Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 180) to support initiatives developed by the Firefighter Life Safety Summit and the mission of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation and the United States Fire Administration to reduce firefighter fatalities and injuries, to encourage implementation of the new ``Everyone Goes Home'' campaign to make firefighter safety a national priority, and to support the goals of the national ``stand down'' called by fire organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 180.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the early 1970s, a report by the President's National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, entitled ``America Burning,'' presented a dismal assessment of fire safety in the United States. The report found that the U.S. had one of the worst, one of the worst, fire safety records in the industrialized world with nearly 12,000 citizens and 250 firefighters lost to fires annually.

In the years that followed that seminal report, the U.S. Fire Administration was created. Fire prevention and fire safety awareness programs were made a priority in communities across the country. And by 1980, deaths suffered from both citizens and firefighters had been significantly reduced. These improvements steadily continued into the 1980s, and by the end of the 1990s, firefighter deaths had been reduced to an average of about 100 annually. A dramatic drop; still too many.

Unfortunately, after 3 decades of great progress, firefighter deaths are disturbingly once again on the rise. In 2003, 112 firefighters lost their lives in the line of duty. Last year 117 died. And so far this year, there have been 58 deaths, on pace for about 130, which is about a 30 percent increase over the average of the previous decade. That, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable.

These troubling statistics have triggered an unprecedented effort by the leadership of America's fire service to address this problem, and the concurrent resolution before us today recognizes and supports those efforts.

Specifically, the concurrent resolution supports three important efforts, which I will briefly describe. First, the resolution supports the 16 fire safety initiatives developed at a recent Firefighter Life Safety Summit convened by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. The initiatives were developed to support the U.S. Fire Administration's goal, developed under the strong leadership of Administrator David Paulison, of reducing firefighter fatalities by 25 percent within 5 years and 50 percent within 10 years. We are talking about life.

The initiatives range from broad ideas on the need for cultural change within the fire service related to safety to specific goals such as the development of national standards for training, certification, and physical fitness.

The second effort recognized by this concurrent resolution is the ``Everyone Goes Home'' campaign to make firefighter safety a national priority. The campaign, led by the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, intends to raise fire safety awareness and bring fire prevention to the forefront, using the 16 fire safety initiatives as a blueprint for change.

And the third effort recognized by this concurrent resolution is a national ``stand down'' for firefighter safety. Today, all across the country, fire departments are being urged to suspend all nonemergency activity and instead focus entirely on firefighter safety, calling attention to the unacceptable number of line-of-duty deaths and injuries. During the stand down, fire departments will talk about the causes of line-of-duty deaths, check apparatus and equipment, discuss health and safety regulations, review fire ground safety issues, and take stock of training needs and fitness goals. The International Association of Fire Chiefs has also requested that all volunteer departments conduct a special safety meeting the evening of June 21, today, or as near to this date as is possible.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to bring attention to the firefighter safety problem that the fire service is facing today and recognize the importance of these efforts. But this problem, of course, cannot be addressed with one day of recognition. It will take years of steadfast commitment and cooperation by those in the fire service as well as the general public to achieve the fire safety goals set forth by the U.S. Fire Administration. But I am confident that if we work together, we will be successful; and I am hopeful that today's stand down marks an important turning point in our struggle to reduce line- of-duty deaths by firefighters.

And let me just add parenthetically that I am proud to be a Member of this great institution, the Congress of the United States, which has been responsible for initiating the Fire Safety Grant Award program, the SAFER program, providing resources. They get enough words from us on Capitol Hill about how supportive we are of the fire services. They want deeds, and we on a bipartisan basis have followed through by providing literally hundreds of million of dollars to firefighters across the country to get the necessary lifesaving equipment they need to do the job we expect of them: protecting us in our homes and our neighborhoods, our communities.

So we all should take a brief moment to pat ourselves on the back for what we have done responsibly to respond to the problem. But that is not enough, and the fight continues, and I am proud to be a warrior in that fight. None of us had to be drafted. We enlisted.

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

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

In wrapping up, I just want to recall a story about when I was a freshman Member of this great body 23 years ago. I sat on the Committee on Science, and we have jurisdiction over firefighter programs. I recall one of the witnesses being asked if there was a distinction between the professional and volunteer firefighters, and one of my senior colleagues at the time quickly demanded recognition from the chair, and he said to that Member asking the question, There are no amateurs in this business; they are all professionals. Some are paid, some are volunteer, but they are all professionals.

The recognition of that has prompted all of us to initiate the fire safety Grant program, to initiate the SAFER program. We expect so much of our firefighters. They need the resources to do the job that we demand that they do every single day.

All of us in our consciousness have a new appreciation for what the firefighters of America do as a result of 9/11 when 343 firefighters lost their lives. They gave their all for this Nation. Since then, we have developed in some quarters, where there was no prior recognition of the need of the fire service, a new appreciation for what we have to do.

Once again, let me credit this institution. We are often criticized for not being as responsive as some would like to some of the issues facing us across this country. But this institution, on a bipartisan basis, has responded to the call.

Today's resolution is about words and concepts and ideas, but more meaningful is the action, the deeds that we do by appropriating money, by following through to make certain that money is used for its intended purpose and used wisely, and it is. So this, in a sense, is an affirmation of our great appreciation for the firefighters, the men and women all across America on a very professional basis who daily are providing some measure of security for us in our homes and in our communities, and in our Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I am a little bit surprised that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), who is a former member of the Committee on Science, and let me add a valuable member of the Committee on Science, I am a little surprised he would be offering this amendment.

Let me say what I have said many times in response to earlier amendments. We cannot be decimating a valuable program so another can do a little bit better, and that is what this amendment would do.

The National Science Foundation is not exactly flush with cash these days. The appropriators deserve to be congratulated for the funding they have been able to find; but let me remind Members, it is not as much as NSF received in fiscal year 2004. The approval rate for grant applications is down 20 percent. The approval rate in some subfields, some specialties, is in the single digits. Meanwhile, NSF is being asked to take on more responsibilities, such as footing the bill for the ice-breaking activities in the Antarctic. This is not the time to be cutting NSF. NSF does not have cash to spare.

Even the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) recognizes this because he proudly joined us in signing a letter requesting far more money for

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their hard work on this bill. I believe they have done everything within their power to support the National Science Foundation, given the funds available. To that end, I would like to work with the chairman and his subcommittee to bolster the future allocation for fundamental science. We cannot let our investment stagnate or slip.

I know they understand, and we all need to appreciate, the impact innovation has on jobs in our economy. We need to remain dedicated to investing in innovation; and I want to stand by Chairman Wolf, and once again let me express my deep appreciation and to stand by the chairman and to offer to help in this very important process.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment. This is a delicately balanced bill and the Obey amendment would destroy that balance. The account that the gentleman from Wisconsin is reducing funds the President's space exploration initiative, and also NASA's Earth science, space science, and aeronautics programs. All of these programs are at a critical point and are struggling for funds. At a time when we are trying to keep important Earth science missions on the drawing board, at a time when we face increased costs for both the Hubble space telescope and its planned successor, the James Webb space telescope, at a time when we are contemplating significant changes in our aeronautics program, at a time when we are trying to create new technologies to return to the Moon, this arbitrary cut proposed in this amendment is simply not appropriate.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. An appropriations bill is all about balance. All of us have programs in this bill we would like to see funded a little more or a little less. But the question before us is whether the bill strikes the overall balance among programs, given the fiscal constraints that we all face. And I think that with this bill, the appropriators did an outstanding job with their balancing act. We should be very cautious about throwing off that balance.

Let me give you an example from a program under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. Is the National Science Foundation lavishly funded? Hardly. The appropriation for NSF, for example, is not even enough to bring the agency back to its 2004 funding level. The committee recognized the importance to our Nation's future of funding long-range basic research at our Nation's universities, but the committee could not find the money to

provide anything like the authorized level of funding. That is the kind of balancing act the committee had to pull off throughout the bill.

Now this arbitrary across-the-board amendment comes along that would unravel all of this, and I oppose it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate President Chen Shui-ban and the people of Taiwan, as they celebrate the close of the 1st year of President Chen's second term in office.

Taiwan and the United States share universal values of freedom, human rights, and democracy. Based on these common principles, our two countries work together closely politically and economically. Taiwan is our 8th largest trading partner, and we are Taiwan's largest trading partner. There are more than 270 direct flights between the United States and Taiwan every week and more than twenty eight thousand Taiwanese students currently studying in the United States. We hope that this relationship will become even closer in the years ahead, as President Chen continues his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues here in the Congress have recently written a letter to Lee Jong-wook, Director General of the World Health Organization, asking him to support Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly, the WHO's governing body. Taiwan has a modern, world-class health care system and has lent its talent and resources to people in need throughout Asia and around the world. As such, Taiwan has much to contribute to global health and deserves a place under the WHO umbrella, and it is important that they be given the opportunity to do so.

President Chen continues to call for resumption of dialogue between the PRC and Taiwan to ensure that any resolution of the ``Taiwan Question'' is through peaceful means. He remains committed to promoting the establishment of a peaceful and stable mechanism for cross-strait relations, a goal that we here in the Congress certainly share with him. Maintaining the status quo between the PRC and Taiwan is of paramount importance to the United States.

Once again, I congratulate President Chen and his 23 million countrymen.

Mr. Speaker, every invention, each new scientific concept, every technical advance in the history of mankind has been challenged and analyzed and debated, and properly so. Change makes us uncomfortable, forces us to design new paradigms; but in the final analysis, it is man's fundamental obligation to use science for the betterment of mankind.

In this instance, we are called upon to heal diseases that have plagued and bewildered us for centuries. It would be unconscionable and irresponsible should we fail to live up to our obligation in this critical matter.

The moral and ethical question is this, do we destroy embryos, simply discard them, embryos that will never be implanted in a womb but which can advance stem cell research to cure historic illnesses?

The answer is, no, we should move forward with important scientific research, forward movement which will be enhanced in a measured way by passage of the measure before us.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do want to have a to-the-point and brief explanation to this amendment because its purpose is to bring to a head an important issue that might otherwise be overlooked.

The Department of Energy is moving ahead with negotiating U.S. participation in ITER, the International Fusion Energy Project, which is all to the good. I support U.S. participation in ITER, a critical experiment that will help determine finally if fusion is a realistic option for energy production. But ITER is expensive.

The U.S. contribution is expected to exceed $1 billion, and I want to make sure that before we commit even one dime to ITER, we have a consensus on how we will find that money.

The U.S. must not finalize an agreement on ITER until we have a consensus on how to pay for it. In the meantime, the site selection and planning process and negotiations on ITER can and should continue. But I will do all I can to prevent the U.S. from entering into an agreement if no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to pay for it.

Moving ahead without consensus will mean either reneging on our agreement or killing other worthy programs within the Office of Science to pay the disproportionate cost of the fusion program. Let us avoid that.

I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and everyone concerned with this issue to build a strong and balanced fusion program.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, which will help us better guide the Department of Homeland Security in its most important responsibilities. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the staff for working so closely with us on areas of the bill that were under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science, which I am privileged to chair.

The Committee on Science created the Science and Technology Directorate, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that it succeeds in this mission. As I have said before many times, the war against terrorism, like the Cold War, will be won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield.

The Committee on Science also played a key role in the establishment of the Information Assurance and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, where our interests have focused on cybersecurity, a grave and underappreciated threat, and one on which DHS unfortunately has focused too little attention and too few resources. We hope that is going to change.

This bill will strengthen research and development activities at the Department and will place new and added emphasis on cybersecurity. Specifically, the bill includes language to enhance technology transfer, to improve cybersecurity training, and to create an Assistant Secretary for cybersecurity and to authorize explicitly a cybersecurity research and development program. All of this language either originated in our committee or was worked out in collaboration between the Committee on Science and the Committee on Homeland Security.

I am especially pleased that the bill recognizes the need to focus more on cybersecurity. We all recognize it. We want to make sure that the agency follows through and responds accordingly. We need to act both immediately and in the long term. Immediately, we need to shore up existing networks and develop a system to detect, report, and respond to attacks. Over the long term, we need to figure out how to make computers harder to attack.

DHS needs to be working with the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the National Security Agency on cybersecurity. But its own contributions are critical.

Let me close by thanking the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), ranking member, working together, their staffs, and especially Tom DiLenge, and the entire Committee on Homeland Security by working cooperatively to come up with an excellent bill which has earned our support.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Costello, has made a statement which points out that the language of H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005, unlike last year, does not include a provision requiring that 60 percent or more of the total fossil energy research and development budget be allocated to coal research and development. This allocation is the position of the Committee on Science as set out in its report on H.R. 6. In conference, I will be happy to support and work towards including the 60 percent or more funding language in the conference text of H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation. It deals with the competitiveness of the United States of America in the global marketplace. This is something that too many take for granted that we are going to continue to be preeminent in the competitive world. We are not going to be preeminent in the competitive world if we do not invest wisely, if we do not direct our resources in the proper way, because the competition is all over the place. It is not just one State against another. It is the United States against the world. We are ahead. That is a position I like. I like to be ahead of the parade.

But I will tell you, when we look back, we see a lot of people following closely behind. So it is critically important that we do things like investing in high-performance computing. And among other things, this bill directs the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, that is the science advisor to the President of the United States, to develop and maintain a research development and deployment road map for the provision of high-performance computing systems for use by the research community in the United States of America.

Now, that is a very important assignment. And we want Dr. Marburger down at the White House to know that those of us in the legislative branch are determined to give the resources necessary, the direction necessary to enable him to go forward, confident that he has the support, the bipartisan support of the Congress of the United States. So I commend this bill to my colleagues. I commend this bill to the other side of the Capitol, our colleagues in the United States Senate.

This is important business and let us get on with it. I thank my chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the outstanding leadership she has provided and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Just let me talk about the part that concerns me the most, which affects the Director of the Office of Science.

As I understand it, the concern about the bill is that it would create a new Senate-confirmed position in the Department, but the Director of the Office of Science is already treated like an Assistant Secretary in all but name. He, or at points in the past she, is Senate- confirmed. The office holder is paid at the same level as an Assistant Secretary.

In fact, everything about the Director slot is identical to being an Assistant Secretary except the name, and in protocol-driven Washington and in capitals abroad, that can create confusion and be a problem.

So I hope that when the Senate comes back with this same provision, as I expect they will, we will be able to work it out based on the facts.

All we are trying to do here is make sure the Office of Science, the leading funder of physical science research, has the stature it needs to do its job even better. This elevation will not create any more hierarchy at the Department of Energy, and it will not cost any additional money.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, with great regret, but with even greater conviction, I rise in opposition to this bill. While this bill certainly has some worthy provisions, including those reported out by our committee, overall this bill is a step backward. This bill will not lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and it will do nothing to reduce energy prices. It will increase the deficit, weaken our economy, compromise our national security and endanger our environment.

The supporters of this bill are certainly right about one thing. We desperately need a good national energy policy. This measure does not pass that test.

Our growing dependence on foreign oil puts us at the mercy of unstable and unfriendly foreign regimes. It gives terrorists additional targets and puts money in their hands. It weakens the dollar by worsening the balance of trade. We would start every day $500 million- plus in the hole on our balance of trade because of the imported oil. It pumps money out of the domestic economy and into the hands of those who would wish us ill.

In short, our oil dependence represents a significant and growing threat to our national security, and national security should be first and foremost in the minds and hearts of everyone in this Chamber.

So what do we do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Yes, we need to increase the supply of fossil and nuclear and renewable energy.

But most importantly, we need to become more energy efficient. And does this bill do to make us more energy efficient? Virtually nothing.

The Federal Energy Information Administration found that last year's energy bill would have almost no impact on energy demand and energy prices; and that bill, if anything, made more of an effort to tame consumption. The Alliance for an Energy Efficient Economy has estimated that this year's energy bill would not save a single barrel of oil by 2020.

That is both tragedy and farce. We know how to treat our oil addiction. We can make appliances more energy efficient without inconveniencing anyone. We can make our cars more efficient without sacrificing safety. My CAFE amendment would reduce oil consumption in 2020 by 2 million barrels a day. That is more than twice the amount that is expected per day from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What does this bill do instead of trying to make us more energy efficient? At a time of fiscal crises and record oil prices, the bill provides new mandatory spending that will go directly to the oil industry, and it provides mandatory breaks for the oil industry on royalties.

The bill provides massive tax breaks for profitable oil companies and next to nothing for new technologies that could help wean us from foreign oil. Here is what the President said last week on that issue: ``With $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.'' The President's budget devoted 72 percent of its proposed energy tax incentives to alternatives. This bill provides just 6 percent to alternatives while providing more than a billion dollars in additional tax breaks.

We would not have to look far to come up with better ideas. While the House has been writing a bill based on ideological purity rather than careful analysis, others have come forward with bipartisan, sensible balanced approaches to energy policy. Groups like the National Commission on Energy Policy and the Alliance to Save Energy and the Energy Future Coalition have all offered carefully considered proposals that could have formed the basis of an effective bill with Republican credentials.

But instead, we have decided to close our minds and open our purse in a way that will harm taxpayers and consumers and weaken our economic health and national security.

We can do better. We ought to do better. We have an obligation to do better. Let us defeat this bill and start over.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I ask unanimous consent that he be able to control that time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, let me make several quick points. First, we cannot become less dependent on foreign oil unless we increase the fuel economy of our vehicles.

We are importing 14 million barrels of oil every day. Cars and light trucks consume 9 million barrels of oil every day, and consumption is going up not down. We are on a collision course with disaster.

Second, we have been losing ground on fuel economy. We use more gas to drive a mile today than we did 20 years ago. Third, this amendment would cut, would cut U.S. consumption by 2 million barrels a day by 2020, more of a savings than any other single source in the bill.

Fourth, the National Academy of Sciences said that full economy can be increased ``without degradation of safety.'' A representative of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers confirmed at a recent Science Committee hearing that I chaired that CAFE could be increased without compromising safety.

Finally, the biggest beneficiary of this amendment will be the consumers. They are sick and tired of paying skyrocketing prices for gasoline, $40 to $50 to fill up. They want relief. This amendment offers them hope that we are doing something about it.

Finally, support this commonsense science-based amendment that will help the Nation while leaving more money in consumer's pockets, theirs not ours.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, this is myth versus reality. Myth number one: This will cost us jobs, passing this amendment. ``Jobs'' is my favorite four- letter word. This is a bunch of nonsense. The reality is, the new standards, if they are enacted into law, Americans will buy more, not fewer, vehicles because they will be more fuel efficient.

Myth number two: CAFE standards will force Americans into smaller vehicles. The reality is, we heard that argument first back in 1975. The opponents said, If you adopt this new standard, all Americans will be driving compacts or subcompacts in 10 years. What has happened? The record is bigger and bigger vehicles all over the place.

The fact of the matter is, we do not want to take away choice from consumers. We want them to have their SUVs if that is what they want. We want them to have their light trucks if that is what they want. We want Detroit and the American auto industry to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Finally, this really offends me, myth number three: We will sacrifice safety. That is what the opponents say; that is not what the National Academy of Sciences says. We already have the technology on the shelf gathering dust to manufacture more fuel-efficient automobiles and light trucks. I say the alarm has been sounded. This is a national security issue.

We are far too dependent on foreign-source oil. This amendment alone will save 2 million barrels a day by 2020 and, in the process, save the American consumers that are fed up with a car requiring $40 or $50 to fill up. They want more fuel efficiency, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to deliver it.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today (along with my colleague Mr. Inslee from Washington State) to introduce the U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2005. On December 26 of last year, we all watched with horror and complete bewilderment as a massive tsunami swept across the Indian Ocean Basin ravaging 11 nations, killing more than 150,000 people, and affecting the day-to-day lives of millions.

This event was a wake up call for coastal communities around the world, and certainly for coastal communities in the U.S. While the U.S. does have a tsunami detection and warning system in the Pacific, this event forced us to reexamine that system and we found that most of the vulnerable communities in the U.S. are not adequately protected or prepared for a similar event.

The Administration responded quickly to the Indian Ocean Tsunami with a proposal in January to strengthen and expand the current U.S. tsunami detection and warning system. The Science Committee took the lead in Congress and held a hearing on the Administration's proposal and heard from experts who expressed some concerns about the Administration's proposal and had numerous recommendations to improve it.

We took the Administration's proposal and the comments from many experts and developed the U.S. Tsunami Warning and Education Act. The bill would authorize $30 million a year for 30 years for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to: strengthen the current tsunami detection system in the Pacific and expand it to the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico regions; conduct a community- based tsunami hazard mitigation program to improve preparedness of at- risk areas; maintain a dedicated tsunami research program; and provide technical assistance and training to the international community on the development of a global tsunami detection and warning system.

While tsunamis are going to continue to threaten our coasts, this legislation ensures that we can be better prepared through early detection, instant warnings, and an educated population.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8, legislation that would permanently repeal the Death Tax, a tax that haunts millions of small business owners and farmers nationwide. The last thing the federal government should be doing is taking more money from small business owners and farmers, and curtailing further economic growth. They are the backbone that drives our economy forward. I commend Mr. Hulshof for his leadership on this issue and praise his vision to continue lowering the federal tax burden.

Throughout my twenty-two years in Congress, I have proudly voted for every major tax cut initiative considered by the House. Cutting taxes is one of my highest priorities. I remain convinced that letting Americans keep more of what they earn will help stimulate the economy and create more jobs. People will not hide this much-needed relief under their mattress or store it in their closet; instead they will purchase necessary goods and services. An increased demand for these goods and services will require more employees; therefore, providing incentives for businesses to hire more workers--putting unemployed Americans back on the job and providing a framework for long-term economic growth.

The key to growing our economy is simple--allow Americans to keep more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. My favorite four- letter word--don't worry, it's a four letter word that can be used in polite company--is JOBS. Permanently repealing the death tax will create new jobs across the nation.

Cutting taxes is not unprecedented. Since 2001, Congress has repeatedly passed legislation, which I'm proud to say I voted for, to lower the federal tax burden. For example, we voted to extend relief from the marriage penalty tax, a burdensome tax on married couples for doing nothing more than saying ``I do.'' We also voted to extend the Alternative Minimum Tax reforms (AMT), which is the right step toward making sure the AMT applies only to those people it was designed to cover, not working families just trying to make ends meet. We also supported a measure to extend the 10% bracket to lower taxes for hard working, low-income families. Finally, we voted to extend the $1,000 child tax credit.

It only makes sense to take the next step and permanently repeal the Death Tax. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 8, and put an end to this unfair, unjust, and inefficient burden on our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the parish of Smyrna Baptist Church on their 200 years of history. Located in Chenango County, New York, the Smyrna Baptist Church has become not only a religious institution, but also a historical institution in Central New York.

Founded on the 22nd day of December 1804, by Joseph Tobey, Joel Ellis, Samuel Barber, and others, the Church began as a group dedicated to prayer, meeting in the personal residences of Church members. As the parish expanded, their need for a larger meeting place led them to assemble in the town schoolhouse. And finally to serve its ever-growing congregation, the Church purchased a piece of property in 1837 where it has remained for the past 167 years.

I congratulate the Smyrna Baptist Church on their 200th Anniversary and their continued role in the community. I also congratulate Pastor Dale Sanders, under whose leadership and spiritual guidance, the Church celebrates this momentous occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment which relates to language that originated in the Committee on Science. The language of the amendment was negotiated between the Committee on Science and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I, frankly, do not think that this amendment is especially necessary, but I feel comfortable with the language.

The language we worked out does not allow any political interference with science, nor does it set any new standards for science. It does not raise any legal hurdles for scientists or agencies. It is a simple statement of what we expect from scientific research and the use of that research, particularly risk assessments.

What we expect is what any scientist would expect, which is that the researchers strive for objectivity and use the best available scientific practices, and that when the literature review is done for a risk assessment, that that review look at the best available science and that it describe where the weight of the scientific evidence is.

It is pretty hard to imagine a case where that would not be done, which is why I do not think the amendment is of any urgency; but I think the language we worked out with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) is fair and balanced and limited; and therefore I support it.