Expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education should be a national priority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution and commend my colleague, Eddie Bernice Johnson, for introducing it and the chairman of the Science Committee for bringing it forward.

This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education should be a national priority. And I must say, I hope Members on the other side of this aisle will avoid distracting us with red herrings across the trail and debating other diverting matters such as drilling and digging in the United States and stick to this topic which is of critical importance.

Since first coming to Congress almost a decade ago, I stressed the need for a new major national effort to improve science, mathematics, and technology education. I'm a product of the science revolution in the United States that occurred following the launch of Sputnik in 1957. And today, as this resolution notes, we must recommit ourselves to creating a new generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, and just as important, indeed more important, we need to build a general public that is literate and comfortable with science, math, technology.

I would ask at this point to include in the Record a copy of a recent op-ed essay entitled ``Put a Little Science in Your Life'' by Brian Greene, professor of physics at Columbia and author of The Elegant Universe. He discusses the importance of science in everyone's lives, not just scientists.

[From the New York Times, June 1, 2008]

Put a Little Science in Your Life

(By Brian Greene)

A couple of years ago I received a letter from an American

soldier in Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we've

all become painfully aware, serving on the front lines is

physically exhausting and emotionally debilitating. But the

reason for his writing was to tell me that in that hostile

and lonely environment, a book I'd written had become a kind

of lifeline. As the book is about science--one that traces

physicists' search for nature's deepest laws--the soldier's

letter might strike you as, well, odd.

But it's not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role

science can play in giving life context and meaning. At the

same time, the soldier's letter emphasized something I've

increasingly come to believe: our educational system fails to

teach science in a way that allows students to integrate it

into their lives.

Allow me a moment to explain.

When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods,

personal computers and the Internet, it's easy to see how

science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into

the fabric of our day-to-day activities. When we benefit from

CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents,

we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality

of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and

identify looming challenges like climate change, global

pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we

don't hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems

and find solutions.

And when we look at the wealth of opportunities hovering on

the horizon--stem cells, genomic sequencing, personalized

medicine, longevity research, nanoscience, brain-machine

interface, quantum computers, space technology--we realize

how crucial it is to cultivate a general public that can

engage with scientific issues; there's simply no other way

that as a society we will be prepared to make informed

decisions on a range of issues that will shape the future.

These are the standard--and enormously important--reasons

many would give in explaining why science matters.

But here's the thing. The reason science really matters

runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a

perspective. Science is the process that takes us from

confusion to understanding in a manner that's precise,

predictive and reliable--a transformation, for those lucky

enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To

be able to think through and grasp explanations--for

everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on

earth--not because they are declared dogma but rather because

they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation,

is one of the most precious of human experiences.

As a practicing scientist, I know this from my own work and

study. But I also know that you don't have to be a scientist

for science to be transformative. I've seen children's eyes

light up as I've told them about black holes and the Big

Bang. I've spoken with high school dropouts who've

stumbled on popular science books about the human genome

project, and then returned to school with newfound

purpose. And in that letter from Iraq, the soldier told me

how learning about relativity and quantum physics in the

dusty and dangerous environs of greater Baghdad kept him

going because it revealed a deeper reality of which we're

all a part.

It's striking that science is still widely viewed as merely

a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of

largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the

``real'' world in the form of technological or medical

advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and

inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination

and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.

If science isn't your strong suit--and for many it's not--

this side of science is something you may have rarely if ever

experienced. I've spoken with so many people over the years

whose encounters with science in school left them thinking of

it as cold, distant and intimidating. They happily use the

innovations that science makes possible, but feel that the

science itself is just not relevant to their lives. What a

shame.

Like a life without music, art or literature, a life

without science is bereft of something that gives experience

a rich and otherwise inaccessible dimension.

It's one thing to go outside on a crisp, clear night and

marvel at a sky full of stars. It's another to marvel not

only at the spectacle but to recognize that those stars are

the result of exceedingly ordered conditions 13.7 billion

years ago at the moment of the Big Bang. It's another still

to understand how those stars act as nuclear furnaces that

supply the universe with carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, the raw

material of life as we know it.

And it's yet another level of experience to realize that

those stars account for less than 4 percent of what's out

there--the rest being of an unknown composition, so-called

dark matter and energy, which researchers are now vigorously

trying to divine.

As every parent knows, children begin life as uninhibited,

unabashed explorers of the unknown. From the time we can walk

and talk, we want to know what things are and how they work--

we begin life as little scientists. But most of us quickly

lose our intrinsic scientific passion. And it's a profound

loss.

A great many studies have focused on this problem,

identifying important opportunities for improving science

education. Recommendations have ranged from increasing the

level of training for science teachers to curriculum reforms.

But most of these studies (and their suggestions) avoid an

overarching systemic issue: in teaching our students, we

continually fail to activate rich opportunities for revealing

the breathtaking vistas opened up by science, and instead

focus on the need to gain competency with science's

underlying technical details.

In fact, many students I've spoken to have little sense of

the big questions those technical details collectively try to

answer: Where did the universe come from? How did life

originate? How does the brain give rise to consciousness?

Like a music curriculum that requires its students to

practice scales while rarely if ever inspiring them by

playing the great masterpieces, this way of teaching science

squanders the chance to make students sit up in their chairs

and say, ``Wow, that's science?''

In physics, just to give a sense of the raw material that's

available to be leveraged, the most revolutionary of advances

have happened in the last 100 years--special relativity,

general relativity, quantum mechanics--a symphony of

discoveries that changed our conception of reality. More

recently, the last 10 years have witnessed an upheaval in

our understanding of the universe's composition, yielding

a wholly new prediction for what the cosmos will be like

in the far future.

These are paradigm-shaking developments. But rare is the

high school class, and rarer still is the middle school

class, in which these breakthroughs are introduced. It's much

the same story in classes for biology, chemistry and

mathematics.

At the root of this pedagogical approach is a firm belief

in the vertical nature of science: you must master A before

moving on to B. When A happened a few hundred years ago, it's

a long climb to the modern era. Certainly, when it comes to

teaching the technicalities--solving this equation, balancing

that reaction, grasping the discrete parts of the cell--the

verticality of science is unassailable.

But science is so much more than its technical details. And

with careful attention to presentation, cutting-edge insights

and discoveries can be clearly and faithfully communicated to

students independent of those details; in fact, those

insights and discoveries are precisely the ones that can

drive a

young student to want to learn the details. We rob science

education of life when we focus solely on results and seek to

train students to solve problems and recite facts without a

commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the

stars.

Science is the greatest of all adventure stories, one

that's been unfolding for thousands of years as we have

sought to understand ourselves and our surroundings. Science

needs to be taught to the young and communicated to the

mature in a manner that captures this drama. We must embark

on a cultural shift that places science in its rightful place

alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable part

of what makes life worth living.

It's the birthright of every child, it's a necessity for

every adult, to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq

did, and see that the wonder of the cosmos transcends

everything that divides us.

There is no denying that America is losing ground and global competitiveness to countries that are making the necessary investments in education and research and development. We owe our current economic strength, our current national security, our current quality of life, to the investments of past generations.

However, the Federal Government has failed to fund adequately research, development, and innovation. Investment in these areas ensures that American people will continue to benefit from opportunities of the rapidly growing global economy and its inherent foundations.

In August of 2007, this body passed into law, as my colleague from Texas pointed out, a comprehensive competitiveness package, the America COMPETES Act, which was based on disturbing findings of the National Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' that our Nation is severely underinvesting in engineering and the physical sciences.

Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008 budget fell short of the required goal. Without taking a bold, different approach in this year's appropriation cycle, Congress will be delivering a blow to our future economic security and competitiveness.

I thank gentlelady for introducing this legislation. I hope we pay heed.

Will the gentleman yield?

Quite simply, the reason gasoline prices are so high today--of course there is international speculation--is there's demand from other countries; there's the falling value of the dollar. Principally, it is because, in past decades, we failed to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. We have failed to make the investment in research and development that would make that possible. You're talking about drilling in Alaska.

If I may continue.

If the gentleman would yield.

It's the wrong argument. We are here to talk about the future that we will get from investment in research and development.

If the gentleman will yield.

We will not get out of this problem by doing more of the same that we have been doing.

I thank the gentlelady for her generous grant of time.

There might be some small grounds for agreement here. I did hear both the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from New Jersey, and particularly the gentleman from Illinois, in talking in support of the legislation that's actually before us, which does not pertain to gas and oil prices or supply in any way, saying we needed and he supported the idea of research, investment, and education, and moving toward new technologies.

The gentleman from New Jersey talked about a transition from a petroleum-based economy. I think there's some grounds, small grounds, for agreement there.

But I guess, and I think most American people would agree with that, they know we can't, you know, drill big and burn our way out of this problem. We've got to cut our dependence to OPEC and other foreign sources of oil, and we've got to mitigate the damage on our economy.

But then that's where the disagreement starts because mitigating the damage to consumers today means taking some tough votes in this House of Representatives. One tough one was May 20 of last year, rollcall 332. Now, that seemed a no-brainer to me, but it was really tough on the Republican side, and the gentleman from Illinois voted against it.

It was to have the Justice Department, United States Justice Department, investigate collusion by the OPEC Nations to unnecessarily constrain supply and drive up the price for American consumers. That was a tough vote for the gentleman from Illinois. He voted ``no.'' He didn't think the Justice Department should investigate. I also have a bill saying the President should file a complaint against the OPEC countries in the WTO.

You know, the Bush administration, in fact, is now investigating collusion by OPEC. They still haven't filed a complaint in the WTO. So the Bush administration is taking a step that the gentleman from Illinois opposed, investigating collusion which is gouging consumers. We need a new energy future, but we don't need to allow our consumers to be price gouged on the way there.

Mr. Wu raised another issue which the gentleman just brushed off, which is the whole issue that credible analysts say, because of the Enron loophole--remember, Ken Boy? He might be dead but his memory lives on, and about 50 cents a gallon for the American people. Ken Boy Lay of Enron, one of the President's best buddies, got a special loophole from this Republican Congress deregulating derivatives in energy trading so that they could speculate. Well, he's dead, Enron's bankrupt, but the speculation is rampant.

And experts tell us probably 50 cents on every gallon, 50 cents on every gallon today, you want to give immediate relief, reregulate the commodities market. You're not regulating the price of gas. You're just saying you can't have derivatives and you can't have Morgan Stanley holding more futures contracts and more fuel than ExxonMobil. Just reregulate the market. They can't self-deal. Just reregulate the market. Just bring some regular trading back to that market that existed before 2000. You could save tomorrow 50 cents a gallon.

Now, you can talk about ANWR, and he talked about it with great certainty. I've been sitting in on debates for 20 years over ANWR. One well was drilled. What was there we don't know. It was proprietary. There are estimates from a little bit to a lot of oil. But he knows exactly how much is there, interesting, and how much revenue it would bring, even more interesting, since right now oil from Alaska can and is being exported from the United States of America. I guess he's worried about the Chinese energy problem because that's most likely where any additional supply from Alaska would go until we develop more refinery capacity, which the industry refuses to do. And there are ways to drive them to make that investment, but the gentleman doesn't support that legislation either, which I've introduced.

So we're hearing a lot of bloviating and talk on that side of the aisle because Republicans are running scared because their coffers have been filled by this industry for years and they were put into power and Bush was put into the White House and Dick Cheney was put into the Vice President's mansion by this industry. And this industry is kind of unpopular right now.

So they want to pretend they want to do something 10, 15, 20 years out. Let's even bring it a little closer in. The gentleman again talked about ANWR. Well, right just a little way away from ANWR, guess what, there's something Bill Clinton leased called the Naval Petroleum Reserve. We know there's oil

under that. Bill Clinton leased it. Bill Clinton's been gone seven-and- a-half years. How time flies.

How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve drilled by American companies who have leased that reserve? None, not one, not a single one.

So, if the need is to get more production going in Alaska, how about they drill the wells in the Naval Petroleum Reserve where we know there's oil as opposed to pretending there might be oil in ANWR, and we could drill way over there, and it's also a lot further from the existing pipeline and other shipping capabilities.

So there's a heck of a lot of stuff, as I said earlier in my 45- second response--I regret I didn't have time at that point to yield to the gentleman. He's not here now. I would have given him at least 30 seconds--to develop out there, but the industry isn't developing it. Ten thousand permits that haven't been actuated, and they start talking about Illinois.

These Federal leases aren't in Illinois. I'm not aware of any Federal leases in Illinois for oil exploration. These are off the coast where 80 percent of the supply is accessible through existing leases. The industry just hasn't seen fit to develop it. Why not? Because it's working really well for them right now. Record prices. They don't really care about supply. They sure as heck don't want more supply to bring down the price.

Plain and simple, they're extorting the American people. They're extorting through collusion with OPEC. They're extorting through speculation in the energy markets, and they're extorting by withholding their drilling from leases they already have while pretending they need more. Plain and simple, it's a scam.

And I'm really disappointed that the gentleman is going to oppose my bill later when he talks about all the revenue that could be realized, when right now royalty-free oil is flowing out of the gulf because of a bureaucratic error, and he doesn't want to fix that problem because he thinks the oil companies need the money more than my counties and schools, and we'll hear more about that later.

There are 36.9 billion reasons why we aren't doing more to protect consumers today, why we haven't filed the complaints against OPEC, why the Republicans voted against investigating collusion by OPEC, why the Republicans created loopholes in energy trading so that Enron could get rich--well, they went bankrupt, actually, but others can speculate in the market, driving up gas 50 cents a gallon today. And they don't want to close that loophole because their rich buddies benefit from it, just like their rich buddies in the oil industry benefit from the lack of supply.

But I was shocked to hear the gentleman talk about needing to loosen up regulations in order to get more refinery capacity. A few years ago, George Bush offered to let any oil company that wanted to build a new refinery build it on a closed military base and waive all the environmental laws. How many takers did he get? Big goose egg, zero, none.

What did the head of Exxon Mobil say just 2 weeks ago? We're not interested in building refineries; we're doing just fine the way things are. They are restraining, and they have restrained over the last decade, refinery capacity in collusion to drive up the price. It's yet another excuse to drive up the price.

So they don't want to build refineries and give relief to the American consumers. They don't want us to take on the collusion of OPEC because they're making money off of it. They don't want us to stop the speculation in the commodities market because Big Oil and big Wall Street are making money off it.

And then they want to shift to this fatuous debate about ANWR. They know exactly how much oil is there, unlike anybody else in the world except the one company that drilled the one proprietary well 25 years ago, they're the only people who know if there is or isn't anything there. But we do know underneath the former National Petroleum Reserve, set aside by a much more far-sighted administration 70 years ago, there is a sea of oil underneath the National Petroleum Reserve. And Bill Clinton leased that to the oil industry because they were carping about the need for new places to go and drill for oil. Bill Clinton has been gone 7\1/2\ years. How many producing wells are there in the Naval Petroleum Reserve? Goose egg, zero, same as the number of new refineries, goose egg, zero, because they're making huge profits the way it is. Why should they give relief to the American consumers because relief means lower extortionate profits for them. They have no intention of giving relief to the American people. This is a red herring.

I thank the gentlelady.

First off, it was the head of ExxonMobil, the most profitable industry in the history of the world, who said he has no intention of building a refinery. He didn't mention regulations or bureaucracy. He said they're doing just fine the way it is, why would they build another refinery? And other CEOs of oil companies have said the same thing.

It's not bureaucracy or regulation. They didn't take Bush up on his loophole to put it on closed military bases. So that's not the issue. Don't try that stuff.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 366. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities in science and mathematics and technology education should be a national priority, and I couldn't agree more. I gladly support the gentlelady from Texas's resolution.

The Science Committee recognized a few years ago that this Nation needed to make American capabilities in STEM education a priority. Our current chairman, Mr. Gordon, along with then-Chairman Sherry Boehlert requested the report that was to become the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report to which we have so often referred in this Congress. As a result of this report, the President came out with his American Competitive Initiative; and this Congress passed, and the President signed, the America COMPETES Act, which specifically addresses the concerns raised in this resolution.

In COMPETES, we're dedicating resources to create a broad pool of citizens who are literate in STEM subjects and we are increasing science scholarships and providing financial resources to attract underrepresented populations to STEM fields. Likewise, NSF is funding tremendous STEM education curriculum work in all grades, and OSTP and other Federal agencies, like the Department of Education, are providing strong leadership as appropriate at the Federal level.

A few weeks ago, I held a hearing in Texarkana, Texas at the Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, a 100 percent locally funded public school that focuses on inspiring our young children to excel in math and science at an early age and hopefully keep them interested all the way through college.

This school is a prime example of the kind of leadership and commitment necessary at the local level and included input from several groups, businesses, the academic community, and parents.

However, there is always room for improvement, and we should strive to do more. In fact, it's imperative that we do more if we're to remain the world leader in innovation and technology.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution introduced by my good friend, Ms. Johnson.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may use, subject to the amount of time I have left. Could you tell me how much time I have?

I thank the Speaker.

The gentleman from New Jersey keeps talking about doing away with fossil fuels. You know, that's just almost laughable. You do away with fossil fuels today, a year from today, 2 years from today, 5 years from today, 10 years from today, turn these lights out, cut out your air conditioners, forget about driving up to anywhere to get gasoline or oil, forget about building the roads, heating and cooling, just shut her all down, forget about it, and forget about that 40 percent we get from a Nation that doesn't trust us, Saudi Arabia, that's all fossil fuels. We have no control over them.

Sure, we ought to have technology to address fossil fuels to make it cleaner, but we're whistling Dixie if we think we're going to do away and do without fossil fuels.

It's easy to condemn and not trust the oil and gas people, but without them, we wouldn't have the lights we're using right today. We wouldn't have the gasoline that's in our cars, the money that it takes to build asphalt roads, and I could go on down the list forever.

Where do you think 40 percent of that comes from? Saudi Arabia. Another 20 percent from other Arab Nations just like Saudi Arabia that don't trust us and we don't trust them. That's what it's all about. We can't do without fossil fuels. That's foolishness.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's high-time that we realize that we have to work together and seek technology to lessen the effect of carbons and be sensible about it, be reasonable about it, but we can't just shut this off and condemn those that are producing, the men and women in the oil industry that are producing the lights that we share today and cleaning the air that we have today.

We need to keep looking for technology to make it better and cleaner, but it's foolish to talk about doing away with it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

The gentleman from Oregon is a very good speaker and knowledgeable. He's been here a long, long time. He said there are a thousand reasons why we're out of energy and why we're in the situation we're in. I will say maybe there's two less. You just take these two, though, out of that thousand, I don't know how many he has left. But when we talk about who's furnishing fossil fuels, and who's furnishing nuclear energy, who's furnishing clean coal, who's furnishing solar. And no one has objected to this or no one has said it's not so, 91 percent of the House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of the House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas. I don't know where the other thousand are, but that's the major reason we're where we are today.

They don't want to drill here. They won't let us drill off the coast of Florida. They don't want to drill up in ANWR. Let me tell you something, we better be drilling on American soil or we're going to have to send our American boys to take some energy away from someone. And that would be an absolute crime when we have plenty right here at home. It's a shame we don't use our own.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 366) expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities in science, mathematics, and technology education should be a national priority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on House Concurrent Resolution 366 now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 366, expressing the sense of Congress that increasing American capabilities in science, math and technology education should be a national priority. Our Nation's youth are key to our Nation's future prosperity.

And I have schools in my district that are ranking very high; 1, 2, 3 and 4. They've been 1 and 2 and now they're 2 and 4. That's called the Townview Gifted and Talented school, ranked second in the Nation; was considered the best public school last year in the nation. And the Science and Engineer Magnet was ranked fourth this year, and it was number 2 last year by Newsweek magazine.

Townview's School of Talented and Gifted was always ranked among the best high schools in America, and this year, by the U.S. News and World Report.

In support from the high tech industry such as Texas Instruments in Dallas, as well as other local generous investors which have been critical to setting up the schools for the students' success. Unfortunately, few schools demonstrate the educational excellence of Townview, not even any more in Dallas. Congress must incentivize investments at the local level to help improve the quality of public education.

The UTeach Program, which started in Texas and headquartered at the University of Texas in Austin, is a terrific education program that places engaged, highly trained teachers in the classroom. These educators, in turn, inspire their students. Young people are learning that math and science are fun. They're learning that these subjects are important, and that they can lead to fulfilling and profitable careers.

UTeach is funded partially by generous investments from the private sector which needs these people for future employment. So we consider it an investment for them.

UTeach has tracked the success of its educational model, and it is transforming the quality of math and science education in schools that it touches. Demonstrated methods of success must be supported and expanded, and this is critical for our Nation.

Tomorrow's high-tech jobs will require a skilled workforce. Today's students are not being adequately prepared for these jobs, and it is my fear that businesses will increasingly look toward China, Taiwan, Japan and India for their workforce needs. Those nations are investing a greater percentage of their gross national product on the education of scientists, mathematicians and engineers. They're producing a large workforce of bright, young, talented individuals who work for less money than our citizens will. American companies are already hiring them. And the only solution is to produce a better prepared work force. The root of that preparation is education. And it is too serious and too important not to give the utmost attention.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that every school could get the support and perform as well as Townview does. But my resolution expresses a sense of Congress that we must make education a much higher national priority.

A couple of years ago there was a publication by the National Academies of Science and Medicine and the National Science Foundation entitled the Rising Tide Before the Gathering Storm. Well, the gathering storm of international competition is already here, and so we must reform our public education policies, provide greater challenges to our students and give young people the tools and opportunities that they need to succeed. Our economy in this country depends on this; and we start with well-prepared teachers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Lipinski from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to have as much time as he may consume to speak on this issue.

We reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to Mr. DeFazio to respond to the last presenter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman to respond, Mr. DeFazio.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that what we're really discussing is the House Concurrent Resolution 366, making science and math and technology education a priority. And I now would like to ask my colleagues to support and pass this resolution.

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

I appreciate the comments that have been made so far. I'm reminded by President Reagan, who once said there you go again, and some of those statements can apply here.

But one statement was they aren't accurate, but what we are talking about here in this part of the discussion deals with how real people are impacted in their daily lives.

We no longer are talking about energy consumption as an ethereal process or whether it meets different needs, kind of a policy concept. We're talking about how people, real people, bake their food, heat their homes, and how they keep their jobs.

For every dollar that there is an increase in oil prices and gasoline prices, it simply means that jobs are lost, that revenue does not flow here. Social Security programs are diminished, and the overall quality of life is diminished. We're talking about real people and how real people are impacted.

For every dollar a poor person or a middle-income person has to spend on increased energy consumption, that's a dollar they cannot spend on luxuries like tuna casserole. This is what we're talking about. If you're extremely rich, you can try and buy your way out of it like an old medieval duke buying indulgences from the Catholic church. But for middle-income people and poor people, we are talking about how they live their lives, and we're talking about a country that has more energy potential locked up than other Nations have in their entire countries.

That's the concept that is here, and yet we always come back to picky little reasons why we can't develop the source, renew that source or build on that particular source as well.

We can't develop in ANWR because even though the Carter administration set this particular piece of property aside for energy development because it offends somebody. We can't have windmills off the coast of Massachusetts; it doesn't look right. We can't drill off the coast of Florida because it might offend the tourists someway.

We all have picky little reasons on why we can't do it, and the net product is we harm our own people because we don't have a policy that provides a positive reinforced policy, a strong program that will encourage conservation but also encourage production of every source of resources that we have at our disposal.

It has to happen and it has to happen now because we're dealing with real people.

We're also dealing with the security of this country. Early on this floor, they talked about an element of section 526 that was passed in the energy bill which simply had the proposal of cutting out the needs of our military in their advancement for alternative synthetic fuels. That's one of the things we're looking at. Five years ago, it cost us $2 billion a year for petroleum for our military. Today, we're talking about $12 billion a year. We cannot do that any longer. Those are the issues we have to have.

We have to realize that what we're talking about is real people.

Who we are hurting are real people, and those people who are in the middle income and those people who are on the edges of our society and those people on fixed incomes, which is about 45 million Americans, those are the ones who get hurt first.

And the more we talk about the philosophy, what should or should not be done, and the later we decide to take as our policy statement that we will become energy secure and energy independent and we will develop all the resources we have at our disposal to become energy independent, that's when we actually decide to try and help people.

I thank the Speaker for his indulgences.