Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons just cited by my distinguished colleague from Ohio, I remain an enthusiastic supporter of a robust aeronautics program at NASA. It provides so much benefit to the U.S. economy. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts for his observations, and I wish to add to his comfort level. Because on page 5 of our report, it points out in section D: Enabling humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations on a timetable that is technically feasible and fiscally possible. As the gentleman well knows, my interest is in advancing the science agenda for the Nation. The good science that is part of the space vision does not guarantee a vehicle to go to Mars, it guarantees that good science goes forward.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff who have worked so diligently on this bill all year and who have been really on constant alert since the loss of the space shuttle Columbia. That staff includes David Goldston, John Mimikakis, Bill Adkins, Roselee Roberts, Tom Hammond, Ken Monroe, Johannes Loschnigg, Shep Bryan, Ed Feddeman, Christy Carles, as well as the minority staff, Chuck Atkins and Dick Obermann. They have been a team working together in common cause. I would also be remiss if I did not thank Administrator Griffin and his staff, particularly Brian Chase, who are always available and who were willing to work to reach a compromise. And might I say how refreshing it has been to be so candid as Administrator Griffin has been. Administrator Griffin continues to do a superb job, and we hope this bill will help him do that job, even though, like all of us, he would not have written each provision the way we did. But in the final analysis, we have got a good bill that is worthy of the support of this House. We have got a good bill that is good for America because of the vitality it brings to the economy, and we have got a good bill because Democrats and Republicans worked it out together. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 324) directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a technical correction in the enrollment of S. 1281, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 798, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 798, legislation to combat an insidious aspect of the methamphetamine crisis, the environmental consequences and the potential harm to those with no connection to the drugs manufacture or use. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for their active pursuit and leadership on this issue, which is of great concern to States and localities that have to deal with the aftermath of busting meth labs. Over the past decade, methamphetamine, or meth, as it is properly called, has spread across the country, killing individuals, destroying families, and devastating communities. We are all too familiar with the facts of the case. The meth epidemic needs to be attacked on many levels. But we also have to deal with the harmful residue that meth leaves behind in homes and in the soil. Earlier this year, I visited with Sheriff Gary Howard of Tioga County. I was so impressed with what he told me that we invited him to testify before our committee. Tioga County is located in the southern tier of New York within my congressional district. Between 1989 and 1999, a decade, he indicated that there were only four meth lab incidents reported for the entire State of New York. Since then, the number of seized meth labs has risen quickly and steadily, from eight in the year 2000, this is the whole State, to 73 in 2003. Of that number, most were found in Tioga County. Sheriff Howard described the terrible human tragedies associated with meth use. He had our panel in the palm of his hands, including the inherent danger to law enforcement from paranoid and agitated addicts. But he also told me, and us, that anyone who lived near or had reason to visit these active and former meth labs was at risk from unseen hazardous chemicals and dangerous byproducts of meth production. During the manufacture of meth, harmful chemicals are released into the air and distributed throughout the surrounding area. In residential settings, these chemicals penetrate and adhere to countertops and floors. They are absorbed into furnishings and carpets and walls, and their toxic byproducts are frequently poured down the drains or spilled onto the ground, potentially contaminating the soil and drinking wells. While few studies have been conducted on the long-term consequences of exposure to these chemicals, many of the ingredients used in the manufacture of meth are highly caustic and upon exposure are believed to damage the skin, the eyes, the lungs. They do serious damage to the body. Yet, as witnesses testified before our Science Committee, we do not have the scientific knowledge to deal responsibly with former meth labs. Little is known about the risk of moving into a house that has been used as a meth lab; the best way to remediate a former lab so the building can be safely occupied; or the long-term effects on those living in the former labs, including but most specifically the children and the elderly. They are the most vulnerable. States and localities are struggling to protect the public from the adverse effects of meth; yet there are no national guidelines on how to remediate a residential lab for reoccupation or what levels of residues are safe. States have become increasingly concerned about the cleanup and remediation issues related to meth labs, and State officials and law enforcement officials have requested assistance in dealing with the growing number of small labs in their States, particularly those located in residential settings. H.R. 798 should go a long way toward getting States the assistance they need to protect the wider population from meth residues. The bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to establish voluntary guidelines for the remediation of former meth labs. These guidelines will combine the best of all existing and new information to help States and local governments respond effectively to this growing problem. The bill also requires the EPA to support research to identify persistent chemicals of concern in the use and manufacture of meth, to determine the most effective cleanup and remediation techniques, and to develop assessment and remediation guidance for States and localities based on the short- and long-term consequences of these former residential labs. Finally, the bill enlists the National Institute of Standards and Technology to support the development of new testing methods to help law enforcement identify and quantify the risks of meth lab sites in the field. This is a sensible, targeted, bipartisan bill, which, for a modest investment, will help our State and local governments safeguard our communities from the consequences of these toxic neighborhood labs. For this reason, H.R. 798 has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Realtors, the National Multi Housing Council and the National Apartment Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition. In conclusion, I want to thank the leadership, particularly Mr. Blunt, for enabling this bill to come to the floor, and I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for his help in this matter. He heads the Speaker's task force dealing with the very sensitive subject of drug abuse prevention. This bill will make a real difference in our communities, and I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel), a very valuable member of the Science Committee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), a very valued member of the Science Committee but also one who is particularly knowledgeable about this subject matter and has made significant contributions to the development of this package. (Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 798) to provide for a research program for remediation of closed methamphetamine production laboratories, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments of my colleagues, and as chairman I have had the privilege to sort of move the ball forward. But I think it is right that we acknowledge that the ball was put in motion by Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Calvert of California. They have worked in tandem and partnership, and we have produced a good bill worthy of this House and our mission. I am hopeful that not only will we pass on a strong bipartisan vote the measure today but that the Senate will follow through with this. Senator Gordon and Senator Baucus on a bipartisan basis are working on it and with good reason. The problem is meth is a national crisis. It started out small on the west coast; it now affects all 50 States. The producers, as Dr. Schwarz has indicated, can buy the product over the counter, all the ingredients to this; and then they rent an apartment or rent a motel room and quickly cook the stuff to make the final product. That is what we are concerned about. What about the atmosphere that is created? They tend to go in the more rural areas of America, bypassing the big cities, because they figure there is an undue concentration of law enforcement officials there, and maybe they can get away with it in the more rural settings. They did not reckon on guys like Sheriff Gary Howard, who has got an outstanding record of busting these guys and carting them off to where they belong, to jail. But then what? What happens to the property? The owner of the property, totally unaware of what was taking place on their property, I understand it, we can all understand that, and then the owner probably says, well, we will clean it up, we will vacuum the floor and paint the walls and it will be okay. Wrong. Not okay. We have got to do more studies, because the residue is there, and we have got to be concerned about that. That is what this is all about, a modest amount of Federal dollars to deal with a very real and meaningful problem.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House insist on its amendment to S. 1281, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Hobson for working on behalf of the civilian research and development programs of the Department of Energy. Needless to say, I wish the bill could have been even kinder to those programs, but I know that Chairman Hobson pressed on their behalf. I want, though, to bring attention to one concern I have about the conference report. The conferees dropped House language preventing an agreement on ITER, the international fusion project, from being finalized before March 1. This language, which I offered and the House approved by voice vote, was designed to prevent the U.S. from moving ahead with ITER until we had a consensus on how to finance the billion- dollar U.S. contribution. You'd think that would just be common sense in this period of fiscal austerity when we are talking about cutting programs that Americans rely on. But the House language has been replaced by weak report language calling for a study by the Government Accountability Office. I understand why, in the give and take of conference negotiations, my provision may have had to go away. But the issue is not going to go away. I want to make clear to everyone concerned that I will do everything in my power to kill the ITER project if there is not an agreement by March that the domestic fusion program has to be scaled back to pay for ITER. I am not going to allow the U.S. to enter into an international commitment that it cannot afford. I would rather kill the ITER project. The fusion community will have to be realistic. It cannot have all its current projects and ITER. And it will not. This year's appropriation already makes clear why this is so. Just about every area of activity under the DOE Office of Science sees a cut, especially if earmarks are excluded, except Fusion Energy Sciences. Fusion science is important and may be a key to our energy future, but it cannot consume the entire budget of the Office of Science. And that is what will happen if the domestic program is held harmless while ITER is constructed. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on Appropriations and all my colleagues to make sure that the U.S. handles its international commitments responsibly. No one should misread what happened in this conference. The ITER program is in grave danger, and I guarantee you that it will not be completed with U.S. participation unless there is a more realistic plan to fund it.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their outstanding work in very difficult, challenging times. But this measure deserves our support, and I say that as chairman of the Science Committee. So I have a special interest, because it will bolster America's science and technology enterprise, it will foster innovation, and boost U.S. competitiveness. Why do I support this bill? Let me count the ways, and this is by no means inclusive, but let me focus on the matters that I am most familiar with. It increases funding for the National Science Foundation to support more fundamental science and engineering research. That is the fuel that drives the knowledge economy, and that is what drives the American economy. It preserves the science and math partnership program at NSF, designed to improve the performance of local school systems in math and science education at a time we have been challenged as never before in our history. It increases funding for the laboratory programs for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And what does NIST do in addition to performing advanced science and engineering research? It develops the technical standards that advance measurement tools to help to keep American industry competitive. It preserves the very important Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps keep America's small manufacturers globally competitive, improving U.S. manufacturing productivity and saving American jobs. It supports a balanced program at NASA, including increased funding for aeronautics, as the previous speaker mentioned; and it increases funding for the National Weather Service, which provides lifesaving forecasting of hurricanes and other extreme events. I need provide no further example than Katrina. At a time when government agencies at all levels were less than adequate with their response, the shining star in our crown was the National Hurricane Center and the National Weather Service. The Hurricane Center is under the Weather Service. They provided us with timely information well in advance of the hurricane hitting the coast of the gulf. It is what was done with that information that created the problems, not the information itself. That was provided completely and in a timely manner. My congratulations go to the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from West Virginia. Under very difficult circumstances, they have recognized that we have to establish some priorities, and one of the high priorities that they have both given and this House should be giving is to invest in the science enterprise. What is that all about? It is about our future. It is about opportunity. It is about jobs.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Superfund Revenue Reinstatement Act of 2005, a bill to reinstate the corporate environmental income tax, which expired in 1995. The bill will provide a dedicated stream of revenue for our Nation's communities as they struggle to clean up the Nation's dirtiest abandoned hazardous waste sites and recapture lost jobs where they are most needed. First passed by Congress in 1980, the corporate environmental income tax provided a dedicated stream of revenue for the so-called Superfund trust fund. In 1995, the last year before this corporate tax expired, it raised approximately $700 million. At a rate of 12/100 of one percent on corporate profits over $2,000,000, the tax was virtually without any real impact on business, but supported worthy and rightful public purposes--creating jobs, rebuilding our urban communities, and cleaning up a legacy of unfettered industrial activity. The oil industry--not one company but the entire industry--paid just $38 million in 1995. That's about what is earned by the industry in the first hour of the first day of the new business year. Reinstating the corporate environmental income tax would raise about the same amount of revenue as it did in 1995, according to estimates made by the Joint Committee on Taxation in 2003. That's a negligible burden to provide dedicated funds for restoring superfund sites. But those are estimates are a few years old. With corporate profits at current levels, the revenue derived could certainly be higher. And, where are these superfund sites? In urban areas of course, where redevelopment is needed and where jobs are needed. But what's been happening? Industry is developing greenfields in the far out suburbs because they don't want to touch superfund sites. And hundreds of thousands of brown-fields across the nation sit idle instead of being returned to productive use. Can we really continue to afford leapfrogging existing and valuable infrastructure to build anew? That's why the Superfund needs dedicated revenue. In 1995 when the tax expired, the Superfund held a significant surplus, so few people were concerned. Today, however, as many had predicted, the surplus is gone. An empty trust fund, annual budget squabbles, recent budget cuts, and larger and more complex site cleanups have hurt the superfund program, slowing or delaying cleanups. The lack of dedicated revenue for superfund has also put pressure on other parts of the EPA's budget. That pressure surely has been felt by the Brownfields program, which is our premier program to bring sites back to productive use and hasn't yet been fully funded at authorized levels. It is all the more distressing that we let the corporate environmental income tax lapse 10 years ago--forgoing $7 billion of dedicated funding for cleanup and redevelopment. That is why it is time to rededicate ourselves to creating jobs, rebuilding urban America, and eliminating this core cancer in so many of our communities. And isn't it refreshing to advocate for a plan with worthy objectives and a method to pay for it!

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, many of us who have been privileged to serve in this great institution for some time have been through this process many times. This is not the first or second or third. We have had BRAC after BRAC. But I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) who observed this was the best BRAC of all. We are finally getting it right. This was the least political, most professional BRAC we have ever had. And that is a tribute to Chairman Principi and all of the distinguished members of the panel: Admiral Gehman; General Newton; former Congressman and colleague Jim Bilbray; Phil Coyle; Sam Skinner; General Turner; Jim Hansen, another former colleague who served with great distinction; and General Hill. This reads like a Who's Who list of distinguished Americans who are providing a very important service for our Nation. The fact is DOD had too much physical inventory. It is costing DOD to maintain that physical inventory. It is costing the taxpayers. So understandably they wanted some realignment, adjustments; and there had to be winners and losers. As someone who has been on both sides of that issue, let me say I know what it is like. I can feel the pain of the losers. But I would say to those who are on the short end of the recommendation, one, you should have confidence that the recommendations were made once again by the least political, most professional BRAC we have ever had, a BRAC whose individual members, including the Chairman, were available not just to have a courtesy photo opportunity, but to hear out those of us who had presentations before that Commission. They asked pertinent questions. They had on-site visits. They were very, very serious about their important work; and they were not alone. The highly dedicated and very competent professional staff of BRAC was even more accessible. You can understand when you get on the phone and you try to get a conversation with Chairman Principi or General So-and- So or Admiral So-and-So, a lot of people want to talk to them. I must say that I was fortunate to be able to talk to each and every one of them. I had quality time. But the fact of the matter is the staff followed through once again with on-site visits, and that was so very important. The dedication and determination demonstrated by the Commission, its accessibility for individual members, their willingness to listen produced a product that I think we can all be proud of. Let me once again address those who represent communities who are not treated favorably by the BRAC recommendations. I have been through that before with a magnificent Air Force base that dissolved back as a result of the 1993 Commission report, and in 1995 it actually closed down with a couple of exceptions. And there were some people in the community at large who wanted to write the economic obituary for that community, Rome, New York, and the surrounding areas. There were others, a lot of us, not just me, the mayor, the county executive, local officials, business communities, that were determined to make the best of a bad situation. Today, that once-vibrant military installation, Griffis Air Force Base, is now a very vibrant business and technology park with upwards of 4,000 people gainfully employed there; but part of that installation involves an Air Force research laboratory which was set off as a containment area as a result of the decision to close the base in 1993, and the people at DOD and everywhere were wondering would this work. It has worked in spades, and now the Air Force research laboratory, incidentally operating out of a $25 million state-of-the-art new facility, is the center of excellence for the entire Air Force in command, control, communications, and intelligence technology. It is an information directorate, and it not only services the Air Force well but it services a whole wide range of other activities. It is serving so well. So BRAC looked at that and made the decision that some operations that had been located there should be transferred elsewhere in line with the overall scheme of the Air Force to consolidate like operations at a central facility. Some moved out; some moved in. The net result is maybe a gain of 15 to 25 jobs for Rome, New York. I am not supporting the BRAC because we have got 15 or 25 jobs. I am supporting the process and what it did and what it produced. Let me tell my colleagues another story. At that same business and technology park, we now have a defense finance accounting service, and that employs exactly 382 people. DOD said, well, we want to consolidate, restructure. We do not need 26 locations all over the country. We want to go down to three locations. That did not really make a heck of a lot of sense; and when all was said and done, when the BRAC looked at that, they recognized that maybe the answer was somewhere in between. Instead of going from 26 to three, they went from 26 to about five or six, consolidating, saving money, improving efficiency. Guess what. This facility at Rome, New York, which incidentally is operating and out of a new $10 million state-of-the-art facility, was examined very carefully. They did not just listen to me, and they did not make a decision that was posited with that because I had a scintillating personality or I had some influence down here. Influence down here did not make much difference in this process. What they listened to were the facts, and the facts are that when they examined all of the DFAS operations, in 16 measurable categories where you could quantify, where you could measure, where you could compare the output of one against the other, this installation was at or near the top. A final BRAC decision, not only are those 382 jobs preserved, 600 additional are coming. So I say it from the perspective of a proud Member of a district who is gaining, and I say it as a proud Member of this institution who identified with creating a process that is serving our Nation well; and therefore, I would strongly oppose the resolution to disapprove and urge that the movement go forward.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amended version of S. 1713. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for working so cooperatively with us for so long on this issue, which is of great concern to both of our committees over which both of our committees have jurisdiction. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of our Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, who, as always, has helped to keep our eye on the ball and has pressed to make sure we got this done. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from California's (Mr. Calvert) predecessor, who serves on both committees, played a similarly dogged role. And if one has been exposed to the Rohrabacher machine, they know he is persistent. All of us have cosponsored the bill before us today. Finally, I want to thank the administration, including NASA and the State Department and the National Security Council, for being willing to consider a variety of approaches, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), my ranking Democrat on the Committee on Science, for being a thoughtful participant as we examined different ways to deal with this issue. The puzzle we had to solve with dealing with the Iran Nonproliferation Act was how to enable the U.S. to continue to man the international space station without reducing our vigilance with regard to nonproliferation. I have been clear all along that, for me, maintaining nonproliferation is a far more important goal than is continuing to have Americans aboard the space station. But from the point of view of space policy, we had another goal here, too. We wanted to make sure that Russia, or any other foreign nation, could not bring our space program to a screeching halt or whatever the equivalent would be in the vacuum of space. Therefore, we wanted to try to write this bill in a way that would create an incentive for NASA to contract with new suppliers that would not be dependent on foreign technology to get U.S. personnel or supplies to and from the Space Station. These are all tough goals, goals that have had their critics, goals that create winners and losers, goals that seek to balance competing national needs. And I think with this version of the Iran Nonproliferation Act, we have come as close as anyone possibly could to accomplishing our goals. The bill enables the U.S. to continue to use the International Space Station unimpeded. The bill, in effect, allows the status quo to continue until 2012, when presumably the U.S. will have access to a new crew exploration vehicle to carry astronauts and commercial firms to move cargo. We will see if the budget enables that to actually happen on that schedule, but it is a plausible position. The bill encourages NASA to find commercial firms that are not dependent on the Russians to carry cargo in the future by setting a specific end date for our current relationship with the Russians. And the bill minimizes the harm to the nonproliferation regime by requiring the act to be reviewed again in 2012, by making it clear that no individual entity that violates the act can receive U.S. money and by adding Syria to the countries listed in the act, and, finally, by requiring clear reporting of payments under the act. The Senate deserves credit for moving all parties toward compromise; and our version, I would say, perfects that compromise by adding Syria and by making it clear that we have a true deadline. Under our bill, no funds can be used in violation of the Iran Nonproliferation Act after 2012, even if the funds are made available before 2012 and even if they are made available pursuant to an agreement that existed before that date. So I think we are where we have to be on this bill in order that we are going to protect the space program while protecting the world from nuclear weapons. These issues are never easy and nonproliferation necessarily involves a lot of guesswork about what is and what is not working; but this is a responsible, thoughtful compromise. In closing, let me again thank the Members of the Committee on International Relations and their staff, particularly Walker Roberts, for working so cooperatively with us and for continuing to push for tighter, but reasonable, language. I want to thank our staff on the Committee on Science, particularly Bill Adkins, for ensuring that we always took into account all the implications of the proposed language. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure, which incorporates a truly thoughtful and effective compromise.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett). You will notice during this presentation the colleagues of the gentleman have constantly, as I have, referred to him as doctor. The reason we do so is out of respect for his background, his knowledge; because that Ph.D. that he has indicates he is a very distinguished scientist. So he is not just talking about some pet theory or some gut reaction. He is talking about facts, scientifically produced evidence; and I applaud the gentleman for that, and I want to compliment all of my colleagues for participating in this special order. In sum and substance, I think the viewers might say, what do I take out of this tutorial? It has been a great academic exercise and the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) has presented a compelling case why we should all be concerned about peak oil. But if you are watching this in your living room someplace across America you might say, what does it mean to me right now? What does it mean to my family right now and what can I do about it? Let me suggest something that everyone can do. They can write their Representative in Congress and urge their Representative to support CAFE standards. What are CAFE standards? Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE. That is where you get the acronym. That is, the Federal Government should require the automobile industry, the manufacturers of automobiles, SUVs, light trucks, all of these vehicles that traverse our Nation's highways which we are so dependent on, we should require them to be more fuel efficient. We have tried mightily to convince our colleagues of that basic fact using some of the facts that the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) made in his presentation about peak oil, pointing out that we have 25 percent of the world's energy consumption but we have only 5 percent of the population and only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we are consuming 25 percent of the world's energy output. Now, something is wrong there. I would suggest we are on a collision course with disaster and we have to do something very meaningful about it. We are consuming 21 million barrels of oil a day in the United States. 21 million. We import 14 million barrels of oil a day. So we are starting every single day with a couple of problems on our hands. Number one, if we are importing 14 million barrels of oil a day and oil is costing $60, $65 a barrel, that means we start each and every day somewhere in the neighborhood of $750 million, three-quarters of a billion dollars in the hole, in the red in our balance of trade deficit. And ironically, we are sending, as you have heard from previous speakers, so much of that money to countries where we are not quite certain what they are doing with the money. And the saddest part, as we have heard from our chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, some of that money that we send abroad to purchase this oil from less than enthusiastic embracers of our democratic ways, ends up in the hands of people who are trying to undermine everything that is so dear to us that we cherish. So, in effect, you could make an argument that we are helping to sponsor terrorism by sending so much of that money abroad to countries that do not really give two hoots about our way of life, and some of that money ends up in hands that are intent on doing us harm. That is established. That is a fact. That is not just a pet theory. Now, in addition to creating further pressure on our balance of trade, sending all of this money abroad, we are also doing something that is mind boggling to me. We are concentrating all of our efforts not on how we can conserve energy, but how we can consume more and find new sources of energy. Now, that is important. We have got to constantly be searching for new sources of energy but we ought to think in terms of how we can conserve energy, and making our vehicles more fuel efficient is a way to do it. Now, back in the mid-seventies I was a member of the staff here in Congress at that time when CAFE standards were first introduced into the American lexicon. The opponents of that fought every step of the way, screaming and scratching, do not do it. If you force CAFE standards, and we only did it minimally, very modestly initially, said the opponent, that will put a death knell in the domestic auto industry. As a matter of fact, they asserted, if you do that, within 10 years all Americans will be driving compacts or subcompacts. That did not happen. You know it did not. So do I. So do the facts verify that. But they opposed it every step of the way, and these same forces are trying to oppose it today. Now, what are their arguments? Well, the one argument they trot out is to make vehicles more fuel efficient the only way to do it is to make them less safe under the theory that you have to make them lighter, therefore less safe. Unmitigated nonsense. That is not my theory. That is not the theory developed by the Committee on Science of which I am privileged to share. That is the scientific consensus embodied in papers produced by the National Academy of Science, the most distinguished scientists in America. Now, everybody in this body loves to say ``we are for science-based decision making'' until the scientific consensus leads to a politically inconvenient conclusion. Then they want to go to plan B. So the safety argument is phony on its surface. The next big argument, well, if you require the American domestic auto industry to make more fuel efficient vehicles, SUVs, light trucks, passenger cars, well, that is going to cost jobs. How is it going to cost jobs? I think the American public would challenge more to go to the showroom to buy vehicles that are more fuel efficient because you know what? At today's price when you fill up, I filled up my vehicle today, $56 for one tank of gasoline. Do you know what $56 means to a lot of families in America? It means, boy, they have got to make some hard choices and they are going to have to go without something just to pay the gas bill. And most Americans just are not driving around on a Sunday afternoon drive to look at the scenery. They are going to work. They are going to church. They are taking the kids to school. They are going to the doctors. They are doing what they have to do. They do not have a choice. They have got to fill up their vehicle and they have to drive to places their family has to go. So if you make more fuel efficient vehicles, they are not going to stop suddenly buying the vehicles. They are going to buy more because they are going to see, wow, this will get me farther on a gallon of gasoline. This will mean I do not have to fill up every week. Maybe I can fill up every 2 weeks. My family budget will be stretched. Then the argument, the business, if it requires to make them more fuel efficient, and I have shot down the safety argument and I have shot down the jobs argument and they say we do not have the technology. The technology is there, it is on the shelf. We have got to continue research to develop new ways to do things even more efficiently. But the fact of the matter is off-the-shelf technology is there that if employed by the domestic manufacturers or by manufacturers any place, we can make the vehicles more fuel efficient. So we work to the advantage of national security, make us less dependent on foreign source oil. Incidentally, I do not like the fact, I do not think any American likes the fact that a group of people can get together someplace a half a world away, they can get together and decide to turn off the spigot or reduce the flow on the spigot. That plays havoc on the domestic economy. The prices go up through the ceiling. We have all experienced $3 plus a gallon for gasoline. Some predictions indicate that it is going to go even higher. It is down temporarily. I filled up today and it is down to $2.89 a gallon. I thought, gee, some relief is on the way, but 2 weeks ago it was $3.29 a gallon. But the fact is if we deal in a responsible way with the CAFE standards, we will provide a benefit to the consuming public from coast to coast. Not that the Federal Government is saying, look it, Detroit, and I use that as a euphemism for the domestic manufacturers, you cannot make SUVs anymore. That is nonsense. There are a lot of people that want SUVs. They have got families. They have got things they cart around in addition to the kids and all the supplies for all the events. They need bigger vehicles. But they want bigger vehicles that are more fuel efficient. You can get them with existing technology. So I would argue that this is an idea whose time long since has come and we are making progress. In the 107th Congress when I first offered my amendment to increase the CAFE standards from an average of 25 miles per gallon up to 33, that is the current version of it. It was somewhat different back in the 107th Congress. We got 160 votes from Republicans and Democrats alike. And then in the 108th Congress we went up to 162 votes. Not much progress. Then at the beginning of 109th Congress we got 177 votes. Guess what? That was before we had $3 a gallon gasoline. Now, I would submit that the votes are there to finally pass CAFE standards but what happened? We had a vote last week on another energy bill and my amendment to increase CAFE standards was not given a rule which would allow open, public debate on the floor and a vote by the people's House. I was denied that opportunity. But I am going to be persistent. I am going to keep at it. One of the reasons I am going to keep at it is because the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) has pointed out with his presentation on peak oil this is a serious matter that demands our collective attention and we have got to deal with it in a responsible way. So I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Dr. Bartlett) for his support, for his leadership in dealing with a very important issue for all Americans, energy.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Science, I am an avid supporter of programs that encourage the youth of America to push the limits of innovation. One such program is the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge. In 1999, Discovery Communications, Inc., designed the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge to help address America's chronic underachievement in K-12 science and math. The annual national contest responds to evidence that our students' academic performance and interest in science declines dramatically as they become older, particularly during the middle school years. The Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge attempts to reverse that decline by identifying and honoring America's top middle school students with a demonstrated ability in leadership, teamwork, and scientific problem solving. More than 9,500 middle school students have accepted the challenge and have competed for the title of ``America's Top Young Scientist of the Year.'' Since 1999, scholarship awards for the students have totaled more than $500,000, and challenge winners have participated in science-related trips to far-off places, including the Roslin Institute in Midlothian, Scotland and the El Yunque rain forest in Puerto Rico. On September 14, 2005, Discovery Communications, Inc., announced the 40 middle school students who will advance to the finals of the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge. Selected from more than 1,700 entrants, the finalists represent an elite group of young Americans who have demonstrated exceptional creativity and communications skills in their original science research projects. The 40 finalists will come to Washington, D.C. during October 15-20, where they will take part in the Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge finalist competition at University of Maryland's Cole Field House. There, they will compete in team-based, interactive challenges designed around the theme of ``Forces of Nature.'' The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on October 19, 2005. The finalists for the 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge are: Iftin Abshir of Littleton, CO; John Bolander of Memphis, IN; Pinaki Bose of Fort Worth, TX; Kelsey Burnham of Okeechobee, FL; Shireen Dhir of Kathleen, GA; Brendan Dwyer of Northport, NY; Heather Foster of Beverly Hills, FL; Anudeep Gosal of Orlando, FL; Joanna Guy of Oakland, MD; Mary Hedberg of N. Attleboro, MA; Joshua Jones of Titusville, FL; Taylor Jones of Maryville, TN; Melanie Kabinoff of Boynton Beach, FL; Spencer Larson of Springville, UT; Gregory Lavins of Solon, OH; Melissa Luga of Hilo, HI; Elijah Mena of Gales Ferry, CT; Camden Miller of Fairview, TX; Lucia Mocz of Mililani, HI; Alyssa Ovaitt of Weston, MO; Susan Pasternak of Santa Barbara, CA; Jacob Perry of Livingston, MT; Sarah Pierz of Clarkston, MI; Sabrina Prabakran of Fort Myers, FL; Nilesh Raval of Saginaw, MI; Roberto Rios of Mayaguez, PR; Aaron Rozon of Kapa'a, HI; Colleen Ryan of Chillicothe, OH; Brittany Sheehan of Bluffton, OH; Katherine Smith of Malabar, FL; Narayan Subramanian of Saratoga, CA; Adrian Tatulian of Orlando, FL; Bailey Terry of Newcastle, WY; Neela Thangada of San Antonio, TX; Nilesh Tripuraneni of Fresno, CA; Sheel Tyle of Pittsford, NY; Alexander Uribe of Eagle Mountain, UT; Ruslan Werntz of Coppell, TX; Garrett Yazzie of Pinon, AZ; and Robert Zane of Honolulu, HI. At a time when science and technology plays such an enormous role in our lives, I believe it is imperative that we continue to support and nurture the next generation of young scientists. I would like to congratulate these students for their dedication and hard work and wish them all good luck and good science during the 2005 Discovery Channel Young Scientist Challenge.