Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Head Start conference report and I thank Representatives McKeon, Castle, Miller and Kildee for their work on producing an agreement with the Senate.

For several years, I have worked to improve Head Start's academic and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start provisions.

For thousands of children, Head Start serves as their first formal learning experience. Three- and four-year-olds are open to learning about the world around them, and they should be presented with a wide range of early academic concepts. I am very pleased that this conference agreement includes provisions to ensure that these children are exposed to math and science. I certainly do not intend for Head Start to teach ``rocket science,'' but rather for its teachers to equip Head Start preschoolers with the extremely basic concepts of math and science. Perhaps it will spark the imagination of some kids, and lay the foundation for them to become rocket scientists many years later.

With regard to Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, I joined with Representatives Grijalva, Hinojosa and Sanchez in securing a 5 percent funding floor for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in the House version of the bill. For far too long, funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start has lacked parity with other Head Start programs. I am disappointed that the conference report abandoned the House- and Senate-passed 5 percent floor, but I recognize the difficulty conferees had in finding a workable formula. I hope that Members will join me in supporting funding for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start in the future since it is a sorely needed program for workers of our fields and their children.

I urge Members to support the conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the House Administration Committee, I am pleased to support S.J. Res. 7, a bill that allows for the reappointment of Roger Sant as a citizen regent of the Smithsonian Institution.

Several other members of the Committee on House Administration and I had the opportunity recently to meet with Mr. Sant and discuss the road ahead for the Smithsonian in this time of change and opportunity, and also to discuss the mistakes of the past. Mr. Sant assured me that, with his reappointment, he would do his part to ensure that the ``Nation's attic,'' which is the common name for the Smithsonian, is not being looted by those who have put personal gain above the interests of the Institution.

In the last Congress, this committee conducted an oversight hearing into Smithsonian Business Ventures in what would turn out to be a prophetic concern about the museum's financial operations. While my colleague Chairman Brady and and I are committed to continuing vigorous oversight of the Smithsonian, an effective and engaged Board of Regents is an essential first line of defense in ensuring that we do not experience a repeat of those problems that plagued the immediate past president of the Smithsonian.

I am confident, based on the statements made by Mr. Sant, that he is committed to earning back the trust of the Congress and the American people regarding the board's role of safeguarding our Nation's most treasured assets and ensuring proper governance of the Smithsonian and all its different enterprises.

I appreciate the leadership given by the chairman of this committee, Mr. Brady, and the way he has taken hold of this issue, among others, and I am pleased to join him in approving this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2206, which will extend the time period for the Joint Committee on the Library to enter into an agreement to obtain a statue of Rosa Parks.

A tireless advocate for equality, Rosa Parks is best remembered for a single act of civil disobedience that would change the history of our Nation. By refusing to move to the back of the bus in her native Alabama, to make room for white passengers, Mrs. Parks ignited passions on both sides of the civil rights movement. This led to the Montgomery bus boycott and helped to elevate the work of another great American of the civil rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as an august Member of this body, Congressman John Lewis, who also participated and played a leading role in some of the demonstrations of that time.

Even in her passing, Rosa Parks was a trailblazer as the first woman and only the second African American to lie in state in the Capitol rotunda.

I am especially pleased to speak on her behalf since she decided to take up residence in Michigan for the remainder of her life after she had gone through various demonstrations and activities surrounding her initial act of defiance. She was a distinguished citizen of our State, and in fact we recently dedicated a new park in downtown Grand Rapids in her honor. It is named the Rosa Parks Park.

By extending the time period to procure a statue of Mrs. Parks, this bill will allow the Joint Committee on the Library to delegate the administration of the statue selection process to the Architect of the Capitol. The JCL was not designed for, nor is it equipped, to run an arts competition. Allowing the Architect of the Capitol to administer the competition process will ensure that the statue selected is a fitting tribute to this marvelous civil rights pioneer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, but I would like to close with a few additional comments.

First of all, I admire my colleague's voting record. It is a rare person who misses only two votes during 13 years.

But above all, I want to comment on a few things relating to Rosa Parks. First, what impresses me is how much one person who is determined to fight for what is right can accomplish. She was a marvelous person and stuck to her guns in tough situations, and she carried the day and inspired a lot of other people to carry the day.

The other factor is, as I look around the world today, and the United States especially, and compare that to the world before Rosa Parks, what a mammoth change we have undergone. But also as I look around, I still remember how much further we have to go. And let us always work in the spirit of Rosa Parks to destroy discrimination of all sorts and make certain that every American and in fact every citizen of this planet enjoys the freedom that we enjoy.

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

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased that we are considering this resolution recognizing the 20th anniversary of National Chemistry Week, which was established by the American Chemical Society to teach children about the chemical sciences. This year, the National Chemistry Week theme is ``The Many Faces of Chemistry,'' emphasizing the diversity of chemistry careers and the diversity of the individuals working in chemistry professions.

Ensuring that our science and engineering workforce accurately reflects the diversity of our population is necessary for our country to succeed. But right now we are falling short. For example, Hispanic Americans constitute 12 percent of the population yet they represent less than three percent of the engineering and scientific community in the U.S.

Last week the Research and Science Education Subcommittee heard testimony from a number of witnesses on the topic of gender equity within science and engineering faculty. Freeman Hrabowski, the president of the University of Maryland, Baltimore Campus--a campus noted for recruiting and retaining both minority students and faculty-- remarked, ``Producing well-prepared scientists and engineers for our increasingly diverse workforce is perhaps our most important and lasting contribution to the Nation's economic development and national security.'' Furthermore, a 2004 survey of the ``top 50'' science engineering departments at U.S. universities revealed that there are few tenured and tenure-track women faculty in these departments in research universities, even though a growing number of women are completing their Ph.D.s, and that underrepresented minority women faculty are almost nonexistent.

Clearly, we have a problem. I have often said that we are throwing away more than 40 percent of our workforce if we do not actively encourage more women and underrepresented minorities to consider these fields. The American Chemical Society is helping to draw more attention to this issue with the choice of this year's National Chemistry Week theme. ``The Many Faces of Chemistry'' recognizes the important contributions of chemical educators, scientists and engineers to technological progress and the health of many industries.

I commend the American Chemical Society for stimulating the interest of ALL of our Nation's children in the chemical sciences so that they will consider careers in these fields and potentially discover the innovations of the future, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing the goals and ideals of National Chemistry Week.

Madam Speaker, 50 years ago today, the Soviet Union changed the world by launching Sputnik I into orbit. People who were alive in 1957 vividly remember Sputnik. It shocked the American public and dwarfed the achievements of our rocket program. It was so serious that President Dwight Eisenhower had to go on national television to apologize for our failure, and promised a boost to our science efforts. This led to an awakening of innovation, which resulted in the United States launching a comparable satellite of its own, the Explorer I, into orbit fewer than four months later. More importantly, Sputnik spurred U.S. investment in aerospace, culminating in the Apollo Moon landing. There was also a great emphasis on improving our math and science education programs. This sparked an intense focus on equipping our workforce with the skills needed to compete with the Russians.

Unfortunately, once again the United States is falling behind other nations. This time, it is our children who are falling behind their peers in European and Asian countries that have more rigorous math and science education programs. We must do a better job of preparing our kids for the jobs of the future.

Already, economic pressures have pushed some States and the Federal Government to improve math and science education. For example, in Michigan the business community supported the effort to require that high school graduates take at least 4 years of math and 3 years of science courses. Michigan desperately needs a workforce equipped with math and science skills to attract employers to

our State and to retain our current jobs. Also, I should mention that President Bush recently signed into law the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which includes provisions to encourage innovation in manufacturing and to strengthen many of our Federal research and education programs. While these efforts are crucial to our Nation's future, we must do more to improve.

We should not wait for another Sputnik-like spark to bolster our Nation's math and science education programs. Fortunately, this year we have the perfect opportunity to invigorate our education system by improving upon the successful No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This law has helped countless students in the United States improve over the past 5 years, and it is a great launching pad for developing an educational system that will prepare our Nation for the future.

NCLB has helped shine a bright light on schools that need improvement, and has focused our Nation's attention on accountability. The result is a tangible impact on the level of proficiency in schools. NCLB has helped our children learn to read and understand math, and has closed the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their more privileged peers.

Yet NCLB still needs additional improvements. I introduced a bill to put science on a par with reading and math. The Science Accountability Act requires that science testing, which begins this school year, be included in States' student evaluation systems starting next school year. Another bill I introduced, the Improving Mathematics and Science Teacher Quality Act, provides dedicated funding for teacher in-service or professional development training.

Furthermore, we need to ensure that States are treated equitably. Our Nation's mix of 50 different State educational standards and State tests distracts from our national focus on preparing our kids for their future. In that spirit, I worked with Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to introduce the Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids (SPEAK) Act, which creates rigorous, voluntary education content standards for math and science. In exchange for voluntarily adopting these math and science standards, it provides States regulatory flexibility. It is worth noting that since education is primarily a State and local responsibility the bill specifically avoids creating national curricula or tests.

We must seize this Sputnik-like opportunity and strengthen NCLB. After the Russians beat us to space, our Nation redoubled its efforts and improved its focus on space programs and developed an innovative workforce. This led to many scientific discoveries and helped us put humans on the Moon. In the same way, we must redouble our efforts as we build on the successes of the first version of NCLB to help launch our students and our great Nation into the 22nd century and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, Representative Paul Gillmor. I learned of his sudden passing on Wednesday, and my wife and I are greatly saddened by this news. I offer my prayers of support to his wife Karen and their two daughters, Linda and Julie and their three sons, Paul Michael and twins Connor and Adam.

I take great pride in knowing such an honorable gentleman who humbly served his country and constituents. Paul began his life of public service as a Judge Advocate in the Air Force during the Vietnam Conflict from 1965-1966. He continued his service as a State Senator for twenty-two years and was President of the Ohio Senate for three General Assemblies. Ever since he was first elected to Congress in 1988, he has honorably represented his constituents in the most ethical manner. He was reelected to each subsequent Congress by substantial margins, indicating the trust and confidence his constituents placed in him. He served them well and diligently.

Representative Gillmor and I were both long-time congressional representatives to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Paul was particularly active in this organization and served several years as Chair of the important Economic Committee, and most recently has been serving as the Vice Chair of the entire Assembly. In all Assembly activities, Representative Gillmor conscientiously and honorably represented the interests of the United States.

Above all, Paul was a good friend, confidante, and advisor to me. He was a fountain of wisdom and sage advice, and I deeply appreciated his friendship and that of his wife Karen. My wife and I both enjoyed their company as we traveled together to NATO meetings to represent the U.S. Karen and Paul were particularly proud of their children, and often told us about their development and prowess.

We will all miss Paul, and express our condolences to Karen and the children. He made an important mark on the history of our Nation and the world. Our country is the better for his participation in the Congress and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

May God bless Karen, the children and all Paul's relatives, and give them comfort and strength during this time of sorrow.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You heard one speaker say this was a bad bill and should not be passed. You heard another one say it is a good bill and should be passed. There are good points on both sides of that argument. But I would point out that I have never seen a perfect bill reach the floor of this House; and, on balance, I believe this bill is good and should be passed, and I will be supporting the bill and presumably the rule that is presenting it to us.

I do this in spite of the fact that Dr. Gingrey and Ranking Member Hall, whom I have great respect for, have serious doubts about the bill.

Let me explain why I am supporting this. America is in trouble. It is in trouble in several areas. It is in trouble in science, and it is in trouble in education, manufacturing, outsourcing. Let me examine some of those.

Just an example, science education. Had I the time I could give you chart after chart after chart showing you where American students stand on the international scale compared to other high school graduate students:

In physics, dead last of all developed nations.

High school mathematics graduates, second from the bottom of all developed countries.

General science, about fifth from the the bottom.

In the PITA studies, United States last of 21 nations in mathematics.

We think we are the leading nation. We think we are doing a good job of educating our students. We are not, and we must face that. This bill addresses much of that problem by improving the education and training for teachers, both incoming teachers and existing teachers. It will improve the curricula, it will help students achieve better, and we must achieve higher levels again.

China and India recognized this issue 20 years ago, that the future belonged to the nations that educated their children in mathematics and science. China did it the dictator's way: You will learn math and science. India did it through inducements. But, as a result, they are now ahead of us, and we are now losing jobs to those nations because we have neglected our math and science education.

In our research efforts, we have always been the leader in scientific research for half a century, ever since World War II. We are losing ground. Believe it or not, South Korea is starting to put more than we are, as a percent of GDP, into basic research efforts, and that is being joined by other countries as well.

Manufacturing is a tremendous problem. We are losing jobs to other countries. And it is not just the wage base. I come from a manufacturing district. I have many conversations with manufacturers. It is not just the wage base. They are getting better quality, more highly educated workers abroad for lower pay. That is a hard combination to beat. And we really have to work hard in this Nation to improve education and improve manufacturing.

Now, how does that affect this bill? This bill is designed to affect and improve all of those areas. It does not do it ideally. I disagree with a number of things in the bill. I join my Republican colleagues in doing that. But, on balance, it is a start. If this were an appropriations bill, I might have some reservations, but it is an authorization bill. We get another bite of the apple each time we decide which programs we are actually going to fund.

I could mention ARPA-E in here. I am less than enthusiastic about it. If it works, I am delighted. I am skeptical. But why not authorize it, let the appropriators work with us, and decide whether or not we should fund it.

America as a Nation is based on competition. We are not afraid of competition, and this bill will engender competition. It will give us the opportunity to compete face-to-face at level-to-level with other countries and give us an opportunity to restore our manufacturing base, improve our science education, improve our manufacturing facilities and really do a better job.

You have heard before, this is endorsed by many major organizations in this country, all of whom have a deep interest in improving manufacturing and improving our competitiveness. This bill was suggested by President Bush in his American Competitiveness Initiative in his State of the Union speech last year. This is not a fly-by-night idea. This is something that I have been working on for almost every year since I came here 14 years ago and particularly the last 10 years. It is coming to fruition.

I have worked with the White House on it. I have worked with many scientific societies, and much of the genesis of this comes from the the National Academy of Sciences and The Gathering Storm Report, which is headed very ably by Norman Augustine, one of our leading industrialists and scientists.

It is not a perfect bill. I wish it were, but it is not. But in this process this is the best we can get, and it gives us a base to build on. And through appropriate use of this authorization and the appropriations bills, we will strengthen our Nation, we will strengthen our manufacturing base, we will strengthen our schools, we will strengthen our math and science education, and we will have a better Nation and a stronger Nation as a result.

One last comment. We spend a tremendous amount of money on defense, a tremendous amount of money on defense. We have always managed to succeed in situations like Iraq because of our superior knowledge, our superior research, and our superior resources. We are in danger of losing that edge. And I have met with people from the the Pentagon suggesting scientific ideas to them that they can use to improve the situation in Iraq. We need that kind of interaction between the scientific community and the military community, and I hope that will also result from this and give us a stronger Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

We've heard a lot of discussion, pro and con, on this bill. It is a good bill. Now, it spends more money than I would like. It actually lists more money than we will ever spend. This is an authorization bill; it is not an appropriations bill. And I know from 14 years of trying to get the appropriators to spend more money on science research that they will not appropriate anywhere near the money that we are authorizing in this bill. So, please don't think because it's a bigger bill than we expected that it's actually going to result in those expenditures.

Let me also comment about the investment aspect. I get tired of the word ``investment'' here. Everyone says we're going to invest money in this, we're going to invest in that, when actually we are just spending money. But this is a bill where we're clearly investing money, and there is a return on the investment in this money, because we are investing in research with a return on it.

When I first came to the Congress I was commissioned by Chairman Sensenbrenner and by Speaker Gingrich to write a report on where we should be going in science in this country. I did so and I examined this investment issue. I tried to pin it down.

There are lots of expert estimates on the return on investment on scientific research. The lowest figure I found was 25 percent annual return. The biggest number I found was 4,000 percent annual return. Take your pick between, but it's better than any other investment you can do. There is substantial return on science investment.

Let me give you one example. Years ago, when I was a graduate student, a friend of mine, Charles Townes, now a Nobel Prize winner, developed a laser. We all knew the principles of it. We knew he would likely succeed at some point. He operated with government funding, through a research contract. I don't know the exact amount, but I doubt if it was a great deal more than $10 million in the dollars of that day. He did develop the laser.

Today, the laser has created a multi-, multi-, multibillion dollar industry. The clothes you are wearing were cut out with lasers. Many of you have had laser surgery in hospitals or in doctors' offices. Every pipeline laid in this country is laid with directional laser beams. Every ceiling hung in this country and throughout the world is hung with the use of lasers.

The first laser I had cost about $1,000. I used it for research in the lab. Today, for $15.00 I can buy an equivalent laser in the gift shop in the Longworth building to use as a pointer. All of that, this multibillions of dollars simply from a $10 million Federal grant. That is the type of return we're talking about here.

This bill is a blueprint for the direction we want to go. We will by no means do all the projects in here. We will by no means invest all the money that is authorized here. Science is a progressive field. We will do the research. We'll find what pays off, and what doesn't pay off. This progressive process of science will allow us to efficiently allocate our resources as we determine the results.

Now, there are some things in this bill I don't think are that good. ARPA-E receives a lot of mention. I don't know if it will work. It worked fantastically in the Defense Department when we did it there. Will it work here? We don't know. We'll find out. If not, we kill the project.

We spent a lot of money here in the first years the Republicans took over this majority in doubling the investment in the National Institutes of Health. The amount of money we put into the National Institutes of Health alone during that period is greater than the total sum of money authorized in this bill. We put it in. It has paid off. Better health products, better analytical techniques to determine illness, to find cures. Very rarely, if you do the science carefully and it's peer-reviewed, very rarely do you find out that it is a bad investment.

Another aspect, we are losing out to other nations in international competition. We are losing out in science and math education. We're losing out in innovation. We're losing out, obviously, in manufacturing because of outsourcing.

If you look at the proof of that, simply examine the scores of our students in 12th grade classes in math and science in international tests across the entire world. Where do we come out? You've heard Chairman Gordon mention some of that a little while ago, but we are not proud of the results.

In physics, we are last of the developed countries in our student scores in 12th grade physics. We are second from the last to all developed nations in the scores for mathematics in 12th grade. We are about fifth from the bottom in general science, just a composite of science subject. In the PITA studies which were completed recently in mathematics comparing students in developed nations, the United States was last out of 21 nations.

We cannot compete in this world if we don't improve. We have to teach our students better. We have to train our teachers better. We have to train the teachers coming out of college so that they can teach in the high schools. We have to train the teachers who are already teaching, who from my experience I know want to teach better, but they have never been properly taught science and math or how to teach it. That again is part of this bill.

America is based on competition. We are a competitive Nation. We survive on competition. We thrive on it. Give us a chance. Give our kids a chance by properly training them to be able to do the scientific research and the technical work that this world needs.

We have to conquer this manufacturing problem we have now. We talk about jobs going overseas because there are cheaper wages. I have talked to manufacturers. I have a manufacturing district. That's not it. They're going overseas to get the talent, not to get the cheap salaries.

With our cutback on H-1B visas, many of my manufacturers are being forced to go abroad to get the work done. I don't like it. They don't like it. And if we do the job right, we will once again bring those jobs back to this country.

Finally, I just want to mention the huge number of endorsements this bill has received. The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it and is scoring it. The National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed and is scoring it. And I've a list here and Chairman Gordon has also handed out a list of some 30 different scientific organizations supporting this bill.

This is not a fly-by-night bill. It may be more expensive than we want, but we won't spend all the money, I can guarantee that, because the research will be thriftily done and through a progressive scientific method of handing the money out and doing the research step by step.

This conference report represents the culmination of years of work by many people. Expert reports from the National Academies, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and Business Higher Education Forum--just to name a few--kept telling Congress that the federal government must increase its investment in basic research and in science and math education, and must ensure that the funds it invests are spent on programs that will keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy. These reports had an enormous impact on the White House's thinking about competitiveness, and resulted in the President's introduction of the ``American Competitiveness Initiative''. Congress has responded to the recommendations about precisely what steps the government should take in the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 before us.

Beginning in 2006, the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), launched a three-pronged approach to competitiveness by strengthening research at the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and the laboratories and construction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This bill fully supports the ACI-requested improvements as well as strengthens programs focused on teacher training and education in science, technology, engineering and math.

The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 also includes some new ideas, such as the establishment of a DARPA-like agency at the Department of Energy. While I have been skeptical of this idea, it did originate with the experts at the National Academies, and, if it is able to achieve its goals of overcoming some of the great technology hurdles needed to

solve our energy problems, it would be revolutionary. The conference committee recommended $300 million to get this idea off the ground, a much lower amount than was originally proposed.

Last but not least, the bill also addresses the long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by broadening and strengthening manufacturing extension services and reviving manufacturing innovation through collaborative research and development. Although manufacturing has experienced tremendous technological gains over the last few years, international competition has exacted a toll on our nation's manufacturers. There is no evidence that these pressures are likely to go away, but this bill takes steps to help our manufacturing workforce grow and innovate.

It is clear that our nation is at a crossroads. The U.S. will either invest in innovation or witness the gradual erosion of our economic position and, quite possibly, the quality of life to which Americans have become accustomed. I recognize that many of my colleagues are concerned that this bill spends more than $40 billion dollars over the next three years. If there is ever an investment that will guarantee an economic return, this is it. To quote from the executive summary of the National Academy of Science (NAS) report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future:

Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the

committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and

technical building blocks of our economic leadership are

eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering

strength . . . [W]e are worried about the future prosperity

of the United States . . . We fear the abruptness with which

a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the

difficulty of recovering a lead once lost.

Science and technology are the fundamental movers of our economy, and if we want to remain globally competitive, this bill is the sure fire way to guarantee results. The dividends paid by training scientists, engineers, and teachers will multiply throughout all sectors of our economy.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working on all of the bills that have become a part of the 21st Century Competitiveness Act. I hope my colleagues will support this investment in our nation's future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm very pleased to speak on this bill.

Actually, this is a happy day for this Chamber that we are discussing this bill after 7 years of work, very hard work.

In the midst of all of the difficulties we've had in the past few days, the arguments, the debates, the disagreements, to take a brief pause and pass a bill or a conference report that we almost all will agree on is a good piece of work for our Nation. It's a good piece of work for the people of this Nation. It will help in innumerable areas.

I am especially pleased that we have addressed some of the problems in the Great Lakes which have been too neglected in the past. We have taken good care of the Everglades, the Chesapeake and Louisiana areas, lots of other water-filled areas, but not the Great Lakes, where 40 million people depend on the lakes for their drinking water, for their industry and so forth.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Mr. Oberstar, who grabbed hold of this as soon as he became chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and made a total and complete commitment to getting this bill out. He deserves credit for having done so.

I want to publicly express my appreciation to him and, of course, to Mr. Mica, who is the ranking member on the committee and worked equally hard on this. Richard Baker of our committee also put in many, many hours putting this bill together. So thank you to one and all.

Mr. Speaker, the Nation will be the better for it. The Nation will be grateful for it.

Madam Chairman, I wish to clarify my comments made during debate on my amendment to reduce the U.S. Department of Labor's Departmental Management--Salaries and Expenses account and increase the U.S. Department of Education--School Improvement Programs' Mathematics and Science Partnerships program by $15.666 million. My amendment added Section 522 to H.R. 3043's General Provisions. It is my intention that all programs within the Labor Department's Departmental Management-- Salaries and Expenses account be within the Secretary of Labor's discretion to accommodate this reduction.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman explain the resolution, please.

Madam Speaker, under my reservation, I would simply comment that these are remarkably good documents. We make great use of them in the United States. Frankly, I would like to see the dollar limit removed, because these are very valuable documents for students in the schools. I know we receive many, many requests for them, frequently more than we can handle.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution with the one reservation that I wish we could increase the allocation; however, I don't want to stop the flow of democracy here.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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

Madam Speaker, this issue before us first came to my attention 9 days ago in a July 15 story published in the Chicago Tribune entitled ``BP Gets Break

Dumping in Lake.'' Shortly after that I went into a meeting which Mr. Oberstar was chairing, and I alerted him to the issue, because I know he loves the Great Lakes as much as I do.

That article highlighted the wastewater discharge permit granted by the State of Indiana to British Petroleum for its refinery facility in Whiting, Indiana, on the shores of Lake Michigan. The new permit allows BP to discharge an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia per day, up from 1,030 pounds per day, a 54 percent increase above the old limit. The new permit also allows BP to discharge 4,925 pounds of total suspended solids per day, up from 3,646 pounds per day, a 35 percent increase. This level of discharge is extremely disconcerting to me and the entire Great Lakes region.

Let me provide a little background information. The BP facility in Whiting was built in 1889 by John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. Today, it is the fourth largest refinery in the country. It employs 1,700 people and supports another 1,500 contract workers in producing gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It is a major, major refining operation not just in northwest Indiana, but, indeed, the entire Midwest.

BP plans to spend more than $3 billion in upgrading and expanding the facility so it can process more heavy crude from Canada. I support the expansion of refinery capacity to help address our immediate and pressing need for fuel in the Midwest, but I know that the switch to refining more Canadian crude will inevitably lead to more waste from the facility.

No one is accusing BP of subverting the regulatory process. The permit went through the regular public comment period, although I must say that the time between the notice and the final issuance seems to me a very short period for a project of this magnitude. According to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the permit was issued in full accordance and compliance with State and Federal environmental laws. If that is true, and I don't doubt that it is, there is something wrong with State and Federal environmental laws.

The benefits of this project should not come at the expense of our most precious natural resource. The Great Lakes are the world's largest freshwater system and serve as a source of drinking water, food, jobs and recreation for more than 40 million Americans. It is critical that we enhance our restoration efforts for this vital resource. It is already polluted enough, and we certainly do not want to degrade the condition of the lakes even further.

All the communities and States around the lakes have tried to improve their practices. My own town, my city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has spent several hundred million dollars improving its wastewater treatment system to help clean up the lake, and that is the story in many cities around the lakes.

President Bush 2 years ago issued an Executive Order calling together the mayors and the Governors of the Great Lakes regions, the Members of Congress, the environmentalists and the tribes to work together to develop a solution to the pollution in the lakes. Over 1,500 policymakers and stakeholders came together in a collaborative process to develop a long-term strategic action plan for protecting and restoring the environmental health of the Great Lakes. I was proud to participate in that process as the congressional representative, and I have a bill in process which will make the collaborative's recommendations come into law.

The discharge of harmful pollutants that is proposed by BP and permitted by the State of Indiana is totally inconsistent with the goals of Great Lakes restoration. Ammonia and TSS, suspended solids, promote algae blooms that can suffocate fish, destroy fish habitat, deprive plants of sunlight and oxygen, and trigger beach closings. We cannot allow for more of these kinds of problems in the lake.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I would urge both the EPA and the State of Indiana to take a second look at this permit and find a better means of disposal. I also urge BP to look at other means of disposal. Certainly if they can afford to pipe crude oil from Canada thousands of miles through pipelines, they certainly should be able to find a better solution for disposal of wastes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, this issue extends throughout the entire United States in terms of its concern, and I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) as someone who lives very near this particular facility.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Fighting Illini, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a colleague from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I have one speaker, and then I would like to make some comments again.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to offer some comments to close, particularly in view of the previous speaker.

As I said in my earlier comments, I emphasized I was not condemning British Petroleum for their actions; although, I wish they had taken the lead in demonstrating the environmentalism that they often advertise that they have. But I do deplore that the State of

Indiana was willing to give them a permit. I do deplore that the Environmental Protection Agency was willing to give them a permit.

This is contrary to everything that we have been trying to do to clean up the Great Lakes, at huge expense. All over the Great Lakes, communities have tried to clean it up, and my preference would be not only that BP does not add to the load they're putting in the lake, I would prefer that they say, we're going to find a different method, and we're not even going to dump in the lake what we're dumping in now, because they are already dumping a substantial amount in.

The goal here is not to drive BP away. It's not to stop the refinery project. I'd emphasize that over and over. The goal is to make sure that we can maintain the purity and cleanliness of the Great Lakes. And Lake Michigan, of course, drains into three of the other Great Lakes and with a smattering going into Lake Superior. So this is a very important issue.

The gentleman talked a minute ago about drinking water out of the lakes. Forty million Americans draw their water out of the Great Lakes, their drinking water. That is a huge number of people. We are very worried about cleaning up the mercury that already exists in the lake, also the toxaphene and other contaminants, because people are drinking that water, and they are getting ill.

The goal here is not to stop BP. The goal here is to make certain they find an alternative method of disposing of the ammonia and the total suspended solids that they are proposing to dump in the lake, and I would hope they also, while they're doing that, stop dumping what they are dumping, and make sure all the ammonia, all of the total suspended solids get disposed of elsewhere. Perhaps they can use a waste landfill, perhaps something else, but certainly we do not want them to be dumping any additional contaminants into the Great Lakes system.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have rushed down to the floor to support this amendment, and a little history is helpful at this point.

When No Child Left Behind was written, it removed Eisenhower funding from the program. We had been putting in over $400 million per year for Eisenhower funding, most of which went to math and science education. I had written a formula into the bill as it left the House which put Math-Science Education in great shape and maintained roughly the same funding that the Eisenhower program had. However, the Senate removed that provision, and ever since then we have been funding math and science education at considerably lower figures than we did before No Child Left Behind was written.

In this particular bill, the Department of Education has received a substantial boost, No Child Left Behind has received a substantial boost, but the funding for math and science education has remained level, and that just doesn't make sense.

We know from the statistics and the measurements, and the international tests that have been made, that our students are not able to compete with students from other countries at the 12th grade high school level. We are far behind, and we have made a valiant effort in this body to improve that situation.

I have started the STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, Education Caucus. Well over 100 Members of Congress have joined us because they support the need for improving math and science education. If we are serious about competing with other countries in innovation and development, and getting our manufacturing up to snuff, we have to improve our K-12 education, and that is what this amendment is all about.

I very strongly support the amendment, and I urge the body to adopt this amendment. With that, I yield back.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I would like to remind everyone that not too many years ago when America was just getting into the space program, we were very excited about launching the first satellite into space when the Russians launched Sputnik. This was a national disgrace. President Eisenhower had to go on national TV to apologize. He set in place a large number of science and math programs to get us caught up with the Russians.

The Eisenhower programs continued for many years until we decided to write No Child Left Behind, and we killed the Eisenhower funding, which was in the neighborhood of $450 million a year to teach teachers how properly to teach math and science.

In its place, we adopted a Math and Science Partnership Program, which operates within the Department of Education. However, the funding, which was authorized at $450 million, which matched the Eisenhower funding of the era before, was never appropriated at a level near that. It has gone up slightly each year.

But this year, even though the appropriations bill increases the No Child Left Behind funding by $8.6 percent, it held the funding for Math Science Partnerships flat, exactly where they were last year. My amendment would increase the Math Science Partnership funding by precisely the same percentage as the entire No Child Left Behind Act was increased.

The offset for this I selected is from the Department of Labor in an area that was funded far above the President's request. I believe this is a reasonable offset. Apparently the CBO agrees. They have scored my amendment as a $10 million savings overall.

So, here I am, proposing an amendment which will improve our math- science education effort in this Nation. I think it will be very advantageous for our teachers and our schools. Furthermore, the offset is appropriate, and the entire amendment saves the Federal Government $10 million.

I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment. I believe it is reasonable and appropriate.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I thank the gentleman for his comments. Let me reinforce. This is a major area of concern. We are losing ground compared to other countries. Numerous international tests have displayed that our students are not doing nearly as well. That explains in part why we are losing business, research funding and manufacturing to other countries which are simply outpacing us in their educational effort.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for his comments, and I appreciate his support.

I also appreciate the dilemma of the gentleman from Wisconsin because I previously served on an appropriations committee at the State level and had to fight exactly the same battles and make exactly the same decisions.

Let me just remind everyone here that No Child Left Behind was increased by 8.6 percent. Math and Science Partnership for some reason was left out of that and stayed flat. I am simply asking that it be increased the same amount as No Child Left Behind. I am quite willing to trust the judgment of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others in conference to make appropriate adjustments to the Labor Department or wherever else adjustments are needed, but I would certainly appreciate bringing the Math and Science Partnership funding up to exactly the same level that No Child Left Behind has been increased because it is part and parcel of No Child Left Behind.

Offered By Mr. Ehlers of Michigan

Amendment No. 8: Page 125, after line 2, insert the

following:

Sec. 522. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are

revised by reducing the amount made available for

``DEPARTMENT OF LABOR--Departmental Management--Salaries and

Expenses'', and increasing the amount made available for

``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--School Improvement Programs'' (for

activities authorized by part B of title II of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965), by $15,665,760.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer recognition of the Honorable Jo Ann C. Stevenson's retirement as Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Western District of Michigan. Judge Stevenson was the first woman in the Western District of Michigan to be appointed to the Federal bench.

Judge Stevenson graduated cum laude from the Detroit College of Law in 1979. Upon graduation, Judge Stevenson clerked for the Honorable Vincent J. Brennan in the Michigan Court of Appeals and later for the Honorable Cornelia G. Kennedy in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While employed in the corporate insolvency practice group at the firm of Hertzberg, Jacob, and Weingarten in Detroit, MI, she was appointed a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge on December 23, 1987. In the course of her career, Judge Stevenson has authored several hundred opinions, of which approximately 95 percent have been affirmed on appeal.

During the time Judge Stevenson was on the bench, she also taught Bankruptcy Reorganization and Debtor/Creditor Relations at her alma mater. She has given numerous presentations and speeches and participated in many panels, including conferences for the Federal Bar Association Bankruptcy Seminar, the Conference for Chief Bankruptcy Judges, the American Bankruptcy Institute, the Grand Rapids Bar Association, the University of Michigan Institute of Public Policy Studies and the Sixth Circuit Judicial Conference.

Judge Stevenson has also been an active member of the Women Lawyer's Association of Michigan, the National Association of Women Judges, the Grand Rapids Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American Inns of Court, the Joint Steering Committee for the Gender Fairness Task Force

and a Racial/Ethnic Task Force in the Sixth Circuit, and the Standing Local Rules Committee for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan.

Judge Stevenson's departure from the bench will certainly mark a new chapter in her life, which will surely be as successful as her legal career. Though she plans to remain active in the Grand Rapids area, she plans to enjoy spending more time with her husband, Marshall Grate, and her many grandchildren.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking her for her service and in wishing her a long, happy retirement.