Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the time for an increase in the minimum wage has not just arrived; it is long overdue. The national minimum wage has not been increased in 9 years. By year's end, 21 States across America will have a minimum wage exceeding the Federal minimum wage. Isn't it about time that we in Washington recognize the need to act, to level the playing field? Of course it is. The way things are going, we are not too far from the day when it will take an hour's labor just to pay for the gasoline to get to the job. Then, if you are like most people and you want to go back home after you work, it is going to take you another hour's wages, 2 hours just for transportation for the minimum-wage worker. What is left for the other essentials of life, to put a roof over your head and food on your table? Not very much. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, we need to act now to increase the national minimum wage.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, today we have the privilege of honoring our fallen hero, U.S. Army Captain George A. Wood. The bill before us would rename the Pitcher Street Post Office in Utica, New York, the George A. Wood Post Office Building, which is a fitting tribute to a man who paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom and our security. Captain Wood bravely served our Nation in Iraq where he met an untimely death on November 20, 2003. However, his memory will live on. Every day, Captain Wood will be in the hearts of his family and his friends and his classmates and his comrades and our neighbors by virtue of the naming of this public facility, this Federal facility in his honor. He is survived by his wife Lisa and his 6-year-old daughter Maria, and to them we send the Nation's condolences on your great loss of yesteryear and our optimism on a more promising future because of what the Captain Woods do so often for so many. Captain Wood was born and raised in upstate New York's beautiful Mohawk Valley. He was an accomplished athlete at Notre Dame Junior Senior High School, and if you are from our neck of the woods, you know those teams are just dynamite. He excelled at both football and track and field. He was also, and this is very important, a superstar in the classroom. He graduated not just from Cornell University but later earned master's degrees from both the State University at New York in Albany and State University at New York in Cortland. In the Armed Services, Captain Wood served for 8 years in the 4th Infantry Division in Fort Hood, Texas, and there he became fascinated with the history of our great military. As a matter of fact, Captain Wood dreamed of teaching history and coaching football at the West Point Military Academy. Had he not paid the ultimate price for our way of life, I am confident that he would have seen this dream become a reality. Captain Wood's discipline, his love of learning and his fine character have made him a model citizen for all of his countrymen and generations to come, a true role model, a genuine American hero. Both Captain Wood's father and his granddad worked at the Pitcher Street Post Office, so there is a special affinity for the post office in the Wood family, and it would be our utmost pleasure and distinct honor to designate the facility at Utica, New York, as the Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building in honor of a true American hero. I want to thank my colleagues in the majority and the minority and on the committee for dealing with this very important issue. Oftentimes, as we deal with the major issues that affect so many people around the world, we sometimes neglect the littler things, but they are equally important. They are very personal. They have real meaning for so many, and I thank my colleagues for their support and their cooperation. I urge all of my colleagues to proudly vote ``aye'' for this measure.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am watching with a great deal of interest this debate, and I notice the previous gentleman in the well was talking about the need to increase the minimum wage. Guess what? He is exactly right. And I refuse to cede the issue to one side or the other. There are a lot of us who have looked at that and realized that we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 9 years. Consider the purchasing power of the minimum wage. It is inadequate. We ought to increase the minimum wage. And I am proud to say that I have sponsored a bill that has been in the hopper for 2 years now to increase the minimum wage. It would go up to $7.15 an hour in January of 2007. We should do it. That is not a one-party or another party's issue. It is an issue that makes sense for all thinking Americans. But I don't think this is the correct vehicle, the right bill to address that subject. I can just tell you, in my capacity as a chairman of a committee I meet on a weekly basis with the other committee chairmen and our majority leader, and I make it clear in no uncertain terms my very strong feeling. And it is not just me, or it is not just one Republican. There are a lot of us who are strongly in favor of increasing the minimum wage. And that is very much on the table, as it should be. It is the right thing to do for the right reasons. But this is the wrong vehicle to carry forward that battle. And Mr. Miller, for whom I have a high regard and I have worked with on a number of occasions over the years, sometimes to his detriment and mine, but this is the sort of comity that should be more prevalent in this institution. We are in general agreement on what we should do with the minimum wage. So let's get on with the debate on this very important legislation brought by a committee after thorough deliberation, dealing with a very important subject. Let's deal with this subject here and now, and let's reserve our effort on the minimum wage. And I am redoubling mine, and I am sure Mr. Miller and his associates are redoubling theirs. We need it. We need it this year to be effective come January 1 of 2007.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the way the House is handling offshore oil drilling today pretty much defines ``travesty.'' For the first time in more than a generation, we are going to vote on opening the entire coastline of the United States to oil and natural gas drilling. You think that would be considered a rather major matter that requires some thoughtful discussion. But that is not how we are handling it. Instead, we are going to debate legislation that is being rushed through the House. The base bill we are discussing, and the report on it, which includes the cost estimate, were not filed until Monday. Once folks got a look at the text and the cost estimate, opposition pressure mounted, so the bill needed to be rewritten. That rewriting continued well into the night last evening. So the rule makes in order a manager's amendment that includes massive changes in the bill that no one was able to see until after midnight. Is this a process we can be proud of? It seems all one has to do around here is use the word ``oil'' for the sanctity of the democratic process to simply slip away. The process we are using today gives new meaning to the phrase ``oil slick.'' Now, some may say, oh, come on, people know whether they are for or against offshore drilling. We don't need a lot of time. Well, this bill doesn't just allow offshore drilling. It changes all the rules on approving oil drilling in areas where it is allowed. It changes all the maps for State marine boundaries. Did you know that? Probably not, because the new maps aren't publicly available. It changes all the ways that royalty funds are distributed. It gives additional royalty breaks to oil companies. It is a complex bill with many unprecedented provisions that most Members know nothing about. When we point out these troubling provisions, the sponsors of the bill don't defend them. They try to deny that they are there. The remedy is to read the bill, but we are not giving anyone time to do that. Did you know, for example, that under the bill if the Secretary of the Interior opposes some future law because it limits drilling in any way, the Secretary can cut off all aid to States to try to get them to see the law his way? That is an unusual idea, to say the least. Did you know that the bill subordinates every other use of coastal waters to oil drilling, blocking any effort to use waters in a way that could ever limit drilling in any way? That is what the bill says. It blocks any actions ever that could interfere with drilling. If the bill ever becomes law, your constituents will be up in arms about just about every provision, because the law gives oil interests the ability to trample everyone else's right. This is a bad bill that we are considering today.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this bill. First, we should not be opening our coasts, all of our coasts, to oil drilling when we have not taken the first step, not the first step, to conserve oil. Drilling today just depletes oil we may need later. Conserving now means saving more oil year after year after year. But the Rules Committee did not make in order my amendment on fuel economy standards, which at least would have allowed us to have a debate on demand and supply at the same time. But my opposition goes beyond any general concern about oil drilling because this bill does far more than simply lift the long-standing moratoriums on drilling. This bill basically hands over our coastal waters to the oil interests and makes it hard for States or citizens to do anything about it. And this is no exaggeration. The bill makes it difficult for States to bar drilling. Then, if a State allows drilling, the bill eliminates fundamental parts of the current process that allow States and citizens to review drilling plans to make sure they are environmentally sound and consistent with other possible uses of the waters. Then the bill blocks any use of the waters that could interfere with drilling. And, finally, to add a constitutional insult to all that coastal injury, it enables the Secretary of the Interior to threaten to withhold funding from States if the Secretary thinks Congress is interfering with oil drilling. This bill is breathtaking in its overreaching. Whether you are for or against offshore drilling, you ought to be against this bill. Once your constituents find out what really is in it, you will have a lot of explaining to do. Let me add that the manager's amendment does not do anything to alleviate my concerns. We studied it to the best of our ability. It was only available last night at midnight, and we have studied it. The amendment leaves in place all the unprecedented provisions I just mentioned. It leaves in place at least one new mandatory spending program. It even adds a new penalty to coerce States into opening waters to drilling. The manager's amendment is also rife with financial gimmickry. It actually increases the revenues denied the Federal Treasury over the long haul. It just delays the phase-in of the revenue sharing to States, but it raises the maximum amount States will get with no requirement, absolutely none, to report how the money has been used. So this is not a very good bill. As a matter of fact, it is my conclusion that it is a bad bill, even with the manager's amendment. It would make John D. Rockefeller blush.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill; and I want to thank my friend, Chairman Frank Wolf, for working so closely with me on the science portions of the bill. The passage of this bill may be looked back on as a landmark moment in American history. Now, that probably sounds like a lot of hyperbole, but I mean it. This bill puts us on course to enact the American Competitiveness Initiative, which will double the combined budgets of three key science agencies: the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy Office of Science, which already received appropriations in the Energy and Water bill. These agencies, which are not exactly on the tip of the tongue of most Americans, are keystones of our Nation's economic future. Our Nation will remain strong and prosperous only if we remain innovative, and we will only remain innovative if we have the most robust research and education enterprise in the world. And it is these agencies that help enable the U.S. to lead the world in science, math, and engineering education and in research. And I want to especially thank Chairman Wolf for supporting education funding as well as research funding in this bill, particularly for supporting the Noyce Scholarship Program at NSF, which attracts top science and math majors into teaching. I also want to thank the chairman for the way he handled appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I have said repeatedly, and the authorization act we passed last year says clearly, that NASA must be a multi-mission agency. With this bill, the House will be putting money where its mouth is. Without interfering with the lunar mission, this bill puts desperately needed funding back in science and aeronautics. I would like to see even more money going into science, particularly Earth science, but this is a good start, and I am especially pleased that the bill text includes explicit funding levels for science and aeronautics. Finally, giving the competing priorities, I think the bill does the best it can for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, although, of course, I hope that, as in the past years, the final numbers are a little bit higher. I appreciate the language Chairman Wolf included in the report, drawing attention to the concerns we all share about the future of the polar satellite program, NPOESS. So I urge my colleagues to support this forward-looking landmark bill. Guess what? It all boils down to one thing. This bill is about my favorite four-letter word. And do not get nervous. You can say it on the House floor. You can say it in polite company. That favorite four- letter word is ``jobs.'' We must remain competitive. We must retain as much opportunity for our people here at home. This bill opens the door for that opportunity.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle/ Shays amendment. As chair of the Science Committee, I oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, and the critical weather forecasting services it provides. NOAA is a partner with the Air Force on the next generation of weather satellites, known as NPOESS. In May I held a hearing about an Inspector General report on NPOESS. One of the key findings of that IG report was that the contractor received excessive award fees for a problem-plagued program. Over the first 3 years of NPOESS--September 2002-September 2005--the contractor received 84 percent of the award fee available to it, for a total of $123 million. This occurred despite the fact the NPOESS is more than 5 years late and its total costs have risen from $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion. In my mind, that does not represent performance worthy of $123 million in award fees. Another investigative body, the GAO, found that excessive award fees are not unique to NPOESS, but are a problem throughout the Department of Defense. Mr. Castle's, amendment directly addresses specific recommendations in that GAO report by prohibiting payment of award fees if contractors do not meet expectations. It is absolutely vital that the major programs like NPOESS succeed. NPOESS will provide our ``eyes in the sky'' for both civilian and military weather forecasting, and we cannot afford to be stumbling around blind. We cannot allow the excessive use of award fees to continue in these major procurement programs and must hold contractors accountable for how they spend taxpayers' money. I strongly support the Castle/Shays amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dick Lawler, a long- time friend, who after dedicating 35 years of his heart and soul to the field of journalism has reached one of life's greatest milestones, and will finally take his well-deserved retirement. Dick is known by his peers as someone with an invigorating ability to reach people in a way that leaves a lasting positive impression. Evidence of such can be found in one of Dick's classic euphemisms, ``If it were easy, everyone would do it.'' Those words speak volume to the character of this great man. That said Mr. Speaker, if it were easy, everyone would have a loving wife, devoted children, and adoring grandchildren. Everyone would raise a family worthy of respect from their friends and peers. If it were easy, everyone would devote themselves to their community. We would all find the time to help children, serve our neighbors, and make the community that raised us a better place to grow up in. If it were easy we would all be passionate about our jobs and our professions. Our work would exhibit the enthusiasm we feel every day, and our patrons would recognize the joy we feel from serving them. We would become legends in our own time, and admired for our skills. If it were easy, everyone would do it. For over 35 years, Dick has been a consummate journalistic professional who has sought to further hone and craft his skills every day. He is a man who was dedicated to the pursuit of both truth and a good story. A man who sat with Henry Kissinger, Robert F. Kennedy, school children, and shopkeepers equally. In his private life he has dedicated countless hours to raising funds for children's hospitals and improving our community. It is these good works that have truly endeared him to us. For many years, my wife and I have often been privileged to share the company of his family. From backyard barbeques to cheering on our hometown Utica Blue Sox with our fellow ``bleacher bums,'' Dick and his wife Jackie have always been a treasured part of our lives. Very little in life is easy, but Dick has always managed to approach life with a grace and simplicity that makes it seem effortless. As a journalist, a father, and a friend, Dick has spent the last 35 years tantalizing us with how easy life can seem when you work hard to reach your goals. I wish him tremendous success in his retirement from journalism, I know all too well that it is never easy to leave your passion. And if it truly were that easy, everyone would do it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise today to recognize and congratulate America's craft brewers, one of the most vibrant and fast growing class of small businesses in America. Craft brewers are entrepreneurs and hobbyists who create distinctive beverages in small independent breweries across the country. They represent the best in American ideals by combining a spirit of industrious entrepreneurship with a commitment to quality and civic responsibility. The result is a unique product that continues an enduring American tradition of home brewing that can be traced back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Craft brewers have come a long way since then. Today, there are over 1,300 independent breweries throughout the country, and their numbers are continuing to grow. For the second straight year, craft beer is the fastest growing segment of the U.S. alcoholic beverage industry. In 2005, craft beer experienced a 9 percent increase in volume, nearly triple that of the growth experienced in the wine and spirits industry. This industry occupies an important niche in our economy and its continued growth is beneficial to our communities. Not only do craft brewers provide over 33,000 of our constituents with quality jobs, they also support our agricultural economy by purchasing barley and malt and hops grown, processed, and shipped domestically. Furthermore, with over 100 diverse and flavorful beverages, craft brewers' beverages have attracted an international following that has strengthened and increased U.S. beer exports. In my district, the F.X. Matt Brewing Company has become an integral part of our community. For 118 years, this regional brewery has continually reinvented itself and today is most famous for its line of Saranac beer. The brewery's capacity to respond to market changes and customer demands have ensured its continued ability to provide over 100 high-quality manufacturing jobs in an area that has experienced a decline in this sector. Continuing the tradition of attention to the local community, the F.X. Matt Brewing Company fosters local pride and involvement through their association with the Boilermaker 15K Road Race, one of the finest in America, which culminates in an area-wide celebration at the brewery, and by hosting what we call ``Saranac Thursdays'' throughout the summer, from which all the proceeds benefit the United Way. Craft brewers live and work in the community where their products are made, which underlies their continued commitment to local charitable and philanthropic institutions. They have supported children's hospitals, humane societies, chambers of commerce, disease research, and parent-teachers association. In short, they are just good citizens. Craft brewers are committed to promoting the safe and moderate consumption of their beverage, and work closely with their communities to prevent underage drinking and alcohol abuse. American craft brewers are a testament to this country's entrepreneurial and community-based small businesses tradition, and I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the unique contributions they have made to our culture and economy by supporting this resolution. Just let me make one last observation. Some people might say, watching the proceedings of this House, why are they spending time on resolutions like this when there are so many really pressing issues facing the Nation? And the answer is very simple. This is a small portion of our legislative week set aside for resolutions just like the ones we are discussing, important to America, not of grand importance, not everybody is concerned about them, but important to certain segments of America. Tomorrow, we go on with the appropriations bills to discuss things like the war on terrorism. We dealt with homeland security today. We deal day in and day out with critically important issues, but I think it is just proper that we pause on occasion and dedicate a few minutes to saluting, as I am saluting the small brewers of America, and you can salute any small business you want to. They add to the very fabric of our Nation, and I am proud to identify with it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am not from the other side, although I am from the other side on this argument. I am not from the other party. I am proud of my party affiliation, but I rise in strong opposition to this bill which would allow oil drilling in a pristine wilderness that was set aside by that radical environmentalist, Dwight David Eisenhower. Is there any greater evidence that we are, as President Bush has said, addicted to oil? Astonishingly, this Congress has not voted on a single conservation measure since gasoline hit $3 a gallon, not a single one, and yet poll after poll shows that conservation measures are the preferred option of the American people for dealing with high gasoline prices, the preferred option by a long shot. The American public is thirsting to get their hands on fuel-saving technologies that companies are refusing to provide, and we have responded with nothing. Perhaps we have forgotten that our constituents are people, not companies. The proponents of this bill would like to point out that if this legislation had been passed 11 years ago, ANWR would now be producing oil. Well, I would point out that if Congress had not blocked higher fuel economy standards 11 years ago, we would save far more oil than ANWR would produce. All those savings would increase as ANWR was being depleted. We really are classic addicts. We would rather keep seeking our oil fix, our heroin, with all its attendant dangers, than shift to conservation, our methadone. We are a Congress of prodigals who refuse to return home. Instead, we roam the world, laying waste to new territories to continue our spendthrift ways. We ought not just oppose this bill, we ought to be ashamed of it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill; and I want to commend Chairman Hobson for the outstanding manner in which he has brought this House to this point, cooperating fully, minority, the majority, cooperating fully with the authorizing committees, and how refreshing that is to see us working hand in glove in common cause. This bill is very important in the priorities it sets. The President's American Competitive Initiative is fully funded; the President's advanced energy initiative, which is fully funded, except for wise reductions on nuclear reprocessing. I want to thank Secretary Bodman and Under Secretary Orbach for the long-needed attention they have brought to science programs at the Department. They are two of the finest senior public officials in this or any administration, and we are very fortunate to have them at their post. As the National Academy of Sciences points out in the report, rising above the gathering storm, the U.S. must substantially increase its investment in basic research and the physical sciences to remain competitive. This bill responds to that message. This bill is a good bill. I urge its full support.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment has a very clear purpose, to ensure that the Clean Water Act, one of the most vital and effective laws, to ensure that the Clean Water Act protects as many waters as possible. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued guidance that, sadly, has the effect of limiting the application of the Clean Water Act. There is no good reason to do that. The guidance goes beyond any limitation that was necessary because of the Supreme Court ruling in what is known as the SWANCC case, and the guidance is not even helpful. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the guidance is actually causing confusion and inconsistent interpretation of the law. Some guidance. The guidance is so misguided, that 2 years ago, 218 Members of this House, a bipartisan group, wrote to the EPA asking that the guidance not be implemented. Our call went unheeded, so we need to send a stronger message here and now. We need to block the implementation of this guidance to protect our Nation's waters. This amendment will not prevent EPA from issuing new, more thoughtful guidance; but this amendment will prevent a rollback of the Clean Water Act. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. I know the sponsors of this bill mean well, and I know they think they have written a narrowly tailored, environmentally protective bill. But, unfortunately, they have not. I am not questioning the sponsors' intent, but I do have serious problems with the product of their actions. Let me start by emphasizing that I am open to efforts to expedite environmental procedures for true emergencies or in other clear cases where current laws are needlessly burdensome. I helped negotiate the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and I supported its passage. That act and the preexisting laws which were improved to be both responsive and responsible has enabled us to respond in a meaningful and timely way to Katrina. But the bill before us today is far broader than that act and all other current law and contains few, if any, of their environmental protections. Here are some things that could happen that you should know about H.R. 4200: First of all, it can be applied to a wide variety of situations far beyond the normal definition of an emergency that requires immediate action. Under the bill a catastrophic event includes slowly developing problems like drought and insect infestation, problems that can be addressed through processes that allow for true analysis and review. Not only that, the bill applies to situations in which damage may not occur for many years, again a situation that needs to be addressed, but not so quickly as to allow no time for true analysis. There are very few forests that are not experiencing a catastrophic event on almost a daily basis under the definition in this bill. If you want to write an emergency bill, then I think it ought to apply to emergencies. I would also point out that this bill applies to wilderness study areas, which are exempt under Healthy Forests. And what can happen when this bill is applied? Well, all normal environmental reviews are waived. Reviews are even waived for preapproved plans that are written long before an emergency. No environmental review. Then under the bill projects can proceed without the consultation required by the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. When would consultation occur? The bill does not set a time frame. It would just be sometime after the project started, probably after any unnecessary damage has been done. In short, this bill does not expedite procedures. It eviscerates the application of environmental law for the projects under the bill. No environmental analysis of alternatives. No timely analysis of the effect on clean water. We cannot just put a nice-sounding label on a bill and expect us to support a cosmetic labeling plan on its surface without looking at the rest of the story. I wish this bill were as advertised. A targeted bill to handle legitimate emergencies would pass muster with me. But this is a bill that would allow unanalyzed salvage timber sales; new road building, including in roadless areas; and projects that threaten water supplies without any true legally reviewable analysis of alternatives and without ample opportunity for public review and comment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5143. And I want to congratulate Chairman Inglis for bringing forward this initiative and for pursuing it with both energy and open-mindedness. This bill has moved swiftly through the Science Committee because Chairman Inglis has been, at the same time, relentlessly focused on his objective and open to compromise. That is how you get things accomplished in this town. We need more Members more able to pair those traits. The H-Prize this bill creates would similarly allow the government and the Nation to be both focused and open-minded in pursuit of the hydrogen economy. Establishing an H-Prize would encourage the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers and the public at large to focus on overcoming the many technical challenges that stand between us and a hydrogen economy. At the same time, the H-Prize does not presume that any particular technological path will lead us to the hydrogen economy. The bill encourages any interested party to take on the technical risk needed to pursue their particular notion of how to improve their production, storage and distribution or use of hydrogen. The National Academy of Sciences has encouraged the government to experiment with prizes for precisely this reason. Prizes can draw out new ideas from scientists and engineers who may not be willing or able to participate in traditional government research and development programs, while encouraging them, rather than the taxpayer, to assume the risk. Congress has been following the academy's lead. For example, the NASA Authorization Act that was enacted last year created a prize program, and the space agency has been implementing it. All of these programs draw on several centuries of successfully using prizes to help spur technological development, from the prize to invent a way to measure longitude, a key to improving shipping, to the prize Charles Lindbergh won for his transatlantic flight. Our hope is that the H-Prize will result in a similar landmark achievement in the history of transportation. I want to emphasize, though, that the prizes are just one tool we need to use to kick our Nation's addiction to oil. Prizes need to be part of a balanced portfolio of measures to advance technology, a portfolio that needs to include regulations and tax incentives to create demand for new technologies, and traditional R&D programs to ensure a steady stream of work on a range of short and long-term technological questions. Moreover, prizes are not the best tools to apply to all problems, but they are especially well suited to hydrogen, because we need to solve major long-term puzzles if the hydrogen economy is to become a reality. We need to elicit every possible idea from every quarter to do that, and we know it is going to take time to figure out what might work. The bill structures the prize program to attack hydrogen questions in several ways: With biannual prizes for advancements to encouraging ongoing efforts and incremental progress, with biannual prizes for prototypes to encourage continuing work on integrating technologies as they develop, and with a grand prize to encourage work on the toughest show stopper, if you will, problems that could prevent us from using hydrogen as a fuel. No one knows how all of this will turn out. That is the nature of research and the nature of a prize program. But we know that the potential benefits of hydrogen are worth the rather small investment required for a prize program. Hydrogen holds out the promise of becoming a clean, domestically produced fuel that could displace or even replace gasoline as the way we power our cars and trucks. To achieve this, we still need to figure out how to affordably produce hydrogen using renewable energy, nuclear energy or coal with carbon dioxide sequestration, how to affordably store hydrogen on board a vehicle, how to make fuel cells and batteries more cheaply and have them operate more efficiently and how to distribute hydrogen economically. That is a tall order, but it is exactly the kind of long-range effort we need. It is an effort that needs to be combined with proven short- range ways to reduce the use of gasoline like tighter fuel economy standards, which this House is likely to debate next week. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill, which was approved by the committee by voice vote. It is the right way to help see if we can radically change our energy future. Our dependence on foreign oil is a national security threat. We have ways to use every weapon in our arsenal, and we need to use them to counter it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, and I want to particularly thank the Energy and Commerce Committee, especially Mrs. Wilson, for the leadership she has provided on this important issue, and for the helpful suggestions and work by Mr. Castle and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut and Mr. Kirk and their staffs. They helped put all this package together under the leadership of Mrs. Wilson. This bill is far stronger than the price-gouging language the House considered last fall and could offer Americans true protection if price gouging is occurring. The bill will allow new suits under Federal law against retail and wholesale price gouging, and those suits can be brought by either the Federal Government or a State attorney general. The penalties in the bill are significant, as they should be, and the bill allows criminal as well as civil penalties. Finally, the bill would distribute the money from suits back to those who were harmed through State victim compensation funds. So I think we have taken into consideration every criticism that was leveled last fall, and it has been addressed forthrightly. American consumers are demanding protection from price gouging. The President has echoed that call, and now Congress is heeding it. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Barton and the committee and particularly Mr. Bass for his leadership and for facilitating staff discussions and providing very helpful suggestions as we fashion this bill. I think this bill will not do any harm, and it could do some good. While regulations have not prevented oil refinery expansion and while regulations are not the reason that new refineries have not been built, it can't hurt to help streamline the process, as long as streamlining is not a euphemism for weakening environmental protections. And in this bill, I think we have hit the right balance. This bill is a far cry from the bill the House debated last fall. Some of the commentary I have heard from opponents of the bill on the floor address the old bill. In this bill, the Department of Energy, which isn't even involved in refinery permitting, would have been able to impose a schedule on other agencies and States, and that schedule was designed to speed the process at all costs. In today's bill, the new bill, the Federal Government will bring together all the permitting authorities to agree on a permitting schedule acceptable to all of them, and that schedule must allow for the full, substantive and procedural review required by law. In last fall's bill, any legal proceedings were to be biased in favor of the refineries, even going so far as paying their legal costs. In today's bill, while we still create a new cause of action, a court, the Federal district court must consider the behavior of all parties, including whether the refiner has been cooperating fully with regulators, and then the court can do nothing more than impose a new schedule. And this bill explicitly preserves every provision of current environmental law, including the right to bring citizen suits. So I think we have struck the right balance, and I urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise, belatedly, to recognize the work of our long-time legislative clerk, Vivian Tessieri, who retired from Government service in February. While Vivian officially left her position a couple of months ago, in one sense this is not belated recognition because Vivian continues to be a resource to her successor as clerk and to everyone on our staff. Indeed, given how central Vivian was to all of our activities for so long, it could not be otherwise. Vivian joined the Science Committee 29 years ago, in 1977, and served under 7 chairmen in a variety of capacities, becoming legislative clerk in 1991. Now to those who do not understand the inner workings of the Congress, the term ``legislative clerk'' cannot begin to capture the significance of that position. The legislative clerk is responsible for a whole range of activities that must be accomplished with timeliness and precision to enable legislation to move forward. The clerk is also the committee recordkeeper, the historical memory of the institution. And finally, the clerk is a public face of the committee, undertaking such tasks as calling the roll at markups and ensuring that votes are recorded properly. In all her roles--ranging from the invisible to the highly visible-- Vivian was a model public servant. She undertook her responsibilities with care and enthusiasm; one could always assume that anything Vivian had to do would be done with the utmost attention to detail. In fact, Vivian was so proficient that it was only when she was getting ready to depart that we fully appreciated everything she had been doing. So many things just appeared to happen ``automatically'' as we moved legislation. But what ``automatically'' turned out to mean was that Vivian had taken care of matters before anyone else had even thought about them. The list of tasks she prepared for her successor, which she compiled with her usual attention to detail, was a lengthy and mindboggling assortment of activities. But Vivian was valued for more than her extraordinary competence and professionalism. Everyone on the committee enjoyed working with Vivian because she is a delightful person. She is unfailingly pleasant and thoughtful and warm and considerate--a colleague that anyone would be lucky to have, especially during moments of stress. The committee members and staff had several opportunities to express these sentiments collectively and individually to Vivian before her departure. But I believe it is important that we enshrine these thoughts in the Record and that we make sure that the public is aware that it is served by dedicated professionals like Vivian Tessieri. The committee misses Vivian, but we know she is enjoying her new life. And we continue to benefit from her services, not only because we still call on her for help, but because we rely daily on all the documents she prepared and on all the records she oversaw throughout her many years on the committee. And we all continue to strive to match her dedication and disposition as we carry on without her.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 681, a resolution recognizing the importance of engineers and supporting National Engineers Week. From the grandest of skyscrapers to microchips and the smallest of medical devices, engineers continue to design and construct products that are vital to our daily lives and our Nation's economy. Unfortunately, American students today are losing interest in engineering. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' notes that, ``after secondary school, fewer U.S. students pursue science and engineering degrees than is the case of students in other countries. About 6% of our undergraduates major in engineering; that percentage is the second lowest among developed countries.'' We need to get American students at all levels back into science and engineering classes. Our Nation's continued global and economic leadership depends on our ability to inspire the next generation of engineers. H. Res. 681 recognizes and supports the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week as an important part of educating and building a competitive workforce for the 21st century. For example, National Engineers Week exposes students that might otherwise never dream of a career in a technical field to opportunities in engineering through programs such as the ``Future City Competition'' (a contest for middle school student teams to design a visionary city) and the ``Global Marathon For, By and About Women in Engineering'' (a 24-hour long series of presentations intended to attract young women into the engineering workforce). During this week, students and professionals at all levels will be motivated to explore the vast opportunities open to them in the field of engineering. In conclusion, I would like to thank the National Society for Professional Engineers for its ongoing efforts to educate children and adults about the importance of engineering. I would also like to thank Congressman Inglis and Congressman Lipinski for their leadership on this important issue. I ask that you join me in recognizing the importance of engineering in our daily lives and the positive impact of National Engineers Week by voting in favor of H. Res. 681.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw our colleagues' attention to the pending retirement of Marcia S. Smith from the Congressional Research Service after over thirty years of service to Congress. Marcia is one of the preeminent and most highly respected policy analysts in her field, and while she will remain an active figure in space and telecommunications policy at the National Academy of Sciences, her intelligence, expertise, objectivity and balance will be greatly missed on both sides of Capitol Hill. Marcia Smith began her career at the Congressional Research Service in 1975, after graduating from Syracuse University with a degree in political science. She quickly became an accomplished and adept analyst in space and aerospace policy, rising to Specialist in Aerospace and Telecommunications Policy, first in the Science Policy Research Division, and then in the Resources, Science and Industry Division, of CRS. In her service to Congress, she has provided background and analytic reports, memoranda, committee prints and expert testimony to Members of Congress and committees of the U.S. Congress on matters concerning U.S. and foreign military and civilian space activities, and on telecommunications issues (and formerly on nuclear energy). Marcia has been a mentor and advisor to over a dozen CRS analysts and researchers during her time in that organization. She was Section Head for Space and Defense Technologies from 1987-1991, and Section Head for Energy, Aerospace and Transportation Technologies from 1984-1985. To give my colleagues an idea of how prolific and proficient Marcia Smith has been during service to Congress, she has authored or coauthored over 160 reports and articles on space, nuclear energy, and telecommunications policies and issues. She has testified as an expert witness before House and Senate Committees nearly 20 times, a significant number of those times in front of the committee I chair, the Committee on Science. I would like to point out 2 instances in which Marcia has served both Congress and her country in an exemplary manner. In both instances, these were circumstances marked by tragedy--when the Space Shuttle Challenger was lost at launch on January 28, 1986, and again when the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry on February 1, 2003. Within hours of the Challenger disaster, Marcia was briefing congressional staff and talking to Members of Congress about the technical, policy, and human costs of this accident. She was widely interviewed and quoted by the national and international news media. And in the painful months following the accident, Marcia worked with Congress to provide oversight, investigation, and new policy directions in our national space program. In 2003, the unthinkable happened again--another shuttle disaster. And while this occurred on a Saturday, Marcia spent the entire weekend in her office, writing a report that detailed the Columbia program, what we knew then of the accident, and potential congressional outcomes for re-examining the purpose and scope of human space flight. This report was ready for Congress first thing the following Monday morning. Let me also add that Marcia has helped Congress in so many other areas of space policy that has brought us as a nation forward. She has worked with us on the Mission to Planet Mars, international space policy and issues revolving around the International Space Station, and the President Bush's National Space Policy. She is an expert on the NASA budget, and has a working and encyclopedic knowledge of space launches and flights, going back to the Sputnik launches and the Mercury Program. In addition, Marcia Smith has exemplified the type of professional growth and development that we in Congress have come to expect from senior-level policy experts at the Congressional Research Service. From 1985-1986, Ms. Smith took a leave of absence to serve as Executive Director of the U.S. National Commission on Space. The Commission, created by Congress and its members appointed by the President, developed long term (50 year) goals for the civilian space program under the chairmanship of (the late) former NASA Administrator Thomas Paine. The Commission published its results in the report Pioneering the Space Frontier. Marcia Smith has continued her professional accomplishments even as she makes this transition in her career. She is a Trustee of the International Academy of Astronautics (and co-chairs the Space Activities and Society Committee, and is a member of the International Space Policies and Plans Committee and the Scientific-Legal Liaison Committee). She has been a member of the Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences' Space Studies Board (1992-93, 1996-97). She is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). She serves on AIAA's Ethical Conduct Panel, and the International Activities Committee; was a member of the International Space Year Committee (1989-1992), the Public Policy Committee (1982-1989) and the Space Systems Technical Committee (1986-1989); was an AIAA Distinguished Lecturer (1983-1988); and was a member of the Council of AIAA's National Capital Section (1994-1996). She is a member of the Kettering Group of space observers. She is a Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL) and of the Association of U.S. Members of the IISL. She was President of the American Astronautical Society (1985-1986), on its Board of Directors (1982-1985), and Executive Committee (1982-1987,1988-1989). She is a Life Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the Washington Academy of Sciences (Board of Directors, 1988-1989). She is a member of Sigma Xi (the honorary scientific research society). Ms. Smith serves on the editorial boards of the journals Space Policy and Space Forum, and is a contributing editor for the Smithsonian Institution's Air & Space magazine. She is listed in several ``Who's Who'' directories, including Who's Who in the World, Who's Who of American Women, and American Men and Women of Science. Marcia Smith was also a founder of Women in Aerospace, was its President (1987) and member of its Board of Directors (1984-1990), and is an Emeritus Member. Women in Aerospace is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the advancement of women in aerospace and recognizing their achievements. In September 2003, I had the honor of presenting Marcia with the Women in Aerospace Lifetime Achievement Award. In my remarks, I commented that her unselfishness and service to her country served as models for everyone who works for Congress and therefore their country. That holds true today as it did then. And, as a founding member of Women in Aerospace, Marcia has clearly made a mark on supporting the role of women professionals in the space community. Marcia once said of her position at CRS, that working for Congress, she was extremely busy, put in long hours, often became exhausted--but never bored. Members of Congress and the Committees they serve on have been the beneficiaries of this work ethic, high levels of thoroughness and competence, and keen analytical skills. I would ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize and thank Marcia Smith for the contributions she has made during her time with the Congressional Research Service, and her outstanding performance and service to Congress, and for the American people.

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. 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 the conference report on S. 1281.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this important conference report, the first NASA authorization in 5 years. We take up this conference report at a critical time for the Nation's space policy as NASA is laying out the policies and seeking the funding to set its course for the next decade and a half. This bill will give the agency clear guidance while giving Congress important new tools for oversight at this pivotal time. Most important, I believe this bill in its very first section makes clear that NASA is to remain a multi-mission agency with robust programs in science and aeronautics, even as it moves ahead with the President's vision for space exploration, and the bill also makes clear unequivocal endorsement of that vision. The bill also ensures that Congress will have the information it needs to guide and monitor NASA. It requires a multiyear plan for aeronautics and science so that all NASA programs have a clear and well-articulated path, and it requires plans for facilities and workforce so we can see what assets NASA will need to achieve its goals. The bill prevents any layoffs from occurring before March 16, 2007. The bill requires updated information on the cost of the crew exploration vehicle before NASA awards a development contract, and it requires that NASA provide a range of cost estimates for the CEV, along with the potential impact of each of those estimates on other programs. The bill applies a version of the Nunn-McCurdy rules to NASA. These rules will not only require NASA to notify Congress early on of any significant cost overruns but will require congressional action if a program breaches a specific gap. This may turn out to be one of the most important provisions of the bill. The bill also gives NASA the authority it has been seeking to offer larger prizes to encourage a broad range of private sector scientists and engineers to help NASA meet specific technological goals, and the bill establishes a new account structure that will make it easier for Congress to track NASA spending and to ensure that money is spent for the programs intended. Finally, the authorization levels in the bill make clear that NASA cannot possibly accomplish everything that is now on its plate with the funding it is currently projected to receive. I should add that, for me, the authorization levels do not mean that NASA necessarily should receive the authorized amount for fiscal 2007. The appropriated level needs to take account of tradeoffs and what is available to other agencies, particularly to other science programs, but the authorization levels do clearly mean that NASA will need to either get more money or to forego or delay activities. I need to say, right now, even though no one will want to hear it during this debate, that I do not think we should accelerate the crew exploration vehicle development unless key Federal science programs are adequately funded. Launching the CEV in 2014 rather than 2012 will not damage the country, but allowing the erosion of our scientific enterprise will cause real and significant damage, but that is a battle for next year. Right now, we should all come together to endorse this conference report, which will give NASA needed authority and guidance and will give Congress tools and a context for future debates. This bill represents a true compromise. For example, I am not fond of several of the provisions relating to the international space station, but they were reasonable elements of a negotiated package that represents the broad range of views of NASA in this Congress. We were able to pull together such a package because everyone was willing to be reasonable. That is a commodity, reasonableness, that oftentimes is lacking in this body. I want to especially thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) who sponsored this bill and who heads our Space Subcommittee, for his unlikely combination of persistence and cooperation. I also want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) who were true partners in their efforts, and I want to thank all the conferees in both bodies for their openness and hard work. It was not easy but here we are. This is a thoughtful, reasonable, bipartisan compromise, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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