Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect for the outstanding record of excellence she has compiled in academics, leadership and community service, that I am proud to salute Kasee Stratton, winner of the 2003 LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This award is made to young adults who have demonstrated that they are truly committed to playing important roles in our Nation's future. As a winner of the LeGrand Smith Scholarship, Kasee is being honored for demonstrating that same generosity of spirit, intelligence, responsible citizenship, and capacity for human service that distinguished the late LeGrand Smith of Somerset, Michigan.

Kasee is an exceptional student at Pittsford High School, and possesses an outstanding record of achievement in high school. Kasee has received numerous awards for her excellence in academics, as well as volunteering her time as the Youth Chair on the Hillsdale County Community Foundation's Board of Trustees. Kasee has won the Optimist Club's Community Service Award and the Historical Society Academic Award, among others.

Therefore, I am proud to join with her many admirers in extending my highest praise and congratulations to Kasee Stratton for her selection as winner of a LeGrand Smith Scholarship. This honor is a testament to the parents, teachers, and others whose personal interest, strong support and active participation contributed to her success. To this remarkable young woman, I extend my most heartfelt good wishes for all her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 160) expressing the sense of Congress that the United Nations should remove the economic sanctions against Iraq completely and without condition, as amended.

Madam 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. 160, the legislation under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, this resolution calls on the United Nations to immediately and unconditionally lift the economic sanctions on Iraq. The U.N. sanctions were passed after Saddam Hussein, a totalitarian dictator, invaded Kuwait in 1990. That resolution was the first of 17 U.N. resolutions passed over the next 11 years trying to bring Saddam Hussein under control.

At the time then-President Bush organized a coalition that sent in the military, forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and subsequently loosened the hold of this murderous tyrant over the Kurdish people in northern Iraq.

Madam Speaker, in September of 1991, the United Nations modified the sanctions to contain Saddam Hussein and allowed him to trade Iraq's oil for only humanitarian supplies through the so-called Oil for Food Program. These sanctions were meant to keep Saddam Hussein's military from developing more weapons and becoming a greater threat.

However, after an impressive military success, Iraq is now entering a new day and is no longer a threat. Coalition forces have freed the Iraqi people, and the U.N. sanctions which once strove to contain a murderous tyrant now contain the Iraqi people themselves. The Iraqi people have historically been one of the most highly educated, industrious, and entrepreneurial people in the Middle East. To rebuild their country, Iraq and the Iraqi people must be able to trade freely. Every additional day that these sanctions remain is an additional day that the people of Iraq are suffering from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

The President has called on the United Nations to end these sanctions. I have introduced this resolution, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) have moved it through the Committee on International Relations so members of the Security Council would understand that the United States Government speaks with a single voice in Iraq.

The coalition returned political freedom to the Iraqi people, but with these sanctions the U.N. is withholding the opportunity for economic freedom and recovery from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. I hope that Congress can send a strong message demanding that the United Nations immediately correct this mistake and lift the economic sanctions against Iraq.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly describe the resolution before us. This resolution recognizes that the United Nations sanctions were imposed on the regime of Saddam Hussein, not on Iraq or its people. Iraq had become a murderous toy for a totalitarian dictator. The Iraqi people did not choose to invade Kuwait. Their Arab neighbors and Saddam Hussein actually went and did it. The Iraqi people did not choose to go to war with Iran in the 1980s. Saddam Hussein did. The Iraqi people certainly did not decide to use chemical weapons against either Iranian soldiers or on Iraqi Kurds. Saddam Hussein did.

These sanctions were not imposed on the Iraqi people. They were imposed on the regime led by a crazy man who exploited the resources of Iraq for his own gains. And when this regime fell, so did the basis for his sanctions.

The resolution recognizes that the coalition freed the Iraqi people for a better future. It recognizes that at this time the coalition is providing for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. The coalition is working as hard and as fast as it can to have Iraq standing on its own two feet, but restricting trade makes this very difficult.

Newspaper reports have said that after the Iran/Iraq war, it took 3 years for electric power to come back to some parts of Baghdad. The U.S. is pushing to get the people of Baghdad working and getting them electricity by this June.

The coalition is working with the United Nations and other organizations to provide as much as possible for the Iraqi people after the more than two decades of neglect of Iraq's infrastructure.

This resolution also recognizes that with the liberation of the Iraq, the effects of the sanctions have shifted. Sanctions were imposed, Madam Speaker, because the resources of Iraq were used to serve the dangerous interests of a single man. The sanctions help contain his ability to build an army and threaten Iraq's neighbors and the Iraqi people themselves.

Now that Saddam Hussein's regime has ended, the resources of Iraq can now serve the people of Iraq. When they seek to trade their goods for goods of others, it is in their own interest, not in those of a tyrant. The Iraqi people want to trade to rebuild their country, devastated by 30 years of misrule. Before Iraq was liberated, the sanctions contained Saddam Hussein. Now they contain the Iraqi people. The continuation of these sanctions has, in effect, equated the people of Iraq with their former dictator.

A majority of Iraqis have lived most of their adult lives under Saddam Hussein. The transition to a free enterprise economy will be difficult, impossible while trade sanctions continue.

Madam Speaker, I offer this resolution because some members of the Security Council have hesitated in ending these sanctions for what appear to be selfish reasons. In doing so they undermine the Iraqi people, and they continue to undermine their own credibility and that of the United Nations.

I know my colleagues in Congress will join me in calling on the United Nations to end the economic sanctions on Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to say in relation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) that our Committee on International Relations is looking carefully at these issues and looks forward to working with my colleague, and certainly in a bipartisan effort to deal with this possible legislation.

I would like to say also, Madam Speaker, that the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) is one of the outstanding Representatives in Congress that is both exceptionally capable and also a good friend. Concluding my comments, I again urge the United Nations to act swiftly. In the language of the resolution the United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 established sanctions as a result of Saddam Hussein's unprovoked illegal aggression against the sovereign Arab State of Kuwait. This resolution is expressing the sense of Congress that now the United Nations should remove the economic sanctions against Iraq completely and without condition.

It is the hope of the United States to have this resolution in the United Nations passed by June 3. It is my personal opinion that if the United Nations refuses to pass this resolution, the United States and the coalition should act aggressively to still allow oil and other products to be exported from Iraq to allow necessary supplies be purchased to go to Iraq for rebuilding.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the other members of our Committee on Science, and certainly our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), we commend the adoption of this resolution.

Two words in the English language are not spoken enough, and these words are ``thank you.'' With this resolution before us, the House of Representatives, on behalf of government, on behalf of the American people, thank the thousands of search and discovery crews who scoured through thick forests and brambles, dove underwater in freezing lakes and reservoirs, trudged through swamps in icy temperatures and storms in search of the bits and pieces left over from the Space Shuttle Columbia tragedy. It was grim work that lasted many months, and those who undertook the solemn duty in east Texas and elsewhere deserve our thanks and praise.

Few things embody the triumph and tragedy that make up the fabric of our country more than the space program. The space program's very purpose, to discover what lies beyond our world, is at the heart of the American spirit. The thousands of Americans who aided in the Columbia debris search have become a vital part of our Nation's space program. They allow us to learn what went wrong that fateful morning of February 1 so that we can fix it and forge ahead with a stronger space program with the best balance between manned and unmanned flight.

With this resolution we honor those who walked more than 700,000 acres on foot, surveyed more than 1.6 million acres in aircraft, and swept over at least 23 square miles of lakes and reservoirs over the last several months to find what remained of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Now the 83,000 pieces of evidence are being shifted through at Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers and elsewhere, and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board is beginning to form findings and recommendations to make our Nation's space program better than it was before.

Just as the thousands of search crews took it upon themselves to have a solemn duty, we in Congress will soon be asked to perform our solemn duty to uphold the values and build on the legacy of the Columbia astronauts we lost. We have a duty to them, their families, the NASA family, the search crews, and to everyone who gains so much inspiration from the drive to discover what exists beyond our world. The lives lost cannot be in vain.

Today, with this resolution, we honor those who performed their duty. And to the thousands of men and women who engaged and congregated in east Texas in search of what remained of mission STS-107, the Space Shuttle Columbia, we say ``thank you.''

Mr. Chairman, what is nanotechnology? I think it is amazing. The chairman did not use a hair off of his head as an example, but nanotechnology is 1/100,000th the size of a normal human hair.

What we are talking about has a tremendous potential for industry, for science, for the health of this Nation. So it is the beginning, if you will, of a new revolution. It involves 13 Federal agencies in this new National Nanotechnology Initiative. This technology is still very much in its early stages.

Only a handful of nanotechnology products and applications have been commercialized today. Most Americans have probably yet to even hear about this exciting new era of science. So what exactly is this technology that will likely make such a profound impact on our lives and the lives of our kids and our grandkids?

The bill before us today defines nanotechnology as science and engineering at the atomic and molecular level. More specifically, it is the manipulation, if you will, of materials with structural features that are so tiny that it involves chemistry to develop some of the machines that we saw in our Subcommittee on Research that can even manipulate and transport a dust mite. In our hearings on the

future of medical technology, they estimate that within 30 years the life span of the average American could be 120 years old, partially because of the potential of nanotechnology, putting small rockets in one's bloodstream to hunt out certain discrepancies in the human body.

The National Science Foundation has estimated that nanotechnology has the potential to be a $1 trillion industry within just the next 10 years. This will take shape in the form of revolutionary new applications in materials, in science, in manufacturing, energy production, information technology, medicine, defense, homeland security. Imagine the benefits of just one example of a future nanoscale tool, tiny machines that can detect cancer clusters.

But like biotechnology or information technology 10 to 15 years ago, nanotechnology has reached a critical growth stage. For these emerging innovations to come to fruition, it is important for us in Congress to work, proactively to provide support and guide the industry, and that is what this bill does.

We found that we will need to intensify our support for research and experimentation in the nanosciences, specifically fundamental, novel research.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

If the information technology revolution is any guide, the coming nanotechnolgy revolution will not only improve our lives through the development of many exciting new products, but its contribution to productivity gains will also help brighten future economic situations. As the Semiconductor Industry Association has pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimation of the $1.3 trillion projected deficit for fiscal years 2004-2013 would actually be $247 billion higher if it were not for CBO's assumption of continued improvements in productivity due to computers. If we succeed in our effort to harness the potential of nanotechnology, we will see productivity and revenue gains of a similar magnitude.

I am proud that my home State of Michigan is poised to one of the leaders in this effort. As the state struggles to cope with job losses in manufacturing industries, we have been working to establish a high- tech corridor to attract companies in emerging industries such as nanotechnology. In fact, Small Times magazines recently ranked Michigan as one of the top ten states for nanotechnology businesses in the country. This is the kind of foresight that will help our State recover from the dramatic losses in the manufacturing sector.

I also want to mention that, as Chairman of the Research Subcommittee, which maintains oversight of the National Science Foundation, I am particularly excited about NSF's contribution to the nanotech initiative. NSF is the largest federal supporter of non- medical basic research conducted at universities, and has a long history of supporting research that has led to a myriad of discoveries now part of our everyday lives. At a support level of $221 million for FY 2003, NSF is funding the cutting-edge, fundamental research at our nation's universities that will help to accelerate application and commercialization of nanotechnology products by the private sector. The goals and priorities for the NNI established in H.R. 766 will be an important aspect of this process.

To conclude, that is a strong, well-thought out piece of legislation. It received unanimous bi-partisan support from the Science Committee, is supported by the pertinent industry organization that have an interest in nanotechnology, and finally, is the top science and technology priority of the President. I commend Chairman Boehlert for his leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill, and urge all members to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a couple of moments on the financial situation of the Federal Government. This chart shows what is happening to gross Federal debt. The debt held by the public, the debt held by government accounts, mostly Social Security, what we are borrowing from Social Security, added together, equal the total amount of debt. The only way debt can be increased in the United States Government is if the House and the Senate pass legislation increasing the debt limit and then the President signs it. That is what we are doing again this year and that is partially because of the increase in Federal spending.

As you can see on this chart, by 2013 we are approaching a debt of $10 trillion; $10 trillion debt compared to a budget for next year that is going to amount to about $2.2 trillion. Let me tell you one of the big problems of why we are going so deep in debt. That is because of the overzealousness of this legislative body and the White House to spend more and more money.

This next chart shows the increase in spending. As you can see, the discretionary spending increases have averaged 6.3 percent each year since 1996. Since 1997, we have increased spending by 7.7 percent. Even in what is called a very frugal budget this year, with increased spending about 4.2 to 4.4 percent, still again it is about twice the rate of inflation. So if we are going to keep increasing spending, then what we are doing in effect is leaving a larger and larger debt to our kids and our grandkids.

I am a farmer from Michigan. Our goal has been on the farm to try to pay down some of that mortgage in order for our kids to have a better chance at success and the good life than maybe their parents had. Here in this body, in Congress, we keep increasing the debt on our kids. It is sort of a hidden tax.

If you will a future tax increase.

Increasing taxes outright is going to increase the chance that you are not going to be reelected.

But increasing spending by increased borrowing means that they are cutting a ribbon on some jogging trail or some library or other pork project. It probably increases the chance that they are going to be reelected. So the propensity to spend more and more money is one of the failures of this legislative system. Simply leaving this mortgage to our kids is in effect saying that our problems today are more important than the problems that our kids and our grandkids are going to face when they are responsible for paying their taxes into this Federal Government.

Let me say that I was disappointed last week in another demonstration of the unwillingness of this Chamber to stay within the budget. Last week we had an HIV/AIDS bill coming before the body that we passed out of the House and sent to the Senate. That bill increased by 50 percent the HIV/AIDS money that was in the budget to be spent internationally to help cure AIDS. So it was an increase of 50 percent over and above what the President suggested, 50 percent over and above what we passed in the budget resolution. So the discipline of this body to reduce spending and live within our budget leaves much to be desired.

How do we get this kind of discipline? We are talking this week about tax cuts, and certainly we cannot pay for tax cuts with increased borrowing. However, we have a system in this country where those who work hard, save and invest and try to start a business and make money producing something that other people want to buy has ended up with the kind of incentives that has made this country the strongest economically in the world. And it is not Government that decides whether we are going to have a good economy. It is the people that decide that it is going to be to their advantage and the advantage of their family if they decide to work hard and try to produce talent or some products that other people want to buy.

So the goal and the key, the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that somehow, someplace, sometime this body and the White House have got to come up with the discipline to hold down spending if we want to keep a strong economy and those incentives that cause people to expand business and therefore expand jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Amendment No. 6 in House Report 108-80 be considered out of sequence in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment brings back the level of funding for the first year to the level recommended by the President, the amount of $2 billion, which is the amount that is also in our budget resolution.

The third reason is I would like to document and persuade to my colleagues, expert witnesses from Africa that are suggesting that it is going to be much more effective to start gradually and then increase the spending over the year.

My amendment does not decrease the total 5 year commitment of $15 billion, but, rather, is consistent with what the President has requested, starting at $2 billion and then growing each year.

I would like to read a letter from a former United States ambassador to several of those African countries.

``As the son of a medical missionary to Africa, a career State Department diplomat with over 28 years of service, mainly in Africa, and as the former United States Ambassador to Rwanda and Mali, I am well aware of the problems making foreign aid genuinely benefit the populations it was intended to impact. Throughout my career, I have been involved in rural health initiatives in Africa, and while there is great need to meet the challenge of AIDS in Africa, front-loading a program might well do more harm than good. There is great risk in squandering precious funds when expenditures are made without adequate controls or accountability. We also risk forcing our big-ticket solutions on Africans who may need more modest help in finding local solutions and building up their own capacity to deal with the challenge in the early year.

``Accordingly, I support the original emergency plan for AIDS relief proposed by the President that would launch this new initiative to $2 billion in '04 and steadily escalate spending over 5 years.''

Again, because we can maximize this money over the 5-year period, because it would be consistent with the President and the budget resolution, I hope Members support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this is exactly what the President recommended. My amendment is what the President recommended.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Let me conclude by simply saying that this is what the President suggested, starting at $2 billion. It is consistent with our budget resolution that we passed just 2 weeks ago. It still maintains the $15 billion over 5 years. So there is no disagreement; there is no reduction in total funding.

Again, I quote from Ambassador Rawson who says, ``While there is great need to meet the challenge of AIDS in Africa, front-loading a program might well do more harm than good,'' and he recommends that we support the Smith amendment, which is the President's suggestion, to launch this new initiative at $2 billion in 2004 and steadily escalating that spending.

Mr. Chairman, I also am reluctant to go against my chairman on this amendment, but I thought sure that the gentleman from Illinois would support this amendment with all of the good, rational, logical reasons that I have. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Presidential Oil Policy Commission and as the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, I am convinced we are going to solve this problem of energy dependence. Through scientific research, we are going to find more efficient, better uses, we are going to develop conservation, and we are going to develop alternative uses of energy. But in the meantime, we need the exploring of oil and getting some of those resources until we come up with those scientific advances. We need this opportunity.

Look, the people against this amendment are saying we are making ANWR better and so do not limit it to 2,000 acres. Let us make it better. Let us make the final decision on ANWR after we pass this amendment.

And with that, I would just say it is an area less than 2 miles square in the millions of acres that are now in ANWR.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of news, of course, about the war in Iraq. Where are we going and how long is it going to take to win the military battle. I think it is important that we do not underestimate the length of time it is going to take for the transition after we win the military battle. Bradley Smith and now some former Iraqi officials have suggested at least 2 years, maybe 2 years of martial law to get a society and a people who for most of their adult lives have never lived under any rule except Saddam Hussein. The transition to a democracy is going to take time. Brad also suggested that we should have a military base in Umm Qasr, down in the southeast corner of Iraq. How does all this play into probably the most extensive oil field potential for oil in the world in that country of Iraq?

This last weekend, some suggested that we are fighting in Iraq because of our dependence on foreign energy. While that is not true, the consequences of our dependence are certainly serious. This first became very clear to many of us during the Arab oil embargo during the early 1970s when at that time I was serving on the presidential oil policy commission. We need this foreign energy because it is a vital component for fostering economic growth, but considering the situation in Iraq, regardless of the consequences and the sluggishness of the economy, we need to reduce our energy dependence by serving and developing new sources of energy, and that need has probably never been greater in this country. This is why the energy bill passed out of our Committee on Science last week will be on the floor very shortly.

Oil and natural gas account for 39 and 23 percent of overall energy usage in our country. In the United States, domestic production of petroleum is nearly 8 million barrels a day, which includes 5.8 million barrels of crude oil and 2.2 million barrels of natural gas liquids; 8 million barrels a day in the United States. And while 11 countries have more petroleum reserves, we are currently the second largest producer in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia. Most of the new petroleum exploration taking place in the United States today is done by smaller companies. The bigger companies have decided they want to bypass the regulatory process, the environmental influence and the fact that we have already explored much in the United States for oil. So what we have left in the United States is mostly the smaller companies that are making this exploration.

Historically, conservation has been the primary method of reducing our dependence. It has been successful and we have seen American energy efficiency increase dramatically. Since 1970, GDP, our gross domestic product, has risen by 170 percent while energy consumption is up by only 42 percent. The energy bill will help us do even better with a focus on more efficient appliances, electricity generation and certainly automotive transmission. Because a growing economy would tend to increase use, the energy bill boosts our efforts to develop alternatives to petroleum. Today, America consumes about 19 million barrels of petroleum a day, about 44 percent of which is motor gasoline. That means a new motor fuel would have a dramatic impact on U.S. usage. The energy bill increases research into ethanol and biofuels made from agricultural crops. Science and research get substantial increases from language that we have added to the bill in order to develop and perfect emerging technologies, including fusion energy and neutron source power, we have heard a lot about hydrogen cells for automobiles, and certainly improved clean coal technology.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our dependence built up slowly over decades. Unfortunately it may also take decades to reduce that dependence, even under the best of circumstances. Shocks and problems will continue to cause many problems for our economy and our foreign policy. Still, if we act now, research can secure the energy that the American economy needs to grow and produce and it can result in more and better good-paying jobs, not only for our generation but for our kids and our grandkids.

Madam Speaker, I want to relate to a problem that I see as real in this country, so I am going to talk for a couple of minutes about losing our manufacturing base. Now, it looks like we are losing our high-tech jobs in this country. Then, secondly, how serious a situation is it, and then maybe third, what are we going to do about it.

Over the last 30 years, we have lost our manufacturing base as we have made the transition towards a service economy. A lot of that service economy has been in the area of high technology. I happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, and one of the concerns is what is happening to outsourcing as more and more American companies are sending their engineering work overseas.

In the last 2 years, in the last 2 years, we have lost over 560,000 high-tech jobs. Why is that?

It is a situation where other countries are doing it cheaper. Companies have decided that they are going to outsource and put related factories and facilities in India, in the Pakistans, and any country where they can get these quality engineers to do the work cheaper; and of course, with our new technology and our ability to communicate so rapidly with the Internet, it does not make a great deal of difference whether one is down the hall or whether one is over in India or some other country.

In relation to repairing automobiles, it is now suggested that within a few years, because of the computerization of those automobiles, a lot of the mechanical work is going to be done by computers, again remotely; so it is not going to make any difference if the local repair shop plugs in their computer or if it is done by some shop overseas.

In the manufacturing industry, which I think we also have to be just as concerned with, we have, over the last 10 years, gone from almost 18 percent of our total working population in manufacturing to a situation today that is a little over 12 percent. If we care about the future of jobs and good-paying jobs for our kids and our grandkids, then it is a situation that we need to consider.

What are some of the possible ways that we can deal with this problem? One, of course, I think is taxation, and we are going to be discussing that for the next several weeks. Our taxes now on business are approximately 17 percent higher than if that business were in another country.

One of the keys that I see is doing a much better job with matching math and science education. This has to be a priority as we are starting to limit the number of foreign students that can come in and do our research work. On research, what do we think, I ask my colleagues, is the percentage of our research done at universities in this country that is done by foreign students? Over 50 percent. So science and math have to be a priority.

We have had several hearings on science and math. The witnesses suggested that the learning in K through 12 is more a matter of excitement and enthusiasm and lighting a fire under people to be curious rather than filling a container with knowledge. I asked, when is this fire lit for science and math? And most of the witnesses said probably between 4 years old and 6 years old. So if we miss out on lighting the fire with parents that are interested, with communications that are going to stimulate the interest of those parents and those students and quality teachers, then it is going to be tough to light that fire in the future.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I just suggest that it has to be a real concern for our future economy and for future jobs; and for the relative wealth and influence this country has, that we need to pay attention to losing our manufacturing base and now losing our high-tech base. Part of that solution has to be fair taxes, and part has to be a better job with math and science education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the birth and life of my grandson, Nicholas Bradley Smith, my namesake.

Born to Brad and Diane, on June 27, 1987, my wife Bonnie and I join Nick's other grandparents, Neville and Jennifer Monteith from Kitchener, ON, in celebration of his life.

That year the first heart-lung transplant took place, astronomers at the University of California saw the first sight of a birth of a galaxy, and the US and Russia signed an accord to remove midrange missiles. That year the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 2,700 for the first time in history. Our economy was growing.

Over the next decade government spending would outpace inflation and the national debt increased to monstrous proportions.

It is my hope that we can reduce the national debt that will otherwise be passed on to this young man and his generation. We must work today to provide Nick with a better future, a sound economy, and the ability to achieve his greatest potential.

Let us remember Nicholas Smith and all the other young people in this country. We leave our legacy to them. May it be a good one.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the birth and life of my grandchildren, Selena Anastasia and James Azarial, born February 26, 1997 to Elizabeth and Fred Burnette. My wife Bonnie and I join with James and Selena's other grandparents, Bonnie and Charles Burnette, to celebrate these children.

In James and Selena's birth year we made great advances in space technology. Onboard our flight to Mars was ``Sojourner.'' This roving device, the first autonomous vehicle to travel on another planet, sent back to earth chemical analyses of soil and rocks. Sojourner was one of the greatest achievements in our space travel history.

Inventors play a unique role in our history creating new products to improve our way of life. Invention comes from the Latin, inventio, to discover or find out. Today, we continue to ``find out'' and create new ways to travel, grow food, communicate, and continue exploration of uncharted territory.

I hope that for these children curiosity will always be their guide so that they and their generation will continue scientific research to invent ways to make their own lives better.

I hope that as we consider legislation for these new issues we consider what we can contribute to our children and grandchildren by encouraging invention. I hope that we can leave Selena and James, and children and grandchildren everywhere, a brighter future because of our decisions today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the birth and life of my ninth grandchild, Alexander Frederick Burnette, born May 31, 2000, born to our daughter Elizabeth and her husband, Fred. My wife Bonnie and I join with Alexander's other grandparents, Bonnie and Charles Burnette, in celebrating Alexander.

Alexander faces a great world of great opportunity. Scientific discoveries and advanced technology daily improve our lives. They allow us to live longer, better, and more productive lives. In the year of Alexander's birth scientists finished a map of the human genome. This was a huge scientific achievement which will help doctors and scientists improve our health and life.

Today, we continue to push forward with scientific advancements. Like information technology and biotechnology breakthroughs of the past ten years, nanotechnology holds the potential to revolutionize our way of life. However, the science is still very much in its fledgling stage, so it is important that the federal government coordinate and fund basic research into the fundamental aspects of nanotechnology so that its potential can one day be realized.

I hope that as we consider legislation for these new issues we consider what we can contribute to our children and grandchildren by encouraging new technologies. I hope that we can leave Alexander, and his generation every where, with a brighter future because of what we accomplish today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the birth and life of Claire Smith, born to our son Brad and his wife Diane on February 2, 1992. It was in this year on my birthday, November 5, that I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; 1992 was the international space year and my first committee assignment was Science.

It is for Claire, and for all our children and grandchildren, that we in Congress continue to push the boundaries of science, invention, and technology, so that their lives, will be better and more productive in the years to come.

My wife Bonnie and I join with Claire's other grandparents, Neville and Jennifer Monteith from Kitchener, ON in celebrating this young life and all the opportunities we have through science to make the future better for our legacy, those children and grandchildren like Claire Smith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the birth and life of our second grandchild, Emily Smith, born on March 9, 1989 to our son Brad and his wife Diane.

The year of her birth was a time of change for America and the world. A new President, George Bush Sr., took office. More importantly it was the year that the world ushered in a new era of peace. On the second of May, Emily Smith was a just a few months old, but her future would be changed forever. It was in 1989 that the Berlin Wall fell and forty- five years of conflict and fear were soon behind us. It was a new era of prosperity, potential, and peace.

As we stand here today decisive moments confront us, but we have the opportunity to give Emily Smith, and all our children and grandchildren, the peace that we knew in 1989. It is my hope that by our work and decisions today we can give them peace for tomorrow.

My wife Bonnie and I join Emily's other grandparents, Neville and Jennifer Monteith from Kitchener, ON, in celebrating this wonderful person.