Scientific Communications Act of 2007

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

(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.

H.R. 1867 was introduced by myself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), and several other members of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. It was ordered reported by the unanimous vote of the Committee on Science and Technology, and is widely supported by industry and academia.

The National Science Foundation was last authorized by Congress in 2002 for 5 years, so we are right on track to ensure the continued growth and relevance of this very important agency.

The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency whose mission is to support science and engineering research across all disciplines. Currently NSF funds 20 percent of all basic research conducted at American colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer sciences and social science, NSF is the major source of Federal backing.

In its 57-year history, NSF has helped cultivate a scientific research enterprise in which the capacity for creativity and innovation is unrivaled in the world. Some economists estimate that half of the U.S. economic growth since World War II has been the result of technological innovation stemming from basic research and development.

NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics education at all levels and in all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training.

I don't think we can stress enough the critical leadership role that NSF has in improving STEM education, and I want to especially thank Science and Technology Chairman Gordon for tireless efforts on these issues.

In addition to supporting research and education grants at colleges and universities across the country, NSF also helps to support the construction of world-class research facilities and equipment that help to attract the top scientists and engineers from around the world to U.S. universities.

As we have seen high-paying jobs outsourced, our children graduating high school well behind their international peers in understanding basic science, other nations surging ahead in export of high-tech products, it has finally sunk in, funding basic research and teaching our kids math and science has a huge impact on our economy, our competitiveness, our national security, and our population's well- being.

H.R. 1867, like H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, two other Science and Technology Committee bills that passed the House just last week, is one more important piece of the House leadership's innovation agenda. It is also consistent with the administration's own American Competitiveness Initiative, which called for a 10-year doubling for three science agencies, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

H.R. 1867 was developed with input received during two subcommittee legislative hearings, a number of other NSF policy hearings held over the last many months, and countless informal conversations with NSF stakeholders both inside and outside of government.

Dr. Ehlers and I personally traveled over to NSF last month to meet with the Director and all of the Assistant Directors to receive their personal input.

In drafting H.R. 1867, we tried to limit it to policy, administrative and budget issues that have arisen since the last authorization in 2002, while leaving the Foundation with maximum flexibility in translating our guidance into practice.

Likewise, we minimized the specific carve-outs, especially in the research account, where all of the grants are awarded through a competitive, merit-reviewed process, and where the Foundation often needs to respond quickly to new fields of science and new ways of doing science.

I want to especially thank all my colleagues on the committee, especially Dr. Ehlers, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Gingrey, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, for helping to improve this bill and move it expeditiously through the committee process. This was a bipartisan effort from beginning to end.

Mr. Chair, this bill is critical to American innovation and competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1867.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been a tireless member of this subcommittee and has championed the issue of undergraduate research, which is critical in preparing our students for the future.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say how much I appreciate Dr. Ehlers for his wisdom, his knowledge, his friendship and his leadership on this. There are few Members of Congress, or even, I think, few other people in the country who know these issues as well as Dr. Ehlers. He has been a teacher to students for many years and a teacher to those of us on the committee as well.

I thank Dr. Ehlers for his fine comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), a valued member of the committee who has led critical efforts on this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. Chairman, it is a real privilege and honor to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), Chair of the committee. Before he speaks, I just want to say what a privilege it is to serve with him and to offer that years from now, there will be Americans benefiting from technological and scientific innovations and in particular young people, scholars, benefiting from the education initiatives championed by Mr. Gordon. They may not know of the work done. He has done a great job, a bipartisanship approach to this committee. It is a privilege to serve with him.

At this point I understand Mr. Kirk would like to engage in a colloquy. Would Mr. Ehlers care to yield some time to him for that?

I very much thank the gentleman for working so closely with us and with Ranking Member Ehlers on this. I absolutely agree with the gentleman from Illinois on the importance of mercury in the Great Lakes, and I applaud him for raising this issue. It is crucial that we continue to gather the necessary data in order to protect current and future generations in the environment from dangerous mercury exposure. I am aware and appreciate the gentleman understands that the National Science Foundation does not generally engage in this type of research, and, as indicated, it is really more the appropriate domain of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Accordingly, I will be happy to work with the gentleman from Illinois, and I look forward to the committee providing direction to the U.S. EPA in a letter to that effect.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey).

I would like to thank the gentlelady for bringing this issue to our attention. It is indeed an important area of research for our Federal Government, and for NSF in particular. I appreciate and respect very much your continued interest and leadership on this. We would be happy to work with you as we proceed towards conference about raising the profile of this issue and the importance of this research.

Mr. Chairman, to close, let me just once again express my deep gratitude and tremendous respect to Dr. Ehlers for his leadership, not only now as ranking member, but over the years he has served on this committee. Quite literally there has been no more tireless and effective advocate for this legislation and for science in general than Dr. Ehlers. We all respect and admire that and appreciate that greatly.

I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Gordon, whom I acknowledged earlier and thanked for his leadership, Ranking Member Hall. I want to express a special gratitude to my own staff member, Hilary Cain, for her leadership on this and great counsel; as well as the committee staff, Jim Wilson and Dahlia Sokolov for their tireless efforts. They have spent hours and hours on this. We are grateful.

With that, as Dr. Ehlers and others have so eloquently said, this is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill. It has the endorsement of a long list of sponsors, who I did not enumerate here in the interests of time, but virtually every major scientific organization as well as leaders in industry and in academia have endorsed this bill strongly. It is a bill that this committee and this body should pass. I urge its passage.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sense of what the gentleman is raising with his second order amendment. Having taught science myself, I believe it is absolutely important to share different sides of it. My concern is I think you are sort of micromanaging the education process, however, positive your intent may be. And the gentleman himself just acknowledged that students from K-12 need to have balanced information.

I question whether we really want to mandate that a kindergarten teacher educate her or his students on the impact of greenhouse gases on U.S. energy security, global developing nations, et cetera.

I think it is a fair point and absolutely an important point that we present different sides of this issue, and I applaud the gentleman for raising that.

I would, however, note that the International Panel on Climate Change, which we have had two hearings of in this committee, has clearly unanimously agreed on some general principles: That the climate temperature is increasing; that humans are significantly responsible for at least a substantial portion of that increase; and, that it will have very important consequences for the well-being of the world.

So one of the problems I have is the gentleman's amendment would seem to suggest that there is an equal weight of evidence against that perspective as there is in favor of it. And I don't recall if the gentleman attended those two hearings, but if he did, I think it was pretty clear that scientists from around the world do not consider that there is an equal weight among those who might refute the evidence of global warming and the human causes thereof.

It is absolutely legitimate that we look at the pros and cons of the various strategies to remedy that; but to micromanage it in this way, which is not what the gentleman from California's initial amendment did, I think is a mistake. I certainly wouldn't want a kindergarten teacher who is trying to educate his or her students about the potential problems of global warming to say, ``Oh, my goodness. I don't have in my curriculum for these 5-year-olds a lesson on the impact of greenhouse gas on developing nations or United States energy security.'' I think a kindergarten teacher might be much more likely to say, ``Hey, kids the world is getting hotter. You and I and your folks can have a role in trying to reduce that problem, and it is in all of our best interests to do so.''

I would hate to see a kindergarten teacher micromanaged like this, however well-intentioned the gentleman's amendment is. And I still reserve the point of order, but if we don't succeed in that, I certainly urge opposition to this at this point.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I will withdraw the point of order, but I would urge opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order, but I would like to move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate and admire and respect the gentleman from Florida, and I understand full well where he is coming from. He has been a passionate supporter of our manned space program, and I share some of his concerns about the impact on that budget. I do think, however, that his offsets are wrong, and that is why I reserved the point of order which in just a moment I will press.

There are many, many places in the Federal budget where we could find possible money to support the gentleman's aims, many within, for example, the Commerce appropriations bill.

It is possible for the gentleman to adjust revenue impacts of tax cuts. It would be possible for the gentleman to seek offsets or matches through funding for the war in Iraq, which is burning about $2.5 billion per week from our economy.

So if the gentleman is interested, as I know he is, in supporting space flight and continued investment in that, I would suggest that more appropriate offsets are available elsewhere in the Federal budget.

And I would also say it would be just terribly unfortunate to hold the Science Foundation budget, which this bill authorizes, hostage. You've got the wrong hostage. There are other places where lots more money is being reduced from the revenue stream or being expended on things that may not be in the best long-term national interest of this country. And for that reason, and for the fact that I actually consider the amendment nongermane, I will have to oppose it.

Point of Order

At this point, if it's appropriate to do so, I would wish to press the point of order with the Chair, if that's appropriate procedure at this point.

Mr. Chair, I have reserved a point of order. The amendment offered by the gentleman is not germane to the bill it is amending and, therefore, violates clause 7 of rule XVI.

The underlying section of the bill being amended is specific to the National Science Foundation, while the amendment introduces another unrelated agency, NASA, so the subject matter of the amendment is different than the underlying bill.

In addition, the amendment places an unrelated contingency on the authorization of NSF funds. On this point I would cite Deschler's Precedents, Chapter 28, 31.22.

Lastly, the purpose of the underlying section of the bill is to authorize appropriations for NSF, while the amendment seeks to affect the appropriations for NASA, so the fundamental purpose of the amendment is different from the underlying provision, and the scope of the underlying provision is significantly enlarged, and, therefore, I would urge that the amendment be ruled out of order.

The Acting Chairman. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments about the budget deficit, and I would first suggest that the deficit rose to historic levels under the leadership of the former majority party, largest deficits in the history of this country, indeed, were accrued with President Bush and the former majority.

Looking to these studies, some of which are $10,000, now absolutely we must make sure that we spend all the taxpayer dollars wisely. But let me just share with you what the American Association for Advancement of Science, probably the most prestigious scientific body in this country, has said. Prohibiting specific grants sets a dangerous precedent for scientific research that has progressed and advanced for decades through freedom of inquiry into a broad spectrum of subjects. While congressional oversight of Federal programs is, of course, important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time. Therefore, we urge you to oppose such amendments.

Similar sentiments have been voiced by the Association of American Universities.

And I would be tempted to ask the gentleman from California, except he's already stated his piece, why he would be opposing research that has been supported by the United States Army Research Institute; that is seen as critical to the security of our troops serving in Iraq.

Now, my wager is the gentleman's saying to himself right now, I have no idea what the chairman is speaking about here. And that's the problem. When you look at a cursory examination of the title, or an abstract, you don't have an idea. That's why we have peer review.

Which particular study am I talking about? I'm talking about the Study of the Accuracy of Cross Cultural Understanding of Others' Emotions. What we are talking about here is if you're going to be dealing with people from another culture, and you misread their expression of emotions, it can cost you your life, your buddies their life, or the innocent civilians their lives. The U.S. Army Research Institute believes this is important, and they support the basic elements of this kind of study.

I also am not sure, the gentleman seems to suggest, it seems, that we here in the Congress, with a cursory evaluation of the abstracts from studies, should insert ourselves in the peer-review process. I wonder if the gentleman had looked at chemistry research or physics research in the same way, and do we really want to spend this body's time, and do you, sir, or you, sir, have the expertise to evaluate these studies? That's why we have a peer-review process. That's why we have a National Science Foundation. It is why we have a Science Foundation Board to direct us.

I absolutely agree that if taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on research, it is incumbent upon the scientist to do the research well, ethically, responsibly, and that it be relevant. But I do not believe it is the place of either side of this aisle to single out particular studies, as has been done in this case, and presume that with a 5- minute examination we know better than peer reviewers who have the degrees in the relevant fields and have spent years studying them and have evaluated them. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and I would urge strongly opposition to this amendment and a similar one which will emerge shortly for the sake of our soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman for yielding. And I would just caution I wouldn't state ``for the life of me'' on something that I hadn't studied very well no matter how obvious it may look.

I could answer the question. I am just giving you the caveat about staking your life on things.

Here is the issue: I don't think we want to say that we should never study the history of things. It is the perspective of this gentleman that we should not study history. And particularly, when you look at bison, I am not an expert in this, but to pretend to be so would be a mistake. To pretend to be so on your side or on my side would be a mistake. The authors of this study have contended that biologists and social scientists have tried to look at how humans make decisions to maximize and minimize risks in different environmental conditions. As you face different food supply systems, how do you deal with that? And that is part of the point here. How did people who live on the plains look at where they were going to harvest bison?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

The challenge here, my friends, is you asked, I think, a question that is

just improperly placed. Neither of us is trained in these areas. You are challenging a fundamental tenet of how we do National Science Foundation research. If you truly believe that the most cost-effective use of this body's time, and that we are qualified to use our time in that fashion, is to, one by one by one, review National Science Foundation grants for our considered and qualified judgment of the appropriateness of those grants, it seems to me that that is a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that you are really making a political statement.

If the political statement you want to make is we should spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely, I, 100 percent, agree. You may not know it, and probably don't, that we are working with the National Science Foundation to establish a letter actually that scientists that receive public grants would have to sign saying they understand the money came from the taxpayers, they are committed to doing research that is well designed and ethically high quality and that is relevant.

The problem for us, in this brief time we have here and lacking expertise in the field, is it is really presumptuous of us on either side to say I can either attack or defend. I would yield time to either of you if you want to tell us what your personal qualifications are in the area of expertise of any of these studies, and I will hold you to it. What personal qualifications do you have in the broad area of this study to speak to that study?

Let me just share with the gentleman the dangerous path you are on. There was a study some time back dealing with the sex life of the screw worm, perhaps aptly noted. The sex life of the screw worm, that would be pretty tempting to come to the floor and say, by God, why are we spending taxpayer dollars studying the sex life of screw worms? The reason being that that research saved the cattle industry millions of dollars by eliminating a parasite that deposited eggs in the placenta of newborn cows.

We don't have the knowledge. We are indeed stewards of the taxpayers' money, which is why we created the National Science Foundation, why we are very careful about designating how the peer-review process works, and, quite frankly, why we shouldn't mess with that peer-review process. If we truly want to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, which I believe all of us want to be, then our best approach is to delegate some of the decision making about where some of that money is spent to those who best know the realm in which the research is spent. It is precisely because I believe in the task of being a steward of the taxpayer dollars that I oppose the general purpose of the amendment.

I understand you are trying to save money. I just don't think our best way to do so is by micromanaging either this or most of the other foundations.

And I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

I thank the gentleman from California. Just a couple of brief comments, and it's getting late, so we don't want to carry this forever.

I would suggest that we all agree that consistency is a very dangerous thing. If the gentleman talks about being consistent, I would ask the gentleman why they chose not to micromanage the vast expenditures of dollars, not even to have oversight hearings of the vast expenditure of dollars on the war.

If you really want to save the taxpayer dollars, we are burning $2.5 billion a week in Iraq. This entire bill is $21 billion over 3 years. We're talking about 3 full years to fund the basic scientific research of this entire Nation, from mathematics to physics to chemistry to social sciences. That's about 6 or 7 weeks or so of what you spend in Iraq. And yet when it came to oversight of the expenditures in Iraq, the majority, then-majority party was then just virtually silent. If you really want to save the taxpayers' money, and I do, you could have looked at that.

But let me suggest what the gentleman from New Jersey misrepresents. And I asked earlier if any folks on the other side were qualified to study this. The gentleman from New Jersey just doesn't seem to understand how this legislation works. He completely misrepresented when he said that it is incumbent upon the majority and the chairman who is bringing this forward to defend these studies. Sir, this bill does not authorize specific studies. That is not how the authorizing language for the National Science Foundation works. It would be ludicrous, and you should know that; and if you don't know it, you are not qualified to speak to this. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that when you authorize a foundation, that you are authorizing every single specific study or that you know what all those specific studies are. That's not how the National Science Foundation works. That's not how we authorize it. That's not how this bill functions. And it's indeed not how many, many of the authorizing bills function here. So to suggest that, to bring forward a broad authorization bill that gives responsibility to a foundation, one has to justify every single study is to misrepresent how this legislation works. And that's the problem. I think the gentleman either misunderstands or misrepresents how the legislation works.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, here's the problem with what the gentleman is proposing, however well-intentioned it may be. And I am deeply concerned; as the gentlemen know, I serve on the Budget Committee with some of the gentlemen who are speaking, and we are all concerned about the long-term deficit picture for this country. However, if you cut investments in scientific research and scientific education, in the long run you will increase the deficit of this country, and you will decrease our national security, our national health care and our national and international competitiveness. That is why this is a mistake.

And don't just take my word for it. The National Academies of Science, in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a 2005 publication, called for more than a 10 percent increase; the U.S. Commission on National Security, the Hart-Rudman report, a similar level of increase; the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, in their publication, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment in 2003; a coalition of 15 industry associations, in the publication Tapping America's Potential, in 2005; the Council on Competitiveness in their publication, Innovate America.

This is not just a Democratic proposal or Republican proposal. I would remind the gentleman that this bill passed unanimously out of committee with bipartisan support.

I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of them would say no. You would, I think, by this cutting, with due respect, significantly be impairing, and it sounds like a small measure, but remember, we are already falling behind in a number of areas in science and math, not only in the education, but in the applied fields.

This is consistent with President Bush's own administration request of a 7 percent per year increase. Again, this is a bipartisan approach, not a Democratic or Republican approach. The President has called for this. And again, as Dr. Ehlers said so eloquently earlier, our return on investment from research is profound. And when you cut that investment, I think you're cutting that return on investment.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to echo what the distinguished ranking member said.

The following countries are increasing their investment in basic research faster than this legislation would authorize, and they've already put the money up front. Listen to these countries and see if you think it is wise for our Nation to reduce its investment even further, and further fall behind: China, Taiwan, European Union, South Korea, Singapore and others. Do we seriously want to further reduce our investment in basic research if we want to keep our Nation competitive? I submit we don't, and I would urge defeat of this amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have been over the basics. Let me just reiterate, this proposal for the increase in the National Science Foundation is thoroughly consistent with President Bush's own agenda. The competitiveness initiative calls for these kinds of increases. That is point one.

Point two: If we hope to maintain our competitiveness, if you look at the proportion of our economy today that is the direct result, and Dr. Ehlers illustrated a number of examples, but the direct result of research and inventions that have come out of funding by the National Science Foundation, a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity today came from those investigations.

As Dr. Ehlers so eloquently said, we don't know, ``we'' generally, not just we in the Congress, but especially we in the Congress, don't necessarily know which particular investigation, which particular study, is going to yield those profound results. But some will.

I will tell you, I just spoke to a scientist in my district last week and he

said to me, Congressman, the pipeline of U.S. scientists is drying up. You just really have to understand this. The pipeline of U.S.-based scientists is drying up, because the research funding is not adequate to meet the demand.

What is happening is many, many young researchers are either not entering the field or are dropping out of the field or abandoning potentially promising careers, promising not just for them, but for our society.

The hit rate, if you are a young researcher applying for a grant through NSF, your hit rate is low. You are going to spend a tremendous amount of effort applying for a grant, trying to further your research agenda, and your hit rate is going to be significantly low. That is demoralizing. It blocks important avenues of research that might yield promising results.

And when we make these cuts, it is easy for us. I agree that we have got a huge fiscal problem. But, again, I will tell you that if you look at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces, nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation that is driving this country into debt. That is not what they say. They say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for goodness sake.

So I would urge defeat of this amendment for the same reasons I urged defeat previously.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I thank Mr. Ehlers for his comments.

Very briefly, in 2002, 397 Members of this Congress, including 194 Members of the then-majority party Republicans, voted to double, double, the National Science Foundation.

For those members of your party who plan to vote against this bill or who plan to vote for this reduction in the authorized levels for this committee, I would just suggest you well may be voting against something that you voted for just a few years ago at much higher levels and that the President signed into law. The then-majority voted to double the budget. The President signed it into law at much higher levels than what we are talking about today.

In the last Presidential election, somebody ran around with a flip- flop guy chasing Mr. Kerry. If you do this, the flip-flop guy might be outside your door.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for making precisely the case I have tried to make myself. The case I have tried to make myself is that it is not in the best purview of this body to intervene and micromanage specific studies.

The reason I point that out is because the gentleman spoke about important health issues. One of the studies he seeks to eliminate funding for addresses an important health issue. Menopause is tremendously important to the women of this society. It is fine for two men to get up here and decide whether we want to fund menopause research; but I will tell you, every woman in this country is going to go through it, and they think menopause matters.

One of the studies that the gentleman wants to reduce funding for is very important in terms of addressing the factors that influence how menopause develops. I would share with the gentleman, although my knowledge is somewhat limited, I believe there are correlations between menopause and a number of the issues the gentleman mentioned like cancer and other factors.

So if we believe we want to address those important matters, one of the very studies this gentleman is suggesting we eliminate funding for could very well address those very important issues. I would just urge you go back to your women constituents and suggest to them that you decided, based on your vast medical and anthropological expertise, and your vast understanding of women's health, that menopause did not merit research funding from the National Science Foundation.

And you may try to pick the title and say what does that have to do with Bangladeshi immigrants, et cetera. It may have a lot to do because natural experiments in which one population and another population may be of the same age, different, but subject to different cultural or dietary or other factors, and thereby have different variations in how they manifest certain biological processes can often give us profound insights into disease processes and the development of natural rhythms.

And for you or I to presume that we have the expertise to say that we don't think this study will do that because we know so much about menopause, sir, and I count myself among those ``sirs,'' I think is vastly presumptuous. Menopause is profoundly important to the women of this country. This study deals with menopause, and I am tremendously grateful to the gentleman for picking this study because in so doing, you have made the best possible case for not micromanaging this fine agency.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I greatly respect and admire the gentleman from Arizona, who I know is committed to trying to reduce the deficit, as am I, and we have worked on other areas on that, but let me just share a couple of things about this.

First of all, the gentleman talked about private industry research, and he is right about that. There is a lot of private industry research. Let me share with the gentleman some of the private industry bodies that endorse this bill, and the list is very impressive. I have got it. I would be happy to share it. If it is such a bad bill or needs to be dramatically modified, these are the organizations that support it:

Computing Research Association, National Defense Industrial Association, American Chemical Society, Business Roundtable, Information Technology Association of America, National Venture Capital Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Software & Information Industry Association, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, Accenture, Advanced Micro Devices, Agilent, Apple, Applied Materials.

I have only it four or five. I am just on the A's. I could go on.

The point being, yes, private industry does fund a great deal of research. They recognize government has a very important role, and far from being deeply suspicious of that role, they profoundly endorse it.

As for the gentleman's amendment per se, I share with the gentleman that much of this legislation develops from research conducted by the National Academy of Science presented in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which the gentleman may or may not have read.

One of the key challenges we face in our research enterprise is keeping young investigators in the pipeline. If you look at the data on when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons for that.

Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the grants, and what we are trying to do here is to say to people, just remember that only about 25 percent of grants are funded. So the mere fact you did not get funding the first time does not mean your application is a bad application at all. It does not mean we have said it is not worthy of funding. Quite the contrary.

What it may well have said is it is a very good application, but given the competition and the constrained funding, in its current state, we will not choose it.

What this bill does is basically say to the young investigator, we will give you some help in advancing your career so you can make a second run at this. This is supported by the National Science Foundation. Folks who have done this research, and I have written applications for grants, I am sure Dr. Ehlers has, it takes you a while to learn how to do it.

Sometimes the young professors who are the very people who are teaching the undergraduate classes, trying to get their labs put up, they lack the resources. And on top of that, you need to understand the dynamics of the peer review process.

Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long established research credentials and careers are just going to have more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say, look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman, they have been around a long time. The unknown person, the new person who may hold the promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage.

So what we are trying to do is in a small way, a relatively small way with this program, redress the difference between the new investigators. We know what that's like. We have been relatively young Members, not so anymore here in the Congress. We have had the senior Members tell us where the bathroom was, to quit voting with our meal cards and stuff like that. Nobody threw us out. They get a second chance. But what I am saying, that's what this is about.

I profoundly respect the gentleman. I hope he knows that. He is committed to try to reduce the deficit. This is not the way to do it. This program is actually a good program. It's by a host of scientists, a host of scientific bodies. I think we ought to defeat the gentleman's amendment, with respect, because I know his intent. In this case I think he would have an adverse effect on what we are trying to do with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, as it is getting rather late, I would ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on subsequent amendments to 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady from California's amendment, and let me share with you why.

I think most Members of this body have had people from the scientific community come and talk to us about why their research matters or how it is going to help society, and we have said to ourselves or to them, ``Could you please put that in English so I know what you are talking about?''

The challenge is that the esoteric realm that some of the scientists work in is really beyond some of our ken. And I think that is fine. But if we are going to make informed policy decisions, it is essential that we understand the research that we are making decisions about that may have been illustrated earlier tonight in some of the discussion.

Let me share with you, and I respect Dr. Ehlers immensely, as everyone knows. But the very researchers who, if there is concern that this proposal by the gentlelady from California would reduce funding for other research, let me point out that many of the associations whose members depend on the core research funding nevertheless believe there is merit to this amendment. And let me share with you, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I will read in a moment what they have to say, the Federation of American Society for Experimental Biology, the Council of Graduate Schools, the Society for Neuroscience. I absolutely believe as a former teacher of science, I believe it is our obligation as teachers to help our young charges learn how to communicate what they do. But it is not being done well enough, that has been recognized, and the gentlelady is to be commended for it.

Let me share with you that the American Association for the Advancement of Science says the following, which I will submit for printing in the Record. ``While Federal support of scientific research is of critical importance to innovation,'' and let me underscore this, ``it is also very important that we find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must have the tools needed to communicate the work they do. The ability to more effectively communicate scientific information may inspire more children to pursue a career in science, and certainly will help a higher quality dialogue among the research community and the citizens whose investment it relies on.''

So I commend the gentlelady. This is something that we don't talk about a lot; but when people have to communicate information to the policymakers or to the public or to the consumers of their research, it is important they do so in a way that is intelligible. This amendment moves an important step in that direction. I applaud her and urge its passage.

American Association

for the Advancement of Science,

Washington, DC, May 2, 2007.

Hon. Doris Matsui,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Matsui: Thank you for your support in the recent

passage of the reauthorization for the National Science

Foundation (NSF) by the House Science and Technology

Committee.

As you prepare to debate the NSF reauthorization bill (H.R.

1867) on the floor, I would like to express our support for

your efforts to improve scientific communication with the

public. For over 50 years, the NSF

has had a unique role in supporting basic research across the

spectrum of scientific disciplines. This support has led to

remarkable advances in fields as disparate as nanotechnology

and economic theory.

While federal support of scientific research is of critical

importance to innovation, it is also very important that we

find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to

advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must

have the tools needed to communicate the work that they do.

The ability to more effectively communicate scientific

information may inspire more children to pursue a career in

science. It certainly will help create a higher quality

dialogue among the research community, the citizens whose

investment it relies upon, and the broad society it

ultimately serves.

Sincerely,

Alan L. Leshner,

Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The superb gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It's a superb amendment. We're happy to accept it, and I commend him for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The prior speakers have been very eloquent in support of this and the hour is late; so I won't go into any detail. I just want to commend them for their leadership on this and urge support of this outstanding amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to share the happy birthday wishes to the distinguished ranking member and thank him for his bipartisan participation in not only this, but so many endeavors.

Congratulations, Ralph. You are a dear friend and a model to many of us, and I very much appreciate all your service.

I also want to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership in not only this bill but the entire innovation agenda that has been moving through this Congress so efficiently and with, again, good bipartisan support.

I mentioned Mr. Ehlers repeatedly earlier tonight. He has been so central to the passage of this bill. And I especially want to thank the majority staff and the minority staff. We have worked very well together.

And I want to thank my dear friends and colleagues on the other side. Though we have had a spirited disagreement on some issues and agreed on some, it has been a civil debate, a well-intentioned debate, and I think it has advanced our discussion of the important role of this legislation.

The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before. It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat. And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise outstanding bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to join the speakers in rousing approval of this bill, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. As a scientist, I have been familiar with the National Science Foundation almost since its inception. It is an outstanding American institution. It is the best science research institution in the world in terms of their strong peer review and the good results.

Just a few weeks ago, we had the announcement of the latest round of Nobel Prize winners. All of the Nobel Prize winners this year in the sciences were from the United States, and one of them was formerly funded by the National Science Foundation.

The National Science Foundation has now provided funding for 170 individuals who have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. By far, we are the leader among all the Nations, and it is not just our population. It is our ability to engage in meaningful and good research, research that results in earth-changing results, and that is extremely important to the foundations of science.

The National Science Foundation has done so many good things since its inception, and as I said, it is one of the leaders in the world.

It also has received awards from the Office of Management and Budget just within the past few years as the most efficiently run government agency. Now, that is indeed an important prize. I understand we are going to have a few amendments to try to reduce the budget of the National Science Foundation, and I think it is absurd to punish the best-operated government agency while we are continuing to fund other agencies which do not do as well, and we are not reducing their budget.

Another factor is we often talk in the Congress about investments. Sometimes I think we never spend a penny of our money; we invest it all because everyone talks about their particular project as a good investment. Well, let me tell you, if we are investing money here we will get a higher rate of return on the money that we invest in the National Science Foundation than in any other government agency, except perhaps NIH, simply because the results are so astounding and so ripe for development by the manufacturing sector.

I could give many, many examples, but let me just mention one. A friend of mine, Charlie Townes, a number of years ago, decided that he could develop a laser. Now, LASER stands for lamp amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. The initiative for that discovery came originally from Einstein in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, a theoretical physicist predicted that stimulated emission would result from a photon hitting an excited atom, yielding two photons of the same wavelength and the same phase traveling in the same direction. Mr. Townes decided he could build a laser out of this, and in fact, he did.

I do not know what types of grants he had, but I think the total was probably less than $10 million. Today, the laser industry is a multi, multi, multibillion dollar industry.

Every sewer that has been laid in this Nation and most parts of the world for the last 30 years has been leveled with a beam of laser light. Every suit, every piece of clothing that the people in this room are wearing has been cut out by a laser light, not scissors, but lasers guided around, cutting out the patterns before they are sewn together. I could go on and on with many other examples, including medical examples, by the way.

So that small investment of about $10 million resulted in thousands and thousands of billions of dollars in our economy. That is why it is totally absurd for anyone to think about reducing the budget of the NSF. If anything, we should increase it because the payback on our investment there is so good, so strong, that we should be increasing NSF funding, not decreasing it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. I appreciate the kind words offered by Mr. Baird and Mr. Gordon, and frankly, producing this bill was a lovefest. I am very impressed with the work they did on it. I am very appreciative of the very hard work that they did in putting together a bill, including direct interaction with members of NSF, talking to scientists who were familiar with the NSF, scientists who had received funds from NSF, and out of all that, we have written a bill that I think is a very good one.

My colleagues and I on the Science and Technology Committee have introduced a strong reauthorization bill for the National Science Foundation. It is a straightforward 3-year bill which provides authorization for the various research and education activities of the National Science Foundation.

I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway to double the total budget of the Foundation. In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly supported a 5-year doubling path for the Foundation, and I strongly supported that and was very pleased to vote for it.

Unfortunately, appropriations have fallen far short of that target. Last year I had consultations with the President, and partly as a result of those consultations, the President introduced a plan known as the American Competitiveness Initiative that sought to double the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science over the next 10 years. In other words, twice as slow as the previous decision of the Congress.

I would prefer the faster increase, but I recognize realities and the tough financial conditions we have. So I am pleased to sign on with doubling over 10 years.

The National Science Foundation was included in the ACI because it conducts world-class research in areas that support new, innovative technologies, which, in turn, lead to advances in telecommunications, homeland security, alternative energy and other areas of great importance to our Nation.

I have the utmost confidence that the National Science Foundation will use the authorized funds in the most prudent manner, as NSF consistently earns the highest possible score in the annual Office of Management and Budget ratings of financial and budget performance.

The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 will support the education and training of more than 225,000 scientists, engineers, teachers and students. In addition to discipline-specific research, NSF activities include cross-cutting initiatives on nanotechnology, networking and information technology, climate science change and the International Polar Year.

It also supports the construction of major research facilities that are shared within and across many disciplines of the scientific community.

NSF research and activities touch every State of this Nation and provide tremendous support at all levels of education.

NSF is a unique agency because it is the only agency with a primary mission of supporting fundamental scientific research, as well as engineering research. Unlike some of our other science agencies, NSF is not a mission agency in the sense that it has an established program to target. In fact, it solves many problems through the process of fundamental research, often in a serendipitous manner.

As Nobel Prize winner Theodore Svedberg remarked, as he accepted his reward in 1926, ``A glance at the history of science and technics shows that it is precisely the search for truth without any preconceived ideas, research for the sake of knowledge alone, that in the long run has most benefited humanity. The investigations which have seemingly been the most purely abstract have often formed the foundation of the most important changes or improvements in the conditions of human life.''

It is challenging in this day and age to support this type of research. The U.S. has many pressing needs that require solutions on very short time lines, particularly related to national security and the health of our aging population. For this reason and others, we have seen companies decrease their investments in long-term research projects. Nevertheless, economists have confirmed the accuracy of Dr. Svedberg's statement that fundamental research has, indeed, paid the highest dividends to humanity over the years.

Estimated return on investment in research and development is difficult to calculate, but generally ranges from 20 to 400 percent. That is an incredible payback. Furthermore, past investments in NSF have contributed greatly to major technological advances in areas and industries that are critical for U.S. economic growth such as biomedical applications.

The former Director of the National Institutes of Health, Harold Varmus, is well-known for his following statement: ``Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an engineer.''

Continued support for fundamental research lays the groundwork for innovations in other disciplines that directly impact the lives of every American. We are here today to authorize a continued investment in this type of NSF groundbreaking work.

I thank Chairman Baird and his dedicated staff for their work on preparing this bill in a bipartisan manner, and encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Kirk for a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for those comments. We will be happy to continue working with him.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

These are always very difficult questions, and I have learned long ago never to judge the research by the title of the proposal. These are complex issues, and I don't know if the gentleman was here earlier when I spoke about the rate of return on research at the National Science Foundation. The best estimate is that the rate of return is a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum 400 percent on individual research projects.

Now, I challenge anyone in this Chamber to find investments that will year after year give you that rate of return on the investment.

Another point I would like to make is, as I said, you can't always judge the full proposal by the title. This was evident a few years ago when we went through exactly the same charade when discussing the National Science Foundation budget. Some of my colleagues came down to the floor to amend the NSF appropriations bill, and one offered an amendment to remove grants for the study of ATM. This person gave a magnificent speech why we should not spend money at the National Science Foundation or the Department of Energy to study ATM. His argument was, let the banking industry do the research on ATMs. What he didn't know is that the proposal was not on automatic teller machines but the proposal was on studying asynchronous transfer modes, which involves the way computers talk to each other. This research led to a substantial change in the speed at which computers were able to talk to each other. This is a good example of why it is dangerous to just look at titles and make a judgment.

I would also pick up on the comment of Mr. Baird about cultural studies. I think one of the basic problems in Iraq, and I have told this to people in the White House, is that there were not enough people in the White House, perhaps even in the State Department, who understood the culture of the countries we were dealing with, and we failed to realize what would happen once we moved into that country. A good NSF-funded study beforehand would have been invaluable in determining what would happen.

Another example: a few years ago there was a grant on game theory. Once again, one of our colleagues rushed to the floor and said we have to eliminate funding for that. In fact, game theory is extremely useful in calculating the operation of nuclear reactors.

So I urge defeat of this amendment. It is very easy to sit on the House floor and pontificate about these issues. But if we are going to cut the budget, there are much more fertile fields in which to cut. Why would we cut the one agency that gives us a guaranteed rate of return on our investment when there are many other areas we can cut where we are getting little or no payback at all?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to respond to the statement that we can't fund every proposal that comes along, and that is absolutely true. The National Science Foundation funds a small fraction of the proposals that come through, and that is why we are beginning to slip as a Nation compared to other nations, because we are simply not, as a Congress, providing sufficient funds for the National Science Foundation. And I forget the current figure, but I think it is in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the grant applications are being funded; 80 percent are not being funded. It's a tough business, and these are all peer-reviewed grants. I cannot defend them individually without looking at them. As I say, you can't judge a proposal or a grant by its cover.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I'll make a deal with you; I won't make any judgments about medical research if you don't make judgments about NSF research.

The point of this really is that you cannot predict what will result from the research; that is the idea behind basic research.

Years ago when I was a graduate student at Berkeley, we were spending tremendous amounts of money to examine the behavior of elementary particles, protons, neutrons, mesons, and so on. And no one, even in the scientific community, could ever imagine any practical use for that. But later on the results from doing that research led to the development of a CAT scanner and

the MRI. Now, who would ever have thought that elementary particle physics would lead to major findings in medicine which every doctor relies upon today?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I will try to be brief. We have beat this subject to death, but I find it ironic that we talk about cutting the funding of the one agency that returns more on its money than any other agency does.

If we're talking about cutting the NSF by 1 percent, we should cut everything in the budget by 1 percent. And I might even vote for that if you are willing to cut defense by 1 percent; Cut every department, cut Social Security by 1 percent, and so on down the line. Then you might have something that would be worth doing. But to attack something that actually benefits this Nation, increases our health and wealth, and is allowing us to at least try to keep up with what other nations are doing, is utterly unrealistic.

I would point out, and I can show you graphs indicating that we are falling far behind other nations. We occupied the premier spot in research for a number of years. But now South Korea, as an example, is very rapidly getting very close to what we are spending on research as a percentage of GDP. I expect them to pass us in a few years.

It is incredible to me that we are supposed to be the brightest, most powerful Nation in the world, and yet we are losing ground compared to nations such as South Korea. If we are serious about competing with other countries, we absolutely have to keep investing our money in research, whether it's the National Science Foundation or whether it is the Department of Energy or the National Institutes of Health.

In addition to that, I would mention that the National Science Foundation is just about the lowest-cost research institution. We spend a lot less money in the National Science Foundation than we do in the Department of Energy, than we do in National Institutes of Health or that we do on NASA. One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank you for the clarification.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just briefly, I want to comment on a comment made by my friend from New Jersey about health care, a very, very important issue. But the only way we are going to be able to offer better health care to everyone is by reducing the cost.

One huge element of cost in health care is cancer treatment. Today at lunch I met with the latest seven Nobel Prize winners all of whom happen to be from America because we support this research.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Just to continue, today the Science Committee had lunch with the latest Nobel Prize winners, all of whom are from America because we try very hard to provide funding for the research. They, I might point out, did the research a number of years ago. I hope we can continue to provide Nobel Prize winners by adequately funding the National Science Foundation and others.

But in speaking to the gentleman who got the award in physiology and medicine, he talked about his discovery and the impact it is going to have on cancer treatment. That is very likely to cause a substantial reduction in the cost of the treatment of cancer using his approach.

What does his approach depend on? That is the Human Genome Project which we started a number of years ago in NIH and were the first Nation to do that.

It is always amazing to me how discoveries that we find in one area can have application, and no one, I think, dreamed that when we did the Human Genome Project that we might find the cure of cancer there rather than in medicine. So it is very important that we continue funding the fundamental basic research so we can continue to enjoy the fruits of their research.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, to the gentleman from Arizona, I totally agree with your comments about earmarks. I have fought hard here to keep this body and the other body from providing earmarks for scientific research, because all grants should go through the peer review process.

I might also add parenthetically that when the gentleman from Arizona was on the antiearmark bandwagon a few years ago, I believe I voted with him more than most Members of the House, because I oppose earmarks in general, but particularly in scientific research.

I would also comment that the fact that industry supports us is not indicative of the National Science Foundation doing industry's research. National Science Foundation does the basic research, the fundamental research, which has no apparent immediate use. Industry picks up on that and says, okay, let's see whether we can develop something out of that. In other words, industry does not do very much research, they do a lot of development. NSF does almost totally research and essentially no development. So it's a very good symbiotic relationship.

As I mentioned earlier, before most of the people here were on the floor, the rate of return on our research money in the National Science Foundation has been incredible. Any accountant looking at this would say this is the best investment that the United States Government makes because it has great results in our economy.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise with some reluctance to speak against this amendment, because I like the idea of what the gentlewoman from California is trying to do. But my concern is twofold. First of all, this will cut into the funding that the NSF already has. It's an added requirement for them.

But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and have taught at the college level. I have always felt this is the responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this.

The job of the colleges and universities is to teach. What this is proposing is that the NSF will be responsible for teaching these students how to communicate their research.

I always tried to do that with my students when I had graduate students. I think that's an integral part of the education program. So I reluctantly urge defeat of this amendment, simply because I think we ought to make it clear to the universities and the colleges that this is part of their responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a particular problem with this amendment. We have, for some time, had activities within the National Science Foundation aimed at teaching future teachers, teaching them how to teach math and science, and this generally fell into the rubric of a math-science partnership, because the Foundation itself did not teach the teachers but rather responded to grants submitted by professors at various institutions who were pleased to set up programs to teach these future teachers or existing teachers how better to teach math and science. These have been very successful programs and are commonly referred to as the math-science partnership.

Recently, the Department of Education has developed programs involving professional development for teachers in elementary and secondary schools to try to bring them up to speed on the latest developments in math and science and how to teach them. They ended up calling it the math-science partnership.

This has resulted in a problem because some in the administration decided to cut the budget of the National Science Foundation because they felt this was a duplication of programs. It is not.

The National Science Foundation concentrates on doing research. The Foundation's model is designed for competitive grants to spur innovative programs that will be peer reviewed and evaluated to enhance research on effective math and science education, whereas the Department of Education ensures that this knowledge is disseminated to as many school districts as possible. Knowledge gained from the competitive foundation scholarships, in other words the National Science Foundation math-science partnerships, can be used and is used to prove and enhance State investments in programs developed by the Department of Education.

In other words, these are two programs that happen to have the same names. They are very symbiotic. The discoveries out of the research at the National Science Foundation transfers directly over to the Department of Education, and is there applied to instructions in the classrooms and for teacher training programs.

Another reason I come to offer this amendment is because the other body, the Senate, is working on this same issue, this same bill, and they have added an amendment which clarifies the difference between the National Science Foundation programs and the Department of Education programs. I am offering essentially the same amendment so that when we go to conference with the Senate, this will be preagreed to. It's a necessary and important clarification of the functions of the two, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

In the midst of all this serious debate about an extremely important bill, I would like to pause just a moment to have a lighter moment that we can all enjoy as we recognize that one of our leading Members in this Congress tomorrow reaches a major milestone. The ranking member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, tomorrow will begin the second half of his life. He reaches the age of 84 tomorrow. So we can all celebrate with him and appreciate the tremendous contributions he has made to this Congress and to this country.

And I think it is entirely appropriate that on the eve of this important occasion, he spends the entire evening in this Chamber debating the esoteric aspects of science and its results.

So I hope all of you will join me at some point in the next day of wishing Mr. Hall an immensely wonderful 84th birthday tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out to my friends on the other side that this amendment was duly and appropriately presented to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has all of the availability of the parliamentarians and the appropriate expertise to be able to determine whether or not the amendment should be made in order. They determined, in their wisdom, that it should be made in order. And therefore, I would hope that the Chair would rule that, in fact, this amendment is appropriate, and that it addresses an issue that is of importance to the gentleman from Florida and importance to this Nation; and I would hope that we'd move forward with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Would it have been possible for the Rules Committee to propose a rule to the House to waive the rule under which the Chair has just ruled this amendment out of order?

Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the Rules Committee has the authority to waive the rules under which this House operates so that certain amendments may be brought to the floor?

I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Michigan, and I appreciate the comments of my fellow colleague from Washington. And I have been, as a physician, a strong supporter of the National Science Foundation. I believe strongly that, in fact, they need more money, not less. I would argue that we need to prioritize appropriately in our Federal budget and provide much greater resources in the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health and the CDC and others that ultimately work and derive huge benefit to our entire society and, in fact, to the world.

But I commend my good friend from California for bringing this amendment forward because, although I may not have pulled out a couple of the items that he notes, for the life of me, I have a difficult time understanding and appreciating why on earth it would make any sense, and I would ask my good friend from Washington can you fathom how studying bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains might have some effect on contemporary society that would make a difference with the compelling argument that you made regarding the study of cross- cultural emotions?

I would be happy to yield.

I would be happy to reclaim my time or I would be happy to have you answer the question, one or the other.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest candidly that it was a valiant attempt. It was truly a valiant attempt, and I appreciate the attempt, to make a justification for bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains. I would also suggest that the sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal is a questionable study.

So I commend my good friend from California, and I would be happy to yield to him.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would concur. I think that there are many things that are exciting and interesting to study, whether or not they ought to be priorities at this point, and again, I would point to the bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains.

And if my good friend from Michigan would care to make a comment, I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments. And he is making a very apt point.

And I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Washington, who said, and I think it got down correctly, ``We are neither trained nor have expertise in this area.'' And you are absolutely right. But consistency is a wonderful thing and inconsistency is a challenge.

I would suggest that none of us are pure in this area, but my good friend talks about we ought to delegate decisionmaking to authorities who have expertise, and we should. As a physician, I am compelled and have strong affinity for all of the advocacy groups that come to my office, as I know they come to yours, and advocate on behalf of specific diseases. Most recently this week, the folks who have suffered under the scourge of breast cancer have come, and they are asking for more resources. And I always suggest to them that it is appropriate for those decisions to be made by individuals at the National Science Foundation, at the CDC, at the National Institutes of Health. But, in fact, what my good friend from Washington does all the time, in his capacity in Congress, is to determine exactly what that line item ought to be from an appropriations standpoint.

As a physician, the medical profession has suffered under the decisions that have been made in this Chamber and in the Chamber on the other side of this building because individuals thought they had greater expertise in the area of health care. And as my good friend from New Jersey clearly stated, and appropriately stated, that just this week we've been dealing with folks who believe they have greater expertise in the area of military competence and battles than our generals on the ground.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend from Washington is absolutely correct, that we ought to delegate in certain instances, but we ought to also utilize the prerogative that we have and the responsibility that we have as representatives in this body, representatives of our districts, and make certain that we are good stewards of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend from Texas did not intend to, but I would respectfully request the Chair make certain that he calls into order individuals who impugn the motive of other Members of this body. I think it is important that we not do that in this Chamber.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's comments, and I would just respectfully suggest it might be appropriate to review the words that were spoken and reflect upon them.

Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest candidly that my recollection, I am not absolutely certain, but my recollection is that the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison had no government subsidy, and the remarkable inventions that they came up with were without the benefit of government subsidy. That is not to say that government subsidy isn't appropriate for certain occasions, but I would suggest that those individuals had remarkable accomplishments without the kind of support that we are discussing today.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New Jersey, the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the angst most recently demonstrated is curious in light of the events of recent history regarding what this House has dealt with over the past week or two or three, and a little longer history in light of what this House and what this Congress deals with over and over and over again; and that is not the kind of appropriate kind of decisionmaking that my good friend from Washington so passionately advocates here in this bill, which is to delegate appropriate decisionmaking to people who have the expertise and have the knowledge to determine where those resources ought be spent and where those decisions ought be made.

Would that we as a Congress and we as a House use that same brilliance in our decisionmaking when we make decisions regarding health care. Again, as a physician, this Chamber makes incredible decisions that affect the very personal health care of individuals about which it has no knowledge whatsoever, and takes the decisionmaking authority from physicians and patients in an inappropriate way, I believe.

We also this past week determined as a Chamber, the majority party has determined that they have greater knowledge about the specific military activities that ought to occur on the ground as it relates to our brave men and women who are fighting to defend our liberty and our freedom. However, the majority party apparently believes that it is appropriate for them to make specific decisions what our commanders ought to be doing on a day-to-day basis.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate to have some consistency in the arguments that are being brought to the floor here this evening regarding delegation of appropriate decisionmaking to those who have the expertise.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the valiant effort on behalf of my friend from Washington in attempting to dissuade Members from voting against this amendment, which I think is well founded. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona for offering it.

I would remind the gentleman from Washington that one of the roles of our office, one of the roles of our office is to assist individuals with grant applications. So there are other resources which the Federal Government supplies for individuals who are searching to try to fill out their grant applications. We are happy to help.

I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman makes the point, appropriately, that only 25 percent of the grants are accepted. So why should we waste Federal dollars on teaching individuals who have other avenues to be able to determine how to fill out their grant application appropriately?

Why should we waste precious Federal dollars that could go to, in fact, the kinds of cures that he is endeavoring to fund with the moneys that he is promoting? Why should we waste those Federal dollars in this kind of endeavor, which, I think, is frankly ill-founded and not needed.

I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Arizona.

I thank the gentleman, and I commend him for his amendment.

I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Michigan.

I object.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to commend my colleagues as well for bringing what would on its face value be seen as a remarkably new and innovative program. In fact, I think as the gentleman said, advancing ``the Democratic innovation agenda.'' Well, it is curious, Mr. Chairman, because if you view and look specifically at the language that is in this amendment, and it is to be commended indeed, it bears striking resemblance to the language in current law. In fact, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, section 24 has language that is exactly the same as is in this amendment.

So I want to commend my colleagues for being inventive and being innovative indeed.

I also think it would be appropriate for them to cite, in fact, where the original language came from, and that was the prior Republican Congress. So I commend my colleagues for their innovation, indeed, in formulating an amendment that is already in place in current law.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late and we are drawing to a close on this, and I think this is an appropriate amendment upon which to end for this is the amendment that allows us as a Congress to say, yes, indeed, we believe that fiscal responsibility is important.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, authorizes $20.973 billion, nearly $21 billion, over 3 years and creates five new Federal programs. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act establishes a pilot program of 1-year seed grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates for young investigators and to stimulate higher-risk research. It encourages the NSF to foster relationships between academia and industry in order to spawn U.S. competitiveness and furthers the Agency's traditions of education in science, technology, engineering, and math.

The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half century. And while what this bill does is extremely important, equally important is this amendment that will apply the principle of pay as you go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by requiring that any new spending have a specific offset.

The amendment provides that no authorization of appropriations made by this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government shall be effective unless there are decreases in spending elsewhere in the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, common sense dictates that that is what we should do. Not only common sense, but previous promises by this new majority. An excerpt of ``A New Direction for America,'' which was proposed by House Democrats in the 109th Congress as their plan for the majority, it reads: ``Our New Direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and the right priorities for all Americans.''

Well, hear, hear, Mr. Chairman. I heartily agree. But on April 18, Majority Leader Hoyer was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``We want to get the budget deficit under control. We have said that fiscal responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the torrent of fiscal responsibility.''

Well, Mr. Chairman, Americans all across this Nation are being shaken down by a ``torrent'' of fiscal irresponsibility.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, the rules are not rules if you only follow them when you want to. The Democrats promised pay-as-you-go rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing, picking and choosing when to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and breaking a promise.

So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal responsibility only when it is politically convenient.

So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to the principle of pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something that is just talked about only on the campaign trail.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense, fiscally responsible, pay-as-you-go amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Just a couple of points and then I will yield.

I agree with the gentleman that in some respects, perhaps, this body should not be engaged in micromanaging various aspects of the Federal Government where we do not have expertise.

Earlier today, and in just the past week, we had a complete debate on that subject of whether this body, all 535 Members, were in appropriate position to micromanage the war, and I think some of us thought that we were not in the best position but that we should have, just as you are suggesting here, the trained professionals, the experts, the people on the field who are engaged in this activity on a daily basis make those decisions.

So I would agree with the gentleman there. And if we were to have consistency, then we should not be engaged in that matter and we should not be engaged in this case.

Let me make my second point and that is this: It is not incumbent upon the gentleman from California to be the expert in these areas that he is raising questions about. The underlying bill is not the gentleman from California's bill. It is the majority party's bill. It is your bill. You are coming to the floor making the case, or I should say the other side of the aisle, as I am speaking to the Chair, making the case that we should be spending all this money on these programs. So it is incumbent upon the offerer of the underlying legislation to make the case why we should be doing it and have the information why each one of these is justified so that when either the gentleman from California or Georgia raises the legitimate question, the same question that we are going to get when we go back to our constituents and are asked why did we vote on it, he should be making the justification for that.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, echo the words of my colleagues who are in support of the overall funding of the National Science Foundation, and I offer this amendment to H.R. 1867, which I hope will provide incentives for the NSF to identify waste and any abuse within the Agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not working.

I believe this legislation will help be a model of fiscal responsibility. It is similar to the legislation we just heard from in two respects. H.R. 1867 authorizes the National Science Foundation to increase their spending, which goes to the point of the gentleman from Michigan was saying before, by 7 percent, and again in 2009 and 2010.

The point we must make here, though, is inflation has remained constant during this same time period at around 3 percent. So when we purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of inflation?

As I referenced before, when I go back to my constituents back at home in town hall meetings and the like, they are not seeing 7 percent increases in their wages and salaries. They are not seeing a doubling of their incomes and their family household incomes. They may be seeing that as far as their expenses are concerned. They are seeing all other sorts of increases in spending, such as gasoline prices and the like that they have to put up with, but they are not seeing the increases in income and expenditures that we are seeing in this bill.

I will comment on one comment that the gentleman from the other side of the aisle made before as far as being consistent. I think we heard the American public on this past election day. The American public is concerned about overspending by Congress. They want us to prioritize where our dollars go. They want to make sure that we are spending every dime efficiently and appropriately.

I have yet, however, to hear one suggestion from the other side of the aisle, either here on the floor or on the Budget Committee, on which I serve with some of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, as to where we with can make some of those cuts. Instead, what we are seeing is a continual increase in spending.

Another point to make as well: Time after time our constituents come to our office quoting the discrepancy between authorization levels and appropriation levels. It is my hope that instead of having to disappoint them once again, that we set realistic authorization levels that may actually be realistic to the appropriation levels that come down the line. Let's be realistic, both on what we can do for our constituents and also what the appropriators may be doing with this bill later on.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is our duty simply as stewards of our constituents' money, the taxpayers' dollars, as we step forward to make an honest assessment of what we can afford and should afford the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the other side of the aisle has mischaracterized what this amendment does when they speak of cuts and pullbacks from science and the Foundation. Nothing of the kind is in this amendment. Instead, we will still be increasing spending this year and next year and next year and next year up to $20.87 billion for these appropriated expenditures on the National Science Foundation, instead of $20.97 billion.

I am very much concerned about education and science and our research. Let me just add, I am also concerned about the education of our youth. My constituents are just as concerned about educating their kids and being able to afford to send their kids to college and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the health care and the medical expenditures for their families and how do they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the housing for their family and loved ones, and how do they pay for that?

They are not seeing a 7 percent increase in their wages and salaries, even though each and every one of those things are just as vitally important to them as it is that we spend money on overall Science Foundation research in the United States of America.

This amendment would not cut spending by a dime. This amendment would simply limit the growth rate from 7 percent down to 6.5 percent. The last amendment was seeing it go down from 7 percent to 6 percent. This would be even less, from 7 to 6.5 percent. You would still be seeing a growth year after year after year. The NSF would still be allowed to expend their dollars on those critical areas that my friend from Georgia and the Members on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about for the betterment of this country.

I would implore the Members on the other side of the aisle that if we are to be consistent when we talk about the overall spending and revenue side for this Congress, that we stop doing what the other side of the aisle has done. They have only looked at the revenue side of the equation so far in the last 3 or 4 months, giving us the largest tax increase in America's history on the other hand, but have done absolutely nothing for the American public when it says how are we going to set priorities for the American public and what we spend money on, and how are we going to try to rein in spending for the American public as well. I think we need to do it on both sides.

Finally, regarding what the gentleman from Michigan said, I agree with him. If we can do it across the board for all of the other programs, I am right in line with him, and I support him on that endeavor as well. Let's start here, and I will be the first one to cosponsor any of his amendments to do likewise, decreasing the overall increases of spending that this government has.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, just beginning where the last comment on the last bill ended up, I appreciate the gentleman pointing out that this side did support a doubling of the NSF, and I was probably one of those who was there to support the increase; so no one, I think, can take the position that we are not uniformly as a body or as a party opposed to the general notion of increasing, making significant increases to applied research or general research, I should say, by the NSF.

What we can ask, though, is after the last election, has the American voter spoken with regard to the overall growth in Federal spending in all areas, whether it is in science and health care, whether it is in the war, for veterans or other areas; should we not look at each one individually and decide some should go up, some should remain the same, and some should go up at a slightly different way? That is what we are suggesting in the last amendment, simply that they should go up at a slightly different arc than they are in the underlying bill, 6.5 percent instead of 7 percent.

In the amendment before us right now, we look to see what is the underlying mission of the NSF. If we look at their mission statement, we see it is: ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.''

But during these tough fiscal times, both at the Federal level and at the family level, as I pointed out before, Congress must exercise good stewardship over every penny of taxpayers' dollars. This includes helping the NSF to focus on its priority projects.

Just as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, he has been visited by a number of people from various groups dealing with health issues, so have I; people with serious health issues like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes. They come and ask what are we doing and how are we prioritizing for their concerns within the NSF.

The amendment before you simply says can we find more than a quarter million dollars to fund research on such programs as reproductive aging symptoms of midlife Bangladeshi immigrants, but not more funding for research projects which might bring progress and eventually cures for some of the serious illnesses we have already heard about on the floor?

In addition, how can we justify research like the diet and social stratification of ancient cultures when here at home current medical research is so desperately needed?

Now, I understand that the point has been already made that we do not specifically itemize in the authorization bills each one of these specific programs, but these are, as the gentleman knows, programs which have already been authorized in the past and are continuing under the law right now into 2007 and 2008.

So doesn't it behoove us here in Congress to make a statement, to make a stand and say that at least in several of these areas we can make a position that our limited dollars should not be going to those areas, but instead we would make the position that they should be going for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer research and some other areas that we have previously spoken about?

So I encourage my colleagues, do not only exercise good stewardship over the taxpayers' dollars, but in essence to also ensure that worthy projects receive the funding they deserve within that noble mission that I set forth at the beginning, ``To promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.''

Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is a doctor and I am not going to ask him for his medical expertise because, as you say, that is not our role here to delve into these things but to simply raise the questions.

I will tell you this, that when I come back to my constituents and they tell me about their health concerns, whether it is menopause or cancer or otherwise, their first concern is how are they going to address their own health needs, how are they going to address their health care costs and what are we doing here about it. Their second question is what research are we doing here at home for these areas.

The study that you reference, reproductive aging and symptoms experienced at midlife among Bangladeshi immigrants, sedentees, and white London neighbors does not, of course, as the gentleman knows, look to those issues here at home, but rather elsewhere.

My constituents will raise the question, is that the first priority or should that be the first priority of the NSF. I am not an expert, I am not a doctor like the gentleman, so I cannot suggest that that is the most important one, but my constituents will certainly raise that question for me, and my constituents will certainly be consistent, as the gentleman from Georgia says, and that we should make sure that those dollars are spent here on their own health concerns first.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the underlying bill, H.R. 1867, and rise to express my appreciation and thank the Science Committee for the bipartisan effort that they have always engaged in, and frankly, want, to thank them for the opportunity that I have had to serve on that committee for a number of years.

Usually we rise and say with great reluctance, I rise to oppose the amendment. I might say with great vigor I rise to oppose the amendment. Because as I served on the Science Committee for a number of years, I used to always start the hearings with the idea that science is the work of the 21st century, and certainly the National Science Foundation sets the framework for encouraging research and innovativeness.

I can't imagine that the distinguished gentleman who has offered this amendment would venture to argue with me, and I cite just a few examples that I think most of my colleagues and most of America frankly understand how our lives have been changed by simply these innovations. Of course, some of them were by private ingenuity and private concepts and funding possibly, but that was an America of yesteryear.

But where would we be without the Wright Brothers and the airplane? Where would we be without Thomas Edison and electricity and the light bulb? Even though as we move into the 21st century, we want to be protectors of the environment and certainly want to be conservationists, look how that has changed our lives. And what about the Internet, interestingly enough, one of the success stories of DOD research.

The most important part of it is the work that was created, the work that was created by these inventions and by the opportunities to allow our imagination to generate a better quality of life for Americans.

This bill, H.R. 1867, which, as I said, I enthusiastically support, creates work for the 21st century. It emphasizes the underserved. It encourages research to be done by Historically Black Colleges and Historically Hispanic Serving Institutions, and as well, to encourage diversity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

There is an important provision that mentions, of course, the intent of this particular legislation to determine how different minority groups are impacted by this funding, which is whether or not we can increase the number of underrepresented minorities in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, and how we can increase women in these fields. For the time I have worked on the Science Committee as a former member of the committee, these were issues that we worked on together.

What the gentleman is trying to achieve with this across-the-board cut is amazing to me, because what he is actually saying to the world and to America is we are second rate. We don't believe in investing in the next generation of research. We don't believe in uplifting those who are interested in these disciplines to give them merit and worth.

I would ask the gentleman, though I am sure his rebuttal will be that we don't pay those dollars. I don't know if we do. What is a high school football or basketball coach worth? What is a college football, basketball or any other sport's coach worth? Can we not, as a Nation, make a commitment to the research community by affirming their importance?

Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Baird have worked together affirming the importance of research, and not closing the door of this important responsibility that we have.

I am fearful, Mr. Chairman, of where this Nation is headed when we pull back on the ability of our Nation to invest in the 21st century technology. NASA represents that, the NASA Space Station represents that, the centers represent that, the laboratories represent that.

We want to encourage this funneling, this pathway, if you will, this farm team of researchers, and this particular legislation does that by increased funding, by highlighting the underserved, and I believe doing a lot more.

Let me conclude by saying I had intended to offer amendment to ensure that Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions would be a viable part of the legislation. As I have reviewed it, I know that the intent is there, and that we will look forward to working with the members of the committee and working with this Congress to make sure that the United States is creating work for the 21st century.

Oppose the amendment and support the bill for the betterment of America.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. This bill is another important component of the new Democratic majority's Innovation Agenda, which is designed to make our Nation more able to compete successfully in the global economy.

Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the United States will continue to have a workforce ready for global competition, it is essential that we make a sustained commitment to federal research and development. The National Science Foundation is crucial to these goals, providing vital support to our Nation's science and engineering projects and researchers.

Created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the National Science Foundation, or NSF, is tasked with the broad mission of supporting science and engineering. This agency provides funding for basic research across many disciplines, and offers support for merit awards, state-of-the-art tools, and instrumentation and facilities. The majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted at U.S. colleges and universities.

This bill reaffirms our commitment to scientific excellence by reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years and providing nearly $21 billion in funding for fiscal years 2008-2010. This legislation appropriates specific funding for each of the NSF's major accounts: research and related activities, education and human resources, major research equipment and facilities construction, agency operations and award management, the National Science Board, and the Office of the Inspector General. A number of specific programs within the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educational categories are singled out as the recipients of funding. Additionally, specific funding is designated for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) awards. By raising the cap for these awards, this bill allows the NSF to support a wider range of state-of-the-art research tools.

This bill contains many other important provisions. It requires an evaluation of NSF's role in supporting interdisciplinary research, and encourages university and industry partnerships. It encourages young investigators through a new grant program, and it requires a National Academy of Sciences report on barriers to and strategies for increasing the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields.

The NSF ensures a continued national supply of scientific and engineering personnel, while promoting basic research and education across a wide array of scientific and technological disciplines. In the interest of both economic prosperity and military capability, the United States must continue producing a workforce knowledgeable to maintain technological competitiveness. If we are to do this,

this Congress must continue funding and strengthening science and mathematics education. Supporting this bill is an important step, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Let me be the first, because I believe we are all distinguished gentlepersons, gentleladies and gentlemen, say that my remarks were to the value of this bill and to my philosophical disagreement with the author of this amendment, and certainly recognize that he is proud of America and all of the inventiveness that she has, and therefore any intent that might have been perceived by my words were only to glorify this bill and to celebrate our researchers and our science in this country.