Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time of the Science and Technology Committee and presume in all this finagling I haven't lost my 7\1/2\ minutes.

Thank you, sir.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have said it here before and I will keep on saying it. For some reason, there is a war going on today against energy from fossil fuels, and I am not really sure why. Anyone ought to be able to understand that, to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil and to increase our national security, we need conventional, renewable, and alternative sources of energy. Our country at this time will not be able to continue to thrive and lead the world on renewable energy alone. Punishing the oil and gas industry, hindering alternative uses of clean coal and stifling nuclear power will ensure that the United States loses its place as a world leader.

Make no mistake, I support the continued development and increased use of renewable energy but not at the detriment of fossil fuels and clean nuclear energy that we absolutely have to have today.

The bill before us today includes many provisions of research and development into renewable energies that I support, but there is not one thing in this bill that would encourage the development or production of oil and gas in our country or off our country's coast, which is the only way we are going to decrease our imports in the near term.

Why? What on earth are my friends on the other side of the aisle afraid of? I can't for the life of me understand the pure venom that is felt for the oil and gas industry.

At this time in our country's history, more than any other time, when we are up against terrorists who have no fear of dying and only want to kill as many Americans as they can, we need to develop our domestic sources of energy for ourselves. We need to reduce our imports and our dependence on OPEC. And, yes, we need to continue developing renewable and alternative sources of energy to eventually help displace our use of oil and gas. But it is not going to happen next year or in the next 10 years. We need to be realistic about this and deliberate about this and come together about this because I believe Republicans and Democrats alike care about our youngsters and care about the future of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that this bill has energy independence and national security in its title. I think it is misleading. We can't become independent and secure on energy

deficiency and research and development alone. We definitely need them, but they can't carry the weight of our country's energy needs.

As the ranking member of the Science Committee, I would like to focus on the science side of the bill. While I feel there is some good research and development in the science title, I am disappointed to see that ARPA-E is in there again. We just passed it as part of the Competitiveness bill on Thursday after 2 months of negotiations. The Senate passed it on Friday, and it is on its way to the President's desk.

I am as opposed to it today as part of this bill as I was on Thursday when it was a part of the other bill. I am especially troubled that this version costs billions more than the one we just passed. I still believe it is unnecessary and could divert very valuable resources away from the Office of Science.

During committee markups, I, along with several other of my Republican colleagues, offered amendments that would have improved upon the bills, but they were voted down by every Democrat on the committee. These were commonsense provisions I thought and we thought that would have ensured that our most abundant domestic source of energy, coal, would continue to be a part of the energy future as an alternative fuel.

One amendment by Mr. McCaul from Texas simply added coal-to-liquids refineries to a list of facilities that could be a source of carbon dioxide for the large-scale sequestration demonstrations in the carbon capture and sequestration bill.

I offered an amendment to research ways to blend coal-to-liquids fuels with biofuels in order to prolong the supply of both. This would have helped to mitigate the potential negative effects that increased biofuel development would have on our food supply and on our prices. My friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that coal is a four-letter word when, instead, they ought to be looking at it as a ticket to independence.

Our greatest generation is no longer my generation, but it is our children and our grandchildren's generation. Let's not leave them with no choice but to fight wars all over the world for energy because our leadership here continues to put forth legislation that stifles domestic production of oil and gas and shuts out coal and shuts out nuclear energy sources.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

If I might inquire first before I answer the gentlewoman from Arizona, how much time do I have remaining?

30 full seconds. Now, go ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I just want to simply say that at a time when we import 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries and others, we need to be encouraging domestic production of fossil fuels. We have it. We don't have anywhere else to turn.

I just think energy is such a national security issue, not a partisan political issue. We have to move beyond partisan rhetoric and pass a sensible energy legislation that would promote all sources of energy, increases our domestic capacity, reduce the cost of energy, promote technologies to make fossil fuels including coal, clean coal cleaner and more efficient.

This week Democratic House leaders have been scrambling to get energy legislation to the floor before Congress recesses for August, yet the bill they are hoping to pass today doesn't create any new energy and doesn't help meet America's energy needs.

At a time when we import 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries, we need to be encouraging domestic production of fossil fuels. The Democrats' energy bill doesn't expand our domestic energy supply one drop of oil.

Our economy depends on fossil fuels, yet opponents of oil and gas continue to push legislation to raise taxes on our domestic energy producers and refiners, making American energy more expensive, and making us even more dependent on foreign, unstable regimes.

Bio-fuels and other alternative energy sources have great potential, but are not ready to replace fossil fuels on a large scale in our domestic energy portfolio. As ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, I believe that one day the investments we make in research and development into alternative energy will make a big difference, but right now Americans need clean, affordable, and abundant energy--and I'm afraid the bill before us today does not advance this goal.

Comprehensive energy solutions must include all sources of energy. Not only should we invest in research and development for technologies that promote renewable and alternative sources of energy, but we should also invest in technologies that make existing energy sources cleaner, more affordable and more efficient. At the same time, we must continue to support the domestic oil and gas industry in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We cannot turn our backs on the fossil fuels that have made our country what it is today.

Energy is a national security issue--not a partisan political issue. We must move beyond partisan rhetoric and pass sensible energy legislation that promotes all sources of energy, increases our domestic capacity, reduces the cost of energy, and promotes technologies to make fossil fuels, including coal, cleaner and more efficient.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

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

I have more problems with the amendment than I do with the author, and maybe the author and I can talk here and then get together and work some things out.

Actually, my problems with it is that we are told that it amends the biofuels subtitle and creates a university based research and development competitive grant program in a geographically diverse manner. That's a pretty long sentence there for me to try to figure out exactly what it means. But as I go down through it and see, in awarding the grants, it says that ``priority should be given to institutions of higher education with all of the following.'' I want to point out these ``following,'' and I know that the author is probably going to be able to explain them to me.

But I remember one time in the Texas Senate when we had a man stand up and he was trying to pass a bill as to where all the voting machines had to be constructed, and they all had to be constructed in a county in Texas, and he described the county as being in excess of 20,000 but not in excess of 20,003, and his county had 20,002 in it.

Now, I don't know if your labeling of these narrows it down to one institution or two institutions. I know there aren't any in Texas, because we don't have any Indians in Texas. But could you give me a little explanation on that?

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Do you mind if I just lay out what is in the bill? It says it has to be an established program of research and renewable energy. That's fine.

Locations that are low income or outside of an urbanized area, I guess that's okay.

A joint venture with an Indian tribe, that's where you start to lose me.

In proximity to trees dying of disease or insect infestation as a source of woody biomass, that one really does get to me. I just don't know how much biomass is adjacent to any of the universities, particularly any of the universities in my area, certainly not in my district.

And the amendment authorizes $25 million with no fiscal year designation. And a little bit further, it is unclear from the all- inclusive list of how many colleges and universities would be eligible to receive these grants under this section.

If you could just explain a few of those and tell me you would work with me before we get to the front gate, I would be glad to listen.

I do yield, sir.

The amendment, while in the biofuels subtitle, does not direct colleges and universities to conduct research and development into biofuels specifically. Is that right?

If the gentleman will work with me from this point forward, we will withdraw our opposition to it, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I seek time for the Science Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I read this amendment, it creates both a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board and then also creates a Solar Energy Research and Promotion Operating Committee, which would be established and administered with fees assessed involuntarily against solar manufacturers and importers. I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about is this will eventually be passed on to consumers, to customers, that will wind up paying it. I would like to know more about how voluntary it is.

Actually, it creates two additional layers of bureaucracy for the Secretary of Energy to promote solar power. I don't see any reason why we don't just give DOE a grant to promote solar power, if that's the goal for it. There's no really added benefit to creating both a solar board and a solar committee. I don't understand why you'd have to have both of those or why you don't lessen it down just to one solar organization.

I note that the solar manufacturers and importers don't have a chance nor a choice as to the creation of the board or the payment of the fees assessed to promote the use of solar power. I see somewhere in the bill here where there's a huge fine there, a civil penalty, if certain things aren't done. I think it's something that really needs to be looked at and really needs some work on it between now and the time the Senate works on it or the time we get to conference.

As I read it again, it has the payment of a fee that also might be enforced by a civil action by the Secretary of Energy and the Attorney General, with a civil penalty of up to $25,000. That's a pretty serious fee. And I can see how that might be passed on to any area there of operation.

So here you have a fee, you have a board, you have a committee, an inspection of company books and records and the possibility of a civil penalty all being thrust upon solar manufacturers and importers, possibly against their wishes, all intending to help them.

But at this point I guess I just have to ask the obvious question of why this program, if it really will help the manufacturers and importers to find customers for their solar products and technology, why it would not be offered the opportunity to participate in some type of a voluntary check-off program or a time when they can opt out?

Would the gentlelady yield for a question?

How long would it be before they could opt out if this is passed? What period is the opt-out period, and explain that to us, if you would.

I beg your pardon?

I would hope that you would. A lot of the companies that would be affected by this may be small businesses, they may not have the ability to opt out, and then have to bring a receipt to show, to maybe claim back some of their outlay. But they might be small businesses and startups, and I'm really concerned that it might have some unintended consequences.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the conference report on H.R. 2272, the COMPETES Act. This legislation is based on President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative and is aimed at improving our competitive edge throughout science, technology and engineering, math education, research and innovation. I supported this legislation when passed by a voice vote in the House 3 months ago because we needed to take the steps to ensure our future competitiveness.

There are several good things in the conference agreement. I am pleased that H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007, which I am an original cosponsor of, formed the basis of the NIST provisions in the House bill. In addition, the House bill includes language for manufacturing grant programs that have passed the House three times. Finally, our bill authorized the Technology Innovation Program.

I wish to thank Chairman Gordon and thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey, who contributed their expertise to the NIST provisions.

I would also like to mention the High Performance Computing Act language of Mrs. Biggert that is included in the House bill. I also thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his protection of the bill legally throughout the course. These excellent provisions have been retained in this conference report.

In regard to NASA, the House bill contains important provisions to address the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, directing NASA to be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation and competitiveness through basic scientific research and development and promotion of science, technology and engineering and mathematics education.

While these and other programs move us in the right direction, I have serious concerns about other provisions in the conference report, and tried in committee and in conference to address these concerns. I had the honor of serving as a conferee and met informally with the two Senators and Chairman Bart Gordon in an effort to work out our differences.

When we met with the entire conference committee on the Senate side, we were given only 1 hour to meet with the entire conference and come with the final agreement.

Our concerns, unfortunately, were not addressed, and I, along with most of the House Republican conferees, did not sign the conference agreement.

First and foremost was the cost. The House passed a $24 billion bill that roughly mirrored the President's ACI initiative and even increased the budget in many areas. However, the conference report goes way beyond that amount to authorize $43.3 billion in spending. That is close to $20 billion over the House-passed bill.

Finally, I think the report includes the creation of an Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, called ARPA-E. I remain opposed to establishing an unnecessary bureaucracy at DOE that the agency itself does not want and does not support. I share concerns with some of the Department of Energy education provisions. I believe new programs in this bill go way beyond where DOE and our national laboratories should be involved.

At the end of the day, however, it is difficult for me on final passage to refuse to support a bill that contains many provisions good for my district, good for my State, and I think good for the Nation and that advances some of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.

I will support a motion to recommit, however, that contains the same provisions that I offered in a motion to instruct that passed the House just 2 days ago. I will reluctantly vote ``aye'' to pass this bill on to the President for his signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a conferee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia and a conferee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have left.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader, Mr. Boehner, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for 2 minutes.

I yield Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to thank the Speaker. I thank Bart Gordon, the very capable Dr. Baird, who has given good advice and good leadership.

I want to especially, though, point out the work of a highly talented and dedicated staffer who will be leaving the committee next week to join the ranks in the Senate. Amy Carroll, we thank you for your hard work and dedication as a public servant for our Nation.

Also want to thank Dr. Lesslee Gilbert; our counsel, Margaret Caravelli; Attorney Katy Crooks; Mele Williams for her good work; Ed Feddeman; Elizabeth Stack, our energy advisor. And as has been pointed out by Dr. Gingrey and by Dr. Ehlers, this is an authorization, and this culminates a work of a program that started 3 years ago, and it's a good program.

I thank Representative Hensarling for his warning and his admonition, his pointing out the cost, and of course, the minority leader's position, I respect that.

But I would say this, that we fought the soaring cost at every hedgerow. We fought the new agency created within DOD against their wishes as best we could. We took a position, as we all met together for the conference committee. And at the end of the day, I have to say that this is a good program for a deserving generation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird, and all of my staff.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

I rise today to offer a straightforward motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2272, a bill to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.

This motion to instruct the conferees simply insists that the House conferees support the House position. It does this in two important ways that I believe will make the conference report better and Members on both sides of the aisle proud to support it.

First, the motion to instruct encourages the conferees to insist on the overall House authorization level, which is considerably lower than the Senate authorization level. In fact, estimates put the bill as passed by the Senate at approximately $40 billion higher than the total House authorization level.

Second, this motion to instruct insists that House conferees support the previously adopted House position with regard to giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to- liquids. That type technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing should be used.

I believe this is an important section of the bill that will help to ensure that we are preparing our scientists and our engineers for the future of energy security.

Many Members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, voted in favor of the authorization level and voted in favor of this program, including my good friend, the chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. I am encouraging Members to stand up for the House position on these two issues.

Before I explain the importance of the provision regarding grants to expand energy production, let me take a moment to compare the authorization level in the House bill with the authorization level in the Senate bill.

As the ranking member of the Committee on Science and Technology, I strongly support an increase in funding for the agencies that perform scientific research in this country. Without these agencies, we would fall far behind the rest of the world in innovation.

Some of the greatest inventions of our time have come from the brilliant scientists of our country. To remain competitive as a Nation, we must encourage new ideas and educate new young minds, but we must also be mindful to exercise fiscal responsibility. The young minds we are educating should not be taught irresponsible spending habits. We have to lead by example.

The House bill contains substantial increases for the sciences very close to the President's request, and moves us closer to the goal the President has set out in the State of the Union Message calling for a doubling of the spending on the sciences.

The Senate bill includes a vast increase in spending that is approximately $8 billion above the budget request by the administration for this year alone. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to increase spending on science in a responsible fashion.

As we move to conference on the competitiveness bill, I also want to encourage my colleagues to support the provision in the House bill urging researchers to invest time and to invest money into advancing coal-to-liquids technology and nuclear reprocessing.

There are, as my colleagues stated previously on the floor of this Chamber, several pieces to the energy puzzle. One very important piece continues to be the efficient and affordable research and development of this Nation's domestic energy resources. Twenty-seven percent of the world's recoverable coal reserves are in the United States and spread throughout our country, which would minimize supply disruptions in the event of a natural disaster or in the event of a terrorist attack.

We are currently importing around 60 percent of our oil supply, and that number is projected to grow unless we do something about it. As the Saudi Arabia of coal, if our Nation can economically produce liquid transportation fuel from coal, we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and increase the security of this country.

We also need to better manage our nuclear energy resources. In the pursuit of expanding our nuclear fleet, we should encourage scientists and engineers early in their careers to focus on the development of abandoned nuclear reprocessing technologies. We need to invigorate our aging nuclear sector so this energy source continues to serve as a clean, affordable, domestic energy resource for our consumers.

The House may soon be taking up an energy package. To my knowledge, this energy package contains no language on coal-to-liquids and very little on nuclear energy. Given the fact that our Nation's continued growth and prosperity depend on affordable and reliable energy resources, I am disappointed that we are not promoting all options for Americans. This opportunity may be one of the few Members get to support our Nation's coal and our Nation's nuclear interests. We should take every opportunity to address citizens' concerns with rising energy prices. And that is why I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this provision on this date.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I just continue to reserve the balance of my time. I do want the right to close, and I have a speaker that is approaching at this time.

Madam Speaker, you have indulged me as long as I can ask you to, and so has this gentleman from way out in deep west Texas. I'm honored to be here with him, so I will go ahead and close.

As I wrap up here, I want to encourage the House Members to support the authorization level as it remains. It is as appropriate now as it was when the bill was passed overwhelmingly in the House.

And I also want to reiterate my frustration of America's continued dependence on foreign sources of energy and encourage my colleagues to explore domestic sources of energy.

For some reason, there's a war against energy from fossil fuels going right on down at this very time, this very day, and I'm not sure why. Anyone with just a little common sense is able to understand that in order to be less dependent on foreign sources of oil and to increase our national security, we need everything we can develop. We need conventional, renewable and alternative sources of energy. Our country at this time will not be able to continue to thrive and lead the world on renewable energy alone, so to punish the oil and gas industry and to not encourage alternative uses of coal and continued use of nuclear power is to ensure the United States will lose its place as a world leader.

Make no mistake, I support the continued development and increased use of renewable energy, but not at the expense of fossil fuels and clean nuclear energy.

Madam Speaker, the House is already on record supporting this language and this authorization level just 3 months ago. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be supported again today.

I urge my colleagues to vote to keep this House-passed language in the bill that will result from the conference committee. And, Madam Speaker, thank you for your indulgence.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, America needs more energy.

Today we import around 60 percent of our oil from OPEC countries, many of which shield our enemies and disagree with our way of life. But we find ourselves dependent on these countries to supply the energy we need. We continue to import a lion's share of our energy from these countries, while refusing to increase our domestic energy supply.

Much of the energy legislation being proposed by my Democratic colleagues turns a blind eye to the reality that our economy depends on fossil fuels. Opponents of oil and gas continue to sponsor legislation to raise taxes on our domestic energy producers and refiners. Making American energy more expensive than foreign sources defies logic.

Comprehensive energy solutions must include provisions to promote all sources of energy. We must invest in research and development for technologies to promote the use of renewable and alternative sources of energy for the future, but at the same time we must also support the domestic oil and gas industry in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The oil industry works just like other sectors of the economy, through the laws of supply and demand. Demand is increasing and has been for years, yet we are not increasing our domestic output. Refineries are operating at near-capacity and we haven't built any new ones since 1976. Congress needs to start realizing that fossil fuels are going to continue to be our major source of energy for decades to come, and make policy to reflect this reality.

As Ranking Member of the Science and Technology Committee, I strongly support a diverse portfolio of investments in both short-term and long- term energy R&D. I believe that one day, renewable and alternative sources of energy will provide America with energy on a widespread scale.

However, it will be years, if not decades, before these investments can help America achieve energy independence. In the meantime, we must be realistic about what makes our cars run and our light bulbs glow. We must not legislate to make headlines. We need to build on comprehensive energy policies that recognize the importance of all energy sources, including fossil fuels, to ensure national energy security.

Madam Speaker, I submit for the Congressional Record a thoughtful comparison of U.S. military strategy in Vietnam and present-day military operations in Iraq written by Jerry Hogan, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who lives in Heath, TX, in the Fourth Congressional District. I urge my colleagues to review and reflect upon this as Congress faces critical decisions in the upcoming months on funding the war on terror.

Comparison and History Teach us a Lot

(By Jerry Hogan)

Sometimes it is important that we look at what we have done

in the past to make sure we don't make the same mistakes

again.

In 1950, believe it or not, the United States established a

military assistance and advisory group in Vietnam to advise

the French puppet government on strategy and train Vietnamese

soldiers. This started America's longest war that did not end

until April of 1975 with the infamous ``Fall of Saigon'' that

we saw in our living rooms thanks to the modern miracle of

television. For the almost three million of us who served in

that war, those pictures on our TV sets burned holes through

our heads as we saw first hand what we had done to a country

and its people as we abandoned them without finishing the job

we helped start.

Unfortunately there are many similarities between the U.S.

involvement in Vietnam and our current involvement in Iraq.

While we had advisors in Vietnam starting in 1950, our real

combat role that saw the buildup of our forces go from 16,000

to 553,000, did not start until after the Gulf of Tonkin

incident where, on August 2, 1964, one of our Naval ships was

attacked by torpedo boats along North Vietnam's coast. Two

days later, another ``attack'' occurred in about the same

place against two more of our ships. These ``attacks'' led to

retaliatory air strikes on our part and caused Congress to

approve the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave the

president power to conduct military operations in Southeast

Asia without declaring war. Later it was determined that the

second ``attack'' was questionable which caused many people

to say we entered this conflict under false pretenses. Sound

anything like how we got into Iraq according to the opponents

of that war?

The Vietnam War is viewed by many historians as a Cold War

conflict between the United States, its allies, and the

Republic of Vietnam on one side, and the Soviet Union, its

allies, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic

Republic of Vietnam on the other. Many others, particularly

the vocal opponents to the U.S. involvement in this war,

viewed the conflict as a civil war between communist and non

communist Vietnamese factions.

Today, the War in Iraq is viewed as a battleground between

the US, its allies, and the Republic of Iraq versus the

Islamist Jihadis and their allies, Syria and Iran, in

the International War on Terrorism. Exchange the words

``communist and non communist'' with ``Sunni and Shiite''

and you hear the same arguments today about this war being

just a civil war between two opposing religious factions

in Iraq. Isn't it amazing how history seems to repeat

itself with us Americans?

While actual U.S. combat operations did not start in

Vietnam until 1964, U.S. forces assumed full responsibility

for training the South Vietnamese Army in 1956 and President

Kennedy increased our troop strength from 500 to over 16,000

when he took office. In his inaugural address, he made that

famous pledge we know so well: ``the U.S. will pay any price,

bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,

oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success

of liberty.'' Remember what President Bush continues to say

about our support for Afghanistan and Iraq as they held their

elections and voted for a democratic form of government and

how we would stand with them in their desire for a free and

elected democracy? Sounds like two of our presidents so

heavily involved with two separate unpopular wars had the

same views!

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. had a Draft for supplying

personnel needed in the military. President Johnson refused

to mobilize the Reserve units during the war as he feared a

political backlash. This led to larger draft call ups and the

extension of some tours of duty. It also put a heavy strain

on U.S. forces committed to other parts of the world. While

the military today is an all-volunteer force, the same

problems face the services today; tour extensions in Iraq for

the Soldiers and Marines, equipment shortages, limited

capabilities in other areas of the world, repeated tours of

duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, and continued pressure on

families of the service men and women. Again, you might think

we learned from previous mistakes.

In January of 1968, the forces of North Vietnam launched

the surprise ``Tet Offensive'' in hopes of sparking a

national uprising. While the military objectives were not

achieved, the U.S. public was shocked and confused over the

war as General Westmoreland, the commander in Vietnam, had

just predicted ''the end comes into view.'' The American

media, which had been largely supportive of the

administration, turned on President Johnson for what had

become an increasing credibility gap. His approval ratings

dropped from 48% to 36%; he declined to run for re-election;

and the public's support for the war started a rapid decline.

Any of this sound like something you may have heard recently?

In December, 1974, the Congress passed the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to

the South Vietnamese government. The act went on to restrict

the number of U.S. military personnel allowed in Vietnam to

``no more than 4000 within six months of enactment and 3000

within one year.'' By April of 1975 only four months after

the cutoff of funds and the removal of essentially all U.S.

forces, the Republic of Vietnam fell to the victors from the

North.

During the Vietnam War, over 250,000 South Vietnamese

military were killed and about 1.2 million were wounded. It

is estimated that somewhere between two and five million

Vietnamese civilians were killed. 58,000 Americans lost their

life while 153,000 were wounded. In Iraq today, about 3,500

Americans have been killed and about 18,000 have been

wounded. Close to 350 U.S. personnel have been killed in

Afghanistan. Statistics on Iraqi and Afghanistan's

military and civilian casualties are not available but

estimates show they are high as well.

So what does this all mean today? Clearly there are two

opposing views as to what should happen in Iraq. The

President has been consistent in his view that we are

fighting an International War on Terrorism and that freedom

and democracy need help in the Middle East. Iraq is a

fledgling democracy trying to establish itself after decades

of dictatorship and after being made a main battleground by

the worldwide Jihadist forces. Strong religious and political

forces, both within and outside Iraq, are making the process

of democracy very difficult. A military solution will not

solve the problems in Iraq; it must be a political solution

with a military component. Political will, as much as

military might, is a decisive factor in this outcome.

The second view being expressed daily by some of our

elected officials in Washington calls for a timetable for

withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. In my considered

military view, this outlandish stupid course of action takes

us right back to the days of Vietnam and is nothing more than

a political proposal that leads us once again to watching the

``Fall of Saigon'' in our living rooms, but this time it will

be the ``Fall of Baghdad.'' I really don't want to go through

that again . . . and I hope you don't either. Let your

elected officials know how you feel.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to share an article written about a young man who serves as a member of the city council-- guiding and planning for a city that the Dallas News pointed out last February to be in the county seat of the fastest growing county in the United States. I wish to place this article in the Congressional Record to highlight the service of one unusually well-qualified young family man who finds time to also guide the destiny of my hometown of Rockwall, Texas, as it sheds its rural status and grows into the city of tomorrow. The article speaks for itself as set out in a recent issue of ``Texas Super Lawyers 2007 Rising Stars Edition.''

Great Scott

By Paul Sweeney

Why is Matthew Scott, a 39-year-old Dallas attorney, so

often described as ``a go-to guy''?

Just ask Greg Supan, a former law partner and colleague at

the Dallas firm of Bell Nunnally & Martin. Not long ago,

Supan got a last-minute, out-of-the-blue telephone call: An

old fraternity brother from the University of Texas was

relocating his oral surgery practice from Houston to Dallas.

He urgently needed help in structuring an employment

agreement between him and his new dentistry group.

Unfortunately, the attorney who assured Supan he could

handle the assignment called back three days later and

announced he was going on vacation. ``He told me that I

didn't tell him it was time-sensitive,'' Supan recalls,

exasperation creeping into his voice.

So he turned to Scott, all 6 feet 6 inches of him. The

former basketball player at the University of Iowa has, over

the last decade, become an avid Texan--so much so that he won

election to the city council in the bedroom community of

Rockwall.

``At that point we had 24 hours to get the assignment

done,'' Supan says, ``and Matt, an expert in employment law,

dropped everything to help out. He ended up doing a great job

on what was actually a very complicated partnership. The

client was thrilled.'' Supan adds: ``When you're down by two,

you pass the ball to him. He's a real buzzer-beater.''

Amid the book-lined suite of offices at Bell Nunnally one

hears similar stories, not just about Scott's dependability

but also about his work ethic. Sherri Alexander, who heads

the litigation section at the firm, says, ``At our business-

development meetings, where the partners get together to talk

about work, and about which new clients have been contacted

recently, Matt's always willing to participate.'' Praising

his sense of timing, she adds, ``Not too much--but not too

little either.''

``And when I have to go out of town on business,'' she

says, ``I can always trust him to deal directly with a client

and handle things well in my absence.''

The bottom line? ``He has his own docket,'' she says,

''plus the city council. But if somebody needs help, he

always goes the extra mile.''

The only son of a union printer and his Iowa farm wife,

Scott grew up in Des Moines, where his childhood had its

rough patches. He was bused to schools across town, an

experience that put him in contact with a tough crowd. The

experience helped teach him how to get along with people from

different backgrounds, an ability that he inherited from his

mother, who set an example of unpretentiousness.

Scott attributes his work ethic to his father, a veteran of

World War II who saw plenty of action--and bloodshed--in the

Pacific. He describes his father (both of his parents are

deceased) as someone who insisted on order and neatness, took

pride in his work, seldom missed a day on the job in 44 years

and was always straight with people. ''Dad was the most

honest person I've ever known,'' he says. ``And loyal, too.''

Those loyalties extended to his employer, his co-workers

and his labor union. But there was never any question that

his son would have a different kind of life. His father often

lamented the fact that he had not taken advantage of the

educational opportunities offered by the GI Bill, Scott says,

``and it was always very clear that I was going to college.''

He majored in psychology and played basketball as a walk-on

shooting guard. He didn't get a lot of playing time; yet his

coach, Tom Davis, hails him as an important asset to a team

that sent several players to the NBA.

``I remember Matt Scott as a motivated and aggressive

athlete, a good team player who fit in well,'' says Davis,

now the head coach at Drake University in Des Moines--where

Scott graduated from law school. ``And he was also coachable,

someone who could accept criticism and was willing to make

changes that would help the team.

``Maybe he was the 10th man on the team when we could only

play five,'' the coach adds. ``But I recall what a good

teammate Matt was. He was somebody people liked to be with,

and practice with, and travel with--and he had a great work

ethic.''

Some 40 minutes east of Dallas, such comments are echoed by

colleagues in the chambers at the spanking-new city hall in

Rockwall, seat of Rockwall County, the fastest-growing county

in Texas. Scott, who describes himself as a staunch

Republican, nonetheless works well with all members of the

seven-person council, including dyed-in-the-wool Democrat

Margo Nielsen.

''He's brash and he's smart and he's passionate about the

issues,'' says Nielsen, ex-director of Rockwall County

Helping Hands, a nonprofit social services agency. ``And as a

lawyer'' she adds, ``he's trained to think holistically and

broadly.''

Nielsen sings Scott's praises for his efforts to bring city

services to Lake Rockwall Estates. Despite its impressive

name, the ``estates'' is actually a dilapidated mobile-home

park that had long been ignored by the city. But, thanks

largely to Scott's efforts, Nielsen says, the city is in the

process of annexing the unincorporated area and will soon

provide, among other things, water and sewer services, trash

pickup and improved roads.

``It's not the kind of issue that most city leaders look

for,'' Nielsen says. ``There are no political rewards. But

under Matt's leadership, it's getting done.''

Although he is still in his first term on the council,

Scott has also won the confidence of Rockwall's mayor, Bill

Cecil, a retired contract-director with the Department of

Defense. ``He's my mayor pro tem,'' Cecil says, bragging

about Scott the way the famous outlaw Butch Cassidy might

say: ``That's my sidekick, `The Sundance Kid.' ''

Together, Scott and Cecil share a keen interest in economic

development, typified by $20 million in public spending that

the city is lavishing on a new harbor at nearby Lake Ray

Hubbard. Replete with fountains, pools, a waterfall and even

a ``mini-riverwalk,'' the public-works project is luring

private-sector financing for lakeside condominiums, retail

stores and office space. On a tour of the Mediterranean-style

construction that is under way, both men are buoyant. ``This

will be a big economic engine for the city,'' says Scott.

In junior high school, Scott says, he visited Texas during

a winter break and played tennis in shorts and a T-shirt

while several inches of snow blanketed the ground back in Des

Moines. He vowed that he would someday make balmy Texas

his home--a pledge that he kept soon after he completed

law school. Staying on a friend's sofa in Dallas, he

studied for--and passed--the Lone Star State bar exam.

Newly married and with his ticket punched for practicing

law, Scott and his wife pulled up stakes and set out for

Texas. Arriving in Dallas, neither had a job lined up. ``We

had two cars, the stuff in our apartment, and a couple of

thousand dollars in wedding money,'' he says. ``That was

it.''

After honeymooning in Cancun, the couple job-hunted in

earnest. His wife found work as a legal secretary and Scott

worked as a contract attorney. Ever the walk-on, he landed a

job at Cooper, Aldous & Scully in the same way that he made

the team at Iowa: by being aggressive.

He met one of the partners, Dallas lawyer Charla Aldous,

during a deposition. ``I asked her if she was hiring,'' he

recalls, ``and she said `maybe' and I pulled out a resume and

then I got an interview.''

He got hired and moved to Bell Nunnally in June 1999.

At Bell Nunnally, Scott has been making a name for himself

handling the full panoply of employment law, including

discrimination, workers' compensation and sexual harassment

cases. His expertise was ratified when District Judge Martin

Feldman in Louisiana selected him to chair the U.S. 5th

Circuit Court of Appeals' draft of the pattern jury charges

for employment law. It took more than three years of effort

getting the seven-member committee to find common ground.

His skill at being a team player came in handy there as

well. One of his law partners, Thomas Case, lauds Scott for

his ability to build bridges between the plaintiff and

defense attorneys who were evenly represented--and divided--

on the committee. ``The way he ran [the committee] was by

trying to reach consensus,'' Case says. ``When they couldn't

reach agreement, they put their differences in the

footnotes'' (That makes it ``subject to further development

by the district courts,'' Case adds.)

Case--who is 20 years Scott's senior and is something of a

mentor to him--says that employment law cases are often

``emotionally charged.'' He says people become so attached to

their jobs--and so identified by what they do--that ``trying

employment cases is an awful lot like dealing with death or

divorce.''

Although Texas is an ``employment at will'' state--which

means that, in the absence of a contract or labor-union

agreement, termination does not require cause--juries may

nonetheless feel sympathy for a plaintiff who has lost his or

her job. But one of Scott's strongest suits is that ``he has

a good appreciation for what will or won't play with a

jury,'' Case says. ``Jurors have all been employees, and it's

likely that a few of them have had an adverse experience with

an employer.''

One of the hardest parts of Scott's job can be convincing a

client that what seems like an obvious argument for an

employee's dismissal will not only leave a jury unmoved but

could be inadmissible. Scott recalls a recent case in which

the owner of an apartment complex fired a maintenance worker

who was not only doing sub-par work but had a criminal

record.

But the, employer was miffed when she learned that Scott

was not willing to introduce the ex-employee's criminal

record. ``She was British and frustrated that someone could

file a lawsuit against her but she couldn't bring up the

person's criminal record,'' Scott. says. ``She wasn't

familiar with the U.S. judicial system.''

Despite his best efforts at negotiating a compromise, Scott

says that he had to remove himself from the case. ``The

sticking point was what I told her I would--and wouldn't--

do,'' he says. ``She thought we could use [the plaintiff's

criminal record] to make the lawsuit just go away,'' he adds.

``Smaller clients get frustrated and don't understand that

the process takes time.''

In a state known for its flamboyant trial attorneys,

Scott's colleagues cite his straightforwardness and plain

speaking as a key asset in the courtroom. ``He does a good

job at presenting his position and of being himse1f,'' Case

says. ``Young lawyers don't realize that what works best is

just being who they are. Juries appreciate someone like Matt

who comes across as solid and sincere and prepared. Juries

have a knack at seeing through an act.''

Now the father of three young children, Scott has ambitions

for higher office when he is finally term-limited after six

years on the Rockwall City Council. ``Anyone who runs for

public office and says he doesn't have higher political

ambitions is a liar,'' he says. ``Sure, I have higher

political ambitions. I already ran for the state House [in

Iowa] when I was in law school.

``So, yes, I'd like to hold other offices. But the Texas

Legislature is out because it is a part-time job that would

destroy my full-time job. So I'd have to look at something

that either allowed me to continue practicing law, as the

city council does, or something that would be a fulltime,

paying job that replaces my legal pracrlce.

``So right now I have no idea what my ambitions are,'' he

says. ``But, yes, I do have them.''

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for those comments, and I would also point out this program will provide new technologies that will allow us to tap nearly 50 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil remaining in this country.

The United States has 55 years of natural gas resources in the lower 48, but much of it requires new technologies in order to produce it. Some 80 percent of these resources are on lands that are not subject to any access restrictions. New technologies will increase domestic energy supplies and increasing supplies will lower energy costs to consumers.

These technologies will enable less expensive, more efficient and more environmentally friendly domestic natural gas production. The universities and research institutions participating in this program are as follows: Colorado School of Mines; Florida International University; Jackson State University; Louisiana State University; MIT; Mississippi State University; New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; Penn State University; Rice University; Stanford; Texas A&M; University of Alabama; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; University of Houston; University of Kansas; University of Michigan; University of Oklahoma; University of South Carolina; University of Southern California; University of Texas; University of Tulsa; University of Utah and West Virginia University.

In addition, the following national labs are funded through this program: Idaho National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory.

The House favorably voted on this provision in 2001, 2003, and 2005 and again on the conference report in 2005. Additionally, the House overwhelmingly voted last year to uphold the program by voting against an amendment to strike it by a vote of 161- 255. These votes send a clear message that Congress supports this research and development program and all the benefits it will bring to the American public.

Like my colleague, Mr. Lampson, I have deep admiration and respect for Chairman Norm Dicks, and accept his assurance to work with us in the future for the greatest good for the greatest number.

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

I speak as the ranking member of the Science and Technology Committee, and I support Dr. Gingrey of Georgia. And the problem is the process.

Actually, this committee oversees on some of the most exciting parts of the Federal Government. We hear from astronauts at NASA about new discoveries in space. We work with scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to ensure that the best technology informs decisions, such as new materials, even for bulletproof vests, standards for the nanotechnology industry.

At the Department of Energy, we support research and the technologies to make America energy independent. And I guess through the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, we oversee the $2 billion interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday, the Science and Technology Committee will consider a bill, H.R. 906, to reauthorize this very important research program.

This is exactly why I was a little disturbed when I read H.R. 2643 and saw the provision establishing a commission on climate change, which is supposed to review the science challenges associated with adapting to climate change. That mission is the same as already existing interagency climate change science program. Also, establishing an interagency commission clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI which prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. The current interagency climate change science program was established by a Science Committee bill in 1990, the Global Change Research Act.

Actually, climate change science falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Committee, and this provision of H.R. 2643 clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the rules of the House and the jurisdiction of the committee and vote ``yes'' for the Gingrey amendment.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act, and the primary goal it seeks to achieve. If implemented correctly and efficiently, health information technology, which we call IT, can revolutionize our health care system.

However, we have to have an educated workforce properly trained in health IT in order for it to be successful. This is what H.R. 1467 is all about. NSF is already doing incredible work in the IT area, but this measure focuses specifically on health IT by providing grants on new innovative approaches for health care hardware and software solutions.

Creating health medical informatics research centers and making improvements to undergraduate and master's degree programs for health care informatics, it also expands the Advanced Technology Education Program to include health IT.

The activities supported by H.R. 1467 are important if we are to have a sufficiently trained health IT workforce, and I encourage my colleagues to adopt this bill.

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

We have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 1867, which authorizes funding for the National Science Foundation for the next 3 years. As most of us know, NSF is one of three agencies targeted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double the Federal investment in physical science research over the next 10 years. Appropriate investment in research development technology and math and science education will ensure that our country remains the world leader in competitiveness and innovation.

The National Science Foundation is the primary source of Federal funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and universities and serves as a catalyst for science, for technology, for engineering, and mathematics education reform at all levels. The return that we receive from our NSF investments far exceeds the cost. In addition, the NSF peer review process for receiving Federal funding is to be an example for all Federal agencies and one in which I hope all of my colleagues more fully recognize as an appropriate means of investment.

As reported, this is a good bill. I thank Chairman Gordon and Dr. Baird for working with Dr. Ehlers and with me to make improvements in the measure. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

I just want to rise to first thank Dr. Ehlers and reiterate my support for H.R. 1867. I think we have a good bill here that propels us on down the innovation and competitiveness path that the President is on and that we have been on. I also thank Chairman Gordon and Chairman Baird.

Dr. Ehlers, I thank you again for helping to make this a better bill. In fact, I would argue that there is no one in this body more familiar with NSF than you are.

I thank you for your work for and against some of these amendments.

I rise in support of the bill and urge an ``aye'' vote on it.

And, Dr. Baird, I thank you personally for your kindness and the classy way you've handled yourself today.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 362. In the last Congress, we will remember that the National Academy of Sciences ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, as well as other reports, emphasized the importance of strengthening science, of strengthening technology, of strengthening engineering and mathematics, those fields of education in the U.S., to ensure that the Nation's workforce can compete globally in high-tech, high-value industries such as information technology, biotechnology, semiconductor manufacturing and nanotechnology.

President Bush followed up on these reports with his American Competitiveness Initiative, and Republicans have led this effort through the 109th Congress, the last Congress, because we understood the importance of promoting innovation to keep our Nation competitive globally.

I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, most of which was included in a majority effort in the last Congress to implement many of the report's suggestions by expanding current programs versus creating duplicative new programs.

The bill authorizes programs to improve U.S. math, science and engineering education at all levels, K-12, undergraduate and graduate. These programs will develop and provide teacher training, attract math and science majors to teaching to improve undergraduate math, science and engineering courses and expand interdisciplinary graduate work, primarily by strengthening existing programs at the National Science Foundation.

I am particularly pleased with the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds title which is modeled on a program at the University of Texas called UTeach.

As reported, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the Science Committee.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have left.

I am going to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 5 minutes of our time, and we reserve the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no more speakers. To wrap it up, may I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. I also would like to reiterate to Mr. Reyes that I, too, am sensitive to the needs of the high-needs schools. I think we have sufficiently addressed his concern in the underlying measure by providing an added incentive for Noyce scholars who choose to teach in high-needs schools.

Furthermore, the clearinghouse provided for under Mr. Gordon's amendment provides yet another layer of commitment to help guarantee that our high-needs schools are not left out of the selection process for the new STEM teachers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly from a policy standpoint don't have an issue with the amendment; in fact, I think it might go a long way in enticing retired STEM professionals to get their teacher's certification and to put their many years of expertise to work in the K-12 classroom, educating and inspiring our next generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. I support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, which the chairman has already described.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Dr. Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support what is essentially the second piece of the Science Committee's innovation and competitiveness agenda package. I am pleased that this Congress continues to advance the innovation agenda that the President laid out 2 years ago.

Primarily, this bill enhances the Faculty Early Career Development Program at NSF to help researchers establish a lab and pursue risky research in emerging fields. It establishes a similar program at the Department of Energy. It also ensures that funding increases proportionately to the overall NSF budget for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, which supports graduate students in cutting-edge interdisciplinary fields.

Again, most of this bill was part of a Republican-led effort in the last Congress to incorporate many of the suggestions and various innovation and competitiveness reports without necessarily reinventing the wheel to do so. While H.R. 363 is similar to what we did last year, it does have some additions that were never vetted at the committee level, and I have some concern with that process. I hope as we continue the reauthorization process for NSF, the chairman will work with me, as he always has and as he does, and we can thoughtfully pass good legislation as we move forward.

With specific regard to H.R. 363, I do thank the chairman for working with us to restore a few of the provisions that had been previously accepted by the committee, particularly in NIST report language and a sense of the Congress that NASA also has a role to play in United States innovation and competitiveness.

It is important, Mr. Chairman, that our Nation continue to lead the world in technological innovation. To that end, we should support legislation that advances basic science research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Research conducted by these young scholars will yield countless advantages. Americans understand that if we are to become energy independent, we will need solutions that promote clean, affordable and reliable American energy resources. That is why we introduced the competitiveness agenda last year and that is why I continue to support this initiative. America's solutions for the future begin today.

This is a good bill. I thank the chairman for helping make it a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 363.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. One of the key elements of this bill is a grant program at NSF designed to help scientists and engineers at early stages of their careers at institutions of higher learning.

Eligible applicants are tenure-track faculty, and allow the existing faculty early career development program to be designed and designated as the mechanism for awarding such grants that we are talking about here.

We also require the director of the NSF to allocate at least 3.5 percent of funds appropriated to the NSF research and related activities account for the purposes in the bill.

This amendment would modify the 3.5 percent allocation provision to include the following clause: ``except to the extent that a sufficient number of meritorious grant applications have not been received for a fiscal year.''

I did this out of concern that the bill required the allocation of 3.5 percent of the funds appropriated to the earlier career awards for science and engineering, without taking into account there may be years in which there are not sufficient meritorious grant applications in that area and NSF could use the funds more effectively maybe in another area.

I hope my good friend, Chairman Gordon, and my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

No, absolutely not.

Yes. It really provides a way for them to use the funds in other areas if they are not used up.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

The amendment would create a new merit scholarship program at NSF for undergraduate scholars pursuing science, technology, engineering, or mathematics degrees, the STEM degrees. To receive a scholarship, a student has to be a junior or a senior at a 4-year public institution, have at least a 3.0 grade point average, come from a family with an income of $75,000 or less, and be a citizen or a permanent resident alien with no felony conviction.

Generally, I am supportive of merit scholarships, and while this particular concept sounds good, it is duplicative. An almost identical program already exists at the Department of Education. It is called the Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant and is part of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.

Therefore, our 2008 budget request for this scholarship program is $1.2 billion. We don't need to add another $281 million scholarship program at another agency that achieves essentially the exact same thing.

The other main reason I oppose this amendment is its effect on the bill we just debated, H.R. 362. The driving force between H.R. 362 is to expand the Noyce Scholarship Program for undergraduates to entice them to enter the STEM K-12 teaching profession. A requirement for this scholarship is that they give back to society by obligating to teach 2 years for every year of scholarship money they receive. This amendment includes no commitment of any kind from these proposed awardees.

What kind of a message are we sending if we require Noyce scholarship recipients to give back to society with a teacher service obligation, when the recipients of scholarships under this amendment have nothing to repay?

In addition to the two bills before us today, the Science Committee is also working on NSF's reauthorization, which also includes quite a bit of undergraduate STEM education improvements. I just think the amendment currently before us is not only recreating a scholarship program that is already in existence, but it's entirely inappropriate for this legislation we are considering today. I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Dr. Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to request that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 40. After further reflection, I have concerns that this legislation, which would propose an amendment to the Constitution relative to equal rights for men and women, could potentially compromise my longtime stance on pro-life issues. I hope that clarifying language can be added to this bill to offer assurances to pro-life supporters that this measure would not be used to undermine Federal laws on this important matter.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the players and coaches of the 2007 Rockwall High School Lady Jackets. On March 3, the Lady Jackets became the third girls team in State history to complete a 40-0 season when they won the Texas 5A championship. Joining this exclusive club with the 1980 South Oak Cliff team and Duncanville's 1997 squad was even more exciting since it marked the first-ever State basketball title for Rockwall's girls. By defeating Houston Cypress Fairbanks 59-54 in the State championship and thereby finishing a 40 and 0 season, the Lady jackets made an unprecedented achievement that certainly merits recognition.

With both Houston Cypress Fairbanks and Rockwall holding pristine 39- 0 records prior to the championship game, the State championship promised to be an exciting match. However, by games end the Lady Jackets scored their 40th victory in overtime. Having won the silver medal last year against Plano West, the team was well motivated to come back this year and win gold, and with their championship victory they did just that.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Rockwall Lady Jackets for their tremendous success, not only in tournament play but also throughout the entire season. Through their hard work and dedication they have made Rockwall very proud. I ask each of my colleagues to join me in honoring Rockwall High School. Finally, I want to commend Superintendent Dr. Gene Burton, Principal Dr. Mark LeMaster, Athletic Director Mark Elam, Athletic Coordinator Scott Smith, Head Coach Jill McDill, Varsity Assistant Casey Reeves, JV Coach Brad Blalock, and Freshman Coach Cody Christenberry for helping to lead the Lady Jackets on to victory. I'd like to congratulate each of the talented players on the 2007 Championship Lady jacket team: Shelby Adamson, Emily McCallum, Arielle Andres, Haley Day, Peyton Adamson, Samantha Shaw, Meredith Gordon, Sunny Satery, Brittany Coleman, Kayla Kimmons, Ariel Coleman, Genevieve Campbell, Lindsay Wack, and Kiara Slayton. I'd also like to honor Ashlie Strange, Rebekah Jones, Lauren Hurt, Nichole Schueneman, and Taylor Whitehead who all served as managers for the team.

I especially salute head coach Jill McDill on her devotion to duty, her super guidance of our girls, never looking ahead but taking the games one at a time. Coach McDill is a thorough coach where every detail is practiced over and over by her girls. Just as this stellar group of players took its schedule one game at a time, so too have they been taught to live life. Coach McDill has instilled in them the desire to live every day doing their best, to be unafraid of the future, and be loyal to your goals, your school, your family, and your God.

The combination of a talented group of girls, a head coach who has previously won State titles at other schools, a Superintendent and faculty who fully supports, and parents and loyal Yellow Jacket supporters yielded a Rockwall girls Basketball State 5A Championship and a number 3 national ranking.

Girls, coaches, parents, faculty, and student body--you made Rockwall, Texas, smallest county of 254 counties, very proud.

God bless all of you and thank you again! As we close and leave this floor of Congress on this 23rd day of March, let us do so in respect and recognition that the Rockwall Girls Basketball team is the champion of the largest State in the union--the State of Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1068. It will strengthen the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.

Tomorrow, the Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing on U.S. innovation and competitiveness. High-performance computers have a role to play in our economic competitiveness, as they vastly enhance our ability to perform very complex computations quickly and they do it efficiently. H.R. 1068 will help ensure that American researchers have access to the very best tools available as they tackle cutting-edge problems in key fields such as nanotechnology, homeland security, and biotechnology. In addition, this bill helps reinforce the Federal commitment to ``supercomputing,'' a commitment that becomes increasingly more important as European and Asian countries continue to increase their investment in developing and purchasing the next generation of supercomputers.

Nobody knows this measure better than my distinguished colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). She has worked tirelessly in two previous Congresses to have this important legislation enacted. In fact, she has been successful in the House on both occasions, only to see it stall on the Senate side.

In an effort to keep that from happening again, we have made a few modifications to help ensure it gets Senate support. With these slight alterations, I hope we will find that the third time is a charm.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1068.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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