F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to support this amendment and hope we can have a vote on it promptly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The leadership has informed me that unless we get this bill done by 2:45, we will rise and we might not come back. So I would implore the Members that we keep the chatter down to a minimum and have this bill on a fast track if it is at all humanly possible. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999, is the first stand-alone R&D energy bill to be considered on the floor of the House since 1988. This bill authorizes $3.878 billion for fiscal year 2000 and $4.099 billion for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Energy's Supply, Science, and Fossil Energy and Energy Conservation R&D programs. Highlights of the bill's authorization for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 include the following: First, it boosts spending for solar and renewable energy technologies. Including the already authorized Hydrogen Research Program and related Office of Science Programs, the bill recommends $401.9 million in fiscal year 2000 for these programs, an increase of $26.8 million, or 6.7 percent above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999; and recommends $418.1 million for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $16.8 million, or 4.0 percent above the amount recommended for fiscal year 2000. Second, the bill revitalizes the DOE's moribund Nuclear Energy Program and recommends $115.7 million in fiscal year 2000 for nuclear energy, an increase of $24.3 million, or 26.6 percent above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1999 and $3.4 million above the administration's request; and recommends $127.3 million for fiscal year 2001, an increase of $11.5 million, or 9.9 percent above the amount recommended for fiscal year 2000. Third, the bill preserves and strengthens the Nation's High Energy Physics program, fully funds U.S. participation on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and prevents layoffs at the two premier U.S. High Energy Physics facilities, Firmi National Accelerator Laboratory, Fermilab, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, SLAC. Fourth, the bill also preserves and strengthens the Nation's nuclear physics program, prevents the closure of MIT/Bates Accelerator Center, and increases operations at the two premier nuclear physics facilities, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Lab in New York. Fifth, the bill fully funds important biological and environmental research on the human genome and global climate change, as well as basic environmental research. Sixth, the bill provides robust funding for basic energy sciences, including significant increases to the operating funds for the Nation's existing premier synchroton and neutron sources, and $100 million to initiate construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Seventh, the bill reinvigorates DOE's fusion energy sciences, and recommends $250 million in fiscal year 2000 and $275 million in fiscal year 2001 to allow increased operations at the Nation's three premier fusion energy facilities, the DIII-D at General Atomics, the Alcator-C Mod at MIT, and the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, as well as accelerated exploration of advanced magnetic and inertial fusion energy concepts. Eighth, the bill makes a strong commitment to ensuring the clean and efficient use of the Nation's plentiful supply of fossil fuels, and includes $25 million in fiscal year 2000 and $50 million in fiscal year 2001 for a fossil energy science initiative for grants to be competitively awarded and subject to peer review for research relating to energy efficiency. And, ninth, the bill also maintains a strong commitment to energy efficiency, and also includes $25 million in fiscal year 2000 and $50 million in fiscal year 2001 for an energy efficiency science initiative for grants to be competitively awarded and subject to peer review for research relating to energy efficiency. The bill also contains a number of funding limitations and prohibitions that address amounts of funds that may be reprogrammed; demonstration projects; general plant and construction projects; obligation of funds for the construction of the Spallation Neutron Source; U.S. participation in the international thermonuclear experimental reactor engineering design activities; travel costs for DOE and its contractors or subcontractors; noncompetitive financial assistance awards to trade associations and awards of management and operating contract for DOE civilian energy labs; awards, amendments, or modifications of contracts that deviate from the Federal acquisition regulation; and preparation or initiation of requests for proposals for unauthorized programs, projects or activities. In addition, the bill also prohibits the Secretary of Energy from admitting to any classified area of any DOE-owned or -operated nonmilitary energy laboratory, except for specific laboratories, an individual who is a citizen of a nation that is named on the DOE list of sensitive countries, unless the Secretary waives the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if it is determined that such access is necessary for the furtherance of U.S. civilian science. I commend the bill to the House for its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment, but I do not think that it is fair to say that the Committee on Science has been parsimonious relative to solar renewable energy. The base bill recommends a 6.7 percent increase above appropriated 1999 levels to 401.9 million for fiscal 2000 and an additional 4 percent increase to $418.1 million for fiscal 2001. This amendment pluses those numbers up further at a time when we are operating under discretionary spending caps and under some severe budget constraints. During my early years on the Committee on Science we, on a bipartisan basis, attempted to put some sense and some market forces into solar and renewable energy research because frankly the programs were overfunded following the 1979 oil crisis, and those efforts were successful; and I think we were able to better focus the money on it so that the taxpayers got more bang for the buck. So I am going to tell my friends from Colorado and New York that there is going to be a little quid pro quo to my good judgment in support of this amendment, and that is going to be some vigorous oversight over the solar and renewable energy programs over the next year; and I hope that they will exercise equally good judgment to support that so that we do not go back to the morass of merely throwing money at the program like we did in the late 1970s and early 1980s, over two administrations, one a Democratic administration and one a Republican administration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to support this amendment, but I am absolutely shocked that an administration that was committed to preserving the environment would be planning such a thing. So perhaps we Republicans can help wake an administration that has been insensitive to environmental concerns such as those that the minority whip of the House of Representatives has brought to our attention to wake up. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, it is a constructive ``Buy American'' amendment, and I would encourage everybody to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is a very positive addition to the bill and would urge the Members to support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the entire bill be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Committee on Science, I have worked with my friend and colleague, Mr. George E. Brown, Jr., of California for the past 2\1/2\ years to advance legislation that meets our Nation's research and development funding needs. Regrettably, Congressman Brown is no longer with us. I am pleased to say that this legislation continues that tradition, only this time we have a new ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). H.R. 1551 authorizes the FAA to conduct research and development activities for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Shortly, I will offer a manager's amendment that was crafted in consultation with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The amendment strikes certain provisions of H.R. 1551 which were already authorized earlier this summer through House passage of H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century. As amended by my manager's amendment, H.R. 1551 authorizes $208 million in fiscal year 2000 and $223 million in fiscal year 2001 for the FAA to conduct research and development in the areas of air traffic, management, communications, navigation, weather, aircraft safety, system security, airport technology, and human factors. The legislation fully funds the administration's fiscal 2000 request and allows a modest, but necessary, increase of 3 percent over fiscal year 1999 enacted funding level for the various research and development activities. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Science takes its oversight responsibilities very seriously. I am pleased that H.R. 1551 includes important provisions to ensure that our Nation's investments in aviation R&D are effectively utilized. For instance, section 5 of the legislation implements recommendations by the Inspector General by requiring the FAA to work cooperatively with NASA to jointly prepare and transmit to Congress an integrated civil aviation safety R&D plan that clearly defines the rules and responsibilities of the two agencies. Section 4 requires the FAA to implement strategic planning consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act in the development of aviation plans. Finally, H.R. 1551 ensures accountability and public access to award information by requiring the FAA to post the abstracts related to all unclassified R&D grants and awards on the agency's Internet home page. I would like to commend gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work they have done in crafting this legislation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1551 is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1551.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Clerk read the amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the gentleman has two amendments. Does this relate to ``Buy American''?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for yielding me this time, and rise in support of this bill, which will assist the administration's efforts to prevent the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Iran. H.R. 1883 contains several provisions that require the administration to report any credible information it receives about the entities transferring technology to Iran. The bill's teeth, however, are in section 6, over which the Committee on Science has jurisdiction and which the committee unanimously endorsed last week. Section 6 prohibits the administration from transferring any funds to the Russian Government for the International Space Station unless the President determines that it is the policy of the Russian Government to actively oppose proliferation to Iran, that the Russian Government is carrying out that policy, and that the Russian Space Agency and the organizations under its jurisdictions have not transferred technology to Iran. Some question linking the International Space Station and proliferation arguing that they are separate issues. Using the space program as a nonproliferation tool follows the path the White House laid out in 1993 when it invited Russia into the International Space Station partnership. The White House explicitly linked Russian participation in the Space Station to its goal of discouraging Russia from engaging in proliferation activities, and numerous administration witnesses since then before the Committee on Science and its subcommittees have stated that if Russia proliferates to Iran that is a deal breaker as far as the Space Station goes. So, H.R. 1883 is consistent with the administration's policies regarding both the Space Station and nonproliferation. Unfortunately, we have received consistent reports since 1993 that Russia is assisting Iran's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The CIA and the State Department conceded as much in open hearings over the last 2 years. Faced with such evidence, H.R. 1883 is an appropriate and measured step that Congress can and must take to halt such proliferation. The bill does not change Russia's rights or obligations as a partner in the International Space Station. It does not prohibit NASA from making payments to the Russian Space Agency if the Russian Government is doing what it promises, namely stopping the flow of technology to Iran. It only prohibits NASA from making such payments if Russia is increasing the threat to our friends, allies, and troops in the Middle East and in Europe. Congress must not look the other way in the face of proliferation or one day it will come back to haunt us. We must do our part to promote international peace and security. H.R. 1883 is a good first step, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2112 is a combination of two other freestanding bills which I have introduced. Section 2 consists of the text of H.R. 1852, which would reverse the effects of the 1998 Supreme Court decision in the so-called ``Lexecon'' case, that would simply amend the multidistrict litigation statute by explicitly allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases for trial or to refer them to other districts as it sees fit. Section 3 is comprised of the language of H.R. 967, which beginning in the 101st Congress has been supported by the Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, two previous Democratic Congresses, and one previous Republican Congress. Section 3 will help reduce litigation costs as well as the likelihood of forum shopping in single-accident mass tort cases. All plaintiffs in these cases would ordinarily be situated identically, making the case for consolidation of these actions especially compelling. These types of disasters, with their hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs and numerous defendants, have the potential to impair the orderly administration of justice in the Federal courts for an extended period of time. In brief, section 3 addresses these problems by conferring original jurisdiction upon a Federal District Court of any civil action which features four basic attributes. First, the action is one in which minimal diversity exists between adverse parties. Second, the action arises from a single accident. Third, at least 25 people have either died or incurred injury in the accident. Fourth, in the case of injury, the injury has resulted in damages which exceed $75,000 per person. Moreover, the relevant district court overseeing such a consolidated action is given wider authority to apply appropriate choice of law rules. This is a great improvement over the existing convoluted system in which a myriad of State laws ties the hands of a federal judge. The criteria the Court must invoke when making its decisions include examination of the place of the injury, the place of the conduct causing the injury, the principal place of business or domicile of the parties, the danger of creating unnecessary incentives for forum shopping and whether the choice of law would be reasonably foreseeable to the parties. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and I jointly amended the bill at full committee by making two basic and noncontroversial changes. First, the treatment of compensatory damages in Section 2 will be made consistent with that in section 3. Second, based upon a recommendation from the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), we will raise the dollar threshold in section 3 actions from $50,000 to $75,000. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the good faith efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) in resolving the one outstanding issue governing compensatory damages prior to the full committee markup. His willingness to work with us has resulted in a truly bipartisan and noncontroversial measure. I want these sentiments on the record, especially in his absence today. So, Mr. Speaker, this legislation speaks to process, fairness and judicial efficiency. It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for litigators. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and myself in a bipartisan effort to support the Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kleczka- Sensenbrenner amendment. This amendment would prohibit the EPA from using funds to promulgate a final rule on drinking water standards for radium that is not based on sound science. In 1991, the EPA proposed a standard for radium in drinking water of 20 pico curries per liter (pCi/L). However, the EPA now intends to mandate a far more stringent level of 5 pCi/L. This apparently arbitrary restriction was recommended before proper scientific evidence to support it was gathered. To defend this restriction, the EPA cites a study on airborne radon by the National Research Council as supporting evidence that radium in drinking water beyond 5 pCi/L may have negative health effects despite the fact that the authors of this study state that their work did not consider the effects of carcinogens other than radon, including radium. Promoting regulations that are not based on sound science is becoming a pattern at the EPA. The Agency has mandated that parts of the country use reformulated gasoline, including gasoline with the additive MTBE. MTBE pollutes ground and surface water supplies rendering it unusable for drinking water. Recently, a National Research Council report found that oxygenates, including MTBE do little to clean up our air. An EPA Blue Ribbon Panel found that MTBE is seriously damaging our nation's water. Judging by these reports, the EPA has done serious damage to our water, while doing very little for our air. That's bad science. The EPA has often supported the need to regulate before the science is complete, arguing that the risk of doing nothing is too great even when the cost of their proposals is incredibly high. In the global climate change debate, the EPA supports proposals based on shaky science would cause gasoline prices to rise by 50 cents a gallon and household energy costs to rise $900 to $1,000 a year according to the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Association. Similarly, if promulgated, the EPA's revised radium rule would be incredibly costly. A water utility in both my District and Congressman Kleczka's District estimates that it would cost $70 million to build and operate a facility to comply with the 5 pCi/L restriction. The cost for the new facility would be passed on to utility consumers. This water utility estimates that its rates may need to be raised to four times their current level. The cost-hike will hurt businesses and families alike. Average homeowners may see their water utility costs rise $200 to $800 per year. This is not a problem isolated to Wisconsin. In fact, 25 states have water utilities that are above the 5 pCi/L level. The costs that this rule would impose on my district would be duplicated many-fold across the country. The EPA should closely study the direct human health implications of radium in drinking water before imposing such a costly regulation. This amendment will provide time for the EPA to conduct these necessary tests. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Nadler's amendment. It's an overused colloquialism, but this amendment is penny-wise and pound-foolish. If you don't like the Space Station and want to set our human spaceflight program back decades, vote to kill the Space Station. the Roemer/Sanford amendment is intellectually honest in making this choice. Sadly, the amendment before us now offers a false choice. It creates the illusion of savings by reducing a program budget, but the amendment will only increase our costs in the future when NASA has to work overtime to make up for near-term budget shortfalls. Last year, the Committee on Science received testimony from the Chairman of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force, which NASA created at the request of Congress. The Chairman of the Task Force, Jay Chabrow, testified that Space Station costs had grown because the Administration underfunded the program. The gentleman from New York's amendment would worsen that problem by cutting $305 million from the space station account. Such a cut promises to increase Station costs in the future. Mr. Chairman, we all know that the sooner we fix a problem the cheaper it is to fix. The only way to fix problems now and prevent them from growing in the future is to provide NASA with enough resources to do the job we're asking it to do. If you support the Space Station, and the vote margins of the last few years make it clear you do, then you should reject this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to terminate the International Space Station. We go through this exercise every year and the outcome is a foregone conclusion. When Mr. Roemer offered a similar amendment to the authorization bill this spring, he could not even muster 100 votes. We beat back this amendment by the biggest margin in the Space Station's history. We will do so again. But, there are a few points we should make clear before doing so. First, the gentleman has challenged Congress to set priorities. The fact is, we have. Scientific research aboard the Space Station is--and has been--our top priority for the civil space program. Congress has made that clear on a bipartisan basis for years. Second, there is hardware in orbit. Right now, the first and second elements are assembled in space and circling the Earth. Terminating now would send the program to a fiery ending as those elements burn up upon re-entering Earth's atmosphere. That's not the right beginning to the next millennium. Third, we have already spent the bulk of the Space Station's development funding. We've passed the roughest financial hurdles and invested some $20 billion getting the hardware on the ground ready for launch. You can see that hardware at the Kennedy Space Center right now. It belongs in orbit, not in a museum. Finally, there are 16 other countries counting on us to finish the Space Station. They have committed billions to this project because we made a pledge to them. That's a pledge we should not break. While it is true that Russia has let the partnership down and that the Administration's decision to put Russia in the critical path has cost the taxpayers more money, two wrongs don't make a right. Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to do what is right for our country and vote down the Roemer amendment again.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Crowley. This amendment would cut $10 million dollars from the National Science Foundation's (NSF) polar research and Antarctic logistics programs, which are part of the Research and Related Activities account. The Science Committee and this House have affirmed the importance of an active U.S. presence in Antarctica. Stable funding for these programs is necessary because of the long lead time required for polar operations. If this amendment passes, funding will have to be shifted from other NSF basic research programs to support polar operations already in the pipeline. Mr. Chairman, we can all sympathize with the plight for those who have contracted AIDS, but I do not think that it is in the best interests of AIDS patients to cut funding for basic science programs that may one day provide a cure for this and other debilitating diseases. The types of basic research NSF funds in the biological and other sciences is a vitally important part of a balanced federal research portfolio. The basic research being conducted through NSF adds to our store of knowledge in valuable, and often unpredictable, ways. We cannot foresee where the next AIDS breakthrough will come, but I think it is safe to say that basic research funded by NSF will be shown to have contributed greatly in the effort. I do not believe it is their intention, but the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York potentially could prolong the time needed to develop an effective treatment for this insidious disease, harming the people it is intended to help. NSF-funded research is an important weapon in the battle against AIDS and other serious diseases. If this House really wants to help AIDS patients, it will vote a resounding ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss H.R. 2684, the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999. This bill contains funding for the science programs of the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Last year, the Science Committee passed the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1999, now Public Law 105-207. This was a multi-year authorization for NSF and provided funding and programmatic direction for NSF for fiscal years 1998 through 2000. H.R. 2684 provides $3.6 billion in funding for NSF for FY 2000. This is below both the level authorized in Public Law 105-207, and the level enacted for FY 1999. NSF is our Nation's premier federal basic research agency, and I believe its funding should be increasing, not decreasing. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee during conference to correct this funding shortfall. One priority within NSF is basic information technology (IT) research as outlined in H.R. 2086, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (NITRD). NITRD is a long-term authorization for basic IT research introduced by a bipartisan coalition of members from the Committee on Science. Fundamental IT research has played an essential role in fueling the information revolution and creating new industries and millions of new, high-paying jobs. Maintaining the Nation's global leadership in IT will require keeping open the pipeline of new ideas, technologies, and innovations that flow from basic research. Although the private sector provides most IT research funding, it tends to focus on short-term, applied work. The federal government, therefore, has a critical role to play in supporting the long-term, basic research the private sector requires but is ill-suited to pursue. H.R. 2684 appropriates $35 million of new money specifically for NITRD. I appreciate the Appropriations Committee's initial support for what promises to be an important long-term research effort. As for the space program, I want to first thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, for addressing some of the Science Committee's concerns during consideration of the bill at full Committee. The restoration of $400 million in the full Appropriations Committee to space science was a good first step. We've come a long way since the President's FY 1997 budget request, which presented the space community with the prospects of a 25% cut. That progress should not blind us to the importance of ensuring a healthy budget for space science. I look forward to working with the appropriators over the coming months to try and restore the remaining shortfalls. The International Space Station also demands our attention. We need to reverse the bill's proposed $100 million reduction to this vital program. While I share the appropriators' frustration with the Administration's management of this program, this cut could prove penny-wise and pound-foolish. Following continuous pressure from the Science Committee, the President has now decided to seek funding for a U.S.-built independent propulsion module. Cuts to the Space Station threaten this independent propulsion capability and could lengthen our dependence on the Russians, creating even bigger budget problems in the future. We also need to reverse the cuts to the Shuttle program. Over the last five years, NASA and the United Space Alliance have done an excellent job of making the Shuttle lean and mean, but you can only go so far. Cutting the Shuttle budget further may affect safety. So, I want to express my willingness to continue working with the appropriators now and in the coming months to ensure that the Shuttle, Space Station and Space Science are fully funded. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act of 1999. That bill made low-cost access to space a higher priority by increasing funding for advanced space transportation. The Cox Committee reaffirmed that reliable, low-cost access to space was vital to U.S. national security, scientific, and commercial interests. I would hope that the final appropriations bill will be able to address this long-term need. I would also like to note the EPA budget in H.R. 2684. The appropriators have provided EPA with $7.3 billion in FY 2000. This is $105 million over the President's request. EPA's Science and Technology account is funded at $645 million, an increase of $2.5 million over the President's request. Finally, I want to take a moment to remember the former distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Science, Representative George Brown. George was a colleague and a friend and he recognized how critical science and technology were to the future of this country. While George and I differed on a number of policy issues, he always had the best interest of science in his heart. Let us honor his memory by working to ensure that science in America continues to move forward into the 21st Century.