Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honor for me to be here along with such distinguished colleagues giving just praise and recognition to a nation which is a leader in a very, very difficult environment. I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and the distinguished gentleman from American Samoa, and I particularly want to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Lantos, for supporting and introducing this resolution.

We all know the Middle East is a region which is fraught with difficulties. If ever there is a region that needs and deserves models of courage, integrity and vision that is such a region, and if ever there were such models of integrity, vision and courage, Jordan and King Abdullah II are precisely those models.

In the most recent municipal elections, we saw not only a commitment to democratic reforms, but a commitment to moving forward with women's rights, and as many of us who have had the privilege traveling to Jordan know, the kingdom has been a real leader in this region, not only in promoting democratic reforms, but seeing that women are promoted to high positions of office within the cabinet and within the Parliament. It is a lesson that not only nations within the Middle East but within the world at large could benefit from.

In addition, the Kingdom of Jordan and King Abdullah II have led efforts to try to bring Islamic scholars from around the world to craft new visions for modern, pluralistic, tolerant and progressive visions of Islam, and the Oman declaration, which does not get nearly the attention it deserves, has been, I think, a visionary statement guiding and inspiring many people throughout the region.

In addition, I think it is worth saying that the Kingdom of Jordan has stepped up to try to help in the region. As we deal with the conflict in Iraq, they have provided valuable training to the Iraqi police and others. One of the challenges Jordan faces right now is the influx of nearly 1 million refugees, as was mentioned. This is a country that faces challenges in terms of energy costs, water availability, et cetera, and still, with all the challenges they face, they have reached out to try to assist others.

We have talked a lot in this body and elsewhere about the need for models in the Middle East in the hope that Iraq could one day become a model of democracy. I certainly share that hope. But I would say to my colleagues, we already have some very, very good models in that region, and it is deserved that we would commend them and recognize them today. Jordan is precisely such a model. King Abdullah is precisely such a leader.

I am grateful that my colleagues today would take the time and the effort to recognize such achievements by such a courageous leader in such a wonderful country.

I would urge my colleagues to visit Jordan, to meet with their King, with the members of their Parliament and their cabinet officials, and I am sure they will share my sense of deep admiration and respect for what has been happening there.

So I urge passage of this legislation. I hope it marks a positive step, not only in recognition of Jordan, but a step in which this body finds ways to acknowledge the many positive achievements that are taking place in a region which we all know has many difficulties. But if we only focus on the difficulties or the bad news and we neglect the good news and the accomplishments, particularly when they are achieved by nations and individuals of such prestige and courage as Jordan, we would be missing a golden opportunity.

Thankfully, today, this House of Representatives will not miss that opportunity. We will acknowledge and recognize the recent elections and reforms by the Kingdom of Jordan and extend a hand of friendship and admiration to all the people of Jordan and to King Abdullah II himself.

With that, I thank all of those who cosponsored this legislation on both sides of the aisle. It truly has been a bipartisan effort.

Madam Speaker, I urge passage of this fine resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 694) to establish a digital and wireless network technology program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 694, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 694, the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2007.

This bill creates a program to improve computer networks at minority- serving educational institutions. The program will award cost-shared grants to eligible campuses to buy networking equipment and train students and teachers in how to use it. The grants will be awarded by the Secretary of Commerce, and the program will be reviewed by the National Academy of Public Administration every 3 years.

In today's digital world, computer networks are a key part of the educational experience. But many campuses, especially minority-serving institutions, do not have the resources to build those networks on their own. That hurts the students and makes them less prepared to find jobs when they graduate. H.R. 694 will help fix that problem and enable many students to get the skills they need to compete in the digital economy. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by thanking my colleague from Texas. This has truly been a bipartisan bill. I want to sing the praises of Congressman Towns from New York for his steadfast leadership on this and Mr. Forbes' leadership prior to that. I urge a ``yes'' vote for passage of this fine piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2850) to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2850, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act.

Chemical manufacturing produces great wonders for the world, but at the same time it can result in harm to health and the environment due to the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous by- products. Green chemistry seeks to mitigate such harmful outcomes.

In short, the goal of green chemistry is to minimize or to eliminate this harm by using safer materials and manufacturing processes. Besides protecting human health and the environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages and improvements to worker safety, public safety, and our national security.

The bill before us today, H.R. 2850, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, establishes an interagency program to enhance green chemistry R&D at NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST.

This legislation will provide grants to individual researchers, spur university/industry partnerships, fund research at Federal laboratories, and train students in green chemistry science.

H.R. 2850 is the third iteration of a bill that Congressman Gingrey has introduced addressing this issue in three

separate Congresses. I want to applaud the gentleman from Georgia for his steadfast leadership on this, and I fully support the legislation.

Under Chairman Boehlert's leadership in the 108th and 109th Congresses, Democratic amendments were agreed to, and these amendments now make up sections of H.R. 2850. This bill is the product of good, bipartisan cooperation and has the support of our chairman, Mr. Gordon, from Tennessee.

H.R. 2850 is a good first step, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just reiterate my commendation to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, and Mr. Hall for his leadership, and urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Research and Education, as a scientist, as an educator, and perhaps most importantly of all, as a parent, I commend this legislation. I'm very proud to support it fervently.

I want to focus in particular on some of the sections of the bill that we authored along with my dear friend, Dr. Ehlers, on the Science Committee. I especially want to commend Ranking Member Hall and Mr. Gordon for his great leadership.

Title VII of this bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation and is based on legislation authored by Mr. Ehlers and myself. This title includes some very exciting provisions. It helps ensure the strength and vitality of basic research at U.S. colleges. It strengthens and expands K-12 science, technology and math education. It provides additional support for new investigators to help keep the best and brightest in the STEM pipeline. It strengthens STEM programs for 2- year institutions. It focuses attention on interdisciplinary research, and to stretch our Federal dollars, it encourages university and industry partnerships to make every dollar go further. It expands the range of state-of-the-art research tools supported by the foundations. It requires NSF grantees to train their students in responsible and ethical conduct. It specifically recognizes the importance of social science to our Nation's security and competitiveness. And it acknowledges the increasing importance of service science to our Nation's competitiveness.

Finally, it includes needed improvements to planning and coordination for the major Federal interagency research program in information technology.

I am grateful to all the committee members and to our staff: Chuck Atkins, Jim Wilson; Dahlia Sokolov; Alisa Ferguson; Lewis Finkel; Hilary Cain on my own staff; and soon to depart but with much gratitude, Marc Korman on my staff.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded by scientists. We don't talk about that often enough. But Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were passionate about science. They would be proud of what we are doing today.

In the Dome of this magnificent Capitol, if you look up and see the great picture of the Apotheosis of Washington, he is surrounded by images in many cases representing the science and engineering achievements of this great Nation.

For the sake of our future, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our economy and our security, pass this good bill.

I commend all those who participated in making it a success.

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

I have great respect for the gentlelady's intent here. As a clinical psychologist before entering this body, I worked with victims of domestic violence and have been a strong advocate for the Violence Against Women

Act and other things to support victims of domestic violence.

The challenge I face here, and I think we all face, is that this is not a good offset. As Chair of the Research and Education Subcommittee of the Science Committee, I have met extensively with the National Science Foundation, and I will tell you that they are already substantially overstretched in their ability to manage the numbers of grant applications and oversee the grants that are already being administered.

The President himself has asked for a substantial increase in funding for the National Science Foundation. That has broad bipartisan support within this body and within the other body.

If we were to cut the management funds, as this proposes, we would dramatically impair the NSF's ability to manage that increase; indeed, to manage their current workload.

I have met with the people managing the grant process at the NSF. I have met with the applicants, and we have spent extensive time on this in our subcommittee. While I support the intent of trying to provide more funding for violence against women, this is not the way to do it.

I yield to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

I appreciate that. I understand you have done that, and I respect the diligence here.

The challenge they face is they are literally bursting at the seams. They do not have office space, sufficient computer architecture, they do not have sufficient personnel. I can't vouch, and it would be foolish for any of us to try to line-item or justify each and every expense, but I can tell you what they have told me is they lack the space.

If you are finding items for conference room rentals for meetings, that is perfectly understandable to me that when you have people coming back to have meetings, you may occasionally need additional space.

My bottom line here is this is an agency that I think by and large gives a very strong return on investment for the government and for the taxpayers, and a $10 million cut to an administrative fund for an agency that already tells us they lack adequate resources I think is excessive.

I am sorry, I am going to have to say we should defeat this amendment and try to find other ways. As the distinguished gentleman mentioned earlier, we have already seen substantial investments in this area over and above the President's request as far as the area of violence against women.

I would just encourage the gentlelady to say well done to the Democratic majority for adding to this relative to what the President offered.

But I would urge my colleagues, and I can tell you personally from having met with and visited with NSF administration, they do not feel, and my understanding, they can sustain a $10 million cut to any portion of their budget. But the administration portion is what enables them to manage the grants, to manage the research that this country's future and domestic security and economic competitiveness depends on.

So I'd urge defeat of this well-intentioned amendment with unfortunately an undesirable offset.

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

Madam Speaker, between May 16, 2007, and May 22, 2007, I traveled to the Middle East to attend the World Economic Forum and to visit with troops from my district now serving in Iraq. As a result, I missed a number of votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously; had I been present, I would have voted the following:

No on the Andrews Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 364)

No on the DeFazio Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 365)

No on the Woolsey Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 366)

Aye on the Tierney Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 367)

No on the Franks Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 368)

No on the King Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 369)

Aye on the Moran Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 370)

Aye on the Holt Amendment to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 371)

Aye on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 372)

Aye on final passage of H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Roll Call 373)

Yea on H. Res. 404, providing for consideration of the H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 374)

Yea on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 409, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government (Roll Call 375)

Aye on H. Res. 409, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government (Roll Call 376)

Yea on agreeing to the conference report S. Con. Res. 21 (Roll Call 377)

No on Bachus Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 378)

No on Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 379)

No on the McHenry Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 380)

Aye on the Kanjorski Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 381)

No on the Roskam Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 382)

No on the Garrett Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 383)

Yea on H.R. 698, the Industrial Bank Holding Company Act (Roll Call 384)

Yea on H.R. 1425, designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, as the ``Staff Sergeant Marvin `Rex' Young Post Office Building'' (Roll Call 385)

No on the Feeney Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 386)

No on the Price Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 387)

No on the Sessions Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 388)

No on the Brady Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 389)

No on the Price Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 390)

No on the Doolittle Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 391)

No on the Hensarling Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 392)

No on the Neugebauer Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 393)

Aye on the Neugebauer Amendment to H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 394)

No on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 395)

Aye on final passage of H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act (Roll Call 396)

Yea on S. 214, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act (Roll Call 397)

Yea on H.R. 2264, to amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal (Roll Call 398)

Yea on S. 1104, a bill to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants (Roll Call 399)

Yea on H.R. 2399, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities (Roll Call 400)

Yea on H.R. 1722, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman Post Office'' (Roll Call 401)

Aye on Democratic Motion to Table Resolution Raising a Question of Privileges of the House (Roll Call 402)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 407, the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study Act.

The Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area Study Act is an important piece of legislation to my district and the entire Pacific Northwest. I have been privileged to work with David Wu from Oregon in introducing this legislation. In the Senate, the companion legislation has been introduced by Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon and is supported by Washington Senators Murray and Cantwell, as well as Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Hence, this legislation has both bipartisan and bicameral support.

The mouth of the Columbia is a special place with a very rich history. Native American communities have flourished there for thousands of years. It is home to the first American settlement on the Pacific, Astoria. It served as a major trading post for European, American, Chinese, and other nations' ships, and earned its nickname the ``Graveyard of the Pacific'' from the hundreds of shipwrecks along its dangerous coast. Lewis and Clark ended their westward trek there in 1805. Today, the area is home to the fishing, seafood processing, and timber communities that embody the Pacific Northwest.

Establishing a national heritage area at the mouth of the river is fitting in recognition of the region and its importance historically. As you know, the national heritage area unites parts of historically and culturally significant areas under a common purpose. In this

case, it will help continue the cooperative efforts that the Lewis and Clark bicentennial helped to create. The bicentennial commemoration helped bring community interests together to plan and work in a collaborative fashion. A national heritage area will continue this momentum and ensure the region continues to attract families, outdoorsmen and women, history buffs, and others to enhance its sustainable tourism economy.

Most impressive is that the effort to create a national heritage area at the mouth of the Columbia is really an idea driven by the local community. We have received letters of support from local governments, local businesses, trade associations, chambers of commerce, ports and others who have heard about this effort and wholeheartedly endorsed it. A brief sample of support includes the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Office of the Governor of Oregon, the city of Astoria, Shorebank Pacific Bank, Cannon Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Peninsula, and the Clatsop County Historical Society.

During the prior Congress, the legislation was subject to an oversight hearing in the National Parks Subcommittee where the administration expressed their support for the bill. We were also joined by small business owners from the area, notably Bob Andrews, who expressed his particular support.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the National Resource Committee chairman, Nick Rahall; the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands chairman, Mr. Grijalva; and their staffs, including David Watkins and Rick Healy, for their work in bringing this to the floor. I would also like to thank Marc Korman in my office for his work on this important legislation. And especially, my dear friend, David Wu. Again, I thank the Chair for bringing this to the floor and urge final passage.

I thank my friend from Arizona.

I would just like to correct the record of the gentleman from Colorado. I know a little bit about Colorado myself. I have lived there. I doubt the gentleman from Colorado has lived in my district.

I do happen to know that Battleground, Washington, is not anywhere near the affected area. The affected area encompasses Pacific County and Wahkiakum County on my side of the river, two counties on the gentleman from Oregon's side of the river. Battleground is not there.

As far as the massive size of this organization you describe, it is not so large. I appreciate they have a voice. I am happy to listen to the voice. This Congress should listen to the voice. But it should not overwhelm the unanimous sense of the people who sponsored this legislation. The committee jurisdiction has had a hearing on this, and I do not think we want to make it the practice of this body, we certainly never have before, to say that every time a relatively noncontroversial bill has been heard well out in the prior Congress, we have to have another hearing.

If the gentleman pretends to say that it is his concern that we try to save the taxpayers' money, having continuous, multiple hearings every time a bill does not quite pass out both bodies, both the House and the Senate, from one Congress to the next, I think it would actually cost the taxpayers a lot more money than you would hope to save.

Let me speak to the substance of this. My friend from Oregon said it well. If you know the history of this great country and if you know the history of the Pacific Northwest, there can be no doubt that this area warrants designation such as we think this study will ultimately lend it.

My friend mentioned Lewis and Clark. Prior to them, the historical trade that went along among the native tribes at the mouth of the Columbia River was legendary. Lewis and Clark, the first American settlement in the Pacific Northwest, the key to trade with Asia in the early years of this great country, it was this mouth of this river where the first northwest settlement of the United States by Americans expanded. The mouth of this river is a key to the commerce, not only of the Pacific Northwest but the inland Northwest, the greater Northwest where great quantities of grain and other cargos are shipped out.

This region has a rich cultural, historical legacy that we need to honor and respect and preserve. That is why the administration supports this bill. That is why our friend and colleague in the other body, Senator Smith, supports this bill. That is why we have I think the unanimous support of both delegations. This should be a noncontroversial bill.

The gentleman from Colorado I think has raised rather specious arguments against it, and I think we should pass this fine legislation and move forward with honoring a very richly deserving part of this country with this designation.

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. 1867, as amended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank Dr. Ehlers for his fine comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

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

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

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

I continue to reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Association

for the Advancement of Science,

Washington, DC, May 2, 2007.

Hon. Doris Matsui,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

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

passage of the reauthorization for the National Science

Foundation (NSF) by the House Science and Technology

Committee.

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

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

your efforts to improve scientific communication with the

public. For over 50 years, the NSF

has had a unique role in supporting basic research across the

spectrum of scientific disciplines. This support has led to

remarkable advances in fields as disparate as nanotechnology

and economic theory.

While federal support of scientific research is of critical

importance to innovation, it is also very important that we

find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to

advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must

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

The ability to more effectively communicate scientific

information may inspire more children to pursue a career in

science. It certainly will help create a higher quality

dialogue among the research community, the citizens whose

investment it relies upon, and the broad society it

ultimately serves.

Sincerely,

Alan L. Leshner,

Chief Executive Officer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and chairman.

This is a good day for science and research, and that means it is a good day for the United States of America and for our economic prosperity and for our children's future.

As Chair of the Research and Science Subcommittee, I rise today in support of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act, and I want to commend Chairman Gordon for his strong leadership on this bill that we are considering now, and on the one that passed earlier today.

I share Chairman Gordon's absolute commitment and belief that we must take bold steps now to ensure that American students and workers are prepared for the careers of the future and so our Nation is equipped to compete in the global economy.

To accomplish this, however, we must make sure our young scientists receive the support they need. That is why, as many of our prior speakers have pointed out, it is critically important to invest in the minds of young researchers now, because not only are they highly productive, but one day they will fill the ranks of our senior established and groundbreaking scientists on which our country's economy, competitiveness, and indeed our national security depend.

That is why I am so pleased we are considering H.R. 363 today. The bill will ensure continued innovation by supporting outstanding researchers in early career stages, and ensuring that graduate students in research fields of particular importance to our future competitiveness receive adequate funding. I also share Ranking Member Ehlers' commitment to the importance of interdisciplinary scientific studies which he so well articulated.

This bill and the one before it that we considered already and passed today, are critically important to the future prosperity of our country. I share Chairman Gordon's commitment to them, and I urge passage.

I also would like to take this opportunity briefly to express support for the amendment soon to be offered by Mrs. Gillibrand of New York. Her amendment will require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to award scholarships in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to undergraduate scholars. As a former teacher of undergraduate scholars and researchers, I know how important this stage is to career development and I support her commitment to it, applaud her offering the amendment. I urge passage of that, as well as final passage of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, I rise in support of Ms. Gillibrand's amendment.

This amendment will require the National Science Foundation to institute a program to award scholarships in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics to undergraduate scholars.

Congresswoman Gillibrand and I share a commitment to recruiting and educating our young people to meet the growing need for a larger science and engineering workforce. I commend Congresswoman Gillibrand for her leadership on this issue and, as Chairman, look forward to continuing to work with her to strengthen math and science education in this country and ensure our future competitiveness.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I simply rise to congratulate my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Larsen, for his tireless efforts on this.

This bill has been around for several Congresses. It has had wide bipartisan support. And as my friend, Mr. Inslee, said, this was done the right way. Mr. Larsen held countless hearings, met with virtually every imaginable interest group. There were compromises, sometimes difficult, sometimes painful compromises. But in the end, we have a truly remarkable area of land set aside. And, Mr. Larsen, our friends in the other body, Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell, worked very vigorously on this, and I congratulate them. And, as Mr. Inslee did, I also want to congratulate the many citizen groups who worked so hard on this.

I encourage my friends on the other side to recognize that no bill will be perfect, but this is about as good as you are going to get. This is an area definitely worth preserving, and the people on the ground support it, by and large. It is one thing to say that it is nice for people to set aside wilderness in their own area and not other areas, but doesn't that converse also apply in not opposing an effort of someone to set aside a wilderness in his own area? I would think the reasoning would suggest that it would, and I urge support from both sides of the aisle on this.

I would just finally conclude with this. It is not possible for us to construct or build new wildlands. We can't do that; it is not within our power. What is within our power is to protect the small remaining areas of wildlands for all the future generations. This legislation does an admirable job of achieving this. I urge its passage, and I commend my friend and colleague, Mr. Larsen, and the entire committee for working on this.

Mr. Speaker, no votes in Congress are more wrenching or difficult than those involving war; whether that vote involves initiating combat, or in this instance, steps to bring about the end. The consequences are profound, uncertainty about the right course is great, and there are strong feelings on all sides.

Every member of Congress is committed to the security of this Nation and to supporting our troops and their families. There are legitimate differences about how best to achieve those goals, but the core commitment to security and to support of our troops should not be doubted or questioned, regardless of where one stands on this matter.

Before the first vote authorizing force in Iraq in 2002, I asked fundamental questions of the President: `What will the cost be in human casualties on all sides? What are the international and potential regional scenarios that might be developed? What is our long term strategy for the region?' I also asked about the economic costs to our Nation and the world, and about the likelihood of religious conflicts leaving our soldiers caught between warring religious factions with grievances that are centuries old. I asked what provisions had been made to care for the wounded and their families when they return? I called for greater commitment to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian issues and for reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum. Finally, knowing well the history of the region, I asked how long our commitment was expected to last if hostilities were initiated.

Not one of these questions was answered by President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld or any member of the administration. That is why I voted ``no'' on that initial resolution. Sadly, the same questions remain today and they have still not been answered by the President, which is why I will vote ``yes'' on the bill before the House today.

For the sake of our Nation's security, for the safety or our troops, for the sake of our economy at home, for the sake of our international standing, we must say to the Iraqi leaders and to the world, `We have removed a dictator from power, we have disarmed a tyrant, elections have been held, and a constitution is in place. We have shed the blood of our finest, we have indebted our children, we have tried to help rebuild infrastructure and put in place the basis of a democratic republic. Now, it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to find a political solution that is in everyone's interest and will lead to an end to the bloodshed.' Our Nation cannot and should not attempt to impose that solution indefinitely; it must come from the Iraqis themselves.

Today's bill says just that. It provides the necessary funds to continue to support our soldiers in the field. It adds much needed resources to ensure they receive care when they come home. It addresses needed priorities within our own Nation. And, most importantly, it says affirmatively, there will be an end to our role in combat in Iraq and it is time for our Nation, for the Iraqis, and for the world, to begin to prepare for that time. This cannot go on forever.

Those who talk about staying the course without end, as well as those who would call for opposing this bill because they want the war to end tomorrow, must all recognize that in the process of this conflict, our overall military readiness has been profoundly impaired and our Nation is now vulnerable should other, more severe, threats emerge elsewhere in the world. At the same time, our local preparedness of the National Guard is in tatters. Our Guard lacks key resources, equipment, and manpower to respond to fires, floods, or other disasters or to join in serious conflicts elsewhere if called upon to do so. This bill, quite rightly, seeks to correct these deficits.

The reality before us today is that we cannot immediately stop funding for our forces or neglect the readiness deficits that now endanger our Nation. That would be irresponsible and would leave our soldiers on the ground and our citizens at home and abroad in greater danger. It would also endanger the lives and hopes of the Iraqi people themselves and leave them vulnerable to extremists and chaos.

At the same time, however, it would be equally irresponsible to allow this hemorrhaging of blood and money, this neglect of our own Nation's needs here at home, to continue unchecked. This legislation changes the direction for our Nation and says the Iraqi's must change the direction of their Nation. They must take responsibility for their own security, share their oil wealth equitably with their own citizens, arid establish fundamental constitutional reforms. This bill requires that our President must certify that such things are being done.

Far from `tying the hands' of the President, this legislation gives him much needed direction. If it becomes law, President Bush must at long last say that his own people, the American people, in the constitutional democratic republic that is our Nation, and that he is sworn to defend, have spoken through their representatives and have said it is time for change. It will soon be up to the Iraqi's themselves to determine the fate of their own Nation so that we can, at long last, may again determine the fate of ours.

If you care about the security of this Nation, vote ``yes'' to restore our military readiness. If you care about our soldiers, vote ``yes'' to give them the equipment they need while deployed and the care they need when they return home. If you want to see an end to this conflict, vote ``yes'' to begin the process that will at last bring that about.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1068) to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 1068, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1068, a bill to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. This is a bipartisan bill which Congresswoman Biggert and I introduced.

I want particularly to acknowledge the role Mrs. Biggert has played in working to develop this legislation over the past several years. This bill is based on a bill introduced by Congresswoman Biggert and Congressman Lincoln Davis during the past two Congresses. And in both those Congresses, the bill passed the House.

I also want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their support for the legislation, for helping to advance it through the committee and to bring it to the floor.

H.R. 1068 will improve the planning and coordination process for the major Federal interagency research program in information technology. Information technology is a major driver of economic growth. It creates high-wage jobs, provides for rapid communication throughout the world, and provides the tools for acquiring knowledge.

For example, information technology helps to make the workplace more productive, to improve the quality of health care, and to make government more responsive and accessible to the needs of our citizens.

High-performance computing and networking is not only an essential component of U.S. scientific competitiveness, it also has important industrial, medical, and defense applications.

Vigorous long-term research is essential for realizing the potential of information technology. The technical advances that led to today's computers and the Internet evolved from past federally sponsored research, in partnership with industry and universities. High- performance computing is necessary as we work to develop new ways to transfer vast amounts of information around the world.

The depth and strength of U.S. capability in information technology stems in part from the sustained research and development program carried out by Federal research agencies under a program codified by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. That act is widely credited with reinvigorating U.S. high-performance computing capabilities after a period of relative decline during the late 1980s.

The 1991 act created a multi-agency R&D program to accelerate development of information technology and to attack challenging computational science and engineering problems. The 1991 act also put in place a formal process for planning and budgeting for the activities carried out under the interagency R&D program, which is formally known as the Networking and Information Technology R&D Program.

The need for this legislation today arises from what I would characterize as a weakening over time of the planning and prioritization process for the program.

In order to maintain our competitiveness, we must ensure that the resources available to advance high-performance computing technology are allocated to the highest priority areas and that the activities supported are carefully coordinated among the performing agencies.

Toward that end, H.R. 1068 requires formal biennial reviews of the interagency program by its external advisory committee in order to provide advice from the research community and from the information technology industries on how to sharpen program priorities and improve program implementation. Also, the required annual progress report for the program must now include a formal response to the recommendations of the advisory committee.

H.R. 1068 calls on the agencies carrying out the program to focus more effort on high-end computing. The key requirement is for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to create and maintain a road map for developing and deploying high-end systems necessary to ensure that the U.S. research community has sustained access to the most capable computing systems.

Finally, this bill clarifies the grand challenge problems supported under the interagency program, such as clean energy production, climate change, and patient safety and health quality, which are intended to involve multidisciplinary teams of researchers and demand the most capable high-performance computing and networking resources.

Consistent with this requirement, the bill also specifies the provisions for access to high-end computing systems includes technical support to users of these systems.

Mr. Speaker, the interagency information technology research program launched by the 1991 act has been largely a success. H.R. 1068 will serve to strengthen this vital research program and deserves the approval of this House. I ask my colleagues for their support in passing H.R. 1068.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just very briefly again commend Mrs. Biggert for her leadership on this. She has been steadfast and dogged on this. We hope with the changes we made to this bill, it will meet the approval of the other body. This is not a partisan issue. This is about keeping American science and industry at the very forefront of the world. This bill will help us do that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 85) to provide for the establishment of centers to encourage demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy methods and technologies, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 85, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we examine market barriers for advanced research energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, we find that a simple lack of public knowledge often keeps those technologies on the laboratory shelf and out of the marketplace. Outreach and education of building and industry professionals and other key decisionmakers will undoubtedly accelerate the deployment of beneficial energy technologies and practices into the larger marketplace.

Through the guidance of Congressman Brad Miller, we sought to address these challenges in the energy bill of 2005 by establishing in section 917 a network of Advanced Energy Technology Transfer Centers. These centers would be a partnership between local entities and DOE to showcase advanced energy technologies and simply teach the right people how to utilize them.

Mrs. Biggert worked with Mr. Miller to refine this section of the EPA Act in her bill, H.R. 85, and I believe it is a valuable improvement that will get these centers up and running sooner.

This bill came through the Science Committee and passed the House last year as part of H.R. 6203. It was a good idea then, and Chairman Gordon saw that it should be treated the same in this Congress. Like the other two bills before us today, the Science and Technology Committee passed this bill out of committee with no objection. I again commend my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for working with the majority on this important bill, and I urge its approval by the House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just would echo Mrs. Biggert's astute comments. We talk a lot in this body and in the administration about the importance of launching new energy research initiatives. The fact is we have a number of efficient technologies before us today, and the real challenge is getting those out to the public to be implemented as soon as possible.

The quickest way to address our energy challenge is not to immediately invent some miracle cure. The quickest way is to implement the existing technologies and mechanisms that we have already before us to begin saving energy today.

I encourage passage of this bill and commend Mrs. Biggert for her leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge passage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to the funeral of a family member, I was unable to be present today for votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq (Rollcall vote 99). Had I been present, I also would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 976, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for other purposes (Rollcall vote 102).