Sherry Boehlert

Mr. BOEHLERT

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) for bringing forward the proposal that led to this amendment. And let me thank him and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for working with us to craft this amendment in a way that should avoid controversy. This amendment is designed to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and to help save lives in future hurricanes, goals we obviously all share. The amendment would accomplish its goals in two ways. First, it authorizes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program to establish a special effort to help Katrina victims by drawing on all the resources of the nationwide network of MEP centers. The MEP centers have a wide variety of ways to help businesses that have had losses or have been wiped out by Hurricane Katrina. We all want to do everything possible to help gulf coast businesses and their owners and customers to get back on their feet, something that is critically important, brought to my attention once again very vividly in a meeting this morning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. The Katrina program would also waive the usual matching requirements for assistance, as neither the States nor the businesses are in a position to provide such a matching payment now. I should add that we do not expect this program to be particularly costly as it draws on existing MEP resources, and the MEP program as a whole costs roughly $100 million, not a number that stands out in comparison to the mega numbers we are hearing about necessary hurricane relief. The second part of the amendment draws on the expertise of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to investigate why buildings and other structures failed during the storm. This is a traditional role for NIST, and it has played it many times after building failures and has resulted in greater understanding of building performance and stronger building codes. We ought to be learning from this hurricane to prevent future losses of life and property in storms to come. A NIST investigation is the best way to do that. This bill is silent as to what legal mechanisms NIST should use to carry out its investigation. I would prefer and I know my colleagues across the aisle would prefer that NIST invoke the National Construction Safety Team Act that was signed into law after the World Trade Center collapsed. But the bill does not mandate that NIST take that approach. In short, this amendment instructs NIST to take reasonable, affordable steps to help the victims of Katrina and to prevent losses from future storms. I urge its adoption. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Madam Chairman, I think this amendment enhances the bill. It adds to the quality of an already good bill, and we are pleased to accept it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this might have been a reasonable amendment a couple of years ago, and, guess what? We are used to expecting reasonable amendments from my distinguished colleague from Connecticut. Back then, all of us, including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) were calling on the administration to bring more focus on the Commerce Department to the problem of manufacturers. Quite frankly, I do not think they were paying enough attention. But guess what? The administration heeded our calls. It created a new Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on manufacturers in the Department, and it did so in a streamlined way. So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this issue. We have won what we were seeking: someone in that Department of Commerce to focus attention on manufacturing. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) wanted it, I wanted it, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) wanted it, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) wanted it, we all wanted it, and they listened. It is not too often that the administration listens to the Congress. The legislative branch is sometimes considered politically inconvenient for the executive branch. This time they listened. Indeed, the Larson amendment would override or duplicate the administration's efforts, it is hard to tell which, and reorganize the Department yet again. That is a waste of time and money; it is utterly unnecessary. Now, the gentleman from Connecticut may respond that the Assistant Secretary appointed by the President has not accomplished very much. That person certainly has his hands full, and I am not going to debate his performance here. But if the gentleman is arguing that creating a new Assistant Secretary has not done any good, how is that an argument for his amendment? Why does he think that creating the similar positions he is proposing would be a panacea? The way to help manufacturers is not by creating more bureaucracy in downtown Washington. What we need to do is fund programs that help manufacturers. That is what this bill would do by aiding the successful programs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. If anything, the Larson language would actually impede this program. It would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, when we want NIST to have as much of its own funding and latitude as possible. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson's) new officials would be in a position to siphon money away from this and interfere with its programs. How would that help manufacturers? Let us speed this bill along and not weigh it down with new bureaucracies who would detract from the very programs we are trying to augment. The House soundly defeated this amendment last year. We defeated it in committee this year. That was the right decision, and it is time to dispense with this amendment again. Having said that, let me say that does not diminish one iota the respect I have for our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, who is one of the most valued members of the Committee on Science. But, having said all of the above, I have to once again indicate how reluctant I am to oppose the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) because of my affection and respect for him; I am not really opposing the gentleman, I am opposing his amendment, and I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset there are some things that I love in addition to my wife and family and everybody else. I love technology education. I love our community colleges. It is easy to understand why this amendment is being offered, and it is easy to see why it needs to be defeated. It is easy to see why it is being offered, because it provides additional support to a very good program, the Advanced Technology Education program of the National Science Foundation. As someone who has pushed for years at NSF to do more for community colleges, and when I first came here 23 years ago, community colleges were not even on the radar screen at NSF, but, boy they have got the message, and they are doing an outstanding job; and they recognize the capabilities of community colleges. And they understand the importance of the Advanced Technology Program, and so do I. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). But it is easy to see why this amendment needs to be opposed. Now, that may sound strange, but let me explain. We have already demonstrated our support for Advanced Technology Education quite tangibly in the base bill, H.R. 250. The bill would increase funding for ATE not by 2 percent or 5 percent or 10 or 20; it is a third over 3 years. And the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) deserves a lot of the credit for ensuring that the additional funding was in the bill. But I will not let him claim all of that credit, because guess what, all of the members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognized the importance of technology education and recognized the value of our community colleges in providing that education. But now he wants to up the ante. His amendment would increase ATE funding by 70 percent. That is right: 70 percent over 3 years. Where is it going to stop? We do not have enough of this money. We cannot manufacture it fast enough. That would be an extravagant thing to do at any point, but it borders on the absurd in today's budget climate. Such an increase is unrealistic, and it would make ATE a higher priority than other education programs at NSF, a step I am not prepared to take given our needs across the spectrum of science and math education programs. So I would urge my colleagues to use their common sense in reviewing this amendment. Is a 33 percent increase in authorization levels not sufficient in this fiscal climate? I think it is pretty generous. I urge opposition to an amendment that I think is excessive. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we have in this motion to recommit a textbook example of how the perfect is the enemy of the good. Personally, I support the Advanced Technology Program, although I know that many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle do not. But I support this bill, and the Members on the other side of the aisle support this bill as well. We all want to demonstrate our support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which has served so well and the other programs authorized in this bill so we can facilitate assistance going to American manufacturers who desperately need it. That has been the entire tenor of the debate today. But now, as we are on the verge of accomplishing our mutual goal of helping manufacturers, we have before us a motion that will have the effect of killing the bill. That is not speculation. We know that disputes over ATP are why this bill died in the Senate in the last Congress. We know that the administration adamantly opposes ATP and will block the progress of this bill if ATP is included. A vote for this motion is not a vote for ATP; it is a vote to kill a bill that will help American manufacturers. And killing this bill over ATP would be especially irresponsible because the Congress will have other chances to save the ATP program. For starters, we will vote on appropriations for the program. It is not clear at all how the gamesmanship behind this motion will benefit the ATP program. It just make it more of a political football. It is very clear how that gamesmanship works to the detriment of the bill and the aid it will provide to American manufacturers, so I urge my colleagues to vote down this politically motivated amendment. We will have other chances to debate ATP. We will not have another chance for this bill, which in its current form has widespread bipartisan support. Let us put politics aside and make some real progress. Defeat the motion and support H.R. 250.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to come to the floor, as I just left Colonel Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence and the rest of the STS-114 crew; and they are an inspiration to all of us, not just those of us in this Chamber but to people around the world. I stand today in support of the resolution offered by my colleague and good friend from the great State of New York (Mrs. Maloney). This resolution recognizes the valuable contributions that women have made at NASA and particularly praises those who played a role in the success of STS-114. The accomplishments of the STS crew are the result of a rich history of women in NASA. Long before STS-114 women like Sally Ride, the first American woman in space; Kathryn Sullivan, the first American woman to perform a space walk; Mae Jemison, the first African American in space; and Shannon Lucid, the previous American record holder for the length of time spent in space on a single mission, they pushed the boundaries of human space flight. Women have also paid a dear price in the name of human space flight. Christa McAuliffe, Judith Resnick, Kalpana Chawla, and Laurel Clark will always be remembered for their courage and heroism. And Eileen Collins and Wendy Lawrence and the rest of STS-114 crew stand on the shoulders of those great women who came before them, and this resolution rightly recognizes that fact. Once again, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for introducing this important resolution, and I commend all of my colleagues for paying attention on the floor today to something that is really important, not just to today, but for generations to come.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I will insert this wonderful statement, developed by a very capable staff, in the Record, but let me just speak a couple of minutes about something that I think is really important. While we salute the magnificent team of people that made STS-114 possible, and I am not just talking about Colonel Collins and her crew, I am talking about all those dedicated professionals in NASA all over the country. They are a part of a team that developed the success story, but I want to salute the American taxpayers for supporting this mission with their hard-earned tax dollars. A lot of people will say to me what is all this about space, this Buck Rogers stuff, flying in the heavens? I will tell my colleagues what it is about. It is about finding new ways, better ways, to do things for the most important planet in the universe, the one we live on, the planet Earth. We derive so much from that investment in space right here at home on the planet Earth, and Colonel Collins and all the other team provide a constant source of inspiration to our young people to pursue career opportunities, to master the science and math disciplines. It is wonderful. And if the United States of America hopes to maintain its preeminent position in the international marketplace, we have got to do better. What better example of what can be achieved than the dedicated, committed, outstanding crew of Space Transportation System 114? It is a pleasure for me to join my colleagues in congratulating them and all of their associates in the NASA family and all those contractors, all the thousands of people who made possible this wonderful success story. I want to congratulate the entire NASA return-to-flight team and the seven members of the crew of STS-114 for the recent successful completion of their 14-day mission on the Space Shuttle Discovery. Specifically, I would like to congratulate Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot Jim Kelly, Mission Specialist Charlie Camarda, Mission Specialist Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist Soichi Noguchi (SO-ee-chee NO-gu- chee), Mission Specialist Steve Robinson, and Mission Specialist Andy Thomas on the successful completion of their test flight to the International Space Station. We commend the crew for the risks they take in furthering our Nation's goals in space exploration and we recognize them for the fine examples they set in pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. This flight was the first since the Columbia accident more than 2\1/2\ years ago and represents the culmination of a tremendous amount of work by government and contractor engineers, scientists, technicians, and operators. This flight also brought more than six tons of much needed supplies to the International Space Station. The return-to-flight team and crew is to be congratulated for this important step in moving our Nation's human spaceflight program forward. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee for introducing this resolution to recognize the significant achievements of the NASA team and the crew of STS-114.

Mr. BOEHLERT

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his remarks and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for his remarks. A lot of people will look at this bill and wonder how we got here today, with seemingly widespread support, and I think that will be proven when the vote actually occurs, because we started out with clear differences. We are not talking about petty cash, we are talking about $30-plus billion over the next 2 years, but we got to this point because we reasoned together. The professional staffs, and I emphasize the word, and Members worked in a bipartisan manner to fashion compromise, and this is the product that we have here today.

Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this is an important outstanding issue that does need to be resolved, and it is my intention to address it in the final version of the bill. As Members know, H.R. 3070 as originally introduced mandates that prize contestants keep their intellectual property, although NASA may negotiate a license. The gentleman's substitute would require that prize contestants choose one of two alternatives: Either agree to give NASA a royalty-free license in order to accept the prize or waive the prize in exchange for the right to negotiate a royalty agreement with NASA. We have offered meritorious but quite different approaches, and we will have to figure out how to handle it in the final bill. I look forward to working with the gentleman on that.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), a valued member of the committee. All members on the committee are valued, but this guy is valued for so many reasons. One is because he brings intellectual curiosity to the committee and he also brings it with a sense of wit that has us smiling even at some of the most tense times. (Mr. HALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the former chairman of the subcommittee who helped immeasurably to get us where we are today.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3070. Let me begin by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for the magnificent work he has performed as chairman of our Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and the lead author of this bill. Without the gentleman's steadfast determination, his insight and openness to compromise, we would not be here today. I also want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), and our subcommittee ranking, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their leadership and willingness to compromise, and I want to thank all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle who have contributed to this bill. It is truly a team effort and it shows what Congress can accomplish if we work together in an open- minded and cooperative manner. Now, I have opened my statement by focusing on compromise but I do not want anyone to think that this bill represents some kind of random hodgepodge of competing views. H.R. 3070 is built on firm central principles that will give clear direction to NASA. What are those principles? First, Congress endorses the President's Vision for Space Exploration. The United States will work to return to the Moon by 2020 and then will move on to other destinations. We will build a new Crew Exploration Vehicle that, among other tasks, will service the International Space Station. And the bill allows the Space Shuttle to be retired no later than 2010, which we must do if the space program is to continue to make progress. Obviously, we hope and pray for the safe return to flight of the Space Shuttle now scheduled for next Tuesday. The Space Shuttle is a magnificent machine and our current space program is dependent on it, but it is not our future in space. The second principle on which this bill is founded, and it is every bit as essential as the first principle, is that NASA is a multi- mission agency with vital responsibilities in space science, earth science, and aeronautics. Those programs are NASA's most successful efforts. They bring enormous economic and intellectual benefits and they create every bit as much excitement among students and the general public as do the human space flight programs. This bill recognize the centrality of those programs and authorizes them at a greater level than the administration has proposed. The bill specifically endorses the Hubble space telescope repair mission, assuming, and this is important, assuming the NASA Administrator determines that the mission would not impose any unreasonable risk. And the bill treats these programs as priorities to be evaluated on their own merits, not in terms of the human space flight program. The third principle behind this bill is an understanding that NASA is in a period of transition and that Congress needs much more information before we can make detailed decisions on the future of the agency's programs. For that reason the bill asks NASA to develop a vision for aeronautics, a prioritized list of science missions and a plan for its workforce and facilities. We require more joint planning with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy. We explicitly list the numerous basic reports that Administrator Griffin has promised to provide by September, including, most significantly, reports on the number of remaining shuttle flights and their mission, the final configuration of the space station, the cost of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the plan for what we will do on the Moon, and the plan for Project Prometheus, and that is not even the full list. We have a lot of oversight work ahead of us. The fourth principle of the bill is that NASA has to try new ways of doing business if it is to remain innovative. This is a point that the former chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) always hammered home and it is an emphasis of the gentleman from California (Chairman Calvert) as well. NASA has to be open to entrepreneurs. NASA needs to see how much it can gain from an expanded prize program which is authorized in this bill. NASA needs to work with international partners on the Vision for Space Exploration. So this is a bill built on solid principles that will give NASA a solid foundation from which to launch its many missions. We can all be proud of our space program, which has been a symbol of and contributor to the Nation's technological prowess. This bipartisan bill will ensure that that remains the case, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate on H.R. 3070. July 20, 2005. Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3070, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters. Sincerely, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 3070--National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005--As reported by the House Committee on Science on July 18, 2005 Summary: H.R. 3070 would authorize appropriations for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) activities for fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3070 would cost $33 billion over the 2006- 2010 period. The legislation would extend NASA's authority to indemnify or insure developers of experimental aerospace vehicles from damage claims by third parties. That provision could increase direct spending, but CBO estimates any such costs would be insignificant over the 2006-2015 period. H.R. 3070 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3070 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 (general science, space, and technology) and 400 (transportation). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before actually yielding to this next speaker, because I feel it is most important for Members to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) took over the subcommittee and totally immersed himself in the work of it. He is traveling around to all the NASA centers; he is interacting with the employees. And not just the top guys, but all the way down the line. This guy is proving by performance that he is outstanding in his leadership, and for that I thank him very much. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment only because it is procedurally necessary. I do not oppose the amendment. As a matter of fact, after careful examination of not only the language but the intent, we are pleased to accept the amendment. And I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York for offering this amendment. I think it enriches the bill. We, because of the proximity of our offices and the frequency with which we have to travel from the offices to the floor, often find ourselves on the same path at the same time. And let me say to my colleagues, I can think of no one who is more ardent in her support of small business and her determination to help us enrich bills, no matter which committee we might serve on. So I tell the gentlewoman I thank her for offering this constructive amendment, and we accept it.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that the gentlewoman intends to withdraw this amendment as she did at committee. The bill already recognizes, and I think this is very, very important, the importance of minority colleges and universities in several other provisions. But I am happy to work with the gentlewoman to see if some version of this language might be included in the final version of the bill. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time the gentlewoman has. Because I just want to demonstrate the spirit of comity and good relations.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will let the gentlewoman proceed with her time; and then if she exhausts her time, I understand the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) feels very strongly about this in support of it and he would like to have a minute or so, so I would be glad to yield that time. So I will let the gentlewoman proceed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.