Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. 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. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci). (Mr. GRUCCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank everyone involved with this, but none more than the gentleman I am about to introduce to consume the balance of our time. The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith) is the spark plug behind this legislation. He is serving with great distinction on that very important Subcommittee on Research, and he constantly reminds us every single day about the importance of the work we are about. Before yielding the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Smith), I would like to note that we have a staff that is second to none on the Committee on Science, Republicans and Democrats, all professionals working well together to fashion the type of product that we can bring to the floor with a great deal of pride. This is one such product, and the man most responsible for it is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) be allowed to control the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the angel of NIST.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to join my colleagues in commending the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for their 150 years of service to our country. I also want to thank the Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, and the Gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moore, for introducing this resolution. It is difficult to imagine an area of our lives that has not been touched by civil engineers. They ensure that when we turn on the tap, we have clean water to drink. Civil engineers designed the massive transportation systems that make it possible for us to move freely and efficiently across this vast country. Moreover, civil engineers design technologies and practices to help clean up polluted water and to ensure that our natural resources are preserved for future generations. Americans benefit from the expertise and hard work of engineers everyday, but rarely acknowledge or recognize our debt to them. I am lucky enough, however, to have a different experience with engineers. During my time on the Science Committee and especially as Chairman, I have come to rely on ASCE as a valuable resource. I may not be making headlines here, but we in government do not know everything all the time. After the tragedy of September 11, we immediately began to look for lessons we could learn from this horrible event. FEMA put together a team, led by ASCE, to investigate the World Trade Center collapse. The team set out to discover exactly why the building collapsed, if the buildings could have stood for longer, and if more lives could have been saved. I cannot even begin to fathom the work this team did, but in eight months they delivered an important report to Congress detailing the sequence of events that led to the buildings' collapse. This work will go a long way toward saving lives. Now, we are working closely with ASCE with legislation that will hopefully make their jobs, on further building investigations, easier. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that civil engineers do for our country and I am ever grateful for the service that ASCE provides to this Congress and to me personally. I congratulate ASCE on 150 years and I look forward to many more.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to Members that this measure is brought forward by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a doctor, a distinguished scientist in his own right, who is providing invaluable service to the Committee on Science. He and another gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), are a dynamic duo who have worked tirelessly to advance this bill to the point where we have it on the floor today under the Suspension Calendar, which is reserved for noncontroversial measures. This is noncontroversial. No Member in their right mind can come up with any logical reason why we should not have a chief scientist in the Environmental Protection Agency. No one in their right mind can come up with any reason why we should not have, as this bill provides, a deputy administrator for science and technology. We are in an institution and in a town where people love to say that they favor science-based decision-making. Some of those people favor it as long as it is politically convenient. When the conclusion of the scientist is not politically convenient, they look elsewhere. There will be no escaping what this bill does, and its intent. We want to have the best possible scientific guidance for the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and we want the Environmental Protection Agency to give the administration and Congress the best possible advice that is based on sound science. If we have that, I am convinced we can continue to go forward in a very responsible way to deal with such issues as global climate change. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for his work on this, and the dedicated work of the staff on both sides of the aisle. The Committee on Science has an outstanding staff. I think it is second to none, very capable individuals, individuals with advanced degrees in various science disciplines, and that serves us all well. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to pay attention to what we are doing here today, and I would expect unanimous support for this very worthy bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mary Anne Casadei, President of the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of New York Inc. for her outstanding efforts in assisting veterans and children. Ms. Casadei's dedicated service and leadership has helped enhance the quality of life for many veterans and children in the Rome, New York area. I applaud Ms. Casadei's achievements and those of the American Legion Auxiliary. I am inserting into the Congressional Record, an article that outlines Ms. Casadei's accomplishments for the review of my colleagues. Article by the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of New York, Inc. Mary Anne Casadei is a resident of Rome, New York. She is currently serving as President of the American Legion Auxiliary, Department of New York. As a member of the largest women's patriotic organization in the world, assisting veterans is a top priority. She volunteers at the Rome Veterans Administration Clinic and Memorial Hospital. Mary Anne is the founder and Coordinator of the Griffiss Independent Veterans Effort Program (G.I.V.E. Program), which supports the Griffiss VA Clinic with donations and supplies. One of the major programs that the American Legion Auxiliary deals in, involves Children and Youth. Not only has President Casadei been the recipient of State and National Awards for her auxiliary efforts, she has also served as a Youth Director for the Rome Family YMCA. As Youth Director she led programs for youth at risk and for developmentally delayed participants from age 8 to adults. In addition, President Casadei is involved in the Family Nurturing Center of Central New York State as a facilitator of parenting programs. She is also involved at the Court Street Diagnostic and Treatment in the Social Work Development. As President of this great organization her focus is on Parkinson's Disease. No one knows the causes of Parkinson's Disease; therefore monies raised will go toward much needed research. The Parkinson's Alliance goal is to find a cure by 2005. Due to the generosity and commitment of the Tugman Family Foundation, all donations received by the American Legion Auxiliary during Mary Anne's year as Department President will be matched dollar-for-dollar. ``We have an amazing opportunity to make a difference,'' said President Casadei. President Casadei's passion for this program can be attributed to the love and support she has for her ailing mother who suffers from Parkinson's disease. Ms. Casadei and her family have seen this disease ravage her mother's body and take away her independence. However, she and her family remain confident that a cure for this dreadful disease will eventually become a reality. The Veteran's Administration has recently allocated funds to six VA facilities to be used directly for Parkinson's research. These allocations are a crucial component in the quest to find a cure for this devastating disease. President Casadei is also a strong supporter to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban burning of the American flag. Traveling throughout the 62 counties in New York State, President Casadei has vowed to protect the American Flag from physical desecration. The prominence of the American flag in just hours following the September 11th attacks on America is a matter of visual record that will stand for some time. Americans revere the Flag as a symbol that unites us all across our great nation. President Casadei's leadership and loyalty is evident not only to the American Legion Auxiliary but throughout her community; to her family and friends; and especially to the veterans that sacrificed their lives while defending our country.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Browne, chief executive of BP for his distinctive leadership on the issue of climate change. In 1997, at Stanford University, John Browne took a bold step; he broke from his peers in the oil and gas industry and set a target to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from company operations. The target he set was a ten percent reduction below a 1990 baseline by the year 2010. Just last week this same man again stood before an audience at Stanford to announce that the company had achieved the target, and done so eight years ahead of schedule. Importantly, this was done at no net cost to the company. Mr. Browne further announced that BP would continue its quest to reduce the carbon intensity of its activities and stabilize carbon emissions at current levels while growing the company. This, he said would be achieved through focusing on technology improvements, gains in efficiency and through offering less carbon intensive products to customers. Mr. Speaker, the actions on the part of John Browne and BP clearly demonstrate that a little bit of initiative can go a long way. This is leadership--we need more of it here in the US on the matter of climate change, because this issue is not going to go away. I applaud the achievements of John Browne and the progressive company that he leads. Attached is a copy of Mr. Browne's Stanford speech for my colleagues' consideration. Excerpts From the Statement of John Browne, Chief Executive, BP, Stanford University--11 March 2002 Beyond Petroleum: Energy and the Environment in the 21st Century Stanford is a place to which I first came twenty-three years ago to learn about business. And it's place to which I came back five years ago to talk about the issue of climate change and global warming. Climate change is an issue which raises fundamental questions about the relationship between companies and society as a whole; and between one generation and the next. It is an issue which is about leadership as well as science. It was clear that the issue was global, potentially affecting everyone. And it was equally clear that the only practical solutions would be ones which recognized the human desire for improved living standards. To ask people to sacrifice the future would be unrealistic. To deny the basic aspirations of hundreds of millions of people to escape from poverty would be immoral. It was clear too, that the immediate challenge couldn't be solved by a sudden magical transformation of the energy mix, through the replacement of oil and gas by alternative and renewable forms of energy. In 1997 we accepted that logic. We set our own target--to reduce our own emissions of greenhouse gases by 10 per cent from a 1990 base line by the year 2010 That was broadly in line with the Kyoto targets, and based on the presumption that at some point in the future those target of something similar would be converted into mandated objectives. At that time, we didn't know precisely how we were going to achieve our target--but we had some initial ideas. Now, five years on, I'm delighted to announced that we've delivered on that target. That means our emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen to almost 80 million tonnes, 10 million tonnes below the level in 1990 . . . and 14 million tonnes below the level they had reached in 1998. That achievement is the product not of a single magic bullet . . . but of hundreds of different initiatives carried through by tens of thousands of people across BP over the last five years. They deserve the credit . . . and their achievement makes me very proud to lead the BP team. The answer came through efficiency . . . and technology, and through better management of the energy we use ourselves. At the Texas City refinery alone that saved $5 million and 300,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. It came through a reduction in the amount of energy we need to use. And by applying simple efficiency--stopping leaks. There are hundreds of examples. In aggregate the net effect of all those actions is that we've met the target, seven years ahead of schedule. And we've met it at no net economic cost--because the savings from reduced energy inputs and increased efficiency have outweighed all the expenditure involved. That's a particularly noteworthy point, a positive surprise--because it begins to answer the fears expressed by those who believed that the costs of taking precautionary action would be huge and unsustainable. In the process of reaching that objective we've learned a great deal. We can now measure our emissions with much more precision than we could five years ago. We now have a verified inventory of emissions. That means we can track reductions in a way which simply wasn't possible before. We've learned a great deal about trading greenhouse gas emissions--through establishing the first global internal trading system which enabled us to apply the right resources in the right places and to reduce the costs involved. And we've learned a great deal about the potential to resolve the challenge of climate change through technology. The quality of the products we sell has improved--with the development of cleaner fuels. That not only improves air quality in our cities, it also enables us to work with the auto manufacturers to produce significantly more efficient engines. Taken together, those steps mean that we've not only reduced our own emissions but we've also reduced the carbon content of the energy products we supply to the world. So it is a good start. But it's not a place to stop. There is no single solution . . . but there are many ways forward. What we and others have done show that there are rich and wide-ranging possibilities. The compelling conclusion from the scientific work is that the ultimate objective must be to achieve stabilization--a maximum level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is below the level of risk. If stabilization is the objective, what is the appropriate contribution of an individual company? Clearly, we can't do everything. We supply just 1.5 per cent of the world's energy and around three per cent of the world's oil and gas. But we play our part and take a lead. We can use our skills and technology and business process to set our own internal target in the context of the goal of stabilization, with a clear time scale over the next decade; in short to hold the emissions from our operations at 10% below 1990 levels, through 2012, with approximately half of that coming from improvements in internal energy efficiency, and half from the use of market mechanisms, generating carbon credits. That is our next objective and our new commitment. The scale of the challenge is clear. We're a growing business, and we want to create value for our shareholders by increasing our share of the world energy market over the next decade. We aim to continue to grow our production of oil and gas by more than five per cent per annum until 2005, and to keep growing beyond that. We'll also be increasing the volume of refined products we produce. Precise predictions are impossible but we are moving to the point where we could be producing twice our current output. So we have to have the means to manage the possible volumes of CO2 which that growth implies. How then can we contribute to the objective of stabilisation? There are two principal ways. First, through efficiency--improving the productivity of the energy we use, and doing everything we can internally to reduce our emissions per unit of production. By applying existing knowledge across the span of our operations, and selective new capital investment in areas such as cogeneration, we believe we can achieve a 10 to 15 per cent improvement in the efficiency of our energy use. That will include continued work to avoid leaks. In total we believe we can deliver around half the necessary reductions needed to sustain our internal emissions at current levels. Secondly we have to continue to reduce the carbon content of the products we produce and sell. We'll continue to shift the balance of our business in favour of lower carbon energy sources and in particular natural gas. We'll also continue the development of key markets for fuels with a lower carbon content such as Compressed Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas. We'll offer refined products that are designed to enable improved efficiency, or greater emissions reductions. We'll continue to improve the quality of our refined products. Within the next three years 50 per cent of sales worldwide will be of clean fuels, including zero sulphur fuels, which we hope will catalyze the development of more efficient engines. We're working with engine manufacturers. We'll continue to develop our solar business which will grow by 40 per cent this year and which already has a 17 per cent world market share. And we'll explore other potential renewable sources of supply, and test the viability of other potential energy sources such as hydrogen. At the same time we'll maintain the leadership we've secured over the last five years in carbon capture and geologic storage, a technology that may have applications across industry sectors. Our growth will be cleaner than the average, as it has been over the last decade, and that means we will have earned the right to grow, because by taking action we've ensured that our growth is sustainable in every sense. Of course, the offset I mentioned depends on the development of a system of credits which recognizes that emissions can be reduced in many different ways and which incentivises innovation and new thinking. That system of credits has not yet been established. The market mechanisms are not yet in place. But these are early days. We, and others, have learned a great deal about the technology of trading emissions over the last five years. But to reach its full potential, and to go beyond the boundaries of individual companies, trading requires real incentives which are not yet in place. Nevertheless, I feel more confident now than I did in 1997 that such systems will eventually be established, and as they are developed we're determined to maintain our leadership position. The acceptance of the risk and of the potential for progress is reflected in all the actions being taken by Governments around the world: in China--a shift from coal to natural gas, and an extensive national programme of investment in environmental protection; in the UK--the development of a creative and constructive trading system; and in the US, the important statement about reducing carbon intensity by President Bush four weeks ago builds on previous statements on stabilisation and opens new possibilities based on the fundamental American belief in technology--a belief founded on decades of achievement here in Stanford and in other great universities. The differences of approach are to me a source of optimism--because they reflect reality. The most effective forms of action do vary from one country to another, just as they vary from one company to another. That creative diversity of response, combined with the common acceptance of the problem, means that a recognition of different advances in a common form through credits is more likely than it has been before. Our aspiration then is to sustain the reduction in emissions we've made. And by doing that to contribute to the world's long term goal of stabilization. That is the route to creating a sustainable, profitable business. We can't do it alone. We need the help of partners. We need the help of the academic. And we need the help of Governments.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John Browne, chief executive of BP for his distinctive leadership on the issue of climate change. In 1997, at Stanford University, John Browne took a bold step; he broke from his peers in the oil and gas industry and set a target to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from company operations. The target he set was a ten percent reduction below a 1990 baseline by the year 2010. Just last week this same man again stood before an audience at Stanford to announce that the company had achieved the target, and done so eight years ahead of schedule. Importantly, this was done at no net cost to the company. Mr. Browne further announced that BP would continue its quest to reduce the carbon intensity of its activities and stabilize carbon emissions at current levels while growing the company. This, he said, would be achieved through focusing on technology improvements, gains in efficiency and through offering less carbon intensive products to customers. Mr. Speaker, the actions on the part of John Browne and BP clearly demonstrate that a little bit of initiative can go a long way. This is leadership--we need more of it here in the U.S. on the matter of climate change, because this issue is not going to go away. I applaud the achievements of John Browne and the progressive company that he leads.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this resolution and I want to thank Chairman Nussle for the hard work he and his staff did pulling it together. I just want to point out one feature of the Budget Resolution that may go unnoticed as we debate defense spending and tax policy and other macroeconomic issues. This budget provides a healthy and needed boost for scientific research--a boost that goes significantly beyond what the Administration called for. I'm especially pleased with the funding for Function 250, the General Science function, which is based on an 11.1 percent increase for Research and Related Activities at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Our nation's long-range future depends in no small measure on the investments we make today in research and development, and in science and math education. NSF spending is critical to ensuring a health R&D and education enterprise. The Budget Resolution recognizes that. I want to thank Chairman Nussle for working so cooperatively with me and with other Members of the House Science Committee to ensure that the Budget paid proper attention to science funding and to balancing the federal research portfolio. We obviously haven't solved all our science funding problems, but this Budget Resolution is an important step in doing so, especially given how tight overall domestic discretionary spending it. I urge my colleagues to support this Resolution.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in recognition of the legacy of Juliette Gordon Low. Ninety years ago this week, she founded an institution--the Girl Scouts of the United States of America--which has since inspired over 50 million American women. In our nation, over two and a half million young women participate in this institution that has a simple goal--to endow our girls with self- confidence, responsibility, integrity and leadership skills; and to help them develop physically, mentally and spiritually into successful adults. Further, as Chairman of the House Committee on Science, I would like to commend the efforts of the Girl Scouts to close the gap in math and science education that exists between our boys and our girls. While only around one-fifth of our scientists and engineers are women, the Girl Scouts are working to expose girls to a wide variety of experiences and career choices and open new opportunities for girls in science. Also today, I would like to recognize the fortieth anniversary of the Foothills Girl Scout Council in my Congressional district. This year, along with other outstanding young women across the country, Jennifer Fleischer, Krystina Novak and Jessica Walker from the Foothills Girl Scout Council have earned the Girl Scout Gold Award. They have done so through considerable efforts and contributions to their communities, and I congratulate them on their wonderful achievements. Girl Scouts of the United States of America, I salute you at your ninetieth anniversary, and thank you for strengthening the minds, bodies and spirits of America's girls and young women.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays- Meehan substitute. The reason we need Shays-Meehan is quite simple. The American people are continuing to lose faith and confidence in our political system because of the unregulated flow of soft money into the campaign coffers. In fact, we need to look no further for proof of America's dissatisfaction than the dismal 51 percent turnout of registered voters in the last election, one of the closest elections in history. Quite frankly, I am sort of tired of apologizing for a system that I think works quite well. People think money taints every decision that is made in this Congress. This is not so. I do not believe it for a minute, but the fact of the matter is people think it and they are losing confidence. We need to change the system. Shays-Meehan is not perfect, but it is much better than what we have; and for those who would argue that we should do nothing, I would say they are not listening to the voice and they are not considering the will of the American people. The time for campaign finance reform is long overdue, and the Shays-Meehan substitute is one way to get reform to the President's desk, and I feel confident that he will sign it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who is one of the leaders of the Committee on Science in so many areas, but particularly interested in this important area.

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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up this debate, I know a lot of people are wondering what is the big deal about cybersecurity; and my own wife, Marianne, who is frequently at the computer when I am home, says that we have to do a better job of explaining the importance of this, and she is absolutely right. So much of what we do in this Nation is dependent upon the security of our computer systems. Everything is dependent upon computer technology today: our financial networks, our communication systems, our electric power grid, our water supply. The list goes on and on. If we have a clever 15-year-old hacker penetrate that system, that is mischief. But when we have a terrorist with a potential to penetrate that system and misuse it, that is serious business. What we are about is very serious business: to train skilled people and to place the emphasis that needs to be placed on protecting our cybersystem in every way, shape, or manner. That is why I am so pleased that the administration has worked so well with us; that this Committee on Science has done what it does traditionally on a bipartisan basis, with people like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) working with our side. We are all in this together. We want to produce a product that is best for this Congress and best for America; and we have done so, and I am proud to be identified with it. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3394.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chair of the House Republican High Technology Working Group, and the cochair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, and a real leader in all aspects of information technology.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science and has been a leader in this overall effort.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a scientist in his own right and a legislator of the first order. He is the chair of our key Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards; and I am pleased to yield the time to him. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to bring H.R. 3349, The Cyber Security Research and Development Act, before the House. Like other congressional responses to terrorism, this is a bipartisan bill. I want especially to thank our ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), who joined me in introducing this bill; the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), whose own legislation is incorporated in H.R. 3394; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Dr. Ehlers) who chair the subcommittee with jurisdiction over this bill, and their ranking members, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia). Also, I would be remiss if I did not thank Dr. Bill Wulf, the president of the National Academy of Engineering and one of the Nation's leading computer scientists, whose ideas were the inspiration for so much of this legislation. I am convinced that over time H.R. 3394 will come to be seen as a fundamental turning point in the Nation's approach to cybersecurity. This bill is the equivalent of legislation the Congress passed in the wake of the Sputnik launch in the late 1950s. We will recall that the unexpected Soviet launch of the Sputnik forced us to focus on the Nation's deficiencies in science and led us to pass breathtaking, and, it turned out, overwhelmingly effective legislation to improve the Nation's ability to conduct research and educate students. Similarly, the attacks of September 11 have turned our attention to the Nation's weaknesses, and, again, we find our capacity to conduct research and to educate will have to be enhanced if we are to counter our foes over the long run. No less than the Cold War, the war against terrorism will have to be waged in the laboratory as well as on the battlefield. And I would add that I am pleased that the Committee on Science, which was created in response to the Sputnik launch, will help lead the effort to ensure our Nation's laboratories are up to the challenge. One of the most critical problems our Nation's researchers need to focus on is how to protect our Nation's computers systems and networks from attack. For a while, most Americans have been focused exclusively on the hijackings and the bombings and bioterrorism. The experts tell us that the Nation is also profoundly at risk from cyber terrorism. That is a new word that has entered our vocabulary, unfortunately, but it is one we have to be constantly aware of, and we have to prepare. In an era when virtually all the tools of our daily lives are connected to and rely upon computer networks, a cyberattack could knock out electricity, drinking water and sewage systems, financial institutions, assembly lines and communications, and that is just naming a few. We must improve our ability to respond to these threats, and our response must go beyond immediate defensive measures. That is not good enough. We need to conduct the research and development necessary to make computers and networks much harder to break into and much less subject to damage when they are violated. That will require a focused, well- funded research and development effort in cybersecurity, something we are sorely lacking now. In fact, expert witnesses at our Committee on Science hearings have described the current state of cyber security research as woefully underfunded, understaffed, timid, unimaginative and leaderless. That is not good enough. H.R. 3394 will change all of that. Our bill capitalizes on the expertise of two well-run Federal agencies with historic links to both academia and industry necessary to jump-start our cybersecurity efforts. Under the bill the National Science Foundation will fund the creation of new cybersecurity research centers, undergraduate and master's degree programs and graduate fellowships. The National Institute of Standards and Technology will create new program grant for partnerships between academia and industry, new postdoctoral fellowships and a new program to encourage senior researchers in other fields to work on computer security. The result over the next several years will be to promote new research that produces innovative, creative approaches to computer security, to draw more researchers into the field, and to develop a cadre of students who will become the next generation of cybersecurity researchers. This approach is measured and targeted, and it will be successful. As with the programs that were created in response to Sputnik, the programs in H.R. 3394 will ensure that we make the long-term investment in research and students needed to develop the tools that will protect us from cyberattacks. I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this bill will provide funding for a wide range of research, a range far larger even than the illustrative list that is even in the legislation. For example, research would include work on firewall and antivirus technology, vulnerability assessment, operations and control systems management, and management of the interoperable digital certificates. I also want to note that in addition to providing funding and programming, this bill provides Federal leadership. The National Science Foundation will have the responsibility of making sure that the Nation's overall research and education enterprise is producing the knowledge in students we need to combat cyberterrorism. I have been asked by some, ``Cannot the private sector just take care of this?'' Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding no. Even after September 11, the private sector has little incentive to invest heavily in cybersecurity because the market is more concerned with speed and convenience. That is not my personal conclusion, that is what the industry leaders in cybersecurity have said in testimony before our committee. In addition, we need to invest in our universities which will work with private industry to do the basic research needed to come up with radically new approaches to protecting our computer systems and to attract the students who will keep the field healthy in the future. That is why H.R. 3394 is endorsed by leading industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Information Technology Association of America, as well as a wide range of groups representing educational institutions. The bill, I am pleased to report, is also supported by the administration, which provided much guidance as H.R. 3394 moved through our committee. So I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of the Committee on Science, which approved this bill without dissent. Years from now we will see H.R. 3394 as the measure that galvanized the Federal Government, industry and academia into eliminating the cybersecurity weaknesses that today threaten our economy and our basic public services. I urge support for this important bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the appropriators on reporting our a fine defense bill overall. However, I need to put in the record my objections to the inclusions of a provision related to the Homestake mine in South Dakota. I made the same comments when the language passed as a free-standing measure, S. 1389. I'm afraid I must oppose the Homestake language, despite the strenuous efforts made to improve it by both Mr. Thune and the House leadership. As a Member of Congress, I'm afraid that this language could still unnecessary saddle taxpayers with costly and unprecedented environmental responsibilities. And as Chairman of the House Science Committee, I'm concerned that it may distort the priorities of the National Science Foundation for years to come. This provision sets up dangerous and unprecedented situation in which the federal government will be financially responsible for activities it did not undertake at a piece of property it does not control. That flies in the face of common sense and fiduciary responsibility. Under this language, the federal government will be responsible for any environmental liability connected with the portions of the Homestake mine that are conveyed to South Dakota--even if they originated while the mine was privately operated. And while the mine will be owned by South Dakota, the state will have no financial responsibility for it; that will rest solely with the federal taxpayer. It's lucky that South Dakota doesn't have any bridges to sell us. In S. 1389 as originally introduced the federal government did not even have any real ability to have problems at the mine cleaned up before it was transferred. Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Thune, that situation has been improved. I would urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will hire a contractor to review the mine, not to accept any contractor with which it is not completely satisfied. The unfortunate fact that the contractor must be selected ``jointly'' by Homestake, South Dakota and EPA should not be allowed to pressure EPA into hiring a contractor that will not fully protect the federal taxpayer. And the requirement that EPA consult with Homestake and the State over the nature of the contract with the independent entity'' must not be interpreted to give Homestake or the State any veto over the content of that contract. But EPA should consult with the National Science Foundation (NSF) throughout the environmental review process, as NSF is the federal agency that will have continuing responsibility if a laboratory is established at the mine. Importantly, the bill now allows the EPA Administrator to reject the final report of he contractor if it identifies conditions that would make the federal assumption of liability ``contrary to the public interest.'' I believe this allow the federal government to reject the transfer of the mine if it would cost too much to remedy existing environmental problems. This is vital since Homestake's contribution to pre-transfer remediation could well turn out to be nothing, given the language in this bill. The bill says nothing about which federal agency would be responsible for overseeing or financing any pre-transfer remediation. This is a major, conspicuous, and I assume, purposeful gap in the legislation. I certainly would hope that these costs--which should not have been federalized in the first place--are not borne by the National Science Foundation, a small agency with important tasks that do not include environmental remediation. But this bill raises many other concerns related to the National Science Foundation. All the activities under this bill are contingent on NSF approval of an underground laboratory at the Homestake mine. While such a laboratory certainly has scientific merit, it may not be a high priority compared to other NSF programs and projects, especially given that construction of other neutrino detectors is either under consideration or underway. This bill must not be used to pressure NSF to change or circumvent its traditional, careful selection procedures. Normally, a project of this magnitude would require several years of review. NSF would have to determine its relative priority among other Major Research Equipment proposals. And NSF would have to ensure that proper management is in place. Those procedures must be followed in this case. Indeed, this is even more important in the case of Homestake because any mismanagement could result in both environmental harm and substantial liability for the federal government. I would also urge the National Science Foundation (NSF) not to make a decision on whether to award a grant to the underground laboratory until the report to EPA has been prepared. This is essential even though NSF will have to have an Environmental Impact Statement prepared about the conversion of the mine into a laboratory. NSF should not be committing federal resources to a project until it knows how much the project will cost the federal taxpayer and which agencies will be responsible for shouldering that burden. The federal assumption of liability will already pose unfortunate costs for NSF. The laboratory is to pay into an Environment and Project Trust Fund, and some if not all of that money will come from NSF. NSF must be an active participant in determining how much needs to be contributed to the trust fund, especially since it may end up being the only contributor to that fund. And NSF must have a role in determining the final disposition of the fund. The bill is silent on what is to become of the fund if a laboratory is started and then closed. All that is clear is that the federal government gets saddled with the costs of closing the mine. But which agency is responsible for that undertaking? And what will happen to any leftover funds? NSF should have an active role in deciding that. The Homestake language bill poses enormous, unnecessary and unprecedented risks for the federal taxpayer. It is, in a phrase, a sweetheart deal for the Canadian company that owns Homestake and for the State of South Dakota. It could threaten the stability of the National Science Foundation, a premier science agency whose processes have been viewed as a model of objectivity and careful review. I should point out that the federal government is already paying Homestake $10 million in this fiscal year to keep the mine open because it might become a laboratory. If that continues through the period of NSF decision-making the federal government could easily sink as much as $50 million into a mine that it may never use. I will work to ensure that NSF itself is not saddled with those unnecessary costs, which could be spent on worthy grants to researchers. The Science Committee will be following this matter extremely closely to ensure that the environmental review is rigorous and protects the public interest. We will watch closely to ensure that the laboratory is being reviewed in the same manner as every other NSF project and does not distort the agency's processes or priorities or weigh it down with unsustainable costs. The risks of proceeding with this bill are clear; we will work to see that they are never realized. Mr. Speaker, I am attaching an exchange of letters with the National Science Foundation that will further highlight the risks inherent in proceeding in this unorthodox manner. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Washington, DC. Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Dear Dr. Colwell: As you know, the Senate recently passed S. 1389, the ``Homestake Conveyance Act of 2001.'' This bill has serious implications for the National Science Foundation (NSF). With that in mind, we want to be sure that NSF is considering the likely consequences should S. 1389 be enacted. Therefore, I am writing to request that you submit to the House Science Committee the following items by no later than December 15: (1) A plan for how NSF would absorb the expected costs of an underground laboratory at Homestake beginning in Fiscal Year 2003, with special attention to the impact on other projects in the Major Research Equipment account. (2) A plan for how NSF would ensure that the laboratory was properly managed, even if a project were awarded in calendar 2002. (3) A plan for how NSF would interact with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of South Dakota to ensure that the mine is in proper condition for the establishment of a laboratory and to determine amounts NSF grantees would have to pay into the Environment and Project Trust Fund established under the bill. The enactment of S. 1389 could complicate NSF's situation for years to come both directly and through the precedents the bill may set. We want to work together with you, starting immediately, to limit any problems this measure may cause. Sincerely, Sherwood Boehlert, Chairman.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2869, a comprehensive brownfields and targeted Superfund small business liability relief bill. This is a bipartisan, bicameral compromise that will help protect the environment, restore brownfields, revitalize local economies, and return a little bit of basic fairness to Superfund's liability regime. Unfortunately, the bill does not include a reauthorization of Superfund's corporate environmental income tax and more comprehensive reform of the Superfund statute; and so my enthusiasm today is tempered by feelings of ``missed opportunities'' and growing concerns about the future of the Superfund Program. Nonetheless, today's bill is a feat in itself and I want to thank and congratulate all of those who helped over the years and recent months. The nation's mayors and their constituencies see the tremendous opportunities for economic development and environmental protection embodied in brownfields revitalization and they are rallying behind this legislation, just as they did when they began their initiative to ``recycle America's land.'' The leadership of the House and Senate, the Chairs and ranking members of the authorizing committees and subcommittees, and the administration should all be commended for making today's action possible. Special thanks should go to the committee staff, such as Susan Bodine and Jim Barnette, who have endured the torturous legislative process for years. It has taken far too long to get to this point. I myself have quite a few ``scars'' from the many battles that began in the early 90's and culminated in the 105th and 106th Congresses, when I chaired the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. We moved my comprehensive bill (H.R. 1300) through the committee on an unprecedented, bipartisan vote of 69 to 2. It brought people together because it provided broad-based reform, brownfields revitalization, and called for a responsible reauthorization of Superfund taxes to help maintain the ``polluter pays'' principle. I continue to believe such an approach is the right one and that is why I reintroduced the bill as H.R. 324. However, given the complications of moving a more comprehensive bill, I support moving forward today with this more targeted compromise, as long as we also continue to work on other important components of reforming and financing Superfund. H.R. 2869 should be viewed as the first of several steps in securing the fairness, effectiveness, and funding for improving the Nation's approach to hazardous and abandoned waste sites. Title I of H.R. 2869 responds to the need for Superfund liability reform relating to small businesses. It includes the text of the House- passed bill, H.R. 1831. It provides a ``de-micromis'' exemption for those who were contributors of truly tiny amounts of waste. It also exempts those who contributed nonhazardous garbage (``municipal solid waste''). Finally, it encourages faster and fairer settlements through ``ability to pay'' procedures. Mr. Speaker, the inequities and inefficiencies of the current liability regime continue. One recent example, involving a local newspaper in my district, illustrates the need for limited exemptions and fair share allocations of responsibility. The Rome Sentinel, which disposed of waste at a landfill many decades ago, was notified that it was a potentially responsibility party. Under the current strict, joint, and several liability system, there are not many incentives for a fair and efficient allocation process. Instead, the Government may focus on ``deep pockets'' who then sue everyone else, large and small, culpable and not-so-culpable, to recover their costs. Even though the newspaper may have contributed only minor amounts of waste (and did so lawfully at the time of the disposal), it faced the prospects of being dragged into a tremendously costly and protracted legal battle in third party lawsuits. H.R. 2869 will make some modest improvements to the current liability system. More comprehensive reform is needed, however. Title II includes brownfields legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year by a vote of 99 to 0. It is not perfect legislation, but it is legislation we can and should support. Like the brownfields provisions from my bill last Congress (H.R. 1300), it not only removes barriers to cleanup and redevelopment but it retains a ``safety net'' for environmental protection and governmental enforcement. It also allows for the application of Davis-Bacon labor protections. Where should we go from here? Congress and the administration should honor the polluter pays principle. It should heed the findings and conclusions of the July 2001 report by Resources for the Future, ``Superfund's Future, What Will it Cost,'' that a ``ramp-down'' of the Superfund program is not imminent and that the total estimated cost to EPA of implementing the Superfund program from FY 2000 through FY 2009 ranges from $14 billion to $16.4 billion. Therefore, to meet the goals of the cleanup program, to remain true to the polluter pays principle, and to finance the needed liability reforms, Congress should reauthorize the corporate environmental income tax, which expired on December 31, 1995. This broad-based tax of .12% of all corporate income above $2 million could generate needed funds in a fair and responsible manner. Contrary to what some might believe, the oil industry would not pay a disproportionate amount. For example, in 1995 oil companies paid $37.7 million in corporate environmental income taxes, only 5.3 percent of the total amount collected in that year. In response to my request, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated on September 24, 2001 that a re-imposed corporate environmental income tax would generate over $3 billion over a 5-year period. This is exactly the type of revenue needed for a program that continues to deliver public health, environmental, and economic development benefits. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to support passage of H.R. 2869 today but to work towards enactment of broader Superfund reform, including reauthorization of the expired corporate environmental income tax.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is interested in ensuring that areas of particular vulnerability, such as water systems in the National Capital region, receive appropriate attention when EPA is selecting research-related projects. I appreciate the gentleman's interest, and also the interest expressed by all of the cosponsors of this legislation, but most particularly, once again, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). He has been there from the beginning, and I appreciate that cooperation.