Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a wonderful woman who has served the Federal government for over forty years. This week, Jane Itogawa will be retiring from the Office of the Federal Defender, Eastern District of California after a distinguished career. As her colleagues, friends and family gather to celebrate her retirement, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding Sacramento resident and public servant.

In 1971 Sacramento's Office of the Federal Defender was established and E. Richard Walker was named the first Federal Defender. Within a year, a then Jane Hashiaka was selected to serve as the Secretary to the Federal Defender. Prior to that position Jane had worked for the Treasury Department, Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture.

However, it was with the Office of the Federal Defender, where those unable to retain legal counsel are provided representation in front of the court, that Jane found a home that would last for 35 years. Since starting as the office's secretary, she has been promoted to Administrative Assistant and then the position of Administrative Officer. At each position Jane's colleagues remarked that her dedication to the office was unmatched and that she consistently went above and beyond the call of duty.

On June 1st 1976, Jane married Eugene Itogawa. Last year the couple celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary. They have one daughter, Michele Itogawa. In her spare time Jane gives back to the community by staying active with the Buddhist Church of Sacramento, where she assists with the church's annual Japanese Food and Cultural Bazaar.

Madam Speaker, as Jane Itogawa enters retirement, I am truly honored to pay tribute to a friend and dedicated public servant. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Jane, her husband Gene and daughter Michelle continued success and happiness in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 349 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 349 and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this rule permits the House to consider the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. This important legislation will be considered under an open rule with a preprinting requirement, allowing any Member to submit changes or improvements to the bill.

Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Hall, Ranking Member Ehlers, and the Science and Technology Committee have put together an excellent product, and I look forward to an open and constructive debate.

I am proud that today's debate will shine a light on the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation is truly one of the Federal Government's greatest accomplishments. It features a rich tradition that has supported talented young investigators, made America the world leader in basic science and innovation, and laid the groundwork for the Nation's economic strength.

This reauthorization also represents another important step in the implementation of the innovation agenda. By boosting scientific research and development, moving the Nation toward a clean energy economy, promoting broadband deployment, and supporting small business entrepreneurs, the innovation agenda will keep our promise to maintain and strengthen America's competitiveness and leadership in the global economy.

At present the National Science Foundation supports research and education activities at over 2,000 universities colleges, K-12 schools, and research institutions throughout the country. It is unique among our Federal research enterprises in that NSF supports scientists and engineers across all disciplines.

In a given year, NSF will support about 200,000 scientists, engineers, teachers, and students. That is why NSF has led to groundbreaking research in such varied fields as genetics, computer science, information technology, nanotechnology, and climate change.

By way of example, in my district, NSF funds the UC Davis Center for Biophotonics Science & Technology. The center features dynamic and innovative research that harnesses light to facilitate revolutionary advances in biomedical science. The potential applications for medical research and treatment are groundbreaking and will offer hope to thousands of our constituents. That is the kind of research NSF supports.

I would also like to point out that NSF resources are distributed on a competitive peer review basis; so an objective process allows for only the most worthy proposal to receive funding. This is the best kind of investment the Federal Government can make because the return on this investment is tremendous. By stimulating innovative research, we create educational opportunities for promising students and drive cutting-edge research throughout the country. There is no better way to fuel the economy and create quality jobs. That is why the National Science Foundation has broad and bipartisan support in Congress.

This reauthorization provides $21 billion at NSF for fiscal years 2008 through 2010. In doing so, it keeps us on the path to double the National Science Foundation funding by 2017. This was a key recommendation of the highly respected National Academy's report on U.S. competitiveness, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' And this boost is urgently needed, since today NSF can only fund about a quarter of the grant proposals that are submitted.

The bill also creates a pilot program targeted at new investigators so we can bring more talented young people into scientific research fields, and it directs NSF to facilitate public-private partnerships, a proven method to leveraging Federal investment and bolstering American competitiveness.

Finally, this reauthorization bill is on the Agency's legacy of promoting math and science education by including the provisions of H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Math and Science Scholarship Act, which the House passed last week.

With that, I thank the Science Committee once again for this excellent legislation. I look forward to a robust debate on this bill, and I hope we can work with the Senate to get it on the President's desk in short order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very much looking forward to the upcoming debate on the National Science Foundation reauthorizing that this rule allows. In discussing the various programs and initiatives at NSF, we will demonstrate how the Federal Government can strategically and effectively drive scientific discovery and innovation.

The importance of the National Science Foundation and its mission must not be underestimated. While America has been blessed with abundant natural resources and defensible borders, it is the innovative spirit of our citizens that has driven this Nation's leadership in the global economy.

Throughout our history, we have been willing to experiment, to take risks, to constantly redefine what is possible. That tradition has given us a competitive advantage over other countries that has created prosperity for the Nation, improving the quality of life for all our constituents.

As Members know well, our leadership in the global economy is at risk today. While we face rising threats from countries like India and China, we have also failed to make the necessary investments in education, science, and research and development to maintain the foundation of knowledge that has served us so well in the past.

This NSF reauthorization takes great strides to remedy that neglect. Most importantly, by committing to double NSF funding over the next 10 years, we demonstrate that ensuring the Nation's competitiveness is of the highest priority.

As the House continues to consider items from the innovation agenda, the importance we place on competitiveness will be demonstrated again and again.

With that, I look forward to today's debate and continuing to move forward on measures like this one that will bolster innovation and competitiveness.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the NSF reauthorization is designed to improve the ability of scientists to communicate with nonscientific audiences such as businesses, the media, the general public and, of course, Members of Congress. Specifically, my amendment would add a provision to H.R. 1667 that authorizes a science communications initiative at the National Science Foundation.

I believe this proposal will ensure that we are getting as much return on the Federal Government's investment in the National Science Foundation as possible. By implementing this program, it would diversify the education of our scientists and would ensure that policymakers and other nonscientists have better access to the technical expertise fostered by NSF and the Nation's broader research enterprise, because if scientists can't tell the rest of us what they have discovered, we are not fully recognizing the benefits of our investment in scientific research. Unfortunately, the ability to articulate the content and significance of scientific information is often overlooked by graduate training programs.

My amendment directly addresses this unmet need and would create a pipeline of scientists who are increasingly engaged with nonscientists, including policymakers, business leaders and others. Providing communications training to our scientists will ensure that we, the policymakers, can make the most informed decisions possible as we debate technical issues and craft policy.

This amendment creates a competitively reviewed supplement within the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, or IGERT program. Investigators at IGERT-awardee institutions will compete for resources to develop and implement communications training. The IGERT program will administer the competitive review process for this communications training initiative.

I have received strong support for this program from stakeholders in my district of Sacramento and from across the country. Policymakers, scientists, educators, business leaders and science writers all agree we need to better integrate scientific expertise into the public debate.

This amendment represents an important step toward that goal. That is

why this amendment has received the endorsement of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and The Council of Graduate Schools.

This amendment is based on the Scientific Communication Act of 2007, H.R. 1453, that I introduced with Chairman Gordon as an original cosponsor. I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hope, Mr. Allen, Mr. Inslee and Mr. Higgins for their cosponsorship of that legislation.

Before I close, I would like to address a few misconceptions about this amendment. I want to be clear, this amendment contains no new authorization levels. For those who said that this program would take away from other NSF grants, I want to make a few points. The NSF Director would determine the level of resources to devote to this program. If the NSF Director does not deem this program worthy of funding, it won't get any.

However, I think scientists, teachers, reporters, business owners, Members of Congress and all our constituents should support this program. This bill authorized $21 billion for the National Science Foundation.

What good is that level of investment if we don't maximize the benefits? You should not need a Ph.D. to utilize the ideas and breakthroughs that NSF-supported research produces. That's why I am proposing this amendment. It will help to bridge the communication gap between scientists and the rest of us.

I hope all my colleagues here in the House will support this amendment. As policymakers, I promise you, you will personally benefit from this program when you hear expert testimony on technical topics. But, more importantly, you should support it because it will enable all your constituents to share in the excellent research supported by NSF.

Madam Speaker, the loss of Jack Valenti is a blow not only to his family and friends; it is also a tragedy for the motion picture industry and for the entire country. Jack embodied the American values we hold most dear: he was thoughtful, he was loyal, he was forthright, and he was exceptionally committed to his family.

Jack was also a brave and decorated soldier, and his service during the Second World War instilled in him an unshakeable devotion to our country and to the principles for which it stands. Returning from the European theater, he continued to defend and promote these values as a public servant, and helped to guide our Nation through one of its darkest hours. While serving as a special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson directly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jack's steadying influence played a central role in helping the country grieve, understand, and heal.

However, perhaps his greatest contributions came later in life, once he became the motion picture industry's consummate Washington, DC representative. Jack's name will forever be associated with the movies, not only because his personality reflected the way that films can inspire and cheer us, but because so much of what we enjoy in today's movie theaters we can attribute to his years of tireless and effective advocacy.

As a Californian, I am particularly aware of the debt of gratitude that we owe to Jack. The enduring importance of Hollywood in our culture, the rating system which protects our children from inappropriate content, the very majesty of film itself, all of these are parts of Jack's legacy. His life is a prime example of the good that can come from combining the idealism and fantasy of film with the determination and focus of the American work ethic.

I extend my deepest condolences to Mary Margaret and to the rest of the Valenti family. Though there is little solace that can be offered during a time of mourning such as this, I hope it comforts them to know that Jack's contributions will forever be a part of the fabric of American culture. While his presence will be sorely missed, Jack's legacy will always be relevant and vibrant so long as movies continue to entertain, motivate, and inspire.

Offered By: Ms. Matsui

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill, insert the

following new section:

At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to remember a pioneering woman, a fearless advocate for justice and equality, and a remarkable trailblazer who was dedicated to improving the lives of others. Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald embodied all that members of Congress strive to be: she was a masterful navigator of Washington politics; she was a tireless champion for her constituents in Southern California; she was a focused and determined activist for the less fortunate all over the world. She was also a dear friend and valued colleague to those of us in Congress, and to so many others who were fortunate enough to know her on both a personal and professional level.

As the first African-American woman ever to wield the gavel of a full Congressional committee, Juanita was proof of the milestones that can be achieved through dedication, intelligence, and political acumen. Her steady rise through the hierarchy of California politics--from a seat on the Carson City Council to a position in the California State Assembly, and finally to the Halls of Congress--instilled in her an unshakeable allegiance to the people who repeatedly elected her.

Juanita's intense loyalty to her constituents was reflected in their own well-placed faith that she would represent them in a principled and thoughtful manner. She never let them down; indeed, her record as a public figure was characterized by an attention to the needs of her constituents, by a single-minded focus on achieving equality, and by adherence to the principle that democratic government; should help those most in need.

Everything Juanita did was colored by her passionate quest for equality. She used this intensity to her advantage, emerging as an effective and authoritative advocate for women's rights at home and abroad. Never afraid to tackle controversial issues or to use her position as a bullhorn for reform, Juanita's energy and enthusiasm for advancing the cause of women's rights propelled her into a leadership role from her earliest days in Washington.

Innovative ideas on this score seemed to emanate from Juanita. She convened a first-of-its-kind meeting between women members of Congress and female Supreme Court justices to discuss women's issues. She carried the Families First Agenda to more than thirty states for the first time. She served as the first Democratic Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. Through it all, Juanita was masterful at marshaling well-known and influential individuals to her cause without ever losing sight of her goal, which was to help create a society committed to justice, fairness, and equality.

It is fitting that Juanita was such an outspoken and effective advocate for women's rights, for perhaps her greatest strength lay in her identity as a woman. She demonstrated for all of us--men and women alike--that being a member of Congress, a mother, and a grandmother at the same time was not merely a challenge. For Juanita, it was a blessing to be embraced and cherished. As a grandmother myself, I looked to her as a role model for how to integrate the unique challenges of having a family with the equally exciting responsibilities that come from serving in Congress. Two of the most rewarding pleasures in life are raising a family and working for the public, and Juanita's life is solid proof that a dedicated and forthright individual can accomplish both with poise, grace, and dignity.

I extend my deepest condolences to Congresswoman Millender-McDonald's family. While this week my fellow Members and I lost a trusted colleague, confidant, and friend, their loss resonates more deeply than we can know. Nonetheless, I know that I speak for all of the Congress when I say that Juanita Millender-McDonald was someone we admired on a personal and professional level, someone whose absence will leave a void within us, and someone whose legacy of principled and determined leadership will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this rule permits the House to consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

The structured rule makes in order six amendments. As yesterday's debate in the Rules Committee demonstrated, Members on both sides of the aisle are focused on getting this bill to conference and onto the President's desk, and this rule reflects that consensus.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well documented that our country has not had a WRDA bill in over 7 years. Seven years is perilously close to an entire generation passing without a national water resources policy being signed into law by a President.

The bill made in order under this rule authorizes nearly $14 billion for the construction of more than 700 water resources development projects and studies by the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control, navigation, and environmental restoration.

Additionally, H.R. 1495 authorizes hurricane recovery activities along the gulf coast that would cost an estimated $3 billion. Furthermore, the bill requires an external peer review for studies of projects that would cost more than $50 million. The bill also coordinates environmental analyses and other permit processes among Federal and State agencies and authorizes environmental quality initiatives. In short, this bill today moves our country forward.

In my district of Sacramento, California, this WRDA bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will pass Congress this year. We have been waiting a long time for this bill. Sacramento is the most at-risk river city in this country for catastrophic flooding. Located at the confluence of the great Sacramento and American Rivers, the Sacramento floodplain contains over 165,000 homes, over 488,000 residents, 1,300 government facilities including the State capital, and businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is the hub of a six-county regional economy that provides 800,000 jobs for 1.5 million people.

A major flood along the American River or the Sacramento River would cripple this economy, and cost upwards of $35 billion in direct property damages and likely result in a significant loss of life.

Sacramento has had major floods throughout its history, the last major floods being in 1986 and 1997. We live with a constant threat of catastrophic flooding. In my district, we understand the need and urgency for an overarching water resources policy to protect our homes, businesses, and families. This bill, the projects and policies

it contains, goes a long way in addressing my district and our country's flood vulnerabilities.

Nationally, regions across the country are starving for a Federal partner in water resources policy. Our country is confronted with population growth, climate change and growing demands on our water infrastructure. Our districts across this country need this bill, and the Members in this Chamber have repeatedly supported WRDA bills.

In the 108th Congress, WRDA passed the House by a vote of 412-8. In the 109th Congress, WRDA passed the House 406-14. There is a strong history of support and bipartisanship for WRDA bills. It is my hope that this support continues and that we will move forward on this very important work.

I also want to congratulate and thank Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chair, Eddie Bernice Johnson, and the full committee chairman, Jim Oberstar, for their commitment to make this bill a priority in the 110th Congress.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and final passage of the underlying Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1495 pursuant to House Resolution 319, amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 110-100 be modified by the modification I have placed at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, there is a Washington, D.C. aqueduct project that inadvertently violates PAYGO. This modification strikes the provision from the bill.

It inadvertently violates, so we struck it out.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. Our country needs a comprehensive water resources policy, and WRDA is the framework that can meet this need. We have 7 years of backlogged water projects that must be addressed. There is a growing demand on our already overburdened water infrastructure. The sooner we move forward on this bill, the sooner our communities across the country will be healthier and safer.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House of Representatives is considering H. Con. Res. 88, a resolution honoring the life of Ernest Gallo. I am an original cosponsor of this resolution and a long- time admirer of Ernest Gallo, who sadly passed away on March 6.

Ernest Gallo was a pioneer in the field of winemaking and a generous philanthropist. He was also a friend to me and my late husband, Congressman Robert Matsui. His story is remarkable and exemplifies the American dream. Born to Italian immigrants, Ernest and his brother Julio, took just $5,900 in savings and a winemaking pamphlet from the Modesto Public Library, and from this modest start built the world's second-largest winery. He foresaw the potential for the California wine industry and relied upon smart ideas and hard work to build an incredibly successful business that today serves as an industry model. Today, the Gallo Winery is an important driver of northern California's regional economy, providing good jobs for 4,600 families.

But Ernest's lifetime contribution to California and the Nation went beyond his business achievements. As he became more successful, Ernest gave back to the community where he grew up. Ernest Gallo's personal generosity is demonstrated by such endeavors as the Gallo Center for the Arts in Modesto and the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center at the University of California, San Francisco. These important institutions stand as a reminder of Ernest Gallo's life and his spirit.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution and honoring the life and memory of Ernest Gallo.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce, along with Representatives Phil English and Mike Thompson, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act of 2007. This legislation will allow immediate depreciation of the costs of new broadband infrastructure investments, speeding the deployment of broadband communications technology. The U.S. currently lags far behind many other industrialized nations in broadband deployment. At a time when America's global economic leadership is facing rising challenges from abroad, this bill will promote innovation and keep America competitive.

By increasing the reach and capability of America's broadband network, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is a strategic investment that will benefit the education of our children, the delivery of health care and the overall economy. In the classroom, broadband will provide children and teachers with access to new information and learning tools, and allow for remote learning opportunities. At hospitals and doctors' offices, broadband will facilitate the application of information technology to health care, reducing costs and improving the quality of care that patients receive. Broadband will also increase productivity and efficiency in homes and at businesses, while giving our constituents access to information and communications capabilities as never before. The need for the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is clear and now is the time for Congress to act.

Similar legislation received broad bipartisan support in the past, with as many as 225 House cosponsors and 65 Senate cosponsors. This bill was an important priority for my late husband, who worked along with Mr. English, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and the late Senator Moynihan to craft it in 2000. It passed the Senate three times, only to be stripped out in conference by the House. I wish that our constituents were already benefiting from the effects of this legislation, and we should not delay enactment any longer.

The Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act will provide a temporary, two-tiered tax incentive to stimulate new investment in this crucial infrastructure: 50 percent expensing for investment in ``current- generation'' broadband infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, and full expensing for ``next generation'' broadband investments in those same areas, as well as residential areas generally. The purpose of this mechanism is to push broadband providers to roll out services in areas and at speeds that would not be economically feasible in the absence of this legislation. Therefore, this bill will not reward action that is already occurring.

To facilitate that goal, the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act it is designed to be technology neutral, making delivery of service, not the delivery medium, the factor for eligibility. This will ensure that this tax incentive does not inhibit competition among broadband providers, thereby maximizing choice for consumers. Any broadband provider meeting the required speeds, measured in megabits of data delivered to and from the consumer per second, is eligible, whether such service is provided over telephone wire, cable modem, optical fiber, wireless, satellite, or other forms of technology.

It is past time that Congress took action to ensure that all Americans have access to broadband communications technology. The Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act is a practical and effective mechanism that will help provide our constituents access to this important technology. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation to bolster the innovation and competitiveness of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this rule and to enthusiastically support this solid and balanced budget resolution. It invests in strategic priorities for the future, while putting the Nation on the path to fiscal stability.

In approaching this debate, I would ask that Members and our constituents keep in mind that we are not starting from scratch. The previous leadership left us with a fiscal disaster that can't be repaired overnight. But this budget gets us on the right track in a responsible and strategic way.

That is governing. Governing is not easy. It requires making hard choices. But making hard choices today is better than Congress abdicating its responsibility to choose altogether. Because the alternative to making hard choices is passing debt on to tomorrow's decisionmakers, leaving our children and grandchildren, like my own Anna and Robby, with a diminished quality of life.

With PAYGO rules, the budget draws a line in the sand. If you want new mandatory spending or tax cuts, find a way to pay for it.

Shifting the burden on to the next generation is no longer an option under this budget. We are not going to eradicate the deficit as quickly as some would like, and we can't spend as much on domestic priorities as some would like. But this budget gives us the type of solid foundation that will allow us to tackle our fiscal challenges, while still investing in the most important priorities.

This budget recognizes that we need to invest in healthcare and education for our children. It recognizes that we must move to a clean energy economy by driving research and development and by promoting scientific innovation and that we must provide for our veterans, who have served honorably and deserve the best care possible. Finally, this budget recognizes that the Tax Code should be fair for hardworking families.

All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, while ensuring the security of our Nation. That is a tremendous achievement, and I thank Chairman Spratt for his diligence in achieving this excellent legislative product. I urge my colleagues to provide the type of broad and enthusiastic support that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act (H.R. 1401). Our country needs this bill. Our communities need this bill.

This legislation is very timely for my district. On March 15th, a train trestle burned down just outside central Sacramento. The fire sent a dark plume of smoke into the sky.

The residents of our region received quite a scare. Children were kept inside because authorities could not determine if the smoke from the trestle fire was toxic.

Fortunately, no one was hurt. The incident is not being investigated as a terrorist attack.

However, this fire showcased the impact that our rail vulnerabilities can have on communities.

In Sacramento, our train tracks form a ring around our most populated areas. If the trestle had caught fire just a few miles down the track, houses would have burned. If the train had exploded, or if it had leaked hazardous material, my constituents could have died.

I cannot let that happen. That is why this legislation is so important. It makes critical advancements in rail security policy.

I am grateful that Representative Markey has addressed the transport of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas.

As the situation in Sacramento demonstrated, we must begin to reroute hazardous shipments to avoid populated areas.

When possible, we must integrate new technologies to secure these shipments. I look forward to working with Mr. Markey to implement this proposal.

It is also important to note that more people than ever are using public transit. Over 10 billion trips were taken on public transportation last year. There has been a 30 percent increase in public transit use in the last decade.

This increased ridership is great news. However, it is important that we invest in security funding to match growing demand. This legislation will do just that.

Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee for his leadership on this issue.

As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have seen how smoothly Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson have collaborated.

They have done a great job dealing with the jurisdictional issues raised by transit security.

Their work demonstrates the level of commitment that is needed to secure our communities. Such collaboration is a refreshing change.

It should serve as an example for us all as we tackle other pressing issues facing the 110th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support the Rule, so that we can enact this important legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 270

Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution, the amendments printed in sections 4 and 5 shall

be in order as though printed as the last two amendments in

the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by

Representative Dent of Pennsylvania or his designee. Such

amendments shall each be separately debatable for 30 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent.

Sec. 4. The first amendment referred to in section 3 is as

follows:

At the end of title I of the bill, add the following new

section (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time and her leadership on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is on the cusp of an historic step, a first step to changing Iraq policy, enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home. The bill made in order under this rule is not perfect, but it deserves our strong support because it offers us our best chance at forcing a change of direction in Iraq after 4 long years of mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning, and I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership. This legislation gives us the chance for the first time to take a concrete step towards bringing the war to a close.

This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements. But it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass this House. That is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill.

Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly. Defeating this bill would ultimately play into the President's hands, resulting in the eventual passage of a blank-check bill that places fewer restraints on the President.

Ultimately Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for the troops in harm's way, or do we give the administration a blank check for a war without end?

I choose to begin steps to end the war. For that reason I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from New York, the distinguished chairman of our committee, Ms. Slaughter for the time and for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, in the next twenty-four hours, this Congress will undertake a historic first step to changing our Iraq policy.

The bill made in order under this rule is not a perfect bill. But it deserves our strong support because it will bring a critical change of direction in Iraq after four long years of mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, I opposed this war from the beginning. And I believe we must bring our troops home soon and in a responsible way. Our men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them.

They have endured multiple deployments and extended separation from their loved ones. They have followed orders into combat often without the proper body armor or equipment.

These are signs of an inexcusable lack of leadership from the President. Rather than change direction, the President has chosen to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq.

This goes against the advice of his generals . . . against the advice of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group . . . and against the expressed wishes of the voters.

The President's reckless insistence on sticking to a failed policy in Iraq underlines the need for Congress to show leadership.

I support Congress taking firm steps to change our Nation's direction in Iraq. And I have cosponsored legislation to establish a timetable for redeployment of our troops.

As I said at the beginning, Congress has a historic opportunity to demonstrate its responsible leadership with this bill. And that's the prism through which I evaluate my vote this week.

The decision comes down to this--do we want to enact a bill that has flaws but does contain a fixed timetable to bring our troops home? Or do we want to vote down the fixed timetable and endorse President Bush's ability to continue to wage this war without any limits?

This bill does not go as far as I would like. I support a more rapid redeployment of our troops from Iraq. I also strongly believe the President should not be allowed to waive the legislation's troop readiness requirements.

Because of his gross mismanagement of the conflict, I believe the President has abdicated any right to deference on that front.

Having said that, it has become clear in recent weeks that this is the most aggressive approach that can obtain the necessary votes to pass the House of Representatives.

That is disappointing to me, but that is the reality here. This is, after all, the legislative branch. That means we can't change the policy if we can't pass the bill.

Enacting a fixed timetable to bring our troops home is a very significant leap forward in our Iraq policy. It provides a foundation for further action and increases pressure on the President. That is why the President opposes it so strongly.

To defeat this bill would result in the eventual passage of a blank check bill that places even fewer responsibilities on the President.

I believe it is simply unacceptable to give the President permission to mismanage the war as he chooses.

Ultimately, Congress faces a choice: Do we set a timetable to bring the troops home while providing for our troops in the field at every moment?

Or do we give the Administration a blank check for a war without end? I believe Congress must choose the former.

This legislation, whatever its flaws may be, enacts a timetable to bring our troops home while giving them the resources they need for protection while they are still in harm's way. For that reason, I am voting yes on the supplemental appropriations bill.

I urge all Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill that anticipates and addresses our communities' immediate and future transportation needs.

Today I am introducing the Flexibility Incentive Grant Pilot Program, or as I call it--the FIG program.

This legislation creates a $250 million annual grant program that provides a two-prong approach to growing our national transit program while rewarding states and localities that are making an investment in their transit infrastructure.

Specifically, this legislation will provide incentives to encourage States and counties to establish new sources of revenue for transit projects and services. Such sources may include the dedication of new State motor fuels taxes, sales taxes, interest on existing highway funds, motor vehicle excise taxes, tolls, or other sources of funding.

Furthermore, this legislation rewards those States that currently invest in transit by making them eligible to receive ``bonus'' payments by the Secretary of Transportation so that they can continue to invest in their transportation infrastructure.

I look at this as a federal transportation tax return for those states and localities that invest in their transportation infrastructure.

Transportation is about partnerships--and funding our infrastructure requires a strong commitment between federal, State and local governments. We need to grow our transit system in order to meet our growing population and infrastructure demands that our states and localities are experiencing.

Fortunately, some States are already making a substantial investment in their transportation infrastructure. For example, in my home state of California, voters last November approved $19.9 billion in transportation bonds to fund a variety of transportation projects and initiatives.

At the local level, citizens are willing to tax themselves to pay for much need transportation improvements. For example, in my district of Sacramento, a recent survey revealed that 74 percent of Sacramento County residents would support a ballot tax measure for transit and roads. Our citizens understand the need for more transportation funds and are proving this as a priority at the ballot box.

The federal government must play a key leadership role in encouraging this type of initiative.

Why is this so important?

Last week, the American Public Transportation Association announced that Americans took a record 10.1 billion trips on local public transportation in 2006.

Over the last decade, public transportation's growth rate outpaced population growth and the growth rate of vehicle miles traveled on our Nation's highways.

There is great demand on our national transit infrastructure.

Since 1995 public transit use has increased by 30 percent, which is double the population growth in our country, 12 percent, during that same time period.

Despite record levels of federal investment and the display of local jurisdictions to tax themselves for the purposes of increasing the level and quality of public transportation services, we have to make sure that State funding, across our country, keeps pace.

State Legislatures are facing huge deficits and some States have little choice but to freeze or cut funding for many important programs, including transit services.

My legislation is designed to encourage States and counties to think twice before they cut transit funding by providing ``bonus'' Federal transportation dollars to those States that increase public transportation funding or take steps to increase funding.

As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, my colleagues and I will be looking for new and innovative ways to fund our transportation programs in the coming years.

The Flexibility Incentive Grant Pilot Program is a good place to start this conversation. I ask that my colleagues support my legislation.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained Monday, March 12, 2007, and missed three suspension votes. Please note in the appropriate place in the Congressional Record that had I been present, I would have voted as noted below:

Rollcall vote 136: ``yea.''

Rollcall vote 137: ``yea.''

Rollcall vote 138: ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will better prepare our scientists to be professionally competitive

and ensure that the American people benefit more directly from the large annual investment that we make in our research enterprise. I am proud to introduce the Scientific Communications Act of 2007. This program will train young scientists to more effectively communicate scientific and other technical topics to policymakers. The improvement in communications skills will also enhance the interaction of the scientific community with business leaders, the media, and the general public. This initiative will foster greater cross-disciplinary education and improve public access to scientific expertise.

Innovation and competitiveness are at the forefront of public policy discussions. A key element to ensuring continued American excellence in science and technology innovation is providing our scientists with the skills necessary to offer their valuable expertise and insight to the public policy dialogue. By doing so, we will accelerate the speed with which the government, the media, and the general public are able to access information on new discoveries in science, technology, health and medicine, and other technical topics. Better access to expertise from our scientific community will ensure that we, the policymakers, can make the most informed and beneficial decisions possible when shaping new policy directions for our country.

This legislation will provide resources to the National Science Foundation to expand its ability to offer communications training to scientists. Some training programs funded by the NSF and other agencies have already made the commitment to implement such training. For example, some awardees of NSF's Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program provide communications training for their students. I applaud the forward thinking of those program administrators. Unfortunately these are exceptions, whereas training our scientists to be effective communicators should be a standard practice.

This legislation is designed to encourage the integration of communications training into more scientific programs. This type of training will ensure that our scientists are better equipped to incorporate their expertise into the public dialogue on science and technology-related issues. Members of Congress should take particular interest in this initiative, since we regularly invite scientists to provide us with first-hand knowledge on such topics as climate change, nanotechnology, and new research into health and disease. To ensure that those important conversations continue to be fruitful, curricula for the science communications program proposed in this bill might include case studies of actual Congressional testimony by scientific experts to demonstrate the importance of clear and concise expertise in public policy.

While the training provided within this legislation focuses on the interaction between scientists and the public policy community, the benefits will spread more broadly. The ability to clearly explain technical topics to nonscientific audiences will translate to other industries, all of which will benefit the United States research enterprise and, consequently, our economy. Training our early-career scientists to discuss technical topics with nonscientific audiences will have the effect of augmenting the engagement of the scientific community with other professional fields. This might, for example, lead to more frequent interaction with business leaders and venture capitalists to inform the private sector and investors about cutting- edge technologies and improve the transfer of research discoveries to the marketplace.

The Scientific Communications Act of 2007 will add an important new dimension to the education of American scientists. The ability of the United States to remain an economic leader depends, in large part, on our continued successes in science and technology research and development. We must, therefore, ensure that our scientists are equipped with the skills to provide their expertise to policymakers, business and community leaders, and the general public. This initiative will enhance the dialogue on science- and technology-related topics and facilitate the development of fully informed public policy. I ask the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in supporting this legislation.