H.Res. 1781

Madam Speaker, I would ask the majority if they would provide us with that letter so we could review when it was written and be more educated.

I thank you.

Madam Speaker, Feliz Navidad, Merry Christmas, but today is Ground Hog Day. I know it is because we're getting the same bill we got last week. It looks the same. Matter of fact, it's so much the same that I recognized it from an earlier document, the President's budget. In his package on performance and management, the President had already determined to do pretty much what we're putting here.

Matter of fact, we're codifying in statute, plus throwing in $75 million of additional cost, what the President already was doing. We're not giving him anything that he doesn't already have authority for and is doing. Really what we're doing is simply allowing the President to say it's okay for me to spend $75 million more on what I already wanted to do; it's okay because I'm under this mandate of Congress. It's okay for this Congress to go sine die really talking about things they were accomplishing when this doesn't accomplish anything.

I will be voting against this because I don't want to spend $75 million doing what the President already put in his own document.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that this excerpt from the President's performance and management review to be placed in the Record.

7. DELIVERING HIGH-PERFORMANCE GOVERNMENT

For too long, Washington has not responsibly managed the

tax dollars entrusted it by the American people. Decision-

makers opened their doors and ears to those able to afford

lobbyists while it became harder and harder for everyone else

to learn what Government was doing, what it was

accomplishing, and for whom. Programs and practices were

allowed to persist out of inertia and not because they were

delivering the results expected of them, while others that

seemed to work were rarely assessed to confirm their impact

and find ways to enhance their value. Over the last two

decades, as the private sector was utilizing new management

techniques and information technologies to boost

productivity, cut costs, and deliver previously unheard of

levels of customer service, the public sector lagged

conspicuously behind.

The American people deserve better. They deserve a Federal

Government that respects their tax dollars, and uses them

effectively and efficiently. They deserve a Federal

Government that is transparent, fair, and responsive. And

they deserve a Government that is constantly looking to

streamline what works and to eliminate what does not. The

Administration is committed to revolutionizing how the

Federal Government runs on behalf of the American people. The

President appointed the Nation's first Chief Performance

Officer, and the Administration has taken steps to bring more

transparency to, for instance, how Federal information

technology (IT) dollars are spent to improve customer service

for those using citizenship services. At the same time, the

Administration has combed the Budget to find programs that

are duplicative, outdated, or just not working.

To improve the performance of the Federal Government in the

coming fiscal year and in years to come, the Administration

will pursue three mutually reinforcing performance management

strategies:

1. Use Performance Information to Lead, Learn, and Improve

Outcomes. Agency leaders set a few high-priority goals and

use constructive data-based reviews to keep their

organizations on track to deliver on these objectives.

2. Communicate Performance Coherently and Concisely for

Better Results and Transparency. The Federal Government will

candidly communicate to the public the priorities, problems,

and progress of Government programs, explaining the reasons

behind past trends, the impact of past actions, and future

plans. In addition, agencies will strengthen their capacity

to learn from experience and experiments.

3. Strengthen Problem-Solving Networks. The Federal

Government will tap into and encourage practitioner

communities, inside and outside Government, to work together

to improve outcomes and performance management practices.

Use Performance Information to Lead, Learn, and Improve Outcomes

Government operates more effectively when it focuses on

outcomes, when leaders set clear and measurable goals, and

when agencies use measurement to reinforce priorities,

motivate action, and illuminate a path to improvement. This

outcome-focused performance management approach has proved a

powerful way to achieve large performance gains in other

countries, several States, an increasing number of local

governments, and a growing number of Federal programs. For

instance, the State of Washington pushed down the re-

victimization rate of children harmed in their homes from

13.3 percent to 6.5 percent over the last seven years by

monitoring how changes in agency action affected children

previously harmed and by adjusting policies accordingly to

make improvements for the children.

New York City and, subsequently, the City of Los Angeles

saw crime rates plummet

after each adopted CompStat meetings. These are frequently

scheduled, goal-focused, data-driven meetings at which

precinct captains are expected to discuss statistics about

outcomes (e.g., crime), cost drivers (e.g., overtime),

unwanted side effects (e.g., police abuse complaints),

patterns of problems in the precinct, probable causes,

apparent effects of prior actions, and future actions

planned. Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard's Marine and Marine

Environmental Protection programs work to reduce maritime

deaths and injuries, large oil spills, and chemical discharge

incidents by regularly analyzing their data to identify

contributory causes and by testing different prevention

options to identify and then implement those that work best.

Outcome-focused performance management can transform the

way government works, but its success is by no means assured.

The ultimate test of an effective performance management

system is whether it is used, not the number of goals and

measures produced. Federal performance management efforts

have not fared well on this test. The Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the Performance Assessment

Rating Tool (PART) reviews increased the production of

measurements in many agencies, resulting in the availability

of better measures than previously existed; however, these

initial successes have not lead to increased use. With a few

exceptions, Congress does not use the performance goals and

measures agencies produce to conduct oversight, agencies do

not use them to evaluate effectiveness or drive

improvements, and they have not provided meaningful

information for the public.

Studies of past Federal performance management efforts have

identified several problematic practices. For example, senior

leaders at Federal agencies have historically focused far

more attention on new policy development than on managing to

improve outcomes. Mechanisms used to motivate change created

serious unwanted side effects or linked to the wrong

objectives. Central office reviews mandated measurements

inappropriate to the situation, and performance reports

seldom answered the questions of key audiences. Moreover, the

annual reporting requirement of GPRA and the five-year

program PART review cycle did not provide agencies the fast

feedback needed to assess if delivery efforts were on track

or to diagnose why they were or were not. Neither GPRA nor

PART precluded more frequent measurement to inform agency

action, but only a few agencies opted to supplement their

annual measurement cycle with the kinds of data and analysis

that fueled the private sector performance revolution.

The Administration is initiating several new performance

management actions and is tasking a new generation of

performance leaders to implement successful performance

management practices.

To encourage senior leaders to deliver results against the

most important priorities, the Administration launched the

High-Priority Performance Goal initiative in June 2009,

asking agency heads to identify and commit to a limited

number of priority goals, generally three to eight, with high

value to the public. The goals must have ambitious, but

realistic, targets to achieve within 18 to 24 months without

need for new resources or legislation, and well-defined,

outcomes-based measures of progress. These goals are included

in this Budget. Some notable examples are:

Assist 3 million homeowners who are at risk of losing their

homes due to foreclosure (Secretaries Donovan and Geithner);

Reduce the population of homeless veterans to 59,000 in

June, 2012 (Secretaries Donovan and Shinseki); and

Double renewable energy generating capacity (excluding

conventional hydropower) by 2012 (Secretary Chu).

In the coming year, the Administration will ask agency

leaders to carry out a similar priority-setting exercise with

top managers of their bureaus to set bureau-level goals and

align those goals, as appropriate, with agency-wide priority

goals. These efforts are not distinct from the goal-setting

and measurement expectations set forth in the GPRA, but

rather reflect an intention to translate GPRA from a

reporting exercise to a performance-improving practice across

the Federal Government. By making agencies' top leaders

responsible for specific goals that they themselves have

named as most important, the Administration is dramatically

improving accountability and the chances that Government will

deliver results on what matters most.

Agency leaders will put in place rigorous, constructive

quarterly feedback and review sessions to help agencies reach

their targets, building on lessons from successful public

sector performance management models in other governments and

in some Federal agencies. In addition, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) will initiate quarterly

performance updates to help senior Federal Government leaders

stay focused on driving to results.

OMB will support the agencies with tools and assistance to

help them succeed. In addition, OMB will help coordinate

inter-agency efforts in select situations where collaboration

is critical to success.

Communicate Performance Coherently and Concisely for Better Results and

Transparency

Transparent, coherent performance information contributes

to more effective, efficient, fair, and responsive

government. Transparency not only promotes public

understanding about the actions that government is working to

accomplish, but also supports learning across government

agencies, stimulates idea flow, enlists assistance, and

motivates performance gain. In addition, transparency can

strengthen public confidence in government, especially when

government does more than simply herald its successes but

also provides candid assessments of problems encountered,

their likely causes, and actions being taken to address

problems.

The Administration is initiating several new performance

communication actions. First, the Administration will

identify and eliminate performance measurements and documents

that are not useful. Second, what remains will be used. Goals

contained in plans and budgets will communicate concisely and

coherently what government is trying to accomplish. Agency,

cross-agency, and program measures, including those developed

under GPRA and PART that proved useful to agencies, the

public, and OMB, will candidly convey how well the Government

is accomplishing the goals. Combined performance plans and

reports will explain why goals were chosen, the size and

characteristics of problems Government is tackling, factors

affecting outcomes that Government hopes to influence,

lessons learned from experience, and future actions planned.

Going forward, agencies will take greater ownership in

communicating performance plans and results to key audiences

to inform their decisions. Making performance data useful to

all audiences--congressional, public, and agency leaders--

improves both program performance and reporting accuracy.

To that end, the Administration will redesign public access

to Federal performance information.

The Administration will create a Federal performance portal

that provides a clear, concise picture of Federal goals and

measures by theme, by agency, by program, and by program

type. It will be designed to increase transparency and

coherence for the public, motivate improvements, support

collaboration, and enhance the ability of the Federal

Government and its service delivery partners to learn from

others' experiences and from research experiments. The

performance portal will also provide easy links to

mission-support management dashboards, such as the IT

dashboard (http://it.usaspending.gov/) launched in the

summer of 2009, and similar dashboards planned for other

common Government functions including procurement,

improper payments, and hiring.

While performance information is critical to improving

Government effectiveness and efficiency, it can answer only

so many questions. More sophisticated evaluation methods are

required to answer fundamental questions about the social,

economic, or environmental impact of programs and practices,

isolating the effect of Government action from other possible

influencing factors. OMB recently launched an Evaluation

Initiative to promote rigorous impact evaluations, build

agency evaluation capacity, and improve transparency of

evaluation findings. These evaluations are a powerful

complement to agency performance improvement efforts and

often benefit from the availability of performance data. OMB

will make information about all Federal evaluations focused

on the impacts of programs and program practices available

online through the performance portal. The Evaluation

Initiative is explained in more detail in Chapter 8,

``Program Evaluation,'' in this volume.

Strengthen Problem-Solving Networks

The third strategy the Administration will pursue to

improve performance management involves the extensive use of

existing and new practitioner networks. Federal agencies do

not work in isolation to improve outcomes. Every Federal

agency and employee depends on and is supported by others--

other Federal offices, other levels of government, for-profit

and not-for-profit organizations, and individuals with

expertise or a passion about specific problems. New

information technologies are transforming our ability to tap

vast reservoirs of capacity beyond the office. At the same

time, low-technology networks such as professional

associations and communities of practice are also able to

solve problems, spur innovation, and diffuse knowledge. The

Administration will create cross-agency teams to tackle

shared problems and reach out to existing networks, both

inside and outside Government, to find and develop smarter

performance management methods and to assist others in their

application. It will tap their intelligence, ingenuity, and

commitment, as well as their dissemination and delivery

capacity.

The Performance Improvement Council (PIC), made up of

Performance Improvement Officers from every Federal agency,

will function as the hub of the performance management

network. OMB will work with the PIC to create and advance a

new set of Federal performance management principles, refine

a Government-wide performance management implementation plan,

and identify and tackle specific problems as they arise. The

PIC will also serve as a home for Federal communities of

practice, some new and some old. Some communities of practice

will be organized by problems, some by program type such as

regulatory programs, and some by methods such as quality

management. These communities will develop tools and provide

expert advice and assistance to their Federal colleagues. In

addition, the PIC will address the governance challenge of

advancing progress on high-priority problems that

require action by multiple agencies. The Administration will

also turn to existing external networks--including State and

local government associations, schools of public policy and

management, think tanks, and professional associations--to

enlist their assistance on specific problems and in spreading

effective performance management practices.

Mr. Cuellar did a good job last week in the first of these two appearances on the same bill. He said it was something he really wanted to pass. He said it was his bill. I don't think the fact that it is amended would make it less his bill, but it isn't his bill really. It's written by the administration, codified by the Senate, and sent over to us in the 11th hour when, in fact, it could, in the next Congress, actually go through a review process to see if we could actually mandate something more than what the President's doing, if we should mandate what the President is already doing, or, quite frankly, if we should tie the hands of the next President by simply codifying the elective actions of this President.

Now, there was a letter that came purportedly, and I am sure it did, from somebody in the Bush administration. And I will be interested to see when it was written because this President has systematically chosen to make changes in how the last President did performance. I am not going to say that President Bush was the best or that what President Obama is doing is different; but there are differences, and these differences are the elective right of the President to try to do these.

So with all due respect, Madam Speaker, I will still be voting ``no'' on this second Groundhog Day on this bill. I will still believe that if we had had a chance in the next Congress we could have done better and would have done better.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1781, I call up the bill (H.R. 2751) to accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous matter into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), who has been the chairman of our Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, who's done the wonderful investigative work that has brought us to where we are in exposing the dangers to our food supply by imports and other things, with my commendations and good wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and very much interested in the matter before us. She has worked on it a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. Waxman, for purposes of correcting the record on certain erroneous statements made.

Mr. Speaker, I have only one further speaker on this side, so I suggest to my good friend from Pennsylvania, if he desires to speak, he should speak forthwith.

The gentleman is a complete gentleman. I don't want to deny him any opportunity to be heard. I want to thank the gentleman. He is always courteous. I express my gratitude to him for the way he behaves.

I yield myself 5 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time we have seen this bill. It came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously. It was informally referred to the Committee on Agriculture, where they had a chance to take a look at it. It passed the House overwhelmingly on two occasions in a slightly different form. It then came back here and it was passed yet another time with the changes virtually to make it identical to that form in which it is. Those changes have been removed in some regards because they were mostly simply technical changes. So it has passed this body three times before this. This is the fourth time we have considered it. The Senate has passed it twice. On Sunday night, they passed it under a unanimous consent procedure.

The bill has enormous support, and all of the consumer organizations support it. Almost every business group in the field of food manufacturing and processing supports it: The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Consumer Federation of America, the American Public Health Association, the Bakers Association, the Beverage Association, the American Public Health Association, Pew Charitable Trust, the U.S. PIRG, and also the Food Marketing Institute as well as the Center for Science in the Public Interest. There is literally little, if any, opposition to the consideration of this legislation.

The Senate took from last summer when the House passed the bill until just a few weeks ago to pass the bill over there. It only passed for the final time on Sunday night. I want to agree with my good friend from Pennsylvania; the House's skill as a legislative body is far superior to that of the other body, and if they would leave the legislation alone, I think I could assure the House that we would pass better legislation than they do over there.

But having said these things, we are about now to be forced at the last minutes of this session to choose between not passing a superb bill and passing no bill at all because we want to achieve a greater level of perfection.

This is the first significant change in food and drug law with regard to foods since 1938. At that time, you could test foods down to a few parts per thousand. Today, you can do it down to parts per billion and parts per trillion, and food is being affected by huge numbers of new, incredibly complex known and unknown molecules that are inserted.

The bill before us serves a basic and necessary and admirable purpose. It is going to have the purpose of seeing to it that the American consumer can again have confidence in the safety of their food supply.

Our manufacturers, our growers, and our processors do the best job in the world. The problem is we now import something like about one- quarter to one-third of our food supplies, and those food supplies are coming from places like China. And we have had some scandals of the most appalling character with regard to both domestic and imported food, but mostly with regard to imported food: bad seafood and shellfish from China, unsafe leafy vegetables like spinach and celery from China, bad berries and fruit from Chile and other places like that, peppers from Mexico that got mixed in with salsa and caused the collapse of the American tomato industry.

These are things that will be corrected by us having people available in Food and Drug to properly investigate, to properly correct and properly see to it that these unsafe foods don't get into our food chain, with the consequences not only that they poison Americans, but, worse, that they destroy American industry and cost us the faith of the American consuming public for some of the best manufacturers and processors in the world. The Chinese put melamine in milk. They sent us all manner of dangerous and unsafe food.

Now we are giving the agency, Food and Drug, the authority it needs. This does not invade the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. It was very carefully kept to see to it that it stayed within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.

I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

It creates a new focus on prevention, and it shares responsibility between FDA and the food manufacturers so that they can cooperatively work to keep the food supply safe, working together.

It also is going to require manufacturers to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur, and it is going to allow our Food and Drug Administration, for the first time in history, to police and to protect the entry into this country of foods coming from abroad, where most of the peril to our American consumers lie.

It also is going to allow our investigators and Food and Drug people to see to it, and this is a word of art, that the American law with regard to good manufacturing practices is carried forward in those other lands so that bad food cannot originate elsewhere and then come in to the United States because of shoddy manufacturing practices.

It gives Food and Drug power to ensure that foreign importers meet U.S. standards, and it will assure that foreign growers and producers will be treated with the same care and attention that American growers and producers are so our growers and producers can know that they are facing an even and level playing field. It gives FDA new enforcement tools, mandatory recall authority, authority to detain tainted products, and protections for employees who serve as whistleblowers.

This legislation is long overdue. It will address a situation which is shameful.

Today, according to the latest statistics, 48 million Americans are sickened by bad food, some 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 are killed yearly. We can dawdle around and let the House and the Senate wait until next year to perhaps pass a different bill. Whether it will be better or not is open to question.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

Whether it will be better is open to question. But I will tell my colleagues, during that time there are going to be Americans sickened, there are going to be Americans killed, and there are going to be Americans hospitalized. American manufacturers and processors and growers are going to have the quality of their food products impinged, not by their carelessness or bad behavior but, rather, by the misbehavior of foreign producers, foreign manufacturers, and others who are sending things in here like milk products with melamine. Melamine is a constituent, believe it or not, of Formica.

It kills people. It kills babies. And China sells these products to their own people. If they will kill their own people with that kind of trash, imagine the glee with which they will sell that kind of trash over here to threaten the well-being and the safety and the trust of American consumers, businessmen, manufacturers, producers, and growers.

I beg you, the safety of your constituents, of our people, is at stake. And I hope you will work with me to pass this legislation so that we can make our consumers not only trust the system but also to know that it is going to work to protect them.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I hope if there's enthusiasm for doing further work on this, that my colleagues will join me next year in doing the same thing with regard to pharmaceuticals. And I remind you that the committee has worked not in opposition to American industry, but rather the committee has worked with American industry, which supports the legislation.

Would it be better if we were passing the House bill? Absolutely. Is it worse and weaker because we're passing the Senate bill? Of course. But having said that, you're making Americans safe in spite of the fact that the U.S. Senate has to take a ride with this legislation

to, quite frankly, the weakening of this legislation.

I want to commend my colleagues who have participated: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Stupak, Ms. DeGette, and Ms. DeLauro. And I want to commend the staff: Katie Campbell, whose last day this is; Virgil Miller; Rachael Sher; Eric Flamm; and Emily Gibbons, who have made this possible. Our legislative counsel has labored vitally on it, and we owe real thanks to Warren Burke and Megan Renfrew.

I want to commend my Republican colleagues. I know that they're not supporting this legislation, and I grieve about that. But the harsh fact of the matter is they were very helpful in doing this in times past. And I want to pay particular tribute to Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Deal, and Mr. Barton, but I do want it known that were it not for the labor of three great men in the other body, we would not be where we are. Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin, and Senator Reid have contributed vitally to the success which we've had in making the American consuming public safe. And I hope that the people will understand we have served them well.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, secure in the knowledge that you're protecting Americans and you're saving the lives and the health and the well-being of the American people by passing H.R. 2751.

I rise today in strong support of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation with deliberate speed.

Mr. Speaker, consideration of this bill today is what I hope will be the final step of a long legislative journey. My colleagues in this body passed similar legislation last July. Some 17 months later, we are working on the same issue.

The legislative fits and starts is in no way a reflection of the policy, however, the legislation has been the hostage of political games and procedural missteps. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act serves a necessary and admirable purpose--it will go a long way in boosting American consumer confidence in the safety of the nation's food supply. The many recalls that have confronted American consumers over the years--peanuts, melamine in milk, eggs, bad seafood and shellfish, unsafe leafy vegetables like spinach, bad berries and peppers--has called into question the ability of the government to adequately protect American consumers. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act addresses this concern head on and grants the Food and Drug Administration--the Agency with oversight of 80 percent of the nation's food supply--the authorities and resources it needs to effectively do its job.

Among other things, the legislation will:

Create a new focus on prevention, and a shared responsibility between FDA and food manufacturers to keep the food supply safe. It will require manufacturers to implement preventive systems to stop outbreaks before they occur;

Require FDA to inspect food facilities--foreign and domestic--more frequently;

Grant FDA new authority to ensure that imported foods meet U.S. safety standards and will assure foreign growers and producers must be treated with the same care that American growers and producers are; and

Grant FDA new enforcement tools, including mandatory recall authority, authority to detain tainted products, and protection for employees who uncover food safety violations.

Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation is long overdue and necessary--necessary for the millions of Americans who suffer from foodborne illness each year, and the thousands who die from it each year.

We will bring to a halt a shameful situation where 48 million Americans are sickened by bad food, 128,000--yes 128,000 Americans-- hospitalized and 3,000 people killed by bad food.

I strongly support the legislation before us today and urge my colleagues to cast an aye vote.

S. 510 Supporters

Obama Administration--FDA

American Bakers Association; American Beverage Association;

American Public Health Association; Center for Foodborne

Illness, Research & Prevention; Center for the Science In The

Public Interest; Consumer Federation ot America; Consumers

Union; Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association; Food

Marketing Institute; Grocery Manufacturers Association;

Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils Inc.; International

Dairy Foods Association; International Bottled Water

Association; National Association of Manufacturers; National

Coffee Association of U.S.A., Inc.; National Confectioners

Association; National Consumers League; National Restaurant

Association; The Pew Charitable Trusts; Snack Food

Association; STOP--Safe Tables Our Priority; Trust For

America's Health; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and U.S. PIRG:

Federation of State PIRGs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today very disturbed by the lack of respect the ruling Democrat elites have shown for the will of the American people since election day. Having lost 63 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate, one would think the liberal Democrat regime would think twice about continuing their reckless pattern of spending that has been so overwhelmingly rejected by the American voting public. However, these Washington elites have spent their last days grasping frantically to their waning power and continuing to spend, spend, spend, even in the final hours before Christmas.

This rule is a slap in the face to the institutional integrity of Congress and the way this body is intended to operate.

Mr. Speaker, I have an article that I would like to insert in the Record from The Wall Street Journal of November 30. This article talks about what has been happening since we have come back into session, and I think it is something that we need to be talking about.

Also, I want to say that rather than having conference committees meet to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of bills, Democratic leaders have waited until the last minute and the House will now concur with the Senate-passed measures, sending them to the President.

Thus far in the 111th Congress, only 11 conference reports were considered in the House and 25 amendments between the House and the Senate, which denies the minority a motion to recommit. In the 109th Congress, 25 conference reports were considered and only one amendment between the Houses, on which the Rules Committee made a motion to recommit in order. The 109th was when the Republicans were last in control.

In Pelosi's New Direction for America, page 24, it states, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute.''

It is clear that the House Democrats on the Rules Committee have not lived up to this promise. Instead of allowing sufficient time for debate on these separate measures which collectively authorize billions upon billions in new spending and grant Federal regulators even more overreaching power, the Democrat elites are arbitrarily presenting us with one overarching closed rule for three separate and enormous pieces of legislation.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the underlying bills.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 2010]

Federal Freeze Play

American Federation of Public Employees President John Gage

yesterday derided President Obama's federal pay freeze as a

``slap at working people.'' It might better be described as a

small but symbollc first step toward reining in a ballooning

federal payroll that is a slap at the non-government workers

who pay the bills.

Mr. Obama proposed a two-year pay freeze for all civilian

federal employees, a move that will save taxpayers $2 billion

in fiscal 2011 and $28 billion over five years. (Congress

must approve it.) As cost-cutting goes, this is modest: The

freeze doesn't extend to new hiring, bonuses or step

increases. It doesn't even match the three-year freeze

recommended by the President's deficit commission. But it is

more than this Administration has ever been willing to

consider, and it suggests that Mr. Obama, post-midterm-

shellacking, realizes he must show some willingness to

restrain the growth of government.

It certainly needs restraint. As the nearby table shows

(see accompanying table--WSJ November 30, 2010), federal

employment has grown by a remarkable 17% since 2007 to an

estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-lime workers

(excluding 600,000 postal workers). This is the largest

federal work force since 1992, when civilian employment at

the Pentagon began to shrink rapidly after the Cold War.

These federal employees operate in a pay-and-benefit

universe that no longer exists in the private economy.

According to recent analyses by USA Today, total compensation

for federal workers has risen 37% over 10 years--after

inflation--compared to 8.8% for private workers. Federal

workers earned average compensation of $123,000 in 2009,

double the private average of $61,000. Unions like to argue

that federal jobs are unique, yet in occupations that exist

both in government and the private economy--nurses,

surveyors, janitors, cooks--the federal government pays 20%

more than private firms.

Voters have swept GOP reformers like New Jersey's Chris

Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker into gubernatorial

office precisely to rein in bloated public-employee pensions

and salaries. If Mr. Obama is serious about cutting spending,

his pay freeze needs to be an opening bid for a leaner, more

modestly compensated, federal work force.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lucas has spoken very eloquently about one piece of the legislation rolled into this rule. I would like to speak about all three of them, briefly. One piece is H.R. 5116, the COMPETES Act, a behemoth, authorizing nearly $86 billion, which is $22 billion above the fiscal 2010 base amount and $8 billion above the original 10-year ``doubling path.'' This is in addition to the nearly $5 billion in additional funding that was provided in the so-called ``stimulus'' bill.

When H.R. 5116 was authorized in 2007, it enacted approximately 40 new programs. The new spending under H.R. 5116 would create at least seven new government programs, many that are not associated with research and development, and others that are duplicative and unnecessary. This is plain wrong, Mr. Speaker.

It's worth recalling that when H.R. 5116 was originally considered by Congress earlier this year, Republicans attempted to make several constructive changes which were systematically blocked by the ruling liberal majority. One of these changes would have saved billions of taxpayer dollars by reducing the authorization levels to FY 2010 levels and freezing them for 3 years. However, in an effort to obstruct Republicans, the liberal Democrat elites did the American people disservice by using a series of parliamentary tricks to shove their bill through without allowing any Republican input.

Mr. Speaker, in these difficult economic times, American families across the country are tightening their belts and cutting their spending. Why then are the Democratic elites increasing spending by $22 billion with this legislation and creating new duplicative government programs? The American taxpayers cannot afford this bill.

The second bill encompassed by this closed rule which the Democrat elites have brought before us today is H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, again, which my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) has spoken on so eloquently. This bill increases spending by $1.4 billion, subsequently increasing the price of food and increasing the size of government without actually improving food safety.

This hastily considered closed rule provides for consideration of yet another bill, H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Act of 2010, which is so riddled with problems that last week it failed to garner the votes necessary to pass under a suspension of the rules. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to fix the flaws and address the other concerns prompting the bill's failure, the ruling liberal Democrats predictably chose to ram it through by any means necessary. And since they've wasted so much time tilting at windmills, they find themselves here in the waning days of this lame duck Congress scrambling to address issues that should've been dealt with through a responsible legislative process.

As they wait for the Senate to act, they're refusing to yield any free moment to pursue one of their last opportunities to slam through another so-called rule--unworthy even to be called a rule--providing for consideration of flawed legislation, such as H.R. 2142.

This bill would amend the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, GPRA, a law which currently requires agencies to develop 5-year strategic plans, annual performance plans, and actual program performance reports. Unfortunately, under the rules of debate provided for by this rule, the ruling Democrat majority refuses to allow Members to offer these types of

real reform ideas or any other amendments, leaving this legislation unlikely to do anything to change the incentives facing decision-makers and will not end the perpetual funding of failing Federal programs.

As has been made perfectly clear to the ruling liberal Democrat leadership, many are concerned that although there's no cost estimate available for this version of the bill, it authorizes $75 million over 5 years to establish agency performance officers and interagency councils, but does not contain an effective means to consolidate or eliminate ineffective programs at each agency. If you add the 17,800 employees that the food safety bill is contemplating and then the new employees that will be required under the GPRA bill, we are adding to the number of Federal employees. But we should be decreasing the number of Federal employees.

I want to talk a minute about what has happened in terms of Federal employees since the Democrats took over the Congress. In 2007, there were a total of 1,832,000 executive branch employees and in the civilian agencies there were 1,173,000. In 2010, it goes to 2,148,000 and 1,428,000. Federal employment has grown by a remarkable 17 percent since 2007, to an estimated 2.1 million nonmilitary full-time workers. This is the largest workforce since 1992.

Also, Mr. Speaker, according to a recent analysis by USA Today, total compensation for Federal workers has risen 37 percent over 10 years, after inflation, compared to 8.8 percent for private workers. Federal workers earned an average compensation of $123,000 in 2009--double the private average of $61,000.

Mr. Speaker, our country cannot afford this expansion of the Federal Government. We need to be reducing the Federal Government, not expanding it.

I would like to say further this version of the bill does not contain an amendment considered in committee markup by Republican Representative Schock and supported by Democrat Congressmen Cooper and Quigley that would have established a more thorough process for evaluating agency performance and eliminating programs that failed performance standards, were found to be duplicative or determined to be unnecessary.

H.R. 2142 mandates the creation of several new government-wide and agency-specific management plans. However, it does not--does not-- increase executive accountability for failing programs.

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is going in the wrong direction. What it does is it allows agencies to design their performance plans and then to measure their own results, using their own performance indicators. Rather than requiring agencies to focus on achieving measurable outcomes, the bill makes the creation of outcome-oriented performance measures optional. This would be like, Mr. Speaker, letting students set the criteria for getting their own grades, and we all know that doesn't work very well.

Strangely enough, also in the process, the bill directs agencies to ``identify low-priority program activities,'' which is ridiculous because, even if agencies had an incentive to label their own programs as ``low priority,'' they do not. This begs the question of why such programs are funded at all.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in. The liberal Democrat agenda has failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal majority seized control of Congress in 2007.

I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling liberal Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting this rule and the underlying legislation and by protesting the liberal agenda that continues to distract from private-sector job creation and from getting the economy back on its feet.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1781 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 1781.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1781 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Science and Technology or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5116. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment shall be considered as read.

The rule also provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 2751, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 2751. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides the Senate amendments shall be considered as read.

The rule also provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2142, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2142. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion, except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides that the Senate amendment be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, all three pieces of legislation deserve to be approved by this House.

Mr. Speaker, today we will take up a rule that helps this Congress complete the work the American people sent us here to do.

It has been far too long since this Congress has addressed the issue of food safety. Each year, 76 million Americans are sickened from consuming contaminated food, more than 300,000 people are hospitalized, and 5,000 die. In just the last few years, there has been a string of food-borne illness outbreaks in foods consumed by millions of Americans each day--from contaminated spinach to peanut butter to cookie dough.

This bill puts a new focus on preventing food contamination before it occurs--putting new responsibilities on food producers and requiring them to develop a food safety plan and ensure the plan is working.

By requiring importers to verify the safety of foreign suppliers and imported food, the American people can rest assured that the food they are eating is safe. And this bill allows the FDA to initiate a mandatory recall of a food product when a company fails to voluntarily recall the contaminated product upon FDA's request.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have asked Congress to help keep them safe. The text of this food safety legislation in H.R. 2751 is nearly identical to language passed by the House in the continuing resolution on December 8, 2010, and passed the Senate on November 30, 2010, by a bipartisan vote of 73-25.

H.R. 2751, this stand-alone food safety legislation, passed the Senate by voice vote on December 19, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This bill invests in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs of the future will not just be found in the industries of the past. They will be found in green technologies, biotechnology and advances in medical devices. This bill makes vital investments to keep America competitive in the global economy.

By making investments in the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Science and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science, America can be put on a path to double our research and development capabilities in 10 years.

This funding will support programs to assist American manufacturers and create a loan guarantee program to support innovation in manufacturing. It will also support research and internship opportunities for high school and undergraduate students, increase graduate fellowships supported by NSF and DOE, and encourage students studying in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math areas to pursue teaching credentials, increasing the pool of qualified teachers for the next generation of young innovators. It will also promote productivity and economic growth by forming an Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship to foster innovation and the commercialization of new technologies, products, processes, and services.

The Senate took up H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization on December 17, 2010, and passed it with an amendment by unanimous consent.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can all get behind a bill that helps keep America driving the pace of technology.

I also believe that we can all get behind the final piece of this rule that allows for consideration of H.R. 2142, the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2010.

This bill requires each federal agency to draft plans that identify areas where the agency could improve its performance. At a time of year when many of us are making resolutions to better ourselves and to rid ourselves of our bad habits, I think it's fitting that Congress and our Federal government takes a look at itself to see where we can improve.

Mr. Speaker, we were not sent here to be lame ducks. And this Congress has proven to be anything but, despite attempts to slow or cut off the process. This Congress has been one of the most productive in history--at a time when we need to be doing a little less nation- building around the world and more nation-building here at home. These important pieces of legislation will continue that productive work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to prolong this debate, but if I could just make a couple of observations in the aftermath of the gentleman's speech. I should remind my colleagues that each year, 76 million Americans are sickened by contaminated food that they consumed. More than 300,000 of them are hospitalized and more than 5,000 each year die. We've heard about tainted eggs, tainted spinach, tainted peanut butter, tainted cookie dough. We haven't updated our food safety laws in decades.

So here's the deal. If you want to do a better job of protecting the American consumer, you will have an opportunity, if you vote for this rule, to vote for the food safety bill. If you don't, then vote down the rule and vote against the bill when it comes up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness. There are a lot of things that come before the Members of this body that, I think, are worth getting all worked up about and that, I think, sometimes understandably lead to partisan bickering; but as to what we are talking about here today, to me and to, I think, most people who are watching, this should be fairly noncontroversial.

What we are talking about is a rule that will allow us to consider three bills. One is called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

What does this radical bill do?

It authorizes funding increases for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Science and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science for fiscal years 2010-2013, on a path toward increasing substantially our investment in research and development over the next 10 years. It is not even an appropriation. It is an authorization.

So the Appropriations Committee next year can work their will and decide whether to invest more in science so that we can compete in this global economy, or will we not invest in science and actually do what some of my friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you about taking a meat ax to these programs, you know, and putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage?

This is a bill about supporting and expanding American energy technology so we are not so reliant on foreign oil and so we don't go to war over oil. It is a national security issue, but this somehow is a controversial bill. This should pass easily.

The other bill that is so radical, according to my colleague on the Republican side of the aisle, is called the Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act.

What does this bill do?

It basically says to agencies and departments, look, you need to work to come up with a plan to prevent unnecessary and wasteful spending and to help eliminate Federal Government waste by working with us to help us find where those wasteful areas are.

Now, this is what is causing such consternation on the other side of the aisle? I mean, rather than just taking a meat ax and saying an arbitrary percentage cut across the board, what this bill says is let's think about what we're doing. Maybe we can cut 5 percent; maybe we can cut 10 percent; maybe we can cut even more.

Well, let's do this in a sensible way where we don't adversely impact services that directly impact the American people for the good. Let's have a plan. Let's just not do this senselessly. Let's do this sensibly. Somehow, this radical, awful bill has caused all this noise by my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

The final bill is the Food Safety Modernization Act. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier--and it's worth repeating--in this country, literally 76 million Americans on a yearly basis are sickened by contaminated food that they digest--76 million Americans a year. More than 300,000 of them end up going to hospitals on a yearly basis, and 5,000 die.

So what is this Congress trying to do?

We are trying to find a way to protect consumers, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle is all upset about it. Oh, boy. What a terrible, awful idea to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of this country by updating our food safety rules and regulations, which haven't been updated in almost 30 years.

Come on. I mean let's move forward with this rule. Let's consider these bills. I am sure they all will pass.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1781, I call up the bill (H.R. 5116) to invest in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5116.

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

On October 12, 2005, in response to a bipartisan request by the Science and Technology Committee and some of our colleagues in the Senate, Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman, the National Academies released their report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The distinguished panel painted a very scary picture. The report made it clear that, without action, the future was bleak for our children and grandchildren. This report was, without question, a call to arms.

September of this year, Norm Augustine released, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5.'' The updated report highlights progress that has been made in the past 5 years, including enactment of the original America COMPETES Act, but he underscores that America's competitive position in the world now faces greater challenges and that research investments are even more critical today.

The message from the report is clear: We need to double-down on our investments in science and technology. The worst thing we could do would be to downshift while the rest of the world kicks it into high gear.

As chairman of the Gathering Storm Committee and former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, Norm Augustine said, in all the years he was an aircraft engineer and dealing with the common dilemma of trying to make an overweight aircraft fly, the solution was never to lop off an engine. Science funding is the engine of a knowledge-based economy. If we remove it, our economy will crash and burn.

More than half of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to development and adoption of new technologies. These investments are the path towards sustained economic recovery and growth and the path toward prosperity for the next 50 years. There is an undeniable relationship between investment in R&D and the creation of jobs, the creation of companies, and economic growth.

The Science Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of the Nation's leading research universities, released a report entitled, ``Sparking Economic Growth: How Federally Funded University Research Creates Innovation, New Companies and Jobs.'' This report tells the stories of 100 companies, including Google, Cisco, SAS, Genentech, Orbital Sciences, Sun Power, Medtronic, Hewlett Packard, and many others, that were all created based on research funded with Federal dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Council on Competitiveness, and the Task Force on American Innovation all understand the benefits to U.S. companies of making a sustained commitment to research and STEM education. We have a huge opportunity before us to make progress toward that goal.

While there have been concessions made in light of the economic environment, this bill preserves the intent of the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report and the original COMPETES. It keeps our basic research agencies on a doubling path. It continues to invest in high- risk, high-reward energy technology development. It will help improve STEM education, and it will help unleash the American spirit of innovation. COMPETES is, and will continue to be, a bipartisan, bicameral effort about which every Member can feel proud.

I applaud all of the people who have worked on this bill, including all the members of the Science and Technology Committee and my dear friend, Ralph Hall. This has been a team effort, across the aisle and across the Capitol.

I also want to take a moment to extend a sincere and heartfelt thank you to the staff of the Committee on Science and Technology, both minority and majority. Their tireless efforts in crafting the House version of this legislation, working through the tough spots, and shepherding it to final passage today deserves special acknowledgment. Without them, this reauthorization of COMPETES would not have been possible.

We are all familiar with the legions of smart, talented professionals who grace the corridors of this institution, and I am sure each of us is impressed on a regular basis with the knowledge and expertise of the staff we work with most closely. However, I am always amazed by the wealth of knowledge lodged with the staff of the Science and Technology Committee. I simply can't say enough about the staff's talent, insight, and institutional knowledge. Their hard work has made the Science Committee more productive, and it has made me a better chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that, in the two terms that I have had the privilege to lead the Science and Technology Committee, the committee has had 151 bills and resolutions pass the House, all with bipartisan support. But there is nothing that I am more proud of than the America COMPETES Act. There is nothing that we have done that will have deeper, longer lasting, and more positive impacts on our Nation than this bill.

I cannot think of anything I would rather be doing, on what is likely my final act on this House floor after 26 years of service, than sending this bill to the President's desk. It's important to me personally because I have a 9-year-old daughter, and if we do not want our children and grandchildren to inherit a national standard of living less than their parents, a reversal of the American Dream, we need to support research, foster innovation, and improve education.

The business community has urged us to pass this bill to support research, foster innovation, and improve education. The academic community has urged us to pass this bill to support research, foster innovation, and improve education. The scientific community has urged us to pass this bill to support research, foster innovation, and improve education. And every one of our colleagues in the Senate has agreed that this bill needs to be sent to the President's desk so the U.S. can support research, foster innovation, and improve education and create 21st century jobs.

I urge my colleagues to stand with the business community, the academic community, the scientific community, and to send a strong message that the U.S. must maintain its scientific and economic leadership.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate Dr. Ehlers on a stellar congressional career. His contribution to the Science Committee was enormous, and he will be missed. And having spent as much time as I have on the Science Committee, you develop affection for the committee, for the people, for the Members, and for the staff.

So it is with, really, gratitude that I know that the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is going to be the ranking member in the coming 112th Congress, and I yield to her 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of a unanimous consent request, I yield to a very important contributor to this bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the subcommittee chairman on Technology and Innovation, someone who made a great contribution to this bill.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our resident authority on nuclear energy, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), who has been a very active and articulate member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to another active member of our committee from Michigan (Mr. Peters), who has been very active particularly in advanced vehicle technology.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who has brought his energy expertise to our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an alumnus of our committee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our example of the benefits of STEM education, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our great majority leader and my great friend, Steny Hoyer.

Madam Speaker, we sometimes throw the term ``friend'' around here a lot. I do thank very much the majority leader for his friendship.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the cochair of the New Dems, who are our leaders in innovation policy, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ron Kind.

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

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, on many occasions I have

heard speaker Nancy Pelosi talk about the future of our Nation. And when she talks about the future of our Nation, she says there's three things we need to do: science, science, science. She believes it. She has led us in that direction.

I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me just once again thank the members and staff on a bicameral, bipartisan basis who have done so much to bring this excellent piece of legislation to the floor.

I doubt there has ever been a piece of legislation that has had as much outward support for the business community, the academic community, the scientific community. It is a good bill. It is going to help move our country forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.