Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act, or WISARD, as we call it, authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to provide assistance for research and development of anti-terrorism tools for water infrastructure protection. The Committee on Science has worked hard to bring forth to this House a bipartisan broadly supported bill that responds to the growing threats facing our country's drinking water and wastewater systems. Mr. Speaker, fences, guards dogs, and bottled water are not a sustainable approach to water infrastructure security. That is why my colleagues and I, with the help and support of water management agencies, State and local officials, engineering companies, and experts in the scientific community introduced and advanced the legislation before us today. H.R. 3178 is an important first step in ensuring that we have the research and development our country needs to combat biological, chemical, physical, and cyberterrorist threats today, tomorrow, and into the future. It focuses on not just short-term research needs, but also intermediate and, importantly, long-term needs. Just as it took the greatest scientific minds and technological advances to win World War II and the Cold War, the success of America's new war will be measured not only on the battlefield, but also in the laboratory. H.R. 3178 is a big step down that path. The WISARD bill will help us identify and assess vulnerabilities, enhance our prevention and response measures, and ensure long-term security. The testimony we received from experts in national security, water management, and scientific research confirmed the compelling need for this bill. While there are certain immediate actions we can take to increase the security of our water supplies, we cannot lose sight of the longer-term questions and opportunities involving technologies. H.R. 3178 responds with a focused research and development program to help answer the necessary questions and develop the technological solutions in collaboration with EPA's public and private partners. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just one example of the Committee on Science's efforts regarding terrorism since September 11, 2001. We have held hearings and moved bills relating to cyberterrorism and information technology. We have had detailed hearings on bioterrorism, exploring issues of anthrax decontamination, how clean is clean and how coordinated is coordinated in terms of the Federal response. We have also looked at the interoperability issues and the interdependence of water systems and other critical infrastructures, such as telecommunications, energy and transportation. H.R. 3178 builds upon this record. I should also explain that the text of this bill is essentially the text of H.R. 3178 as approved by the Committee on Science on November 15, 2001. We made additional clarifications and revisions after consultation with committees expressing a jurisdictional interest in the bill. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for his leadership, and the 46 other cosponsors who have helped shape and advance this legislation. My colleagues on the Committee on Science, including the ranking minority member the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and the chairman and ranking minority members of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) respectively, approved H.R. 3178 unanimously on November 15. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); and the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), for their suggestions and cooperation in clarifying some of the bill's provisions. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I enter into the RECORD background materials on H.R. 3178, including the exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Science and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Purpose of the Bill The purpose of H.R. 3178 is to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide assistance for research and development of technologies and related processes to strengthen the security of water infrastructure systems. Background and Need for the Legislation Federal, state and local governments have spent tens of billions of dollars to build the nation's drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. In the coming decades, tens of billions more will be required to maintain that infrastructure and meet the needs of a growing population. What has become clear in recent years and, even more so after the September 11, 2001 attacks, is that while the nation's water infrastructure provides safe and plentiful water to more than 250 million Americans, the system was not built with security from terrorism in mind. How can the nation respond successfully to this new and daunting challenge? Success will depend on, among other things, focused and sustained research to: (1) Assess potential physical, chemical and cyber vulnerabilities of the system, (2) develop techniques for real-time monitoring to detect threats, (3) conduct research on mitigation, response and recovery methods, and (4) develop mechanisms for widely disseminating and sharing information. H.R. 3178 directly addresses these needs by specifically authorizing water system infrastructure research and development projects and by authorizing funding to carry out this important work. water infrastructure Approximately 170,000 ``public water systems'' provide water for more than 250 million people in the United States. The Safe Drinking Water Act defines public water system as ``a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals . . . and includes collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities used primarily in connection with the system.'' Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations recognize two primary types of such systems: (1) ``Community water systems,'' which provide drinking water to the same people year-round; and (2) ``non-community water systems,'' which serve people on a less than year round basis at such places as schools, factories or gas stations. There are approximately 16,000 municipal sewage treatment works, servicing 73 percent of the U.S. population. Privately owned treatment systems, including septic tanks, serve the remaining population. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act) defines treatment works as ``any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature . . . including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems . . . and any works that will be an integral part of the treatment process.'' threats to drinking and wastewater systems Physical threats to drinking water systems include chemical, biological, and radiological contaminants and disruption of flow through explosions or other destructive actions. Like wastewater treatment systems, drinking water systems may also be at risk because of on-site stockpiles of chemicals that could create fire, explosion, or other hazards. Cyber threats are an increasing concern, given the automated, remote-control nature of most drinking water treatment and distribution systems. Systems are also dependent on other critical infrastructure systems such as energy, telecommunications, and transportation. For example, a water treatment plant that depends on daily deliveries by truck of aluminum sulfate, chlorine, or other chemicals needs an emergency operations plan if such deliveries are interrupted. In recent years, most attention has focused on threats to drinking water systems, particularly to water storage reservoirs. Wastewater treatment facilities have received increasing attention after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Like drinking water plants, they face physical and cyber threats and other vulnerabilities due to their dependence on other critical infrastructures. Particular attention has also focused on the large volume of liquid chlorine, sulfur dioxide, and other toxic chemicals that may be stored or in use at sewage facilities and the potential for an explosion to create a toxic cloud that could threaten employees and surrounding communities. In addition, some research has occurred with respect to alternative treatment systems and chemicals (such as chlorine bleach or sodium hypochorite in lieu of liquid chlorine). security reports and actions There has been increasing, though still limited, attention to infrastructure security in recent years. In response to a 1995 Congressional directive, President Clinton established a Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, which issued an October 1997 report, ``Critical Foundations, Protecting America's Infrastructures.'' The report addressed various infrastructure systems, including water, and recommended greater cooperation and communication between government and the private sector. In May 1998, President Clinton issued President Decision Document 63 (PDD-63), which included the goal of protecting the nation's critical infrastructure from intentional physical and cyber attacks by 2003. Plans by key federal agencies to meet this goal were to be in place by late 1998. The report identified water supply as one of eight critical infrastructure systems requiring attention, specifically focusing on the 330 largest community water systems that each serve more than 100,000 persons. PDD-63 designated EPA as the lead federal agency for interacting with the water supply sector. EPA responded in late 1998 with a ``Plan to Develop the National Infrastructure Assurance Plan: Water Supply Sector'' to address water infrastructure security. In June 2001, EPA's Inspector General issued a report that credited EPA with achieving a fast start on its efforts, but criticized the agency for missing many important milestones it had set for developing critical infrastructure protections. After the report, and again after the September 11 attacks, the pace of EPA's efforts has accelerated. To date, EPA has entered into a partnership with the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) and the American Waters Works Association (AWWA) to reduce the vulnerability of water systems. AWWA's Research Foundation has contracted with the Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories to develop vulnerability assessment tools for water systems. EPA has also received appropriations (e.g. $2M in FY 01) for projects with Sandia to pilot test physical vulnerability assessment tools and develop a cyber vulnerability assessment tool. Additional actions (e.g. upgrading security technologies and developing real-time monitoring technologies) on a variety of important security related issues have yet to be completed. PDD-63 also called for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to establish a National Infrastructure Protection Center to provide information sharing and analysis and to coordinate with and encourage private sector entities to establish Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). AMWA volunteered to be the Water ISAC coordinator. The purpose of the Water ISAC is to provide to water managers early warnings and alerts about threats to the integrity and operation of water supply and wastewater systems. While various federal agencies are conducting research on water-related security issues, the January 2001 report of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection characterized ongoing water sector research efforts as relatively small with a number of gaps and shortfalls. Four major areas for further research are identified: (1) Threat/ vulnerability risk assessments; (2) identification and characterization of biological and chemical agents; (3) establishment of a center of excellence to support communities in conducting vulnerability and risk assessments; and (4) application of information assurance techniques to computerized systems used by water utilities. Various drinking water system managers and researchers have identified priority areas for research, including: (1) Assessment of physical vulnerabilities including disruption of flow and contamination by chemical, biological, or radiological agents; (2) cyber vulnerabilities including process control equipment, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisitions (SCADA) systems, and other information systems; and (3) vulnerabilities associated with interdependencies with other critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, telecommunications, transportation, and emergency services. Specific research needs include: vulnerability assessment tools; technologies and processes for protecting physical assets and information and process control systems; training, education, and awareness programs; information sharing tools; demonstration projects; real-time monitoring and detection systems; and response and recovery plans.

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.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3178) to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to provide funding to support research, development, and demonstration projects for the security of water infrastructure, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill. I think it is seriously flawed and I have some real concerns about it. However, one thing I am not concerned about is the professional manner in which the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) has engaged in a serious discussion of my concerns and I wish to compliment him for that. I have to confess that the most damage in this bill was done in the other body, but we are used to that here. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I must rise in opposition to this bill, 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 bill could still unnecessarily saddle taxpayers with costly and unprecedented environmental responsibilities. And as Chairman of the House Science Committee, I'm concerned that this bill may distort the priorities of the National Science Foundation for years to come. This bill sets up a 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 bill, 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 the bill 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 the 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 the contractor if it identifies conditions that would make the federal assumption of liability ``contrary to the public interest.'' I believe this allows 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 wit 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. This 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 in to 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, the gentleman is getting much too conservative in his advanced years. Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the bill includes provisions of H.R. 2275, our Committee on Science's bill to reform voting technology standards. Standards are technical and arcane and obscure and sometimes even boring, but they can make the difference between having voting equipment that correctly tallies the public's votes and sowing confusion and chaos. Our bill gives the lead role in developing standards to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is a premier Federal lab with unparalleled expertise in standards. We ensure that the best technical minds in the country will work with Federal, State and local officials on developing standards and on certifying the labs that will determine whether the standards are met.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and offer congratulations to the Delhi varsity football team which is the pride and joy of the Delhi community after winning the New York State Class C Football Championship. The Bulldogs, under the leadership of veteran coach Dave Kelly, defeated a tough-as-nails Cambridge team 39-21 to secure a school-record 12th win of the season and the state title. Football is the ultimate team sport, and the young men of the Delhi Bulldogs have reached the pinnacle of achievement at their level of competition. Proof of the team's extraordinary ability can be found beyond the score in the words of the opposing coach in the championship game: ``There are not a whole lot of teams that can beat you the way Delhi can. They seem to do everything well.'' That's a high compliment. Mr. Speaker, big plays at crucial times in the game proved to be the difference. One of the biggest plays was an interception by defensive back Tom Tuthill in the end zone that stopped a Cambridge scoring drive with just under six minutes left in the 4th quarter. At the time, Delhi was clinging to a 32-21 lead. Tuthill had another interception in the game as well, along with two picks by teammate Mike Barnes. On offense, the team was led by the cohesive offensive line, quarterback Chris Clark, running backs Brian Neale and Brett Sohns, and big play receiver Mike Barnes. As an offensive unit, they got the job done. Not only was the Bulldog's impact felt on the field, but felt off the field as well. More than 3,000 supporters of the team traveled to Syracuse to watch what was probably the biggest game in school history. They did not go home disappointed. These young men have achieved greatness on the football field. There is no doubt in my mind that they can channel what they learned this year from one another on the football field under Coach Kelly's direction to the rest of their life's activities. That's the great thing about interscholastic sports. Mr. Speaker, the Delhi Bulldogs varsity football team has made their coaches, classmates, teachers, parents, and the entire Delhi community proud. They have also made their Congressman proud.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1259, the Computer Security Enhancement Act of 2001, and to congratulate the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their bipartisan work on this legislation and for the leadership of the past chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who shepherded this bill through the House in the last Congress. Since the tragedy of September 11, our Nation has awakened to a new world of potential threats. Some of them before now were thought not possible. Some were thought not likely. And, unfortunately, some were simply ignored. But in the last 2 months, the world has changed and we have resolved to fortify our Nation's critical assets, to protect our airports and strengthen our infrastructure. One compelling need is to improve the security of our Nation's computer systems and the uncountable government services on which they depend. In the last 9 years, the General Accounting Office has issued some three dozen reports detailing the serious information security weaknesses at major Federal agencies. We in the House, and particularly on the Committee on Science, have heeded these warnings. Others must, also. Federal systems are not the only ones central to our Nation's smooth functioning. Earlier this year, the Committee on Science held several hearings on cybersecurity. In one of those, Governor Gilmore testified that his commission, which was charged with evaluating our Nation's vulnerabilities to weapons of mass destruction, could not ignore the potential additional havoc that computer attacks could wreak on our country, especially if computer attacks were launched at the same time as some other attack. Computer breaches must not be allowed to hamstring State and local governments as they attempt to respond to other kinds of threats. This bill, the first of several dealing with cybersecurity that the Committee on Science plans to bring to the floor, begins to make the kinds of improvements necessary to address the concerns these reports have raised. H.R. 1259 will encourage the computer security teams at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to assist other government agencies to improve the security of their computer networks. It will spur the private sector to develop improved computer security products to benefit the public and private sectors alike. And it will help recruit and train future experts in the profession of computer security. I would also like to point out that this very same bill passed this body a little over a year ago. Unfortunately, the other body did not have time to pass it and send it on to the President. This time, however, I hope we can work with our colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill to strengthen our Nation's computer security and to help protect the American people. This bill is a good bill that will help our Nation deal with a serious threat that for too long has been inadequately addressed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and help put our Nation on the road to better computer security. In closing, let me once again commend the leadership of the gentlewoman from Maryland and the bipartisan team that she has assembled and led as we have moved this through the committee and now to the House floor. I hope others are paying attention, because they need to follow through.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Science Committee, I rise in strong support of the FY 2002 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Conference Report. My good friends Chairman Walsh, and Ranking Minority Member Mollohan have put together a conference report that is very good for science, good for the space program, and good for the environment. I thank them for their outstanding leadership. Chairman Walsh shares my belief that basic research provides the foundation for economic growth and for the tremendous advances we have made in areas like biomedical research. The appropriation for the National Science Foundation contained within this conference report reflects these beliefs. Chairman Walsh is to be commended for the more than 8 percent increase that he has provided for the Foundation. The bill also contains funding for the National Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program that was proposed by President Bush and that is authorized by my bill--H.R. 1858--that was unanimously reported out of the Science Committee. This program will bring colleges and universities and school districts together to form partnerships to improve the quality of elementary and secondary math and science education. I look forward to working closely with Chairman Walsh and NSF to see that this program is properly implemented. I want to particularly thank the conferees for including funding for the Noyce Scholarship Program. Named for the co-founder of Intel, this program provides scholarships to talented mathematics, science, and engineering students in exchange for a commitment to teach two years for each year of scholarship. I am passionately committed to attracting young people to the profession of teaching and look forward to welcoming the first class of Noyce Scholars. I also want to commend the Committee for providing funding for the Tech Talent Act that I introduced on October 15, of this year. This program will encourage colleges and universities to think more creatively about how they educate our future scientists, mathematicians and engineers. The conferees are also to be commended for a bill that protects and expands NASA's scientific programs in Science, Aeronautics, and Technology while striking the right balance for the Space Station. This bill sends a clear signal that Congress is not going to bail out NASA for its management failures. It also makes clear that we're willing to work with the Administration to identify additional resources to improve station capabilities, if we see the right management reforms and performance improvements at NASA. Yesterday, the House Science Committee heard testimony from Tom Young, the Chairman of the International Space Station (ISS) Management and Cost Evaluation (IMCE) Task Force and Sean O'Keefe, the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The Task Force concluded that without significant management and budget reforms, NASA would not be able to complete the U.S. Core Complete station within the budget that was agreed upon earlier this year. Mr. Young and Mr. O'Keefe recommended, and I concur, the NASA must be required to demonstrate to Congress that it can manage the U.S. Core Complete Station--both on time and on budget--before any decisions are made to expand the capabilities of the station. I also want to stress that the ISS was intended to be a research platform that would permit scientists to carry out research that could only be conducted in a space environment. It is important that we not lose this focus upon science and that we closely examine the research program that will be supported by the station. The Science Committee has asked the National Academy of Science to review this research program and I look forward to their findings. I concur with the conferees' recommendation that this study be expanded to evaluate the research programs that could be conducted on the ISS with a three- or a six-person crew. I particularly appreciate the Committee's commitment to new space technology and its effort to bridge the gap between NASA and the Air Force. By directing a modest amount of funding to the Air Force Research Lab, the bill encourages NASA and the Air Force to pool their efforts on technologies that will benefit both agencies and the American people. Space based radar technology, for example, is vital to our national security, but also has immense applications in Earth science. A development program that reduces the cost of synthetic aperture radar technology will benefit both. Similarly, the bistatic radar technology developed at the Rome Research Laboratory has immense potential for upgrading our national launch range tracking capabilities at a low cost. By demonstrating this technology, we may finally break the logjam that has undermined our space launch competitiveness. The conferees have also, at my request, addressed a matter that is of great importance to me--the LANDSAT Data Continuity Mission.The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-555) directs the LANDSAT Program to consider options, with preference given to a commercial solution, to maintain the continuity of LANDSAT data beyond LANDSAT 7. While NASA's Earth Science Program has responded to several of my concerns, I continue to be deeply concerned that NASA's acquisition strategy for the LANDSAT Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) places too much emphasis on government satellite engineering and design during the formulation phase of the program. I urge that the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy continue to review this program to ensure that preference is given to technically and economically sound commercial data buy proposals that will meet our nation's data continuity needs. I applaud the conferees for including language in the conference report that restates our expectation that NASA will pursue commercial data purchase approaches to all Earth Science Program Announcements for Opportunity. Let me turn for a moment to the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, an agency that Congress should elevate to cabinet level status. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Walsh and his colleagues in the House and Senate to provide a responsible budget to help meet the nation's environmental needs. On the whole, the conference report is good news for EPA. Clearly, many of us would prefer to see higher funding levels for some of the agency's programs, but the conferees have done an admirable job of balancing competing needs and working within difficult fiscal constraints. As Chairman of the Science Committee, I am particularly pleased the bill increases funding for the Science and Technology account from $640 million in the budget request to $698 million. Admittedly much of this funding is for site-specific or project- specific activities. Even so, I think it is important to continue a trend of increasing agency resources for basic and applied research, including drinking water research under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Speaker, the recent experiences with arsenic confirm the importance of science in making key regulatory decisions. I commend the Administration and the conferees in advancing the effort to replace the 50 parts per billion standard with a more protective 10 parts per billion standard. I hope Congress will provide additional funding to research and develop more cost-effective technologies to meet the SDWA standards as contemplated by Administrator Whitman. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Congressional Water Infrastructure Caucus, I am pleased the conference report rejects the proposed cut to the Clean Water SRF but I'm disappointed it doesn't provide more than $1.35 billion for the program. I appreciate the constraints facing the conferees but would encourage the Appropriations Committee to find a way to fund some of the important water infrastructure and ecosystem restoration programs, such as the new sewer overflow control grants program and the reauthorized Clean Lakes program. I hope there are opportunities down the road to target assistance for such efforts. I would also continue to note my concern with the Superfund program. The bill provides $1.27 billion. The Appropriators are doing their best under the circumstances. Congress needs to change the circumstances; comprehensive reform and, at a minimum, a reauthorization of the Corporate Environmental Income Tax (which expired on December 31, 1995) should be the next course of action. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for science, a good bill for the space program, and a good bill for the environment. It aptly illustrates the tremendous leadership provided by my good friend from New York, Chairman Walsh, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, last week, joined by Representative Brian Baird and six other colleagues, I introduced H.R. 3178, the Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act. Senators Jeffords and Smith, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced the companion measure, S. 1593. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation is a direct response to the physical and cyber threats facing our drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. H.R. 3178 authorizes and coordinates Environmental Protection Agency assistance ($12 million a year for 5 years) to public and private nonprofit entities to research and develop technologies and related processes to increase protection of America's water resources. Research projects will include improved vulnerability assessments, methods for real-time detection and monitoring of chemical, biological, and radiological contaminants, cyber security measures, and information sharing and analysis. The bill will also have multiple benefits outside of the terrorism context as water managers and public officials gain more tools to detect, monitor, and respond to contamination and other problems confronting infrastructure. Water is the lifeblood of a community. Water lines form the lifelines for citizens and their families and for local, regional, and national economies. Terrorist attacks, whether physical or cyber, are a clear and present danger. We can mitigate that danger with a coordinated program of research and development. Science, technology, and appropriate dissemination of information are keys to building, maintaining, and operating secure and sustainable water systems. I urge my colleagues to join the growing list of cosponsors and supporters of H.R. 3178. I also want to thank water management professionals, such as the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, and engineering and scientific research organizations, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, for their help on the bill. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues, both on and off of Capitol Hill, as the legislation advances.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a concurrent resolution regarding the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and encouraging citizens and government to recommit to meeting the Act's ambitious goals. First, let me thank my colleague and friend, Senator Christopher ``Kit'' Bond, for introducing the same measure in the Senate. The resolution we introduce today is very similar to the resolution enacted into law in 1992. That legislation designated 1992 as the ``Year of Clean Water'' and celebrated the Act's 20th birthday. Both measures are largely the result of efforts by our nation's state water quality managers, specifically the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, and America's Clean Water Foundation, which will coordinate the ``Year of Clean Water.'' I want to thank them for their support in not only advancing this legislation but, more importantly, carrying out the nation's water quality programs on a daily basis. This resolution signals the beginning of a year-long campaign for clean water through public education, civic involvement, and improved coordination among government, business, and community groups. The upcoming ``Year of Clean Water'' will culminate on October 18, 2002, the 30th anniversary of the CWA, and include volunteer cleanups, water quality monitoring events, watershed protection summits, and other events to celebrate the Act and strengthen the commitment to cleaner, safer water throughout the country. The CWA has made dramatic progress over the years in cleaning and protecting the nation's waters through regulatory controls, partnerships, and financial assistance to states and municipalities. While we should celebrate the upcoming 30th anniversary and water quality achievements to date, we must also improve our efforts to tackle persistent and emerging challenges--including nonpoint source runoff, acid rain, and wetlands destruction. In order to succeed in the long term war on water pollution, we'll need to continuously improve the science and foster creative performance-based partnerships. That's why the resolution specifically recognizes the need for further development and innovation of water pollution control programs and advancement of water pollution control research, technology, and education. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this bipartisan and bicameral legislation. I look forward to working with the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I also look forward to working with the Administration, which I know is already planning efforts to celebrate the Year of Clean Water.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained, and understandably so, in dealing with the specifics of this bill in terms of dollars and numbers. I would urge all of my colleagues to follow the suggestion of the chairman and the ranking member to visit the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to get the classified briefing and to examine the figures for themselves. Mr. Chairman, let me stress this to my colleagues. This is a very good bill because it provides more resources for people, for our human intelligence, for our eyes and ears around the world. More resources to add to their numbers and their training, with particular emphasis in language capabilities. Our dedicated and well-trained linguists who are case officers and covert operatives and intelligence operatives are critically important to operations. They are the essential people part of the equation. They are the essential people part of the equation. All the sophisticated technical means in the world, the satellites in the heavens and the specialty electronic devices all over every place are important, but there is no substitute for people. And, quite frankly, with linguistic skills, there simply are not enough of them. This bill recognizes that and supports additional funding directed to the Defense Language Institute. This funding is targeted for linguistic training, not just for the training, but also for the recruitment and retention of proficient instructors. It promotes computer-based training to keep those skills honed, and aims at keeping those classes fully populated with the best and the brightest. Let me stress, there is no substitute for the people part of this equation. The dedicated men and women in the intelligence community who are serving this Nation at distant points in the globe are to be applauded and supported and we do just that.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an exciting event that will be taking place next week in my Congressional District. On October 8, 2001 the U.S. Soccer Hall of Fame, on Oneonta, New York, will award the National Soccer Medal of Honor to a truly remarkable group of individuals, the Championship 1991 U.S. Women's National Soccer Team. The National Soccer Medal of Honor is a special honor created by the members of the Society of American Soccer History (SASH), and Board of Directors of the National Soccer Hall of Fame to be awarded on special occasions when an individual has so influenced the sport of soccer in the United States as to effect the course of its history. The medal is rarely bestowed. In fact, the October 8th presentation will be only the third in the last twenty years! The amazing accomplishment of the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team in China in 1991 opened the door for tremendous gains in the world of women's soccer for the United States. A few such achievements include; a first Women's world championship tournament and World Championship title, the addition of women's soccer as an official Olympic event played for the first time at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, a foundation for the most successful women's sporting event in history- the 1999 Women's World Cup hosted in the United States, and last but far from least, the creation of the first women's professional soccer league in the U.S.--the Women's United Soccer Association (WUSA) which is in its inaugural season. On this tenth anniversary of the unprecedented accomplishment of a group of 18 American soccer players, their coaches and support staff at the first ever Women's World Championships in China, the National Soccer Medal of Honor will be presented once again to the 1991 U.S. Women's National Team: Michele Akers, Amy Allman, Tracey Bates-Leone, Debbie Belkin, Brandi Chastain, Joy Fawcett, Julie Foudy, Wendy Gebauer, Linda Hamilton, Mia Hamm, Mary Harvey, April Heinrichs, Lori Henry, Shannon Higgins- Cirovski, Carin Jennings-Gabarra, Kristine Lilly, Megan McCarthy, Kim Maslin-Kammerdeiner, Carla Overbeck, Head Coach Anson Dorrance, Coach Tony DiCicco, Coach Lauren Gregg. This honor is to be awarded at the Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, New York. The new $7 million museum opened in 1999 on the Hall's 61 acre soccer campus to rave reviews. The highly interactive, youth- oriented museum tells the story of soccer in the USA from the earliest games played on the Boston Common to the latest scores and standings. They have been host to international teams from the USA, Brazil, Russia, Mexico, New Zealand, Canada, Chile and Saudi Arabia as well as local collegiate and high school championships. The Hall of Fame also offers a summer long tournament series for premier and club teams in every age category. Mr. Speaker, I have visited the National Soccer Hall of Fame numerous times. With each return visit, I encounter something new and exciting. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to bid all those who will attend this ceremony and the honorees my best wishes for the success of their event and applaud their desire to honor such a phenomenal group of athletes--the 1991 U.S. Women's National Team.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the terrible tragedy that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is necessary that we honor and recognize the men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis to ensure the safety of others--our Nation's fire and emergency services personnel. It is also necessary to pause, reflect, and honor the over 300 fire service personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of public safety on the 11th. Remembering the events that transpired on the 11th conjure up horrific images, but also images that inspire-- images of true dedication to others, devotion to duty and bonafide heroism. It also triggers memories of a fire-service veteran and true hero from my congressional district--Walter G. Morrison--an individual who would have, without equivocation, been nowhere other than at ground ``0'' assisting victims on that fateful day. Walter died on July 18, 1981, in the line of duty--selflessly attempting to help others. A fire and civil defense coordinator in Otsego County, Walter also served as Chief of the Fly Creek Fire Department, a board member of the Central New York Firemen's Association, and Secretary of the New York State Fire Service Council. Walter exemplified the fire service and all it stands for. He was 46. Today, it is fitting that he, along with four of his fellow firefighters from the great state of New York, and numerous others from around the nation, have their names permanently etched upon the National Fallen Firefighters monument in Emmittsburg, Maryland for all to see and remember. It is our duty--our responsibility to never forget that it is people much like Walter--a neighbor; a colleague; an friend; a father; a son; a brother; a mother; willingly placing themselves in danger for you--for all of us.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the individual raising the point of order would accede to the very reasonable request advanced by our colleague, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), that the point of order at least be temporarily withdrawn so that we can discuss this issue in some detail on the floor. I think it is only fair and prudent that we request that the people's House work the people's will. The people's House cannot work the people's will if we have unyielding response from the committee of basic jurisdiction. And, believe me, I have the hardest time explaining to anyone why the dairy compact legislation is not germane to the farm bill; that it is off on another committee, the Committee on the Judiciary. Hard time explaining that. People think that the farm bill should deal with farm matters, and I certainly agree. The dairy compact will not cost the taxpayers a dime; not the Federal taxpayers, not the State taxpayers. What it does is allow farmers to help themselves. It gets away from the command and control notion that Washington is the source of all wisdom and should regulate everything and places faith and the fate of dairy farmers in the hands of State governments and the farmers themselves. And let me tell my colleagues that I have a lot more confidence in the farmers of America than I do a lot of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Over 25 States have already, by overwhelming vote, approved legislation which has been then endorsed by each Governor, and it was not squeaky margins. The total vote was 5,405 for the dairy compacts and only 316 against. And then I have people come up and tell me, well, if Congress passes the dairy compact legislation, it is going to mean that the price of milk might go up. Well, if we do approve the dairy compact legislation, there might be a penny or two a gallon increase in the price of milk. But I tell my colleagues, we live in a town that takes a poll every nanosecond. We poll everything. And poll after poll proves conclusively that the American people are sympathetic to the plight of the Nation's dairy farmers and would be willing to accept a modest penny or two a gallon increase in the price of milk if they were convinced that the money went to the people who need it, the dairy farmers themselves. In my own State of New York, we have lost 2,133 farms since 1995, and those were figures current only as of the first of this year. My friend from Wisconsin talks about the plight of his dairy farmers. Well, I can assure him the same thing holds true for the dairy farmers of New York. They are going out of business one after another. That just should not be. If we continue on this road, pretty soon we will see an American landscape with one after another dairy farms out of business. We will have the concentration of all production in the hands of a very few mega-corporate farms. And guess what? They will dictate the price to all of us. Katy, bar the door. We do not want that. And as a national security issue, and all of us are concerned about national security, particularly during these very difficult times, as a national security issue we should keep the small family dairy farms in business. If my colleagues are concerned about urban sprawl, and boy, everybody tells us how concerned they are about urban sprawl, think of what we do if we allow the continued demise of the family farm and force the family farmers to sell to the developers. All of America will be developed. Let me close with this thought. I have so much more that I could say, but I think it was said best by a Wisconsin dairy farmer in the Nation's leading dairy farm journal, Hoard's Dairyman. He said, ``Compacts are a good thing overall. Support,'' he said, ``our brother and sister dairy farmers in the northeast and encourage compacts elsewhere. That is in the interest of fairness.'' We are not pitting a few States against a few other States. We are opening up the door of opportunity for all the States to do as they wish. I would strongly urge the offerer of the point of order to rethink that contention. And perhaps in the interest of comity, as suggested by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), let us talk some more in the people's House about the people's will.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think by now the thrust of the Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is well-known. Our amendment would significantly increase the conservation funding in the bill, while leaving total farm bill spending essentially unchanged. This amendment will protect water quality, preserve open space, foster wildlife populations, and increase opportunities for sportsmen, all while helping more farmers in more States than the base bill. That is why the amendment is supported by a wide range of groups, including Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak Walton League, groups representing the Nation's water and sewer agencies, the National League of Cities, and the League of Conservation Voters. Quite simply, our amendment is good environmental policy and good agriculture policy. This amendment will provide increases for the numerous important conservation programs that do not receive significant increases in the bill. These programs, like the Wetland Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Program, which help farmers, especially small farmers, have a long waiting list. As the administration's own recent report, Taking Stock for a New Century acknowledges, these programs could and should help many more farmers work the land, care for the land, and protect water quality. I represent an agricultural area, and I know from the farmers in my own congressional district just how vital and successful these programs can be. Now, we are going to hear a lot of spurious arguments against this amendment, even more than usual, because the chairman has refused to agree to a time limit on debate. But the main argument we are going to hear is the most ridiculous of all. We are going to hear that this amendment would destroy the delicate, carefully crafted balance that holds together the underlying bill. Let me tell my colleagues bluntly about the way this bill is balanced. This is the kind of balance they used to have in Latin America dictatorships where all of the leading families got together and divided the money equally among themselves to ensure that the rest of the public was held at bay. They were called ``banana republics.'' Here, I guess, we have a ``cotton republic.'' But the principle is the same. The balance in this bill is that all of the big commodity groups got together and divided up the spoils without regard to the needs of other people or of good public policy. Now, just like oligarchies, they are threatening anyone who would dare to disagree: food stamp advocates, dairy farmers advocates, you name it. There is nothing delicate about the way this bill was put together. It was an exercise in raw power. Do not take my word for this. Listen to the Bush administration. The administration does not support the base bill because, and I quote, ``It misses the opportunity to modernize farm programs through innovative environmental programs; it encourages overproduction, and fails to help farmers most in need,'' especially small farmers and ranchers. This amendment corrects these deficiencies. Our amendment will help more farmers in more States than the base bill. Our amendment will encourage innovative environmental practices. Our amendment will keep lands in production. Our amendment will target assistance to smaller farms who need it the most. Our amendment will help protect precious water supplies from coast to coast. In fact, commodity payments will still increase significantly with our amendment, and 97 percent of American farmers, 97 percent, will receive the exact same payments they would under the underlying bill. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It represents true balance. It will help farmers and cities protect land and water, preserve open space, and keep farms in business. It is fair, it is equitable, and it deserves our support.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of my time be allocated to the cosponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), whose State will be one of the many beneficiaries of all 50 States under the conservation amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and me.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan and geographically dispersed sponsors of my amendment and the administration looked at the base bill and drew the same conclusions. Let me read from the statement of administration policy: ``The administration believes it is possible to craft a policy that is better for rural America, better for the environment and better for expanding markets for our producers than H.R. 2646.'' We agree. That is why we have sponsored this amendment. The administration says: ``H.R. 2646 misses the opportunity to modernize the Nation's farm programs through market-oriented tools, innovative environmental programs, including extending benefits to working lands and aid programs that are consistent with our trade agenda.'' We agree. That is why we sponsored this amendment. The administration notes that the base bill fails to help farmers most in need, those in serious financial straits, especially smaller farmers and ranchers. We agree. That is why we support this amendment. The administration observes that nearly half of all recent government payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, usually very large producers, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share in only 13 percent of the payments. H.R. 2646 would only increase this disparity. We agree. That is why we support this amendment. The farmers who do not receive commodity payments, 70 percent of all farmers produce 80 percent of the value of all agricultural products. If you want to help farmers, if you want clean water, if you want open space, vote for our amendment. Let me observe, we have heard all day that the bill already increases conservation funding, and it does. But it puts that increase almost exclusively in one program, then it changes the rules to target the program to the largest farmers in the fewest number of States. I say vote for the Boehlert-Gilchrest-Kind-Dingell amendment. Support America's farmers. Take care of the little guy. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.