Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), for organizing this important Special Order for this evening.

As co-chair of the Women's Caucus and founder of the Women's Action Public Affairs team, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown- Waite) is a strong leader in this body, dedicated to improving the lives of women across the country.

Today, headlines in the newspapers across the country continue to address the issue of Social Security reform as they have for many months now. Here on the Hill, Members on both sides of the aisle continue to debate the nature of this crisis and argue what they think are the greatest problems within the current Social Security system and how they think we should best address the issues.

I do want to address the issue of women and retirement tonight, but first I would like to add a few comments based on our colleague from across the aisle who just gave a 5-minute about the state of Social Security.

He mentioned that in 1998 the Democrats took up the issue of Social Security. I was elected in 1998, and before I was even sworn in, which would have taken place in 1999, I was asked to join the Senators and House Members, both Democrats and Republicans, who were going to the White House Conference on Social Security. There were 24 Senators and 24 House Members, and I was included as one of the 24, even though I had not been sworn in.

I was very proud to go, too, and we came down to Washington late in November. We were told we were going to solve Social Security that year, and by the next March we would have a bill to take to the House floor and to the Senate floor and we would do it early because this would be the first of the 106th Congress and we would have 3 months to do this. It would be before all of the election talks started, and we would be working together. I do think that Social Security reform needs to be bipartisan, and we are going to have to reach that in this debate at some time before we can find really meaningful reform.

What happened is we came down for 3 days to this great conference. We had speakers the first days and learned a lot about Social Security and reinforced what we had believed. Then the third day, we met with President Clinton. We sat over at Blair House, and we talked about how we were going to do this bill, who was going to do this bill, who would be the one to put it on the table.

The President said, I will do the bill and I will have it ready for you the end of December. There was a pause in my mind, because this is the one time that as an elected official you really have time to spend with your family, between Christmas and New Year's. I thought how am I going to go home and tell my family that I will have to be gone at that time, when we usually have taken our vacation, but for the good of the country, I will do this.

So I went home and then came back to Washington for orientation meetings as a freshman, and I asked one of my colleagues who I had worked with during this 3-day conference, Does the President have the bill ready yet; I have not received a time yet that we will be coming back. My colleague looked at me and said, Judy, are you naive? There is not going to be any bill. This has been a great PR campaign but nothing has been done yet. It is very difficult for somebody to come up with a bill, and the President is not working on it.

That was the last I ever heard of the Social Security reform for 1998. We are still working on it, and just a couple of other things.

Since 1935, this has been a pay-as-you-go system, and I always believed when I first started talking about Social Security that there was a little box that had my name on it and it had my benefits for when I retired. That is not true. We might talk about a trust fund, but this has been a pay-as-you-go system, and in fact the Federal Government cannot hold money like that in a bank account. So we have to deal with Treasury notes, and that is what we do now. That is what we have done.

I am here this evening because I think if the debate goes further than whether or not we are going to implement personal accounts or raise the retirement age or have a pot of money there that we are going to be able to pay back now, and I think in the heat of debate that people fail to address the current inequities in this system that does single out one group of Americans, and the fact is that women, more than anyone else, continue to draw the short straw when it comes to Social Security benefits.

Right now, too many women who reach retirement age find themselves widowed or single, relying on their Social Security check for over half of their income. Women live an average of 5\1/2\ years longer than men, and consequently, they disproportionately rely on Social Security for their entire retirement income.

I can remember going door to door and going to the house of a woman who must have been about 95 at the time. She had been living on her Social Security check, which really did not give her even the money to be able to pay her rent and to be able to buy her food and such for a long retirement.

It is great that people are living longer, and this is what we want, but our Social Security system was not set up for that. It was set up at a time when people lived to be age 60 and the retirement age was age 65. It was easy to pay out the benefits then because there were not that many people that received them.

Now women represent 58 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 70 percent of beneficiaries 85 and older, and I think these inequities are astounding.

The Social Security laws in the case of divorce are incredibly outdated. When Social Security was first created, few marriages ended in divorce. In fact, most of the women were nonworking. Fast forward to today, where the number of divorces has more than quadrupled since 1970 and under current Social Security rules must be married for at least 10 years to be entitled to the Social Security benefits of her husband, yet statistics tell us about one-third of all marriages end before 10 years has been reached. This translates into one-third of women who will receive zero Social Security benefits for those years that they were married.

We have all heard experts reference the fact that the number of divorces in our country is expected to continue rising, and almost half of marriages are expected to end in divorce. That is a pretty scary statistic, and we certainly hope that does not happen. But where does that leave women? Unfortunately, it leaves women, again, to bear the brunt of inequality.

We, as women, have fought for equal opportunity in the workforce for many years. Today, women have proudly gained a strong presence in the workforce. Now more women than ever are doctors, lawyers, CEOs, scientists, engineers and politicians, to name a few.

However, the current Social Security system continues to punish these working women. Our 1930s-style retirement system has led to an astonishing two-thirds of married women who do not receive additional benefits from their Social Security contributions. And when it comes to single- and dual-earner couples with identical incomes, the single- earner couple stands to receive the higher benefit.

Let me cite the Smiths and the Joneses. The Smiths have an income only from the husband of $3,000. The Joneses have an income of $3,000; but the husband earns $1,500 and the wife earns $1,500. What happens is only the higher income is considered for retirement. So if Mrs. Smith is widowed, she would received $3,000. And Mrs. Jones, if she is widowed, she receives the $1,500, not both of those incomes.

And worst of all, the family of a single woman who dies before retirement age will not get back a single dollar from the Social Security system regardless of how much money she contributed to the system over the course of her working years. Widow benefits also favor single-earner households over dual-earner households, unnecessarily penalizing a woman who has chosen a life in the workforce and makes less than her spouse.

A widow is eligible for the greater of her husband's work benefit or her own, not both. And this translates into a potential cut in household income up to one-half after her husband's death.

So women here tonight stand together to call for changes to the system, changes that will ensure equal treatment for women under the law. The status quo of Social Security in this Nation today is unacceptable.

But in addition to all of the overall reforms, we need to encourage women from a young age to establish financial security and a sound plan for retirement. That is one of the reasons we have formed the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus to promote financial and economic education. Women should be afforded the opportunities to learn the skills necessary to guide their financial futures and successfully manage their finances.

Surveys show that girls are less likely than boys to consider themselves very knowledgeable or confident about money management. In the United States, we live under the idea that all men are created equal; yet within the Social Security system, all men and women are not treated as equal. We need to work together to establish a system that creates equity among all Americans, individuals, men, women, divorced or widow; and we should not wait to do it until 2041 when we are faced with a largely depleted Social Security. So let us prepare for the future now. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to help American women achieve financial certainty and equality. We must support the changes to the Social Security system to bring it into a new millennium so women, and all Americans, are not left financially unequipped, but are financially secure. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for leading this Special Order tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Margaret Ellor, who has earned The

Congressional Award Gold Medal. On June 22, 2005, Ms. Ellor will receive the award, which honors individuals who have completed over 400 hours of community service in a two year span, 200 hours of both personal development and physical fitness activities, and a four-night expedition or exploration. This award is bestowed upon only the most deserving of America's youth. Based on her record of personal and community service, Ms. Ellor certainly deserves this honor.

Eighteen-year-old Margaret began volunteering for the Girl Scouts in Naperville, Illinois when she was five years old. Motivated by a desire to aid her fellow Americans living in rural West Virginia, she led a thirty-person crew into her community to collect donations, clothing, books, sporting goods, and other items for West Virginians in need. She then went to The Mountain State to personally deliver the items. She also spent one week in each of the past three summers remodeling and rebuilding homes in poor communities closer to home.

When not helping others, Maggie has devoted time to improving her public speaking and musical abilities. In addition, she has undertaken intense training in Tae Kwan Do, swimming, and cross training. She undertook a three year study of the German language and culture, which included three weeks living abroad with a German family. She could have spent this time with friends or working in a local business. But instead, she sought to broaden her horizons while helping others.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Margaret Ellor is an exceptional young woman. Her warm heart and sharp mind have proven, at her young age, to be of great value to her fellow citizens. Her good deeds in her home town are the sign of a good spirit and an even better soul. As the late tennis champion Arthur Ashe once said, ``True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others, at whatever cost.'' I can think of no better example of that heroic ideal than Ms. Margaret Ellor of Aurora, Illinois. I congratulate her on receiving The Congressional Award Gold Medal and I look forward to watching where her career takes her in the months and years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Naperville Baseball Association on its 50th anniversary and to thank its members for their enduring commitment to youth athletics throughout the Naperville community.

The Naperville Baseball Association is an institution that, for a half-century, has provided local children with a fun, safe way to play organized baseball. The association will be honored as part of ``Naperville Baseball Day'' on June 3, celebrating ``baseball at its best for the past 50 years.''

As a mother and a grandmother, I fondly recall my days of shepherding kids to and from various youth sporting events in my station wagon. As a former youth soccer coach, I remember trying to balance winning while ensuring that all the kids got a chance to play and have fun.

Each year as spring rolls around, kids across America grow excited with anticipation for baseball season. They come to the field hoping to emulate their big league idols, while their parents line the stands, anxious to see their son morph into the next Mickey Mantle or Ernie Banks, slamming the ball out of the park. After games, parents and kids, coaches and teammates, all congratulate one another and often celebrate over pizza or heaping scoops of ice cream. Mr. Speaker, this is youth baseball at its very best.

As our national pastime, baseball holds a special place in the hearts of so many Americans. For generations, families have bonded over hot dogs and Cracker Jack at Wrigley Field, Comiskey Park, and other legendary cathedrals of summer. But as vital as these familial baseball bonds are to encouraging a love of the game, organized baseball also remains an excellent resource for teaching invaluable life skills like teamwork, friendship, and sportsmanship.

The Naperville Baseball Association has promoted this vision of pure, timeless baseball for more than 50,000 children over its 50-year history. I am proud to add my voice to the many who wish to say thanks, and I am confident they will keep up the good work for at least another 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 810. Science has advanced rapidly since the President announced his stem cell research policy. These cells were just identified less than 10 years ago and, already, the technology is progressing by leaps and bounds. The 22 lines currently available under the President's policy were developed using outdated techniques and have been contaminated, possibly skewing the outcome of experiments.

Given the promise that stem cells hold, it is time to drop the limit on current stem cell lines and allow researchers to do what they do best. It is tragic to let these cells go to waste when they could help to relieve so much suffering. It is time to let researchers go where the science leads them, not where politicians dictate.

In order to explore all of the possibilities, scientists must have access to all three kinds of stem cells: adult, embryonic, and those from the umbilical cord blood. That is why I plan to vote for H.R. 810 and the Smith bill as well. The two are not in opposition; they are complementary.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 810 and for the sake of the millions suffering from diseases, I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Markey amendment, which would cut funding for a program that ultimately could solve our nuclear waste problem.

I am proud to say that I represent Argonne National Laboratory, which has been working for years on reprocessing and recycling technologies that will allow us to do something with spent nuclear fuel besides bury it in a mountain. If you think of nuclear fuel like a log, we currently burn only 3 percent of that log at both ends and then pull it out of the fire to bury it. The bulk of what we call nuclear waste is actually nuclear fuel, which still contains over 90 percent of its original energy content.

Does that make sense? No, but that is our current policy, and it is just plain wasteful.

Instead, scientists have developed ways to reprocess and recycle today's waste and turn it back into fuel. There are many advantages to these technologies which have names like UREX+ and pyroprocessing.

They are proliferation-resistant, unlike other, older technologies already in use throughout the world, including places like France, England, and Russia. They reduce the volume of our nuclear waste so much so that we will not need to build another Yucca Mountain. They also reduce the toxicity, the heat and radioactivity, of the waste so that it will not have to be stored for 10,000 years, but rather for only 300 years. That is still a long time, but we can design with certainty a repository that will last 300 years and one that can meet necessary radiation standards.

At the end of March, I visited reprocessing facilities in France with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson). The French have embraced reprocessing as a way to reduce the volume of the waste by a factor of four and safely store it until they decide exactly how to recycle it.

That is good for the French, but we can do better. The French are using a technology that is between 20 and 30 years old and produces pure plutonium as a by-product. The process and technologies this bill supports today are cutting edge and could reduce the volume of our waste by a factor of 60, are proliferation-resistant, and almost eliminate the long-term radiotoxicity and heat problems associated with our current spent fuel.

Unfortunately, the Markey amendment would have us forgo the benefits of this research.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment would strike from the bill two provisions that would limit the amount of money available for a very important activity at our national laboratories, laboratory-directed research and development, or LDRD, as it is known.

I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee for his willingness to work with me on this issue. While I have agreed to withdraw the amendment if the chairman agrees to work with me in the future on refining the execution of the LDRD efforts, I want to take this opportunity to address the merits of LDRD.

As the Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am a strong supporter of LDRD. In my experience, LDRD has been well managed, is important for both scientific discovery and scientific recruiting, and has a record of producing interesting and innovative ideas.

The history of science abounds with examples of discoveries that came about while a scientist was attempting to answer a totally different question. LDRD provides funds to laboratory directors to pursue new ideas and give scientists the resources to go where the discoveries lead them.

So what are some of these new ideas that have emerged from LDRD work? Well, what has LDRD done for us? To cite just two examples, LDRD projects led to a discovery that allows geologists to model ore deposits in three dimensions. This model is now also being used to assess and plan the remediation of chemical and radioactive waste at DOD sites.

One LDRD project set out to reduce the size of a device that produces concentrated neutron beams for use in the biological and material science. After 9/11, scientists realized such a compact neutron source might be the only practical means of probing large freight containers for highly dangerous nuclear material and other contraband.

These examples show that in DOE's core missions in energy, in security and in science, LDRD is making important contributions.

In short, LDRD projects represent cutting-edge science, are well managed, are essential to recruiting, and perhaps most importantly, produce results for the American people. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I am concerned about efforts to overly constrain LDRD at the Nation's scientific laboratories.

Will the chairman engage me in a brief colloquy?

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, will you pledge to work with me to improve and refine these programs in a way that preserves the valuable contributions that LDRD makes to the science in this country?

I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with the chairman. I thank him for his cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, would the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations engage in a colloquy with me about some provisions and programs in this bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science?

Under the bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, would no longer operate as a separate program. NERI was targeted at university research which is a vital source of innovative ideas on nuclear energy. Is it the gentleman's intention that the Department of Energy continue to fund university research on nuclear energy even though NERI will no longer exist?

I thank the gentleman.

Lastly, I would like the gentleman to clarify some language related to the FutureGen project on page 20 of the bill. The language states that the Department should manage FutureGen ``without regard to the terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technology projects.''

My understanding is that the phrase is intended only to apply to cost-sharing requirements. In fact, the phrase is unnecessary because the cost-sharing requirements for FutureGen are spelled out in the two provisos that immediately follow on page 20. Is my understanding correct?

I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Adler Planetarium on its 75th Anniversary. As the first planetarium established in America and the Western Hemisphere, it has firm standing as a pioneer in the field of astronomy. Its focus on the heavens has inspired generations to reach for the stars.

Among its many accomplishments in the past 75 years, there are several that are especially stellar. Astronomers at Adler helped convert light from the star Arcturus into the electrical signals that turned on the opening lights at the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago. Adler began a partnership with the National Science Foundation in 1964 to create the Astro-Science workshop for Chicago area high school students--a relationship that endures to this day. And earlier this year, NASA selected Adler to be its education partner for the Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission, set to launch in 2008. It is clear that, in the opening years of the new millennium, Adler's great tradition of space and science research is stronger than ever.

The Adler Planetarium houses one of the world's finest collections of historic astronomical artifacts, dating as far back as the 12th century. A centerpiece of this collection is the world's oldest sundial, which was crafted in 1529. It also has a telescope once used by William Herschel, the astronomer who discovered Uranus in 1781.

Adler has made investments in Chicago area schools to provide them with access to exhibits, astronomers, and scientists through videoconferencing, enhanced websites, and learning instruction techniques. These efforts to educate Chicagoans young and old are a core part of its mission.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, children of all ages have been fascinated by space and the world beyond our own. Modern youngsters watch clips of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon and gaze to the heavens in wonder--wondering how it was done and how they can do it themselves. As a planetarium, Adler harnesses these vague dreams of space science, space walks, and space travel into tangible reality. The inspiration it feeds our youth is arguably its most important contribution in the past 75 years.

With the hopes that it continues its great works for at least another 75 years, I am proud to congratulate the Adler Planetarium on its diamond anniversary.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise today in support of H.R. 366. In today's competitive economies, students must be equipped not only with the technical skills of their chosen field, but basic academic knowledge as well. Realizing this, H.R. 366 focuses on academics. I am particularly pleased that the bill is designed to support student achievement in core academic subjects, including math and science.

I think we can agree that our new high tech economy demands that students have stronger math, science, engineering and technological skills.

Mr. Chairman, vocational education works. Earlier this year I toured two vocational centers in my district, the Technology Center of DuPage County and the Will County Career Center. Several of the students there told me without vocational education programs, they would not be in school.

For whatever reason, they were not interested in the traditional high school education or going on to a traditional 4-year college. Instead of these students slipping through the cracks, they are learning cutting-edge technology in some of the fastest growing career fields: aerospace, computer technology and engineering, health care and aviation, just to name a few. Other students have already been accepted to college and are augmenting their education with technical classes. For example, many students in the health care program will go on to college nursing programs next year. Through vocational ed programs, they can take classes for college credit while still in high school. Not only do these students go to college already having the basic skills needed in their field; it takes them less time to complete their training. The sooner these students finish their training, the sooner they are out earning good paychecks and the sooner we are able to get highly skilled workers in high-demand fields.

H.R. 366 will help the students in my district and all across the country get even more out of their education. I am proud to support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Karen Kurek, a resident of the 13th Congressional District of Illinois, on receiving the U.S. Small Business Administration's 2005 Illinois District Office and Midwest Regional Small Business Administration Champion Award for ``Women in Business Champion of the Year.''

Karen Kurek began her career in Arthur Andersen's Audit practice in 1981 where she became a manager in 1985 and a partner in 1994. Soon after her elevation to partner she gave birth to twins, which made it difficult for Karen to continue with the 60-hour workweeks that are customary for partners. Facing a dilemma common to many women--how to manage a career and family--she paved a pioneering path at Arthur Andersen by proposing and negotiating a reduced work schedule on what was to be a one-year trial basis. Karen faced her fair share of skeptics, but she proved them wrong. She not only excelled at Arthur Andersen, but she committed herself to making these same benefits available for other women working for the firm.

Karen's success led to her appointment as head of Arthur Andersen's innovative Growth and Retention of Women (GROW) Initiative. Established in 1998, GROW's purpose was to significantly enhance the recruitment, retention, advancement and leadership paths of women within the firm., Under Karen's leadership, the GROW initiative led to reduced turnover among women, an increased number of women in leadership positions, greater implementation of flexible work schedules, and Arthur Andersen's repeated citation in Working Mother Magazine's annual list of ``100 Best Companies for Working Mothers.''

Today, Karen continues to help women excel in the workforce. As a partner at RSM McGladrey, she heads the firm's Women's Initiative--an ongoing, multi-faceted program of networking, mentoring and career- building activities designed to create a culture that encourages diversity and allows women professionals to excel.

Throughout Karen's career, she has paved the way for the women who followed her. Working tirelessly to establish a supportive environment for women in the workforce, she helped to create an atmosphere in which women looking to balance a career and family can thrive professionally. I commend her for improving the lives of women and their families and I once again congratulate her on receiving this much deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my dear friends, Alan and Joan Hurst of Hinsdale, Illinois, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. In June, the Hursts will celebrate 50 years of marriage, and I would like to take a moment to congratulate them on this special event.

My husband Rody and I have known Alan and Joan for almost 35 years-- as neighbors and as friends. When we first moved to our home town of Hinsdale, Illinois, they welcomed us into the community with open arms and open hearts. Together, we have enjoyed many years of friendship, including countless dinners, celebrations and family vacations.

The Hursts have been blessed with three children and eight beautiful grandchildren.

Avid world travelers, Alan and Joan have a wonderful zest for life and have always demonstrated incredible generosity, friendship and love of family.

Mr. Speaker, as a longtime friend, I wish to extend my congratulations to Alan and Joan and wish them many more years of love and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution, not because I think it is a good resolution, but because I think it is the lesser of two evils. What is the first evil? Well, those on the other side of the aisle claim it was the process by which the rules were changed last January. Perhaps they are right. As a member of the committee, I happen to believe that the changes were good ones, but perhaps we will look at that on another day in a bipartisan way.

But we should make no mistake about it: The greater evil by far is in not allowing the ethics committee to meet and do its job. And why do I say this? It is because without a functioning ethics committee, some Members will be tried in the press by partisan interest groups or by innuendo and accusation instead of by facts and due process. At the same time, complaints against other Members will go unresolved and uninvestigated. That is not right.

My point is that an ethics committee was not created for one particular Member of Congress, it was created for all of us and for the good of this body. As a three-term member of the Committee, I have great respect for both the Republican and the Democrat members with whom I have served on the committee. Peer review is never easy, and it is impossible if we are not allowed to leave politics and partisanship at the door.

I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for his hard work and perseverance. He inherited a challenge, acted as an honest broker, and did everything possible to resolve it. I also commend the leadership of Speaker Hastert on this issue.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' to send us back to the table to do the jobs we have been assigned to do for this great body.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1158) to reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1158, as amended, 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. 1158, the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act. I would like to commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), for reintroducing this important legislation which she originally introduced and which passed the House in the 108th Congress.

There are many reasons why we should pass this legislation today.

First of all, the metals industry is highly energy-intensive. Taken together, the steel, aluminum, and copper industries account for more than 10 percent of industrial usage in the United States. President Bush's national energy plan recognized that improving energy efficiency in our most energy-intensive industries could yield large improvements in productivity, product quality, safety, and pollution prevention.

Second, we have a strategic national interest in helping our metals industry remain competitive. For any industry, energy efficiency means increased production without increased energy consumption or costs. Improving energy efficiency helps the bottom line, making American metal products more competitive on the global market. That means more jobs here at home.

But energy efficiency is more than that. Reducing energy use means reducing our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases, and increasing our energy security. In this way, energy efficiency just makes sense, dollars and cents, for the Nation.

H.R. 1158 recognizes this fact and puts in place a new requirement that program managers consider the potential for technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when developing their research plans. In this way the bill updates the plan to address current concerns about the impact of energy-intensive industries.

For these reasons, both the Committee on Science and the full House passed a similar bill by voice vote in the 108th Congress, and the Committee on Science approved H.R. 1158 by voice vote in March.

I encourage my colleagues to demonstrate support for this bill again today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

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. 28) 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 within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 28, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when we think of how computers affect our lives, we probably think of the work we do on our office desktop machines or maybe the Internet surfing we do in our spare time. We do not normally think of the enormous contribution that supercomputers, also called high-performance computers, make to the world around us.

A recent report by the Council on Competitiveness outlined how high- performance computers currently are used in various industries. The report concluded that ``there is great potential for increased productivity, innovation and competitive advancement across the private sector'' as more industries learn how to take advantage of supercomputing technologies.

This is not at all surprising. At a Science Committee hearing last year, we learned that supercomputers allow companies to anticipate how new products will behave in different environments using simulations that are called ``virtual prototyping.''

For instance, the automotive industry uses high-performance computers to reduce costs and improve quality and safety during the vehicle design process. Pharmaceutical companies simulate chemical interactions to design new drugs. These approaches help companies increase the speed to market for new products.

High-performance computers also are central to maintaining U.S. leadership in many scientific fields. Computational science complements theory and experimentation in fields such as plasma physics and fusion, astrophysics, nuclear physics and genomics.

However, in June 2002, a new Japanese supercomputer, the Earth Simulator, was named the fastest in the world, a title it held through November 2004. Some experts claim that Japan was able to produce the Earth Simulator, a computer far ahead of American machines, because the U.S. had taken an overly cautious or conventional approach to computing R&D. In hindsight, we see that caution meant lost opportunities. Japan's Earth Simulator is an example of a road not taken.

But the U.S. is coming back. Last fall, American machines took the two top spots on the list of fastest supercomputers, pushing the Earth Simulator to third. I commend IBM and Silicon Graphics, Inc. for producing these amazing new machines.

The bill we are considering on the House floor today, H.R. 28, the High-performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2005, will ensure that America remains a leader in the development and use of supercomputers.

To achieve this aim, the bill does four things. First, it requires that Federal agencies provide the U.S. research community access to the most advanced high-performance computing systems and technical support for their users.

Second, there is more to computing than building big machines. That is why the bill requires Federal agencies to support all aspects of the high-performance computing for scientific and engineering applications.

Third, the bill requires the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to direct an interagency planning process to develop and maintain a road map for the provision of high-performance computing resources for the U.S. research community.

The original legislation that the bill amends, the High-performance Computing Act of 1991, gave rise to an interagency planning process that has lost the vitality it once had. This provision will help ensure a robust planning process so that our national high-

performance computing effort is not allowed to lag in the future.

Finally, the bill clarifies the mission of each of the Federal agencies that have a role in developing or using high-performance computing.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was the subject of a full committee hearing in May of 2004. At that hearing, Dr. John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, communicated the administration's support for this bill. The bill is also consistent with a report written by the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force and released by OSTP on the day of the hearing.

More recently, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, known as PITAC, on April 14 approved the recommendations for a report on computational science they will issue shortly. Designed to ensure U.S. preeminence and competitiveness in the computational science, these recommendations include sustained access for the research community to the highest end supercomputers, devotion of resources to software development and data management, and creation of a multidecade road map for computational science and the fields that require it. In other words, the actions this report recommends are exactly what today's bill requires the Federal Government to do.

The Nation's experts on PITAC, Dr. Marburger, and the Bush administration all recognize that we cannot imagine the kinds of problems that the supercomputers of tomorrow will be able to solve, but we can imagine the kinds of problems we will have if we fail to provide researchers in the United States with the computing resources they need to remain world-class.

This bill will guide Federal agencies in providing needed support to high-performance computing and its user communities. Our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be stronger for it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier the Committee on Science held a hearing on the high-performance computer in May of last year. And at that time my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) asked the experts who testified at that hearing whether there was any danger of computers approaching the cognitive abilities of humans. And the witnesses gave a resounding no in answer to that question.

More specifically, my colleague wanted to know how close we were to a machine that has reached a level of intelligence where it would be entitled to the minimum wage. Dr. Jack Marburger, the President's Science Advisor responded, ``Not very. We are quite far from that in terms of number of components measured in neurons; for example, the interconnectivity of the human brain far exceeds anything that we can currently build or foresee in the foreseeable future with computer hardware.''

Dr. Rick Stevens, a renowned computer scientist from Argonne National Laboratory, responded to the same question saying, ``My personal view is that I would be much more concerned with near-term issues associated with large-scale computing or the use of large-scale data systems to collect information. Right now, if you had to estimate what is the most intelligent device we can build, it is roughly between a worm and an insect in terms of what it can do.''

I think it is exceedingly inappropriate for this bill to impose a requirement on our Federal agencies to focus on the societal implications of hypothetical human-mimicking computers. Doing so would suggest that we as a body fundamentally misunderstand the nature and focus of high-performance computing research.

In addition, as Dr. Stevens pointed out at our hearing last year, information technology has societal implications for privacy, for workplace collaboration and for many other areas. Our Federal agencies should focus any resources for societal studies on these real and immediate needs.

Finally, NSF already has the ability to conduct research generally into social, economic, and work-force implications of information technology. We should allow the research community, via the peer review process, and the agency to determine if this sort of research becomes necessary. This should not be a mandate in this bill.

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

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

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

I would agree with the gentleman from Tennessee that we really do have the means to conduct research generally and to the social, economic and workforce implication of information technology, and NSF has that ability; and I think that that is all that is necessary. We do not want a mandate in this bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the bill's chief cosponsor, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis), and thank him for all the great work that he has done on this bill. It is a very important bill to his district, to my district, and to all of the Nation.

I would also like to thank the other cosponsor of this important legislation, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science; along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member; the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis); the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley); and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), and I thank them all for their support.

With that, I would also like to thank my colleagues in this body for supporting an identical bill to this one in the 108th Congress; and, finally, I would like to extend my thanks to the Committee on Science staff, majority and minority, for their hard work to bring this bill to the floor today.

As I said earlier, we must commit to providing sustained support for high-performance computers at our Federal civil science agencies. H.R. 28 represents just such a commitment. Our Nation's scientific enterprise and our economy will be the stronger for it. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) recognizing the significance of African American women in the United States scientific community, as amended.

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 H. Con. Res. 96, as amended, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 96, a resolution to recognize the significant contributions of African American women to the U.S. scientific community.

In recent history, it has become almost ordinary for talented individuals from diverse backgrounds to pursue educational opportunities in fields that were previously considered all white male domains. Yet today's women and minorities could never have succeeded in the once nontraditional fields of science, engineering, and mathematics had it not been for the courage of their predecessors.

For today's young women, it is difficult to appreciate how exceptional it was for African American women in particular to pursue a career in science. For those born in the early 20th century, they were told that they did not belong; and they felt lucky if they found work as research assistants to, or unpaid volunteers for, male scientists.

Yet the grit and perseverance of women like Ruth Ella Moore, the first African American woman to receive a Ph.D. in natural science from Ohio State University, as well as civil rights legislation and the women's movement, help to overcome these obstacles. They also helped pave the way for the successes of women like Shirley Ann Jackson, the first African American woman to receive a Ph.D. from MIT, and Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in space as a crew member of the shuttle Endeavor.

Today, African American women scientists hold positions at all levels of universities, government laboratories, and industry. They chair departments and scientific societies; and they serve on peer review committees, something that was unthinkable just 25 years ago.

The women we are honoring in House Concurrent Resolution 96 are more than pioneers. They are role models for a new generation of women who are just beginning to think about their life's work and future ambitions and explore their many opportunities. Yet, despite these successes, women and minorities are still under-represented in undergraduate and graduate science and engineering education.

As national demographics shift, we simply cannot rely only on our traditional science, mathematics, engineering and technology workforce, which is overwhelmingly white and male, and retiring. If the U.S. is to remain innovative and competitive, we must nurture, prepare, and engage young women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics today.

That is what this resolution is all about. By underscoring the importance of diversity and recognizing the significant scientific achievements of African American women, I hope we can inspire more young women, and men, to follow in the footsteps of those who pursued science with such passion and enthusiasm.

In conclusion, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her leadership on this very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to again congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Davis-Waxman amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Chair did not ask him if he rose in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate both of the gentlemen for yielding time to me.

I rise in opposition to this amendment which strikes from the bill a section that makes two simple, but important organizational changes at the Department of Energy. As the title of the section implies, these two changes are designated to improve the coordination and management of civilian science and technology programs at the Department of Energy.

First, section 978(a) of H.R. 6 simply changes from Director to Assistant Secretary the title of the position responsible for overseeing the DOE Office of Science.

Let me be clear about this. The Director of the Office of Science already is an Assistant Secretary in all but title. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director of the Office of Science is already appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director position is

on an executive schedule. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at the DOE, the Director position is a Level IV on the executive schedule.

This is not a new position nor is it a promotion. This is a title change only, no extra pay, no extra head count, no extra bureaucracy.

This simple title change is still critically important to the operation and organization of the DOE. We all know how important titles are within our Federal departments and agencies, and this title change appropriately acknowledges the central importance of science and technology to fulfilling the Department's varied missions.

That is why the person with the primary responsibility for overseeing basic scientific research within the Department should have at least the same title as his or her counterparts who are responsible for applied energy research as their mission of the Department.

The second provision contained in section 978(b) creates an additional Assistant Secretary at the Department and expresses the sense of Congress that the leadership for departmental missions in nuclear energy should be at the Assistant Secretary level.

I would really like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for clarification of his position and his willingness to work to find an acceptable compromise, and also for the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his commitment to revisit this issue.

I yield to the gentleman from New York, the Chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time on the majority side for the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, particularly those provisions that originated with the Science Committee and are now contained in Title IX of the bill, the Research and Development title.

H.R. 6 represents a good investment in advanced, cutting-edge energy technologies to expand and diversify our energy supply, meet growing demand and reduce the environmental impact of energy production and use. The only changes to the R&D title from the 108th Congress are ones that reflect the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies and new ways of thinking about our power problems.

Most noteworthy is a pilot grant program to encourage the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings that demonstrates new efficiency technologies. Also worth mentioning are two new additions to the subtitle on renewable energy R&D.

First is a grant program for States to support the development and demonstration of solar technologies nationwide. Second, the bill requires the Department to work with industry to create biorefinery demonstration projects. As a result, this bill does more for renewable energy R&D than any other energy bill previously considered by the House.

The bill also recognizes that advanced energy technologies do not grow on trees. Instead, they grow out of basic scientific research like those that are supported by the DOE at our universities and national laboratories. That is why H.R. 6 increases authorized funding to the DOE Office of Science which supports over 40 percent of basic research in the physical sciences, more than any other Federal agency. This funding will support basic fusion research and greater use of supercomputers for energy applications, as well as systems biology research and the construction and operation of scientific facilities like the rare isotope accelerator.

America cannot hope to compete in the world economy based on labor costs. Our competitive strength is the depth of our ingenuity and technology, and the science programs in this bill are the basic building blocks of our technological edge.

In closing, I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Science and my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to the development of the provisions in the R&D title of H.R. 6.

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

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the illustrious chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis), a member of the Committee on Science.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

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

In closing, I express my appreciation for the leadership of the Committee on Science and my colleagues on the committee for their contributions to the development of the provisions in the R&D title of H.R. 6. They are bipartisan, forward thinking, balanced, and speak to the importance that we as a Congress place on the role of technology in our energy future.

I would also express my appreciation for the extremely professional staff of all the relevant committees, as well as the key leadership staff who worked diligently on this bill for months and in some cases years. I want to thank the able staff of Committee on Science and its Energy Subcommittee. Their contributions and those of countless others have resulted in a better bill which I urge my colleagues to support.

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