Driscoll are from Greene, NY and have two sons who were born with an extremely rare PIDD called X-Linked Agammaglobulinemia, or XLA. Zack, 11, and Alex, 9, are confronting XLA head on. XLA is a genetic disorder that prevents production of B-cell antibodies that fight infection. When Zack was 3 years old and Alex only 9 months, they suffered chronic ear and sinus infections. Their recurring illnesses remained a mystery to their parents and doctors, until tests were done to confirm that the boys had primary immune deficiency diseases. Soon after their diagnosis, Zack and Alex were treated with an immune globulin infusion (IGIV), which is prepared from the plasma of many blood donors, to support their immune systems. Zack and Alex receive their IGIV infusions once every 3 weeks and the infusion takes approximately 4 hours. Zack and Alex are lucky because their primary immune deficiency disease was diagnosed early. However, despite the recent progress in PIDD research, the average length of time between the onset of symptoms in a patient and a definitive diagnosis of PIDD is 9.2 years. In the interim, those afflicted may suffer irreversible damage to internal organs. That is why it is critical that we raise awareness about these illnesses. Mr. Speaker, the Driscolls face their sons' PIDD head on, by becoming active with the Immune Deficiency Foundation. Therefore, I commend the Immune Deficiency Foundation for its leadership in this area and I am proud to join them in recognizing the week of April 19th as National Primary Immune Deficiency Diseases Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to work with us to help improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and their families.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, some Members have argued that we should include portions of regional or national significance under minimum guarantee. These projects by definition are vital to the Nation as a whole and should not impact formula distribution to the States. Let me give you a classic example. Whether you are on the west coast in Oregon or the east coast in the Port of New York-New Jersey, we have a problem. It is called the congestion in the hub in Chicago. You have got to do something. I want to put a lot of money in Chicago to solve that problem. Does that mean because we are dealing with a problem of national significance we should penalize Illinois and have it taken from its allocation? Of course not. This is a Nation. We are dealing as a Nation. We are not just dealing in little individual States. When I look at this Isakson amendment, it is almost like a roll call of a who's-who of States. State after State would lose under this. Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, it goes on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, this does not make sense. We are a national legislative body, not a State legislative body. Let me tell the gentleman from Florida about fairness. I have the highest regard for him, but New Yorkers are not treated fair in so many different categories. I could make a persuasive argument. The gentleman treats us fair, I know it; but we send more than $20 billion to Washington than we get back. Do we complain? Of course we try to jimmy and work some things out to get a better distribution of funds, but the fact of the matter is we recognize we are part of a Federal system and we look at the Federal approach. This is one of the few programs that treats us well. Let me praise the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the outstanding manner in which they have handled this. But when all is said and done, this amendment, while well-intended, does damage to the national system; and I urge its opposition.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, once again I want to voice the strong opinions of the fair coalition in my home State of New York that we preserve the highway equity established in TEA 21. Transportation is one of the only programs where my State gets back from the Federal Government more than it contributes in taxes. Every year New York sends $20 billion more to Washington than it receives back in various Federal assistance programs. That is a fact. In this bill we have to strive to be fair. What is fair is that we preserve a needs- based highway and transit program and create a stronger integrated national transportation system. New York's highways and transit infrastructure serve the entire Nation through its roads and its ports and its rail facilities and its airports. However, our infrastructure is aging, and much of it needs to be repaired or replaced. With 33 percent of the Nation's transit riders, New York receives only 14 percent of the total transit funding. We simply cannot afford any changes to a formula that would give us even less. We have Federal support capped at 10 percent for our bridges; yet we have 20 percent of the identified national need. As a result, the most critical feature of the bill is that we make no immediate changes to the current minimum guarantee of 90.5 percent. If the overall level of funding does not remain at its current level, it would be unfair to New York and many other States. Next I want to thank the T&I staff for working so hard with my staff to include language in the manager's amendment to support efforts to reduce wildlife vehicle collisions. In America last year, accidents involving wildlife took over 200 lives. It cost more than $2 billion in property damage and killed over a million game animals. In many parts of the country, cars are killing more game than hunters. So I look forward to continuing to work on conservation and wildlife measures with my colleagues. Finally, I want to voice my support of the House language governing charter service. The language helps clarify charter service rules. Without this, all across America providers of transportation services including school bus contractors will be irrevocably harmed. Last but not least, while this is a massive infrastructure bill to take care of identified needs across this Nation, it is also a bill that concentrates on my favorite four-letter word, and do not get nervous. People can use it in polite company. This is a jobs bill. This will get more Americans back to work, good pay, good benefits, doing things that all America needs.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Science have until Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 5 p.m. to file legislative reports on the following measures: H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004; and H.R. 4030, Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education Act of 2004.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, for introducing this measure, for continually pressing for its passage, and for working so cooperatively with us while crafting it. He has single-handedly made this a priority issue for the entire committee. I have to admit, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) first came forward with the idea for this bill, I thought the notion was, well, a little flighty. But through our hearings and other work on this bill, I have come to see this as one of the most important measures this committee will move this year. Let me tell you why. This is about a lot more than joyrides in space, although there is nothing wrong with such an enterprise. This is about the future of the U.S. aerospace industry. As in most areas of American enterprise, the greatest innovations in aerospace are most likely to come from small entrepreneurs. This is true whether we are talking about launching humans or cargo. The goal of this bill is to promote robust experimentation, to make sure that entrepreneurs and inventors have the incentives and the capabilities they need to pursue their ideas. That is important to our Nation's future. Those entrepreneurs, the kinds of folks who are inventing new rockets for cargo and who are endowing and competing for the X Prize, are doing our Nation a tremendous service; and, I should add, they also seem to be enjoying themselves. That is a winning combination. So what do these people need from us? The simplistic answer is they just need government to get out of the way. But, as usual, the truth is a little more complex. The innovators need and are seeking a government regulatory regime that will provide predictability, a regime that can offer stability and support to help them attract private capital; and the general public needs such a regime as well to ensure that the public at large faces no undo health or safety risk from any flights. In short, this industry requires government regulation, but not so much regulation as to stifle it. This bill, which has been painstakingly negotiated with all interested parties, strikes the proper balance. It recognizes the industry's need to experiment. Indeed, it creates a new regulatory instrument to encourage that experimentation, while recognizing the obligation to protect the crew and the general public. I should add, since I know that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will bring this issue up a little later, that this regulation can be provided without any increase in the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration. That bears repeating: without any increase in the budget of the Federal Aviation Administration. We will be accepting the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). I would note that the Congressional Budget Office reached the same conclusion, that no additional funding is needed to carry out this bill. I should also add that under this bill the government will go beyond creating a stable environment for these entrepreneurs. The bill extends the existing provision of law under which the government indemnifies the companies undertaking these flights for set amounts and purposes. In keeping with past congressional practice, we are extending indemnification temporarily for 3 years, in this case; and we are also asking for a study to determine how to end indemnification without harming the industry. I do not think the government should be taking on the risk of this enterprise forever. So this is a very fair, balanced, carefully crafted bill that will help a budding industry and protect the public. The result, over time, should be the development of new ideas and ways to take humans into space on sub-orbital rockets. We are still a long way off from making rockets common carriers like airplanes, but we need to promote the experimental work. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for working with us on the jurisdictional issues that the bill presented. I also want to thank the staff who worked on this bill, particularly one of our new staffers, Tim Hughes, who has become an expert in this area of law. I wish to thank both sides of the aisle, Democrats under the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my fellow Republicans under me, for working so cooperatively for so long to bring forward a product that results in encouragement for a budding industry and gives optimism as we look to the future. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my amendment. I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). This is a straightforward managers' amendment. The amendment makes technical changes to the bill. It also creates one inadvertent but substantive drafting error. Correcting the bill will make it clear that the Federal Aviation Administration retains its current authority to waive the requirements to obtain a license, while also making it clear that that authority does not extend to flights that carry humans. Finally, the amendment removes the requirement that crews sign reciprocal waivers of liability. This amendment is not controversial. It is bipartisan, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. 3752.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3389, and I want to thank Ms. Hart and Mr. Miller for bringing it before the Science Committee. I'm especially pleased to be able to support this bill because I was co-author of the law that created the Baldrige National Quality Award, and that measure has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The Baldrige National Quality Program is so much more than an award. It is an entire philosophy that has helped--and continues to help make our companies and our nation more productive and competitive. The Baldrige Program has been described by CEOs as ``the most important catalyst for transforming American business,'' and the publication containing the Baldrige criteria has been hailed as ``probably the single most influential document in the modern history of American business.'' Opening the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award to non-profits will not only enable them to compete against for the coveted Quality Award, but it will allow non-profits to participate in the Baldrige Quality process. This will help all of the non-profits that compete for the award assess themselves scientifically, become more innovative, make the best use of their employees, serve their customers better, and hold their enterprises to a higher standard. Non-profits play a significant role in American society. When they improve, we are all better off. I'm pleased to note that my own state of New York has already instituted a non-profit category in its Governor's Award for Excellence. The Empire State Advantage, which runs the state-level quality program, strongly supports this bill. It gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues Ms. Hart and Mr. Miller in opening up the competitive process to non-profits. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for introducing this resolution and for calling attention to the memory of great Americans and an Israeli. Husband, McCool, Anderson, Brown, Chawla, Clark, Ramon, One year after their tragic deaths, their names remain seared in our national memory. Of course, their loss is felt most deeply by those who call them mother, father, husband, wife, neighbor, friends; but they are an inspiration to us all. Their deaths have not been in vain. They have prompted young people to think about what they can be when they grow up and about how Americans take great risk in striving for great achievement. Our Nation's space program is built on the dreams and aspirations of an exploring people willing to take risk. This Congress is proud of our explorers, those who have returned and those few whom fate has held back. With this resolution we honor the seven men and women who flew the Shuttle Columbia's final fateful mission. They will never be forgotten. Their memory will live in the hearts and minds of all Americans, and explorers throughout the world will always think of them as they gaze towards the heavens with wonder and amazement and awe.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude my remarks by thanking our very capable staff of the Committee on Science on our side, David Goldston and Chris Shank, and this was the last bill worked on by our deceased former counsel, Mr. Barry Berringer, who always gave so much, such great value added to the committee with his outstanding work. We cannot function in this Congress without the commitment, the ability and the hard work of dedicated professional staff, and we are blessed in the Committee on Science. But we are not the only ones. All across Capitol Hill, the people and the background are there every single day working hard to prepare us to deal responsibly in shaping public policy. So I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the staff for their outstanding work. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters to and from myself and the Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform regarding the appointment of conferees on this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, January 27, 2004. Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in developing the H.R. 1085, the NASA Flexibility Act of 2003. As you know, the Committee on Government Reform reported the bill, H.R. 1836, the Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act. Included in that Act was Title III, Subtitle B, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The House is scheduled to consider S. 610, the Senate companion to H.R. 1085 tomorrow. Although S. 610 has been held at the Speaker's desk it is my understanding that the bill would have been referred to the Committees on Science and on Government Reform. I support moving this important legislation forward expeditiously; however, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Government Reform's or the Committee on Science's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation. I respectfully request your support for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee on Government Reform should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a conference with the Senate. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of S. 610. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of S. 610 and I urge my colleagues to approve it and send it to the White House for the President's signature. This measure is a top priority of the entire administration, especially, of course, of the NASA Administrator. We have taken more than long enough to turn the bill into law. The need for this bill, it seems to me, is beyond dispute. Events of the past year have highlighted NASA's need to attract and retain the best workforce imaginable, and yet NASA is on the brink of losing the talent that it already has. Within just 5 years, 5 years, fully one-quarter of NASA's workforce will be eligible to retire. It is no wonder that the General Accounting Office has repeatedly cited strengthening human capital as one of NASA's top management challenges. We must stem the tide of the brain drain. S. 610 is a targeted, carefully crafted, moderate approach to giving NASA additional tools to meet that challenge. The bill does not make any radical departures from current law. Rather, it modifies and expands existing workforce authorities so that NASA can compete with the private sector in the labor market. That is just common sense. Will changes in civil service laws solve all of NASA's workforce problems? Of course not. But NASA will not be better prepared to recruit and retain the workforce it needs if it is competing with one hand tied behind its back, as it is with current law. This bill began as a proposal from NASA. We went over that proposal with a fine tooth comb, accepted some provisions, rejected others, and modified many more to clarify and target the new authority. As a result of those negotiations and additional work in the other body, we have finally ended up with the noncontroversial product that is before us today. A bill eagerly awaited by the administration, a bill that faces no opposition from organized labor, a bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent. In short, this is a bill that will make a real difference to NASA and the work we charge it to do without taking any untested approaches or crossing any ideological trip wires. I should note that the bill before us is nearly identical to my original bill, H.R. 1085, as reported by the House Committee on Science almost 6 months ago. The most significant difference between the two measures is that S. 610 no longer includes a provision that would have increased the number of employees who could participate in a personnel demonstration project. We are trying to minimize the number of people that can be in a pilot project. If we do not limit the number, we end up having a universal project. NASA was never able to give us any sense of how it would use the requested new authority, and I have no regrets that it has not remained in the bill. I probably should also point out that we never included in H.R. 1085 authority the administration sought to allow private sector employees to work as government employees for a set period of time. This reverse Intergovernmental Personnel Act program seemed destined to confuse further the line between contract and government workers that already bedevils NASA. The result of these kinds of decisions, once again, is that we have before us a bill that is not the least bit controversial, but is no less significant for that. It took a lot of work to get us to this point, but it will be worth it. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the rest of the Committee on Government Reform for working so closely with us on this measure. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) had his own NASA provision as a part of a larger workforce bill, H.R. 1836. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), our new ranking member, for getting us off to such an amicable start. It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) all these years, and I welcome him to this position of new responsibility and authority and am confident he will serve us all well in this post and will carry on the tradition that we have established in the Committee on Science of working across the aisle, working together to sort out things, to minimize our differences and maximize the opportunities we have to address real problems and deal with them responsibly. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) was willing to look at this bill afresh in light of the work we had done with the Senate and events that had transpired since our markup. As a result, we are coming to the floor as a team. Not everyone in this Chamber would have been willing to do that, and I greatly appreciate it. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, who contributed important scholarship provisions to the bill, and to welcome the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the new ranking member of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague. Mr. Chairman, as I have mentioned, this bill is ready for the President's signature. I urge my colleagues to oppose any amendments that might arise and to give this bill the overwhelming support it deserves and that NASA so needs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Marathon Varsity Field Hockey Team for their outstanding performance this season. Winning the State Championship will remain a vivid moment of victory of each one of the team's members--for without their collective talent and dedication--it would not have been possible. The long list of season accomplishments is truly something to take pride in. Breaking the state record with 68 consecutive wins, making the lady Olympians third in the nation with such an amazing winning streak, brings pride not only to Marathon but brings pride to the entire state of New York. Head Coach Karen Funk deserves special praise for leading this fine group of student athletes to the highest possible achievement in the New York State Class C conference. Through Coach Funk's leadership these young ladies have proven that hard work and dedication on the practice field and in the classroom can produce champions on the playing field and in academics. The 2003 Marathon Field Hockey Team: Ashley Abbatiello, Caitlin Barber, Shanna Barrows, Nikki Billings, Staci Billings, Rebecca Bliss, Grace Chrysler, Megan French, Jamie Gofgosky, Brittni Griep, Danielle Griep, Katie Gutchess, Leslieann Gutchess, Stefanie Hatch, Ashley Holbrook, Emily McDonald, Theresa Parker, Jacki Rose, Margo Stone, Frankie VanDeWeert, Sarah Veninsky, Katie Yudiciatis, Coach Karen Funk, JV Coach Patti Trabucco, JH Coach Sue Malmberg.