Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today at the White House, Edward Witten was awarded the National Medal of Science Award, the nation's highest science and engineering honor.

The presidential medal is the nation's highest honor for researchers who make major impacts in fields of science and engineering through career-long, ground-breaking achievements. The medal, established by Congress in 1959, also recognizes contributions to innovation, industry or education.

Edward Witten, the Charles Simonyi Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, received the award ``for his leadership role in advancing a broad range of topics in theoretical physics, including attempts to understand the fundamental forces of nature through string theory; and his unparalleled inspiration in using insights from physics to unify apparently disparate mathematical areas.'' Professor Witten may be best known as the world leader in ``string theory,'' an attempt by physicists to describe in one unified way all the known forces of nature, as well as to understand nature at the most basic level. The combination of the four fundamental forces (electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravitational) in one theoretical framework was a goal sought, but unattained by Albert Einstein. The concept underlying string theory is to replace the usual point-like representation of fundamental particles with vanishingly small vibrating strings. This resolves an incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity, which is the premier challenge of theoretical physics. Dr. Witten's original contributions and incisive surveys have set the agenda for many developments, such as the progress in ``dualities,'' which suggest that all known string theories are related.

Dr. Witten's earliest papers produced advances in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), a theory that describes the interactions among the fundamental particles (quarks and gluons) that make up all nuclei. In particular, he solved the problem of expressing radioactive corrections arising from heavy particles in terms of effective light quarks. In other early work, he understood how to combine properties of the Dirac equation with those of the Riemann curvature tensor, to get a new formula for the gravitational energy, and to give a new and direct proof of the positive energy theorem in general relativity. He also discovered new solutions of the equations of C.N. Yang and Robert Mills, and realized their importance for physics.

Dr. Witten discovered many relations between ``supersymmetric quantum theory'' and geometry. Supersymmetry lies at the basis of a picture of fundamental particles studied at the Fermilab Tevatron, and soon at the Large Hadron Collider under construction at CERN. Dr. Witten showed that a mathematical theory of Michael Atiyah and I.M. Singer parallels supersymmetry and plays a central role in particle physics. He applied this concept to the study of nonperturbative supersymmetry breaking. He used this same concept to produce a new derivation of a fundamental mathematical theory of Marston Morse.

One of Dr. Witten's deepest mathematical insights arose from his glimpsing the relation between the physics of gauge theory and the mathematics of knots. This work has led to a revolution in mathematics, including the understanding of the classification of higher dimensional spaces. For this work, Dr. Witten became the only theoretical physicist ever to receive the Fields Medal, the most prestigious award in pure mathematics. Conversely, Dr. Witten was broadly responsible for the demonstration that algebraic geometry and topology, core disciplines of modern mathematics, hold the key to understanding the deepest properties of string theory and gauge field theory.

Dr. Witten is as clear and engaging a speaker as he is a creative and powerful theorist I find it especially commendable that he also is an effective thinker and worker for peace and social justice in the Middle East and the world.

Dr. Witten, who has been on the Faculty of the Institute for Advanced Study since 1987, is the recipient of a 1982 MacArthur Fellowship; the 1985 Einstein Medal from the Einstein Society of Berne, Switzerland; the 1985 Dirac Medal from the International Center for Theoretical Physics; the 1990 Fields Medal; and numerous other awards. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, a foreign member of the Royal Society, and an associate member of the Academy of Sciences of Paris. Ed Witten is a good friend of mine, and I am pleased to congratulate him on his award, and I thank him for the contribution he has made to improve our knowledge and understanding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct offered by my colleague from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Ms. Johnson is understandably upset about the provision she is trying to remove from the energy conference report. Under a shroud of secrecy, the way virtually all of the energy negotiations have happened so far, a provision was slipped in that will extend deadlines for cities to clean up their dirty air. This will have dramatic effects on the health of Ms. Johnson's constituents.

I'm not here because of any city in my district that isn't complying with clean air regulations. I'm here because New Jersey has the unfortunate distinction of being number one in worst smog pollution for 2002, according to a recent New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Report. Even by the EPA's 8-hour standard, New Jersey has the second- worst pollution in the country.

New Jersey's efforts to clean up our air are laudable. The state has implemented a large number of ozone control measures and even negotiated a deal to close two coal-fired power plants in a neighboring state. But there is simply no way that the state can adequately tackle this problem--New Jersey can't control the jet stream. Because prevailing winds carry pollution from plants in the Midwest to the East Coast, much of the smog, soot, and fine particulates that endanger the health of state residents do not come from in-state sources.

That's why the federal government needs to take an active role. This was the motivation behind the 1970 Clean Air Act and the New Source Review rules. The Clean air Act has helped the country take major steps towards making the air we breathe better for our health.

So just like Ms. Johnson, I am dismayed to see that members of the energy conference committee have slipped in this provision that will undermine the spirit and the letter of the Clean Air Act.

It seems that some of the conferees are working in concert with the Bush Administration to conduct a frontal assault on clean air protections and to let polluters get out of making necessary environmental upgrades.

Take New Source Review, for example. NSR is an important part of the Clean Air Act that requires power plants, chemical factories, and other large industrial facilities to adopt effective emission controls when expansions or upgrades lead to increased pollution. According to the EPA, this has meant keeping 300 million tons of pollution out of the atmosphere in areas that meet national air quality standards.

The Administration has proposed changes to the New Source Review program that will create gaping loopholes in clean air protections. Facilities would be allowed to increase the amount of pollution they emit if the cost of making a change is less than a certain percentage of the cost of the entire facility. Thus companies can easily make incremental changes to renovate a facility without triggering NSR. And even if the cost of the upgrade does exceed the percentage trigger, plants will still not need to implement pollution controls if the upgrade consists of replacing existing equipment with new equipment performing the same function, regardless of cost.

These are changes that have been clearly demonstrated by numerous experts--including Abt Associates, who has done research for the EPA-- that will result in more premature deaths and more cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

I came to Congress five years ago to represent the people of the 12th District of New Jersey. It's pretty obvious that among the more important responsibilities I have in representing my constituents is standing up for them when someone is making them sick or killing them-- the way air pollution is now.

That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support the Johnson motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the subject of this special order.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined this evening by my colleague the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Let me begin with a question. On Election Day, how will you know if your vote is properly counted? In many precincts, in many States around this country, the answer is you will not. Imagine, it is election day and you enter your polling place to cast your vote on a brand new electronic touch-screen voting machine. The screen is large; it is well lit; it is accessible if you have physical disabilities. Your choices are clearly spelled out before you. In fact, it looks as easy to use as the ATM at your bank. You breathe a sigh of relief that you no longer have to figure out a complicated butterfly ballot. It seems more modern than the old lever machines.

So you make your choice and you touch the submit button and cast your vote. The screen says your vote has been counted. You exit the polling place with a sense of satisfaction, and then you begin to wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote the way I intended? The fact is you do not. You have to trust the software in the machine to be error free.

After the 2000 election, we in Congress recognized that we had to act to restore the integrity and reliability of our electoral system by making dimpled chads and other voting irregularities things of the past. Last October, we passed the Help America Vote Act, known as HAVA. It is groundbreaking election reform legislation that is currently helping States throughout the country replace antiquated and unreliable punch cards and other machines.

However, HAVA is having an unintended consequence. HAVA has done some good things. It is giving people with disabilities access, access that they have been denied for years. In fact, they have always been denied. HAVA is doing some great things, but it is leading a headlong rush by States and localities to purchase computer voting systems that suffer from a serious flaw. All models, even the most convenient and accessible, have the problem that once the voter touches the button, the voter has no way of knowing whether the vote has been counted as the voter intended. No one will ever know. It is a secret ballot and must be secret.

This uncertainty, this lack of confidence can be disastrous to voter confidence and can prevent an accurate recount and can be a step on the way to the undoing of our democracy. I am not an anti-technology Luddite. I am a physicist. I am something of a techie. I see real advantages in these electronic machines.

There are several important advantages such as their accessibility if you have physical disabilities. Their speed and efficiency, so that the results will be communicated to the county clerk quickly. They are probably more reliable than the county clerk. I certainly had an experience with the clerk in my county when she awarded one precinct to my opponent by a margin of 9,000 votes when there were not 9,000 people who lived in that precinct. It was a simple pencil and paper clerical area. The electronic machines will do away with that, but there is one fundamental problem. They are inherently unverifiable.

To again make the point that this is not the concern of an anti- technology Luddite, I would say that hundreds of nationally renowned computer scientists have raised a cry of alarm, saying that unless there is an independent verification method to safeguard the accuracy and the integrity of the voting process there will be, might not might be, these computer scientists say there will be problems. There might be accidental software errors. There might be, God forbid, malicious hacking, and if there are concerns, if the voter is uncertain, if the candidate is uncertain whether the votes have been recorded the way they were cast, a recount is meaningless. The computer that has a faulty tally 2 minutes after the polls closed will have the same faulty tally a day later when the recount is held or the next month when the judge opens it up. If there are errors, they will go unnoticed and unknown.

The history of progress in our system of self-government here in America is in many ways a history of increasing the franchise, extending the right to vote and the ability to vote, increasing accessibility and reliability of the process of voting, but we still have some problems. We see declining voter turnout, and we have all heard, my colleagues here from Ohio I am sure have heard, constituents say, well, my vote does not count. Some people when they say that mean that special interests dominate the process and overwhelm my vote in secret back room deals. And we all work hard to see that that concern is removed, but they often mean something else when they say my vote does not count. They mean, literally, my vote does not count, my vote will not be counted.

The level of concern around the country is astounding. The Internet is burning up with back and forth chat of concerns about our voting process, and the loss of confidence in the process leads to a loss of failure to vote, leads to a cheapening and eventual breakdown of our democracy.

Every voter who stays home, whether it is because the voting places are physically inaccessible to them or because of a lack of trust in the voting process is a loss to democracy. We must find, we must find a way to keep the voter directly connected to the verification process so the voter knows that her vote or his vote is the vote that is counted.

It is not good enough to give them reassurance that the manufacturer says the machine works fine. Without taking steps to return the verification to the voter and to restore trust in the process, we face a crisis, pure and simple.

I have with me someone who has paid close attention to the electoral process. My colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), was the Secretary of State of Ohio, and one of his responsibilities, as I believe, was to ensure the accuracy and the reliability of the voting system. And I think he understands, as well as anyone, the potential crisis we face or maybe it is not even potential anymore. I would be pleased to yield to my friend from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight, and he makes this important distinction about having confidence in the way the votes are cast and having confidence in the way the votes are counted, and it is not necessarily the same thing. It is the electronics inside the machine that connects those two, and it is that gap which makes them inherently unverifiable.

I have legislation that would, I believe, overcome this shortcoming. But before I talk about the details, and I will not go through all the details, but before I outline that legislation, I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has deep and strong concerns about this.

So that the voter can vote. If there is any question about eligibility or other questions about the vote, those will be settled later and the voter will be able to cast the vote on election day. That is what the gentlewoman means, I believe, by no-fault voting.

The appointments have been made, but the other body has not acted and the commission does not yet exist.

I thank the gentlewoman, and I think her insertions in the Record will be very useful to people. I thank her for her insightful comments.

I would make the point that even though HAVA does not require action immediately, the sooner we implement HAVA, the better. There are many people with physical disabilities who have been denied the privilege and the satisfaction of voting in person and in private. HAVA would correct that. But we must not let HAVA lead us to unverifiable voting. That is why I am proposing legislation that would, I think, correct this problem. It would require that all voting systems produce a paper record, an audit trail that is verified by the voter. In other words, each voter will see and verify a paper record of the vote. That will allow manual audits. It will mean that recounts actually mean something. This would be the vote of record. It would be kept safely with the election records for recounts.

My legislation would do some other things such as banning undisclosed software and would accelerate the date by which the provisions for people with disabilities would have to be met. But the fundamental point I wanted to make is that voting should not be an act of faith as my colleagues have said. It should be an act of record. It is also important to make the point that what I am talking about here is nonpartisan. It is preserving the sanctity of the ballot. This is not a Republican matter or a Democratic matter. It is fundamental to the American system.

I am sorry to say that the Internet is buzzing with conspiracy theories. In other words, voters are afraid that something is afoot. It was reported in this week's Newsweek by Steven Levy that suspicions, as he says, run even higher when people learn that some of those in charge of the voting technology, the manufacturers of the voting machines, are themselves partisan. The CEO of a major company is a major fund-raiser for the Presidential reelection campaign. He recently said that he was ``committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes for the President next year.'' According to this article, he later clarified that he was not talking about rigging the machines.

Whew. That is actually Mr. Levy's expression. Whew.

By the proposal that I have, the legislative proposal I have, the printout would be at the voting machine at the time that the voter votes, available for the voter's inspection and verification. And it would go into a secure lockbox. If there is a need for a recount, the paper ballots would be tallied. It may not be a perfect system, but it is a way to assure the voters that the process is honest.

It is troubling that this is not getting as much attention here in this body as it should. An article appeared in the New Zealand Herald a few days ago. The article begins, ``The possibility of flaws in the electoral process is not something that gets discussed much in the United States Congress. The attitude seems to be, we are the greatest democracy in the world, so the system must be fair.''

That is not good enough. We are a great country because we constantly try to do better, because we constantly try to increase the franchise, increase accessibility to democracy, increase the reliability of the process. That is what we need to do. Yet from all over the country, I get e-mails. For instance, from Georgia: ``If we can't verify our elections, then we can't verify our freedom.''

From Idaho someone writes: ``Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.''

From Michigan: ``The act of voting is the most essential issue. This issue is the most essential issue our representatives will vote on and they should be judged accordingly.''

From North Carolina: ``A paper trail is the only reasonable solution to any computer-mediated transaction. As a corporate system security analyst, I find the electronic devices as they now stand without this verifiable backup simply irresponsible.''

From North Dakota: ``There is no confidence nor integrity without it.''

From Ohio: ``I work with computers every day. We need to check that what goes in is what comes out.''

From Oregon: ``Without this, I will no longer view this country as a democracy.''

From Tennessee: ``If there is no accountability in election, there is no reason to vote and we descend into anarchy.''

From Wisconsin: ``If voters perceive,'' the key word here is perceive, ``that their votes are being miscounted and are meaningless, they will simply stop voting.''

That gives you some sense of the seriousness that voters assign to this issue. It is very important. This body should turn its attention to restoring the voters' trust in every way we can. One important way we can do that is by making sure that they have confidence in the process that makes this democracy work, the process of voting and then, of course, the process by which we fulfill the trust that they place in us.

As I have talked about this with people, I have run into a number of opinions. I was talking with an election official from another State who said, Well, we've had these electronic machines for several years now and we've had no problems. To which I said, How do you know?

He did not have an answer. We have to help him get that answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 3232, a bill to reauthorize certain school lunch and child nutrition programs. While I am glad to see that these programs will not expire, I am concerned about making progress toward a full 5-year reauthorization, and I know the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) intends to see that we have a good reauthorization, and I look forward to working with the gentleman and the rest of the committee in a bipartisan way.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss what I see are some issues that must be addressed in any new reauthorization. Ensuring healthy children is a worthwhile investment in the future of millions of children and in the future of our country's economic well-being. And as has been discussed by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), there are children in America that go hungry during the school day and others who battle illness caused by poor nutrition.

The documentary evidence is clear, and we do not need to review it here; it coincides with common sense: School child nutrition programs help children learn. Meal programs offered in schools and child care settings and after school and summer programs and through WIC offer an ideal way to address child health issues directly, and to build healthful eating habits.

When we do get a 5-year reauthorization, we should require local education

authorities to establish a school nutrition policy, I would suggest by July of 2005, that, at a minimum, gives the school food director operational responsibility for foods sold on campus. We should request that the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences recommend to the Secretary nutritional standards for school foods. The Food and Nutrition Service should be required to place a greater emphasis on fruits and vegetables in the commodities programs and school meals.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a reauthorization that expands the current fruit and vegetable pilot programs so they reach more students. We must authorize grants to nonprofits and local school districts for farm-to-cafeteria projects which include nutritional education activities, which incorporate the participation of school children in farm and agricultural education projects.

In addition, we must eliminate the reduced price category of meals to allow children and families up to 185 percent of poverty to receive a free meal. The children that are designated in this reduced-price category are really between a rock and a hard place when it comes to eating at school. These are children that are both hungry and in many cases embarrassed because their parents are often not able to send the money to school to pay for their meals. It would be better if this category were removed and all children eligible would be treated the same in the nutrition programs.

Mr. Speaker, as we reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, I hope my concerns are addressed and we can ensure healthy meals for our children in school; and with that, I do support H.R. 3232.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 378 and second many of the remarks of my colleague from California. Prepaid tuition plans that have been set up by States have not provided options for students seeking to go to private universities. These plans typically allow a contributing individual to receive a guarantee that their tuition will be paid when they attend a public university in their State. This resolution before us identifies a plan that now provides students seeking to attend a private university with a prepaid tuition option. Those involved in the development of this plan should be congratulated for pushing to make this a reality.

Unfortunately, many existing State prepaid tuition plans have not fared well in our present economy. While unemployment has risen, the Bush administration has forced the reduction of options students and families have to pay for college. Twenty States have set up prepaid tuition plans but nearly all of them are in trouble. Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Texas and Colorado have all suspended their plans. States are shutting the doors on these plans because the failed Bush economy has driven up college costs and reduced their investment options to essentially nothing.

In discussing the issue of how students and families pay for college, we cannot ignore the point raised by the gentleman from California, referring to his proposal to institute Federal price controls on college tuition. It has some immediate appeal until you think about it. This proposal would bar universities who have seen their budgets cut due to the sour economy from receiving Federal aid, including work- study opportunities for needy students. In other words, we would cut funds to them until they shape up. Worse yet, Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions would be barred from receiving institutional aid or other aid. This loss of aid would hamper the mission of those institutions and would remove the opportunities for postsecondary education for some of our neediest students.

This proposal would also have serious unintended consequences. Colleges that are forced to cap their tuition increases will simply decrease the amount of need-based grant aid. This will result in students experiencing perhaps lower tuition levels but higher out-of- pocket costs. In addition, as labor and health care costs increase, institutions will be forced to sacrifice quality. Clearly, that is not in the public interest. This will be done through the hiring of adjunct professors rather than maintaining, for example, seasoned tenured faculty. Is this the cost-control measure we want our universities to implement?

Rather than creating new problems to solve an existing one, Congress should be considering what is the appropriate response to rising tuition costs. We should provide incentives to colleges and universities to hold down costs. The current Federal system of higher education financing does not incentivize schools to hold down their level of tuition increases. The Higher Education Act should not punish students and institutions through heavy-handed Federal price controls. Price controls rarely work. Rather, institutions should hold down tuition costs while increasing need-based grant aid, and they should be rewarded.

In addition, States should be required to maintain their level of effort on higher education spending. In years in which Congress increases student aid, those increases should benefit students, not be gobbled up by the need to balance State budgets. The cost of higher education is a complicated one. It is an important one. It is in the national interest to make college affordable and available for all qualified students. This resolution before us today points to a good way to manage the rising costs of college tuition. However, the other proposal advanced by the gentleman from California would be the wrong way to go.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support for the resolution we are presently considering.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just reply to my colleague from California that in describing his experience with price controls, his personal experience, I think he made a very good case against his proposal, and I think made it clear that the colleges and universities that are in the tightest financial straits, such as Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions, those with a large number of work-study students, would be the ones that would be hurt most by that proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague on the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could show some pictures of my grandchildren. I commend the gentlewoman from Texas and the gentleman from California for advancing this legislation. Anything that will improve the accessibility and affordability of college for qualified American students is to be encouraged.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, recognizing the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives, and supporting National Chemistry Week. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has been very helpful as an original cosponsor of this bill and helped move it forward. He and I do this as the two physicists in Congress, with no suggestion of irony that we physicists would be sponsoring National Chemistry Week.

Finally, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.

Biggert) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for cosponsoring the bill and for their support, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) himself being a research-trained chemist.

Indeed, chemistry is not something that occurs just in the laboratory, it is everywhere, and this resolution is intended to emphasize that point, the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives.

Today's scientists are working to understand global climate change and to develop cleaner energy sources. Our cars have more computing power than the Apollo spacecraft. In many ways, science permeates our lives, and we certainly should do all we can to recognize that and see that youngsters, as well as oldsters, integrate their understanding of science in their lives.

Following the launch of Sputnik in 1957, major steps were taken in the United States to improve the resources going into science. The goal was to produce a superior technical workforce so that we would be second to none in engineering and science. There was increased funding for school laboratories, revision of math and science curricula and new university scholarships for future scientists. Indeed, this initiative produced a generation of scientists and engineers who have contributed greatly to our economic and technical accomplishments and to the quality of life of people around the world.

I was a product of that revolution. Today, as a policy maker, I see the shortcomings of our earlier revolution in science and mathematics education.

Too often the push for improving public competence in science and mathematics is justified on the grounds of economics, national security, and an informed citizenry. There is no question that these are vitally important reasons, but we should not forget the reason of personal well-being. Understanding sciences like chemistry brings order, harmony, and balance to our lives. They teach us that the world is intelligible and not capricious. They give us the skills for lifelong learning, for creating progress itself.

In setting up the science programs following the launch of Sputnik, we focused on developing scientists and engineers and tend to have left behind the other 80 or 90 percent of our society who should understand science, should integrate it into their lives, even if they are not to become professional scientists. That is why I am proud to see this House recognizing in this legislation the importance of chemistry and the goals and the ideals of National Chemistry Week.

I thank the Speaker for bringing this resolution to the floor. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), for yielding me the time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 279 to recognize the importance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Congressional Fellowship Program. For 30 years, the fellowship program has brought together Members of Congress with leading scientific practitioners and scholars in a variety of scientific fields. And this has provided a level of scientific expertise not otherwise found on most congressional staffs, and it presents the congressional fellows with an intimate role in the process of decision-making in public policy.

It is hard to find an issue before this body that does not have significant scientific and technological components, and yet those components often get short-shrifted. I was an AAAS Fellow 20 years ago, in fact, the only alumnus of that program yet to serve in this body, although I am sure that there are some others on the way. I was very fortunate to take part in that program, and I witnessed firsthand the important role that scientific expertise can bring to policy decisions.

Since I have been a Member of Congress for the past 5 years, I have welcomed AAAS Fellows into my staff and fully integrated them into my staff because of the wealth of knowledge they provide and their ability to pose questions. Of course, that is the essence of science, to be able to pose questions. I have benefited from their aptitude, their ability and their energy; and I will, as long as I serve in this body, continue to recruit these motivated and high-qualified experts and do everything I can to make this program a success. It has, in many ways, benefited America.

Let me mention a few of the Fellows who have served with me. Joan Rothenberg joined my staff and shared her expertise on food technology and was integral in developing legislation to provide the public with scientifically based information on biotechnology.

Katy Makeig provided my staff with technical expertise on geology and energy and research and development.

At the time our Nation was struggling with the anthrax attacks, microbiologist Jill Harper worked on my staff on critical issues of bioterrorism and health and homeland security.

Jeffrey Haeni helped to establish here the Congressional Caucus on Research and Development which I think will prove to be an important part of this body.

But it is not so much the specific expertise that these Fellows and that other science Fellows bring; it is the level of comfort with science and technology, the familiarity with science and technology that they bring.

Members of Congress, let me just say, are generally not loath to talk about subjects in which they are not well trained, except in science. My colleagues and I will hold forth on economics or international relations or any number of other things; but when it comes to science, they say, whoa, that is not for me. I am not a scientist. And as a result, many of the aspects of science, many of the aspects of the policy questions before us that involve science and technology do not get the attention they should. That is why this congressional Fellows program, this AAAS science program is so important. It is in many offices the only scientific expertise that is provided. This technical expertise is very valuable to Congress; and it allows not only these Fellows to bring scientific expertise here; it allows them to carry political expertise back to their professions.

So as AAAS celebrates 30 years in the Congressional Fellowship Program, I encourage all of my colleagues to join me, to join the sponsor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), in recognizing the notable contributions provided by these Fellows, the political expertise that they take back to their professions that enriches our country in so many ways, and to applaud the sponsoring societies for providing the support for these Fellows. It truly is a public service.

The AAAS seeks ``to advance science and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people.'' The Congressional Fellowship Program carries that mission beyond the walls of academic institutions and research laboratories and into the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3076, the Graduate Opportunities in Higher Education Act.

The bill authorizes a total of $120 million for Title VII graduate education programs, including Javits Fellowships, Graduate Assistance in areas of National Need, Thurgood Marshall Legal Education Opportunities and the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education programs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Boehner for his work on this bill and for accepting my amendment in committee.

Under the graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, the Higher education Act provides grants to colleges and universities to address subject areas where America doesn't have enough people with advanced degrees--including education, where new teachers are trained.

My amendment would require that any schools of education that apply for GAANN grants collaborate with a department, program, or unit in science, math, or other appropriate content area to assure a successful combination of training in both teaching and relevant content. This should go almost without comment. Most graduate schools already do this.

With the enactment of the historic No Child Left Behind Act, Congress committed itself to ensuring that every student would have the opportunity to improve academically, to attend a safe school in a challenging and nurturing classroom environment, and to have a chance for real scholastic success.

Critical to achieving these goals is having highly qualified teachers in every classroom--teachers who are not only versed in general teaching skills, but who also have expertise in the subject matter they teach.

This is because when teachers pursue a graduate degree in education, they often focus on education theory and policy, rather than combining such a curriculum with substantive research in a particular subject area like math, science, or literature.

If we hope to achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind, we must ensure that the teachers in our children's classrooms are indeed ``highly qualified,'' which should include expertise in the subject matter they teach.

That is why I offered, and the committee accepted, an amendment that will reaffirm our commitment to improving teacher quality so that all of our schools can meet the standards of No Child Left Behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his support of my amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

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

I rise today to join every Member of this Chamber in supporting the American men and women serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe. We are indebted to their service, to their courage, to what they do to preserve the American Dream and freedom.

However, let us not confuse support for our troops with support for any half-baked plan, or lack of a plan, for securing our troops and rebuilding Iraq. Let us not fool ourselves into believing that our shared patriotism somehow absolves us, Members of Congress, from the responsibility to stand up and criticize a flawed policy.

On September 7, President Bush addressed the Nation and called upon this body to pass $87 billion in supplemental appropriations. Within minutes after the President's address and every day since, my constituents have been telling me that they are alarmed by this request. Some tell me that $1,000 per family is a lot of money when they think the President is just throwing money at a problem without having a plan to fix it. Some tell me that we should be spending the money to address obligations here at home, like paying for the adequate health care for our veterans from previous wars, as well as the veterans from this war.

Others tell me that the President should not ask Congress for more money until he secures more international support, or that we should not have to bear the cost alone. Some tell me that when the government is borrowing money to give tax cuts to the wealthy, we should not be borrowing this $87 billion from our children.

And like my constituents, I have all of these reservations and more.

I had hoped the President would send Congress a detailed, long-term plan for the reconstruction of Iraq. I had hoped the President would come with a plan for help from our allies. He has failed to do that.

I would support the Obey substitute if it were allowed, but without significant changes, I cannot support the President's request at this time.

I had hoped that by now the President would have secured the significant financial support of our allies. I had hoped that by now thousands of our men and women serving in Iraq would see international troops coming to relieve them so that some of them might return home.

Instead, the President has sent his request to Congress before developing a clear plan for reconstruction. He has sent his request before he has secured hardly any international financial support. And he has sent his request before he has convinced our allies to provide multinational forces to internationalize the troop presence in Iraq. In effect, he is asking the American people to subsidize his failed diplomacy and poor post-war planning.

Nevertheless, a Member of Congress should not vote no on this request out of spite. I believe that Congress can and should pass a supplemental bill that will adequately support our troops in Iraq. The President has committed us to helping to stabilize and rebuild Iraq and we must live up to that commitment. However, we cannot blindly approve whatever the President requests, especially when his request is not well thought-out and when it includes wasteful spending.

There are two parts to this $87 billion request. About two-thirds is to support military operations and our troops, while the other third is for reconstruction. There are serious problems with both. First, the military portion gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to reprogram almost $40 billion. In other words, the President is so unsure of what programs need support that he has given the Secretary the power to change how $40 billion worth of this bill will be spent. Forty billion dollars is a large petty cash fund. Why don't we just write the Secretary a personal check and send him on his way?

There are problems with the reconstruction portion of the bill, too. Imagine; the bill calls for $900,000,000 to import oil to Iraq. We spend money we don't have so that we can import oil to the country with the world's second largest oil reserves. I am pleased that my colleague Rep. David Obey and the other members of the Appropriations Committee were able to eliminate some of the $1.7 billion worth of the most wasteful portions of the President's request, including hundreds of millions of dollars to build luxury prisons in Iraq, hundreds of millions to buy state-of-the-art garbage trucks, and millions to send Iraqis to business school.

I am also pleased that they were able to guarantee that the Pentagon will have no flexibility when it comes to procuring bulletproof body armor and other critical need safety equipment for our troops. We must keep our troops safe. Unfortunately, these changes only scratch the surface of what is necessary to fix this request.

How can Americans be asked to spend a billion dollars to import oil into one of the largest oil producing countries in the world? Another amendment would make sure that this Administration is adopting competitive practices when awarding contracts to companies that are hired to help with Iraq's construction. Still, another would invest in making sure we have trained linguists who can speak the languages employed by terrorists.

I also would vote for the Obey substitute, if the Chair would allow a vote. It would help pay for the reconstruction of Iraq by eliminating the tax cut currently enjoyed by the top one percent of Americans. We cannot afford to go any deeper into debt that this Administration has taken us and we cannot saddle middle class Americans with a financial burden that they cannot afford and should not be asked to bear.

A year ago I stood here on the House floor and I voted against the resolution authorizing the President to launch a unilateral, preventive war against Iraq. At the time, I defended my vote, arguing that it was ``at the least premature, and more likely contrary to our national interest,'' for Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. Today, our troops are in Iraq and we have made a commitment as a nation to make sure they complete their mission. But as I stand here again, I cannot help but ask whether voting for this $87 billion request right now is at the least premature, and most likely, contrary to our national interest.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems with this legislation; the lack of planning to turn the rebuilding over to Iraqis, the lack of planning to involve other countries, the lack of attention to domestic concerns, such as the health care for our veterans, and the flexibility that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just spoke about that certainly betray a lack of planning in the sense that the Pentagon has to ask for total flexibility in how they might use the money in the future. But I would like to talk about one specific thing that is wrong with this bill.

When I was growing up, we had a phrase called ``taking coals to Newcastle.'' It meant pointless activity, redundant activity.

The chairman might call it taking oranges to Florida, or the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) might call it taking potatoes to Idaho, or the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) might call it taking snow to Alaska.

This legislation before us today creates a new unbelievable expression for America, taking oil to Iraq. My amendment would eliminate the $900 million of taxpayer money, American taxpayer money, that would be used to import petroleum to Iraq. Think about it. Petroleum to Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, why are we dunning our taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars to import petroleum products into the country which has the

second greatest oil reserves in the world?

Yes, I know the gentleman from Arizona or others will say, well, the pipelines break or the refineries are not highly efficient, and others, like the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will point out that this is gouging, that Halliburton Corporation is engaged in blatant price gouging. But I want to put all that aside and just ask, as my constituents have been asking me, does it pass the smell test for us to spend taxpayer money to import oil to Iraq?

I ask for support of my amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman over dramatizes. It is not as if there are no refineries operating at all. It is not as if there is no opportunity to transport refined products around the country. Sure, there are shortages. Of course, the country is disrupted. But ask the American people if they think it is appropriate to take $900 million, when we are struggling each year to fund the LIHEAP program here, when we are struggling each year to fund the food programs for Americans, when we are struggling each year to provide basics for Americans, to, yes, take coals to Newcastle. It just seems to me that oil to Iraq says it all.

I challenge the gentleman to go home to his constituents and say, among other things that I did last week in Congress, I voted $900 million of your money to purchase oil, petroleum products, to take to the country that has the second largest oil reserves in the world. I challenge the gentleman to do that, and I will be interested to hear the reports from back home.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct, and I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her leadership on this issue. The motion addresses two rather disturbing aspects of H.R. 1, the troublesome Medicare legislation passed earlier this year.

The first problem with this bill is, of course, it is, as so many things this year, a loss of revenue so that benefits can be given to people who need the benefits least. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that the health savings accounts would cost the Federal Government $174 billion over 10 years.

These health savings accounts are a way of saying to the American people they are on their own. The beauty of Medicare and its sister program, Social Security, is we are all in it together. We all know we are all in it together. But the message that the majority is sending here is you are on your own. You can save for these expenses that you will incur, you can save for these prescriptions that you will need, you can save and you will be in good shape. I can hear the President saying to the Vice President, It worked for you, did it not, Dick?

Yes, George, it worked for me.

That is the message that they are giving to the American people, that you are on your own and you will be okay.

At the end of the line of this is channeling all beneficiaries into private insurance. As the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said, for those who think that we are trying to change Medicare as we know it, the answer is, I certainly hope so. Yes, that is what the chairman said. This is a fundamental change in Medicare.

Now, there are millions of Americans out there who are saying all this debate about prescription medicine under Medicare does not really affect me. They may not like turning people out on their own like this, but we can hear these millions of Americans saying thank goodness that my former employer has given me a good retirement package and I have prescription drug coverage. In fact, in New Jersey where there are 1.2 million Medicare beneficiaries, of these 434,000 have employer- sponsored coverage. It sounds good, but unfortunately we have got bad news for those people who think that they are covered.

The Congressional Budget Office says perhaps one-third of employers could drop retiree coverage under the new bill, one-third. Well, in New Jersey it might be any of 134,000 beneficiaries who would lose their employer-sponsored coverage under H.R. 1. This certainly is an unpleasant surprise for many seniors. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) has pointed out that the money set aside in H.R. 1 for the health savings accounts could be much better spent, addressing this second failing of the legislation, its effect on retiree prescription drug coverage, a fine idea, worthy of Members' support. I think we can create this fix by passing the motion to instruct of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). I will vote for it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my friend, the gentleman

from Washington (Mr. McDermott). And to think that the gentleman got in some hot water not too many months ago for saying that, well, he might question the veracity of some in the administration who were talking about the facts leading us to war. I think the American people have come to see that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) knew what he was talking about.

But I would like to talk about another subject: voting, the single most important act of a democratic republic.

Now, citizens in my State of New Jersey tell me they want voting techniques, technologies that are reliable, accessible, and verifiable. And they are concerned that in the stampede to replace the unreliable butterfly and punch card ballots, that we may be replacing one unreliable voting technology with another.

Now, consider electronic machines like, for example, touch-screen machines. They are convenient, they are accessible, they are fast and efficient. In many ways, they make good voting machines. They report the election results promptly and can reduce clerical errors and errors in addition. And certainly Members of Congress, I for one, have encountered in an election where the county clerk makes errors of addition that, in some cases, take hours and, in other cases, days to uncover. But these electronic machines are good, except that they are inherently unverifiable. Voters ask me, now, after I vote on an electronic machine, how will I know that back there in the electronics, back in the ether, back in cyberspace, the vote was recorded as I intended. The answer is, they do not know. They cannot know. Because of software or hardware errors, the votes might have been misrecorded. Innocent, accidental errors, or malicious, intentional, hacking errors. The real problem is that there is no way for the voter to verify the reliability of the electronic count.

Voters are plenty skeptical these days, and we cannot afford to have voters more skeptical about the process that they are supposed to own.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation under which each voter gets to see a printed record of his or her vote to verify that the vote is recorded as the voter intended and that the printed record becomes the vote of record. Now, this gives all the convenience, accessibility, and reliability of the electronic voting machines. And, it gives the added element of verifiability, of verification that belongs to each voter, as it should.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for the time.

I rise today to voice my strong support to House Resolution 234, introduced in a bipartisan way by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). House Resolution 234 condemns bigotry and violence against Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, South Asian Americans, and Sikh Americans at a time when Americans in these communities are facing unprecedented levels of discrimination and abuse.

We cannot stand by and allow the ignorance of a few to overcome the tradition of tolerance in this Nation of Nations. I urge my colleagues to vote unanimously for this important resolution and, in so doing, send a clear and bipartisan message to all Americans that Congress will not accept, condone, or ignore acts of hatred.

Although the tragic events of September 11, 2001, united most Americans, some misguided individuals in our society have taken their anger and directed it at their neighbors because they look different or subscribe to a different religion.

We Americans have struggled throughout our history to purge ourselves of crippling stereotypes that spread a cloud of ignorance and despair on our otherwise great society. Members of this Congress and of the larger American community fought valiantly in the 1960s to end legal racial discrimination against African Americans. We have come a long way since the days of sanctioned racism, but we still have miles to go to eradicate the vestiges of bigotry that from time to time consume the ignorant among us.

In my home State of New Jersey, many of my constituents of Asian descent, many of Muslim religion or Sikh religion have suffered acts of violence simply due to their religion or the color of their skin. One of the most tragic cases involved the murder 4 days after September 11, 2001, of Waqar Hasan who was shot to death in his convenience store by a man who said he did it to retaliate against ``Arab Americans or whatever you want to call them.'' Hasan was a Pakistani immigrant who was murdered for no other reason than that he was a Muslim with a Middle Eastern face.

When Mr. Hasan was murdered, the visas and applications for permanent residency of his wife and four daughters died with him. After building lives in America for 9 years, the Hasan family has gone from being one step away from permanent residency to one step away from deportation.

Earlier this year, I introduced legislation, H.R. 867, to prevent the deportation of Waqar's wife and four daughters, who without this would be forced to leave America. I have been working closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for their bipartisan support of the Hasan family. I look forward to continue to work with them in the coming weeks to pass H.R. 867.

Today, Congress can take a step to help the Hasan family and immigrant families like them and any other families who are victims of racism and bigotry by passing House Resolution 234. We will be making a promise to the American people and all who seek a new life of opportunity on our shores that here in America we treat each other with dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill, this so-called partial-birth abortion ban. It continues a troubling tendency that we have seen over the last few years for Congress to try to practice medicine.

Every day, patients make medical treatment decisions that are difficult, that are unpleasant, that are even dangerous and matters of life and death. Surely pregnant women deserve the same opportunities to decide with their doctors the best course of treatment. However, this bill denies women such opportunities and restricts their ability to access safe and appropriate health care. Furthermore, doctors who determine that the banned procedure is the most appropriate treatment will be subject to criminal sanctions simply for providing their patients with the best medical care.

All of us like to see fewer abortions performed in this country, and that is why I support education and prevention programs to help families avoid unwanted pregnancies. But the question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most difficult decisions any woman can face. Reproductive health care is a very personal, ethical, and medical matter that should be left to individuals, their doctors, and their families without interference from the government.

Proponents of this bill allege that it will protect life. In reality, it will jeopardize the health of women across this nation. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be rejected.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the many Cypriot Americans in New Jersey I rise today to honor the 43d anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Cyprus. Cyprus became an independent Republic in 1960 after 80 years of British colonial rule and hundreds of years under the yoke of the Ottoman Empire. Despite a series of tragic events during the past four decades, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus remains committed to the core principles enshrined in the Constitution of Cyprus guaranteeing the basic rights and freedoms of the people of Cyprus--Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Cypriots from all ethnic and religious communities.

This year, Cyprus's Independence Day arrives at a time of great hope for all the people of Cyprus. Since the last celebration of Cyprus Independence Day, Cyprus has experienced events of major historic import--most notably the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the European Union in April of this year. Cyprus is now on target to join the EU in May 2004 and that is no small achievement for a nation that has endured such a long list of tragedies.

As in past years, however, the continued de facto division of the island nation clouds the commemoration of its Independence Day. Thirty- seven percent of the Republic's territory continues to be occupied by Turkish military forces in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international law.

While the Cyprus problem continues to elude a final, just, and peaceful solution, never before in the 29 years since Turkish forces split the island in two, have Cypriots been so close to a settlement. And yet they are so far away. The last year has been fraught with opportunities lost--many of us here in Congress thought that the Copenhagen Summit last winter offered a unique opportunity for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to finally resolve their differences. A new Turkish leadership in Ankara looked poised to make history and then didn't.

We had hope. The plan put forth by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan continued to gain momentum. Thousands of Turkish Cypriots were protesting in the streets against their leader Rauf Denktash calling on him to accept the Annan plan. There was anticipation that referenda would occur this past spring and finally liberate Cypriots from the oppressive division of their island.

And then as has often happened in the history of Cyprus an opportunity was lost. Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, would not take the Annan plan to his people for a referendum. Denktash abandoned the Annan plan. And a frustrated U.N. closed up shop and went home.

And then something wonderful happened. Mr. Denktash unilaterally opened up the borders. Some on Cyprus and in Congress have looked upon this action with suspicion, but I don't think anyone can dispute that the results have been overwhelming positive for the Cypriot people. There are a lot of experts with different opinions on why Mr. Denktash did what he did, but one thing is for certain. Cypriots have begun talking to Cypriots again. An artificial line has been eliminated and I don't think there's any turning back.

One of my constituents, Theo Hadjitheodosiou from Holmdale, New Jersey, was born in Cyprus. He is Greek Cypriot and recently returned to Cyprus to cross the Green Line to see one of the homes where some of his family used to live before the 1974 invasion. He said it was nice to go, but that he remained saddened by the continued occupation by Turkish forces.

Can you imagine having to show your passport to go from Trenton to Pennsylvania? That's what it's like. The division has been particularly hard on the Turkish Cypriots, he said. Like many other Cypriots, Theo sees the opening of the border as only a first step on the road toward a settlement.

I am hopeful that the renewed human contact between Greek and Turkish Cypriots will accelerate the political process. Eventually, trust will be rebuilt among people. And then the enemies of peace will have no choice but to let go of their stubborn, outdated positions to make way for a new generation that will embrace a peaceful future--a future of one Cyprus, made up of Turkish and Greek Cypriots--in which all citizens are not only Cypriot, but more importantly, European.

I will continue to do what I can in Congress to support a Cyprus solution based on the Annan plan. I will continue to urge the Bush administration to convince the Turks in Ankara that a solution in Cyprus will provide the gateway to Turkey's own goals of a European future. As elections approach in the Turkish-occupied area, I will ask the administration to make it clear to Ankara not to interfere. Polls recently conducted on Cyprus indicate that if free and fair elections were held in the North, the Turkish Cypriots would elect a new, pro- settlement leadership. A new Turkish Cypriot leadership that represents the aspirations of a majority of Turkish Cypriots would be a welcome development and would probably lead to the renewal of settlement negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today on Cyprus Independence Day to celebrate the progress that Cyprus continues to make as an incoming member state of the European Union, as a vibrant democracy with a robust market economy, and as an increasingly important partner of the United States. And I hope, as I do each year, that the people of Cyprus will soon enjoy the benefits of a peaceful settlement.