Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding the votes that I missed on the following dates:

May 12, due to the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson, I missed the following votes:

Rollcall vote No. 259, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 260, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 261, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 262, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote No. 263, I would have voted no;

Rollcall vote 264, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 265, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 266, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 259-266 on Wednesday, May 12, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during roll call 259-266 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. Had I been present, for rollcall vote 259, on agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1344, ``Providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 260, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5014, `` To clarify the health care provided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 261, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended, H. Con. Res. 268, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 262, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Gordon Amendment No. 1,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 263, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Hall of Texas Amendment No. 6,'' I would have voted ``no''; for rollcall vote 264, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Markey of Massachusetts Amendment No. 10,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for rollcall vote 265, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``George Miller of California, Amendment No. 12,'' I would have voted ``aye''; for roll call vote 266, on agreeing to the amendment to H.R. 5116, ``Reyes of Texas Amendment No. 13,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

Tuesday, May 18, due similarly to the passing of my mother:

Rollcall votes 273 to 275, motion to suspend the rules, rollcall vote 273, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 274, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 275, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 273-275 on Tuesday, May 18, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during roll-call 273-275 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 273, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 2288, ``Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Improvement Act of 2009,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 274, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 4614, ``Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 275, on motion to suspend the rules and agree, H. Res. 1327, ``Honoring the life achievements, and contributions of Floyd Dominy,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

On the 20th of May, due to the passing of my mother, I missed the following votes:

Rollcall vote 284, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 285, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 286, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 287, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 288, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 289, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 290, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 284-290 on Thursday, May 20, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 284-290 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 284, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5327, ``To authorize assistance to Israel for the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system,'' I would have voted ``aye''.

For rollcall vote 285, on motion to suspend the rules agree to, H. Res. 1256, ``Congratulating Phil Mickelson on winning the 2010 Masters golf tournament,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 286, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to, H. Res. 1336, `` Congratulating the University of Texas men's swimming and diving team for winning the NCAA Division I national championship,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 287, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 1361, ``Recognizing North Carolina Central on its 100th anniversary,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 288, on ordering the previous question, H. Res. 1363, ``Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining safety,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 289, on agreeing to resolution, H. Res. 163, ``Granting the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives to the Committee on Education and Labor for purposes of its investigation into underground coal mining safety,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 290, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5128, ``To designate the Department of the Interior Building in Washington, District of Columbia, as the Stewart Lee Udall Department of the Interior Building,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

Accordingly, I continued to miss time on the passing of my mother on May 24, and I missed rollcall votes 291 to 293.

I would have voted, on rollcall vote 291, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 292, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 293, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 291-293 on Monday, May 24, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 291-293 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 291, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 278, ``Expressing the sense of Congress that a grateful Nation supports and salutes Sons and Daughters in Touch on its 20th Anniversary that is being held on Fathers Day, 2010, at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, the District of Columbia,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 292, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 1017, ``Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act,'' I would have voted ``aye'';

For rollcall vote 293, on motion to suspend the rules and pass as amended, H.R. 5330, ``To amend the Anti-trust Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 to extend the operation of such Act for a 5-year period ending June 22, 2015, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye''.

On Tuesday, May 25, accordingly, I missed the following votes pursuant to the earlier statement:

Rollcall vote 294, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 295, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 296, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 297, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 298, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 299, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 300, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 301, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 294-301 on Tuesday, May 25, 2010.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 294-301 because I was in bereavement of the passing of my mother, Ivalita Jackson. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 294, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 5145, ``Assuring Quality Care for Veterans Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 295, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H. Res. 437, ``Expressing support for designation of May 2010 as Mental Health Month,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 296, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1382, ``Expressing sympathy to the families of those killed by North Korea in the sinking of the Republic of Korea Ship Cheonan, and solidarity with the Republic of Korea in the aftermath of this tragic incident,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 297, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 584, ``Recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 298, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H.Res. 3885, ``Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 299, on motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2711, ``Special Agent Samuel Hicks Families of Fallen Heroes Act,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 300, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res.

1189, ``Commending Lance Mackey on winning a record 4th straight Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 301, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1172, ``Recognizing the life and achievements of Will Keith Kellogg,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

May 26, I was unavoidably detained on official business. I missed rollcall vote 302. I would have voted aye;

Rollcall vote 303, I would have voted ``aye'';

Rollcall vote 304, I would have voted ``aye''; and

Rollcall vote 305, I would have voted ``aye''.

I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 302-305 on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, because I was away from the office on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted, had I been present.

For rollcall vote, 302, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1347, ``Honoring the workers who perished on the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, extending condolences to their families, and recognizing the valiant efforts of emergency response workers at the disaster site,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 303, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H. Res. 1385, ``recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 304, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res 1316, ``Celebrating Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 305, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H. Res. 1169, ``Honoring the 125th anniversary of Rollins College,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1344.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1344 provides for consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act. It is a structured rule, making in order 54 amendments. It also provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member from the Committee on Science. It considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides authority to the chairman of the Committee on Science or his designee to move amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff in the fall of 2008. By the end of the Bush administration, we were losing at least 700,000 jobs a month. In the last month of the Bush administration, that number was up to 780,000 jobs in that month alone. Congress then, working in tandem with the Obama administration, passed various pieces of legislation to stabilize our economy in the short term and invest in various fields for the long-run growth of our country.

Fifteen months since the passage of the Recovery Act, we are seeing its impact. We went from 780,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration to 290,000 jobs created in April 2010, a pretty significant swing given the fact that the loss was so drastic and so quick in the fall of 2008 and the first month of 2009. But we are not out of the woods yet. We are turning the tide.

This Congress recognizes no country on Earth can match the creativity, productivity, and hard work of the American entrepreneur. The America COMPETES Act builds upon this idea by investing in scientific research, industrial innovation, and hard science education. It gives our Nation's most creative scientists and engineers the resources they need to develop the breakthroughs which will change the world as we know it and make America even more competitive.

The bill reauthorizes programs in the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy to capture their full potential. This empowers our universities, which are undergoing tremendous strain as they weather the recent financial collapse.

In my own district, the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Colorado Health Science Center will have access to more funding to develop green energy, medical communications, and other technologies. The bill improves science, technology, engineering, and math education to ensure that our Nation's workforce has the training and know-how to maximize the investments that we make. It gives our innovators the chance to compete for more resources so they can research, develop, commercialize, and eventually transform our economy.

As we speak, there are scientists, inventors, and engineers in our Nation who are devising the next groundbreaking advances. We cannot afford to let those ideas wither on the vine. So I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying bill, which will create jobs and solidify the foundation for the long-term growth and prosperity of the United States.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to a couple of the things my friend from Florida said.

First, I'd remind him that at the end of the Clinton administration there was a budget that was balanced. There was, in fact, a surplus going forward; but under the Bush administration with tax cuts for the wealthiest, the prosecution of two wars without paying for them, and a financial sector in total disarray at the end of the Bush administration, the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.

But in moving forward with the actions taken by this Congress to stabilize the financial system and put people back to work, there's been a swing now from the last month of the Bush administration, where almost 800,000 jobs were lost, to a gain last month of 260,000, well over a million-job swing towards putting this country back on track. That will assist with revenues as the economy gets better. That deals with budget deficits.

My friend is right. We have to look at the spending that this country is engaging in, but we have got to put people back to work. This America COMPETES Act does that by building on our science foundation. We have, in this bill, endorsements and support from virtually every kind of company and association possible, from business associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, TechNet, et cetera, to various societies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, university associations as well, and a whole host of businesses, because they know how important this bill is towards the investment that we're going to make in the future for this country. But it's jobs today.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his remarks regarding Muftiah.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I say to my good friend, Congressman Broun, that he has forgotten that this bill satisfies the PAYGO rules which CBO has scored at zero, so that there is not an increase, a rule that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle eliminated, which helped drive up the debt of this country.

And I would just say to my friend, the investments that are being made in science and technology and in the education of scientists and engineers and mathematicians is the kind of investment for the long- term health of this country that has to be made right now.

I yield to my friend from California (Ms. Matsui) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, it is common sense. The Rules Committee understands that Federal funds can only be used for legal purposes. That must be in the statutes 550 times. So he just wants to have a little more redundancy in the law.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate what Mr. Klein from Florida was saying about the purpose and the need for this bill at this time in this legislation. The America COMPETES Act is about moving this country forward, making sure that for the next 20 years we continue to have a strong science and engineering and technological future for the country. The bill, as we said, provides all sorts of funding to the National Science Foundation, to NIST, to NOAA, and to the Department of Energy, so that we can do research in a whole variety of ways across this country through our universities and other kinds of facilities and institutions of higher learning.

Now I guess I'd like to speak on behalf of Muftiah--or speak to Muftiah. Many people have presented a lot of accolades that I can't top. But what I can say is, as a new member to the Rules Committee, that we have had some very contentious, rough and tumble bills, to use a couple of the terms Mr. Dreier used, Ms. Matsui, but we can look to Muftiah--I can look to Muftiah--to give good advice and to bring a calming influence to the committee and certainly to me as we were going through the whole list of parliamentary procedures--what's in order, what's not in order, why is it in order. She has stood out as somebody who really knows the rules, understands the policy, and is willing to work with both sides of the aisle and with all the members certainly on the Democratic side of the Rules Committee to make sure we do the best job that we can do. I thought I brought a lot of experience from the practice of law, having served also in the legislature in Colorado. But the rules and the

approach that's taken in the Congress, there are many more layers and many more things that have to be understood.

I would say to you, Muftiah, you are a heck of an adviser. You are a great teacher. I just wish you the best, as I know all the other members of the Rules Committee and the Members of the House just wish you the best in whatever you do, whether it's practicing law or raising your family or just enjoying life, because we put in a lot of hours. Thank you very much.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his courtesy in how he debates these bills, debates the rules; I just appreciate that. But he and I differ very much on the passage of this rule. This rule and this bill should be passed.

In listening to some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle who are wanting to draw back, wanting to draw down at a time when America must really move forward, must look to its long-term future and towards its prosperity and its ability to compete in the world, this is the rule and this is the bill that moves us forward, with its investments in science and technology and math and engineering. Those are very key things.

It reminds me of those who would have asked Abraham Lincoln to stop building the dome and rebuilding this Capitol during the Civil War because of its costs and the country should look towards the Civil War and worry about that. Legitimate concerns, but President Lincoln said: No, this country is going to succeed. Its long-term prosperity is going to occur, and I am going to keep moving forward with the construction of the dome of the Capitol. I'm not going to back off.

We in this country, Americans, look forward. We are a forward-looking people. We believe in our future, and there is no place like continuing to build our abilities in science, technology, math, and engineering. That is the place where we have to start putting our investments. It is jobs today, and it is long-term investment in the prosperity and success of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In order for the United States to compete in today's global marketplace and to spur long-term growth, we must invest in basic science research and development. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, collectively known as the National Academies, published the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report concluded that the United States faces a serious challenge with regard to our future competitiveness and standard of living. That report led to the bipartisan enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which implemented the report's recommendations.

Today we are set to consider H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill reauthorizes the America COMPETES Act for 5 years, increases authorization spending levels to $86 billion, and creates new programs.

I understand and I support the underlying principles of the America COMPETES Act, prioritizing and strengthening investments in basic research and development and STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. But we need to have an economic strategy that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete, to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces taxation, that brings our Federal spending under control, and controls the spiraling national debt.

So, Madam Speaker, as much as I would prefer to support the underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending levels.

The bill has an overall authorization of nearly $86 billion, which represents approximately $20 billion in new funding above the fiscal base of this year. That is a significant increase when we're facing record budget deficits. And that is after the so-called stimulus bill injected 6 billion additional dollars into the agencies funded by this bill.

The current national debt projections and the majority's insatiable appetite for spending are unsustainable. And if we continue on that trajectory, the America that we know, love, and admire will be severely threatened. Our excessive spending threatens the very foundation of our economy and our way of life. We could very well find ourselves in a position, soon, similar to today's Greece.

As we saw last week when the House considered the legislation on credits for refurbishing homes by my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch), Congress is beginning to realize the magnitude of the Nation's fiscal problem--though the congressional majority leadership has not yet realized it or simply does not care.

I may have voted in favor of the underlying legislation if the majority, nevertheless, had allowed the House to consider and vote on amendments that would have reduced the spending levels on the bill.

For example, my colleague Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida came before the Rules Committee yesterday to request that the

committee allow the House to consider his amendment to cut the authorization of the bill from 5 years to 3 years. His amendment would have lowered the cost of the overall bill. It would also have given Congress the ability to come back in 3 years and determine if the legislation was achieving its intended purpose.

Perhaps if that amendment had been allowed, a number of Members like myself who are concerned about the uncontrolled spending of this majority could have voted for the bill. Instead, the majority in the Rules Committee decided that they would block consideration of the Mario Diaz-Balart amendment and also the Sessions amendment, amendments that sought to reduce the spending in the bill. Not only did they block the Diaz-Balart and Sessions amendments, they blocked out almost three- fourths of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, while allowing nearly 90 percent of the Democrat amendments. So today we will consider four Republican amendments and 48 Democrat amendments. That's quite a contrast.

It's especially glaring when you consider that we were told that it would not be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress in history; yet week after week the majority continues to block an open process. We have yet to consider even one open rule during this entire Congress--not even on the historically open appropriations process. It is quite sad.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for reminding us of the Clinton years.

I was elected to Congress when President Clinton was elected President. Two years later, we, the Republicans, captured the majority here in the Congress, and I remember how we had to fight tooth and nail to balance the budget. President Clinton never submitted a budget with a deficit less than $200 billion a year. I remember ad infinitum his budgets at least had $200 billion of deficits. It used to be, Madam Speaker, that $200 billion was a lot of money for a deficit. And I remember how this Congress had to fight day in and day out, and we finally achieved, in very arduous negotiations with the executive, a balanced budget. So that's the record.

I would like, at this point, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, we have great differences, great disagreements often here on the floor of this House. Rare is the occasion when there is no debate, when there are no differences.

Muftiah McCartin enjoys the admiration of all Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked with her. She personifies the best of this institution. She personifies competence, professionalism, and courtesy. And as someone who has had the privilege of working with her, I thank her for her service and commend her for her professionalism, competence, and that courtesy.

So the best to you, Muftiah, and your family as you move on to other endeavors. You are an example of the wonderful men and women who have through the years made possible what this Congress gets accomplished. And so I join all of my colleagues in wishing Muftiah the best.

I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for his courtesy and for his management on the majority side of this rule.

While reiterating that I am so pleased that Members on both sides of the aisle have joined to commend and wish the best to Muftiah McCartin, with regard to the legislation that we are bringing to the floor with this rule, I would say, Mr. Speaker, while not minimizing its importance because I think it's obviously dealing with a very important set of subjects that enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, I would bring to the attention once again of all Members what we saw last week with legislation on--I believe it was a $6 billion tax credit to allow--I remember it was a credit for home refurbishings, brought to the floor by my good friend Mr. Welch. And I noticed at that time a--I think it was a change in attitude.

I was impressed. I was certainly impacted by what I perceived as a change in the Congress on what normally I think would have faced little opposition. Certainly it would have been expected that that legislation would have faced little opposition. We saw--what I saw, what I perceived was a ground swell of concern on the spending. You know, refurbishing one's home and encouraging citizens to refurbish their homes to keep them energy efficient, you know, that's not something that in itself would have opposition. It was the spending that touched a nerve because of the moment we're living. And so with the legislation that we bring to the floor today that is being increased from the basic spending by about $20 billion, I certainly would not be surprised if we see a similar nerve being touched. That doesn't mean that the subject is not of great importance.

Science, education, keeping the U.S. leading edge, cutting edge in so many ways, that is obviously something that has enjoyed bipartisan support, and it should. But I think the majority is failing to sense that moment that the Nation at large and the Congress now is finally manifesting or reacting to. There is concern about the path we are on with regard to spending.

Having said that, I again thank Mr. Perlmutter for his courtesy and management of this rule, as well as thanking all who have participated in this debate today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us today, I want to join my colleagues in saluting the wonderful work of Muftiah McCartin. She began her work on the Hill--it couldn't be 1976. I can't believe that. She has worked on the Appropriations Committee and is now leaving her tenure as staff director on the Rules Committee.

We all know that she loves this institution. She has poured her heart and soul into her work. We were all so proud when she became the staff director of the Rules Committee. Her policy and technical expertise have served both sides of the aisle over many years. She is a mother of four children. It's hard to imagine she is now a grandmother. We have been blessed with her service over many, many years. She will be sorely missed.

Muftiah, thank you very much for all that you have done. This is coming as news to me, by the way, so I'm quite taken aback by the fact that you're leaving us. But thank you for your service. I wish you well in the future. We have been very blessed by your service. Congratulations on where you're going next.

Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, President Kennedy summed up America's commitment to innovation when he launched the ``man on the Moon initiative'' to send a man to the Moon and back--in those days, they said a man--but a man to the Moon and back safely in 10 years. At that time, he said, ``The vows of this Nation can be fulfilled only if we are first, and therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort.''

Over the past half century since then, Americans have lived up to these words. Science and technological innovation have formed the backbone of our progress as a people and our prosperity as a Nation. And today in passing this innovation bill, this COMPETES Act, we are reaffirming our leadership in science and in industry, and we are keeping America first.

Few have done more for the cause of innovation in the Congress than Chairman Bart Gordon, and I'm sorry he is not on the floor yet--he will be momentarily to manage this bill--who was first in sounding the alarm and heeding the call of the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That was a report presented by a great innovation leader, Norm Augustine, and the National Academy of Sciences. It provoked us to send a team of Members, legislators around the country.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from the Silicon Valley invited Chairman George Miller, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee and the Education and Labor Committee, to a meeting at Stanford University to launch a series of meetings in a bipartisan way to develop an innovation agenda.

We met, of course, with academics. We met with workers. We met with venture capitalists to see where the private dollar would go because we believed that this had to be a market-oriented initiative to build the competitiveness of America. We met with every aspect of putting together an innovation agenda, and we met all across the country to do that. We had particularly strong presentations from members of the Asian American community who were quite impatient with the lack of progress that was happening in terms of public policy, and that accelerated the pace of our time table for this.

So what came from that was the COMPETES Act that Chairman Bart Gordon was instrumental in bringing to the floor in 2007. We had strong bipartisan support in passing that legislation, I am pleased to say. And again, we are here today to reauthorize the COMPETES Act, to spur innovation, invest in cutting-edge research, modernize manufacturing, and increase opportunity. And I thank you for your remarks, Mr. Perlmutter, and your leadership on this subject as well.

As a result, new industries will provide good jobs for our workers, markets for American products will expand, we will reassert our leadership throughout the world and give future generations a better chance to realize the American Dream. It's about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Simply put, this legislation supports our efforts to keep America number one, following President Kennedy's lead to keep America first and following the call of President Obama at his inauguration for swift, bold action now to do just that. The COMPETES Act will keep our Nation on the path that we promised, to double the funding for the scientific research over 10 years, create jobs with innovation technology loan guarantees for small- and medium-sized manufacturers and enhanced manufacturing extension partnerships--these MEPs are a very valuable tool for job creation, promote regional innovation clusters--this is new--that strengthen regional economies and expand scientific collaboration, and invest in high-risk/high-reward research through ARPA-E--again, this is a major initiative of Mr. Gordon-- helping ensure American energy independence.

Since we know that innovation begins in the classroom, I want to commend Mr. Miller for yielding to Chairman Gordon because we didn't want this bill held up by one jurisdiction or another of committee, and Mr. Gordon has carried that principle that innovation begins in the classroom, and we have those considerations in the bill. This bill will help raise up the next generation of entrepreneurs by improving science, math, technology and engineering education at all levels. It will also train young people to think in an entrepreneurial way and will secure a central role for women and minorities in these fields.

As we go forward with this innovation--we had the industrial revolution, we had the technological revolution, and now we have this revolution--we want to do so in a way that brings everyone into the fullest participation in the new prosperity of America and will strengthen and diversify our workforce as, again, we create jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.

In this Congress, in addition to jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, which is a four-letter word we use all the time, there are four words that describe our agenda. They are: science, science, science and science. Science to provide health care for all Americans. And in our health care bill that we passed and in the Recovery Act of last year, we have major investments in science and technology to make America healthier; science to keep America number one in innovation. In the new technologies to protect the environment and the rest, we have to be competitive. Science and technology will take us there; science to keep our air clean and our water clean for our children and the safety of the environment in which they live; and science to promote our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and to advance the technologies to keep us preeminent in terms of our country's defense.

This bill comes down to good-paying jobs for Americans, strong American leadership in the global economy and long-term growth for America's workers and families. It does so in a way that doesn't just put people back to work as we are trying to address the need for more jobs. It puts them back to work in better jobs. It puts more people to work, some who have been unemployed no matter how well educated they are or how economically deprived their areas have been. Some of this is really ground floor, ground floor. We're bringing women, minorities, people from urban areas and rural areas, again, people with a wide range of educational backgrounds but with a prospect for great success.

So with this, we are not just solidifying the disparities in our economy. We are opening up avenues for, again,

everyone to participate in the prosperity for our country.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to make a very strong bipartisan vote for jobs, for science, and to keep America number one by voting for the COMPETES Act.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule and in strong support of Muftiah McCartin. And I'd like to begin by outlining my opposition to the rule, and then I'm going to take some time to talk about my support of Muftiah McCartin.

Madam Speaker, my friend from Miami is absolutely right when he focuses on the need and the importance for us to be fiscally responsible. My friend from Colorado has made the same argument: Everyone around here regularly decries wasteful Federal spending.

Now, this bill is extraordinarily well-intentioned, and as I said in the Rules Committee yesterday, I've been a strong supporter of the STEM concept. Science, technology, engineering, and math are very high priorities. If we, as a nation, are going to remain competitive in this global economy, it is absolutely imperative that we do all that we can to focus on STEM education.

The concern with this measure is the fact that it's $22 billion over the baseline, going up to $86 billion. I was asked in the Rules Committee hearing yesterday by the chairman of the Science Committee what level I believe to be appropriate as we focus on STEM education, and that area would be at least at that baseline level, which would take the $86 billion in funding and bring it down to what would be $64 billion. That would be a more acceptable level. Why? Because, while we know how important this is, we also know that if we don't focus on our spending that has been going on for so many years under both political parties, we're not going to be able to compete globally at all.

Now, there are other concerns about this measure. I have just obviously been talking about the amendment that the manager on this side's brother--he simply described him as his ``colleague.'' He also happens to be his brother, Mario Diaz-Balart, who very thoughtfully came before the Rules Committee, and that amendment was not made in order.

Mr. Bilbray, sitting behind me, has an amendment focusing on the very important issue of ensuring that people who work in this country are here legally.

And, of course, the very, very, very important issue that the ranking member of this committee, Ralph Hall, brought before the Rules Committee. By unanimous vote in the Committee on Science and Technology, they incorporated language to ensure that there would be a prioritization of those 59,700 disabled veterans who want to have an opportunity to participate in the STEM program at the undergraduate level and 8,700 who want to have the opportunity to participate at the postgraduate level. That was agreed on by the committee, but, unfortunately, when the measure got before the Rules Committee, it was stricken. As Mr. Hall has described to me, some very, very watered-down version which does undermine the ability of our Nation's disabled veterans to be able to take advantage of this program the way they should is, in fact, denied.

And so the fact that these measures are not made in order, Madam Speaker, I am a strong opponent of this rule because I believe that we can do better. And as Mr. Diaz-Balart said, having an open amendment process--which we have not had in this entire Congress--should have been the model for this bill in light of the fact that it has, in the past, been reported out under suspension of the rules.

Now, having spoken about my opposition to the rule itself, Madam Speaker, I'd like to speak briefly about my support for Muftiah McCartin.

Madam Speaker, in 1976, she was obviously a child, and this institution was probably violating child labor laws when Muftiah McCartin came to work as a clerk in the Parliamentarian's Office. That is 34 years ago. In that 34-year period of time, she has had an amazing career which has been, from my perspective, capped by her service as the majority staff director of the House Rules Committee.

She was the first woman named as a parliamentarian back in 1991, and she has worked for both Republicans and Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, and her work there was very important. As I said, the fact that she has come to the House Rules Committee is a very appropriate spot for her.

When she began her work, she pursued both her undergraduate and law degrees when she began in the 1970s, and has been able to utilize those skills extraordinarily well.

Madam Speaker, we are very sorry that she will be leaving us. In fact, unless there is a massive disruption in the operations of this institution through the week, this will be the last rule that will be considered on the House floor during her period of time. I do know that her husband, Terry, her four children, and her new grandchild will anxiously look forward to spending more time with her.

The Rules Committee, as we all know, Madam Speaker, tends to be a rough and tumble place, and Muftiah has had an extraordinarily good and close working relationship with those of us in the minority. When I had the privilege of being chairman of the Rules Committee, we worked extraordinarily closely with her in her role in the Parliamentarian's Office. And I know that things may still be rough and tumble within her family; it will certainly be a great joy for all of her family members to have her back. And so, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend congratulations to Muftiah McCartin for her extraordinary 34 years of service to this institution. And I know that her family is the only thing that she loves more than this place, which we all respect and love so much.