Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule for a number of reasons. Yesterday I testified to the Rules Committee regarding my amendment to allow the U.S. Department of Education to continue its evaluation of the Upward Bound program. I am astonished that, because of the Rules Committee action, the full House is not given an opportunity to consider this amendment.

Let me first of all make it abundantly clear, I am a very strong supporter of the Upward Bound program. There have been some preliminary studies in the Department of Education that indicate the program may not be living up to its potential. I am not sure I believe those. But currently the Department of Education has announced a rigorous, random assignment study, that is considered the gold standard of research methodologies, to evaluate the Upward Bound program's impact on students most in need of services. I believe this is a very important study to determine exactly what works best in Upward Bound and how we can improve it.

Unfortunately, during the Education and Labor Committee's consideration of the College Cost Reduction Act, the committee adopted an amendment by voice vote to prohibit this important evaluative study of the Upward Bound program, not so much because they were against the program, but because of an ancillary aspect of it that the amendment was aimed at. My amendment would have left the ancillary program out in the dust, but would have allowed the study to go forward. As a scientist and a strong advocate for research funding, I know it is imperative that we conduct rigorous evaluations using the most sound, scientifically robust methodology to identify best practices in Federal programs, and I wish that my amendment had been made in order.

It is unfortunate that this bill does not promote good evaluation, which is critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively. It also ensures that students are benefiting from proven services.

Finally, I want to express my dismay that the manager's amendment strikes the two amendments that I offered during committee consideration, which were adopted by voice vote and are noncontroversial. In particular, I am dismayed that an amendment I offered about sustainability programs at universities is removed by the manager's amendment.

I thought with Speaker Pelosi's high priority on environmental improvement and saving energy, that the new majority would accept that amendment, as they did in committee, and would let it remain in the bill so that we can wake up some of our higher educational institutions and get them to adopt sustainability programs and also establish academic programs so that future students can be educated in sustainability principles, so that we in fact as a nation can ``go green'' much more rapidly.

For these reasons, I will vote ``no'' on this unfair rule.

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me to speak on this legislation.

First of all I'd like to respond to his comments earlier about greening and also the comments of the subcommittee Chair. I have been involved

in environmental issues even before the first Earth Day. And I also, with all the discussion about fluorescent lights, it's more than 15 years ago that we installed fluorescent lights in the most heavily used parts of our house. We have saved immense amounts of energy and, above all, have avoided having to change light bulbs very often. It's certainly a good thing to do, and we should do it here.

Also, in connection with the comments made about the carbon footprint of the House, let's recognize the most important thing to do is to start by conserving energy, and that is key. You can gain more energy and greater results by increasing efficiency of the use of energy than any other single thing you can do, not just in the Capitol but, frankly, anywhere. And every reduction in a kilowatt of energy is a reduction in carbon emissions. So you can do two things at once.

And I applaud the emphasis on the carbon issue, but that's part of it. Include energy too, that's a very important part. So I encourage the full view. Simply buying credits from someone, if we ever do, and I don't think we should, is not really the answer. We have to reduce the amount we use, and there are many, many ways we can reduce the use of energy in this complex. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for the compliment on that issue.

The main reason I rise today is to express my concerns with many of the administrative provisions in this bill that infringe on the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration. These could hamper our ability to provide meaningful and effective oversight of the offices and operations within our purview.

I recognize full well I am no longer the chairman of the committee, but I am the ranking Republican. And Mr. Brady, whom I think very highly of, is in total agreement on these issues.

Initially, when I saw these, I thought of taking the route of moving points of order against these issues, but I'd prefer to work this out with the Chair and ranking member of the subcommittee.

Let me share just a few of the matters that have raised concern among members of the Committee on House Administration. I have also shared these with Mr. Brady and with Mr. Wamp, and I know that Mr. Brady shares my concern.

In the section titled ``Legislative Branch-wide Matters,'' the report language states in regard to policies governing contracts with women and minority-owned businesses that ``all agencies shall provide a copy of policies to the Committee on Appropriations of the House and Senate within 60 days of enactment of this act.''

It goes on to say that ``the committee further directs all agencies provide an annual report of their compliance with this policy.'' One of the key reforms in the last decade or so has been giving the Committee on House Administration authority governing use of accounts within the House. The oversight provided by the House Administration Committee was designed to prevent financial abuses and also extended to the creation of procurement guidelines, since procurements are made from House accounts.

Those reforms were put in place to guarantee open competition in the procurement process and to ensure that the House would get the best value for the taxpayers' dollars.

This bill essentially creates a reporting relationship to the Appropriations Committee that circumvents the Committee on House Administration and damages our committee's ability to perform the vital oversight function that is within our jurisdiction.

And I would appreciate it if I could have the attention of the Chair because I'm going to ask a question about this in a few minutes.

In the section titled ``Culinary School Students,'' the Appropriations Committee requests that the Chief Administrative Officer contact culinary schools and explore the possibility for culinary school students to enhance their skills and make appropriate arrangements for the students to participate on a rotational basis among the participants in an on-the-job training or similar program.

While I certainly appreciate the interest of the Appropriations Committee in training students and creating a more enjoyable dining experience for Members and staff, the House Administration Committee has already tried to do this in the past and found that no culinary schools were interested because of the unpredictable hours of operation. Again, by circumventing our committee's authority, the Appropriations Committee has added another layer of bureaucracy, created a duplication of work for the CIO, and created a conflict of oversight authority.

Similarly, in the section titled ``Disability Access,'' the language includes a directive to the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, with the assistance of the Architect of the Capital, Government Accountability Office, and the Office of Compliance, where necessary to do a comprehensive assessment of the Capitol complex regarding disability access.

In fact, as required by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, the Office of Compliance conducts biennial ADA inspections of the legislative branch. Most, if not all, of the corrective actions to be taken are under the purview of the Architect of the Capitol. The AOC works closely with the OOC to develop abatement plans and includes cost estimates for that abatement in their annual budget submissions. The CAO is not equipped to conduct this type of study and does not have authority to examine the entire Capitol complex.

Just to conclude, while each of these issues are troubling on their own, together with the other concerns I have addressed with Chairman Brady, they carry even greater significance as a symbol of an emerging pattern whereby report language is being used to establish administrative policy that was never intended to be a matter before the Appropriations Committee. If continued, this creates a duplicative oversight function, threatens to severely hamper the oversight ability of the House Administration Committee.

We've often heard the term ``the power of the purse strings,'' but in this case the power's being used to grant oversight authority to the Appropriations Committee in a manner that will create additional bureaucracy and cause undue harm, particularly to the jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.

I would like to yield time to the Chair of the subcommittee to respond to this. I hope that we can resolve this amicably, and that's why I did not make an issue offering points of order to strike language, et cetera. I don't want to make a do-or-die issue of this, but I would appreciate assurances from the Chair of the subcommittee that we can amicably resolve these jurisdiction issues between ourselves and perhaps with the help of the Parliamentarian.

And I know that Mr. Brady shares my concern. I believe he's had some conversations with you as well.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for the assurance.

I just want to state I have been on that committee virtually since I came to the Congress. I have worked very, very hard on this committee to establish a good working administrative system. We have clarified jurisdiction

over the years, and even though I am no longer chairman but the ranking member at this point, I just want to ensure that the committee continues to enjoy a good relationship with the subcommittee.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And had I been your teacher, you never would have disliked any science course. I would have been delighted to recognize your native ability.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 485, which expresses appreciation for the profound public service and educational contributions of Donald Jeffry Herbert, who passed away on June 12, 2007.

Many people fondly remember Donald Herbert as Mr. Wizard, and they mourn his passing. He was born in

Waconia, Minnesota, which also happens to be my birth State, and he graduated from the La Crosse State Teachers College in Wisconsin in 1940, where he trained to be a science teacher.

He volunteered for the U.S. Army Air Corps and served our country during World War II in the Atlantic theater and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters.

Mr. Wizard will be remembered as a pioneer of commercial educational programming. He made science education and science exciting and approachable for millions of children across the United States. He developed the idea for science programs on radio and television, culminating in ``Watch Mr. Wizard,'' a live television show produced from 1951 to 1964. Another of his shows, ``Mr. Wizard's World,'' inspired children from 1983 to 1990 on cable television. Incidentally, these were precursors to today's Mr. Wizard equivalent, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, who has developed an outstanding reputation on Saturday morning television for educating children about science.

The National Science Foundation and the American Chemical Society lauded Don Herbert and his show for promoting interest in science and his contributions to science education. He has since been recognized by numerous awards.

For the duration of his life, Mr. Wizard served as an ambassador for science education. Outside of his television shows, he promoted science by offering multiple books and programs and by traveling to schools to provide classroom demonstrations. Not surprisingly, Mr. Wizard's dynamic and energetic science experiments attracted unprecedented numbers of children to educational programming, even those who were initially disinterested or unmotivated in science.

Mr. Wizard taught the magic about science by doing science. In fact, Mr. Wizard encouraged children to duplicate his experiments at home, leading children into independent inquiry into science with simple household equipment.

I might add he was a precursor to what is happening in the classrooms today, because teachers have discovered the best way to teach science is to let students do the science themselves.

I also appreciate what he did in leading children into independent inquiry. I grew up before television, and so I did not have the opportunity to watch him. But I developed my interest in science by doing experiments at home. These were experiments that were outlined in Popular Science Magazine, and that gave me my start in science, just as Mr. Wizard gave many other children their start in science.

Certainly, Mr. Wizard's efforts were very important, and are relevant to legislation currently under consideration by our Congress. Evidence indicates that young children make decisions about future careers at an early age and are influenced greatly by positive contacts with science and technology. Recently passed bipartisan bills have focused on the need to improve science education, promote innovation, and ensure our Nation's competitiveness.

This year I introduced several bills related to science education, including the Science Accountability Act, H.R. 35; the Standards to Improve Educational Achievement for Kids, better known as the SPEAK Act, H.R. 325; and the National Science Education Tax Incentive for Teachers Act, H.R. 36.

Through this resolution the House of Representatives expresses its appreciation for the profound public service and educational contributions of Donald Herbert. Also, we should recognize the major impact of higher educational institutions that train teachers who encourage students to honor the heritage of Don Herbert by exploring our world through science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.

I offer my condolences to the family of Don Herbert, and we thank them for their strong support of Mr. Wizard's tremendous educational efforts. He has set a path that all of us should follow, and if we are serious about competing with other nations and keeping the jobs on our soil rather than letting them be outsourced, we must follow his example and educate our children in mathematics and science so that we can continue to be ranked number one in the world in the areas of science and mathematics.

Finally, I thank the Members who cosponsored this resolution: Mr. Akin, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Hall, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Lampson, Mrs. McCarthy, Mr. John Peterson, and Mr. Mark Udall. Also, I thank the Education and Labor Committee staff for their work on this resolution, especially Chad Miller and Rob Borden, as well as my staff member, Rachel Post, who has contributed invaluably to this.

I urge all Members to vote for this resolution to honor Don Herbert for all his work on science education and to honor his memory by continuing to support science education in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Larry Himmelsbach on the occasion of his retirement as Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations. Larry is a tireless ``public servant who has dedicated his professional life to preserving the security of our nation's government and the American public.

After graduating from Holy Cross in 1974 with a degree in Political Science, Larry began his career at the FBI, located in what is now the Ford House Office Building. He served there for 1 year in the fingerprint division before joining the newly created Atomic Energy Commission in 1975, where he served as a security specialist and held a myriad of positions in the Division of Security. The dedication he exhibited early in his professional life to maintaining our national security would be a common thread throughout his career.

In 1985, Larry joined the U.S. Department of Energy, where he held several senior positions in emergency operations and threat assessment. In 2002, he accepted the position of Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations within the House. In his role with OEPPO, which was created as a result of the attack on 9/ 11 and the anthrax incident in October 2001, Larry has been an integral part of carrying out the agency's mission of creating a comprehensive emergency management plan for the House.

Madam Speaker, whether protecting the public from the threat of nuclear terrorism, or ensuring the continuity of our constitutional form of government, Mr. Himmelsbach has always answered the call to serve.

On behalf of myself, my colleagues in this chamber, and the American public, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Larry Himmelsbach for his 33 years of public service, and for ensuring the safety and security of our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H. Con. Res. 164, which authorizes use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug.

Through a lifetime of research and development aimed at curing world hunger, Dr. Borlaug has exemplified how science and humanitarianism can intersect to address the needs of developing countries that have been ravaged by the effects of hunger and poverty. By introducing high- yield, disease-resistant varieties of wheat to India, Mexico and Pakistan, Dr. Borlaug developed sustainable, renewable food sources that are frequently estimated to have saved over a billion lives.

The results of Dr. Borlaug's research were remarkable, yet not surprising given the commitment of this man of science to find practical, applicable solutions to the world's problems, not, as he put it, chase academic butterflies. Dr. Borlaug's efforts to apply science to stimulate agricultural yield have been frequently credited as being a major milestone of the Green Revolution, and he himself has often been cited as the father of that movement.

In 1970, Dr. Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in India and Pakistan, and for his role in the Green Revolution. When he was advised in October of that year that he had won the enormous honor, Dr. Borlaug was where he spent many of his hours--in the farm fields of Mexico. When his wife drove an hour to reach him in the fields and advise him that the media was waiting for his reaction, Dr. Borlaug declined to return to the house, saying that he and his assistants still had much more work to do, as he continued to record data on his test plots. It was there that the TV camera crews found him 2 hours later.

In addition to the Nobel Prize, Dr. Borlaug has been recognized with the 1977 U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom, the 2002 Public

Welfare Medal from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the 2002 Rotary International Award for World Understanding and Peace, and the 2004 National Medal of Science. He has also received numerous honorary degrees from around the world.

Though he has received many accolades, Dr. Borlaug has been quick to point out that his work alone will not be enough to cure world hunger. In 1986, Dr. Borlaug created the World Food Prize, an international award recognizing the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by continuing to improve the quality, quantity and availability of food in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to support H. Con. Res. 164 to authorize use of the Capitol rotunda to honor Dr. Norman E. Borlaug as he receives the Congressional Gold Medal. It is fitting that such an honor be bestowed upon a man who has done so much, for so many.

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National STEM Scholarship Database Act, H.R. 1051. I thank my friend and fellow physicist, Congressman Rush Holt, for introducing this important legislation; and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this excellent bill.

For several years, Congressman Holt and I have worked tirelessly to improve our Nation's math and science education. It has been wonderful to have a Member from the other party sharing my concern about the quality of math and science education in this country and the limited number of young people who are pursuing math and science-related degrees. In fact, I'm very pleased that Representative Holt and 115 other Members have joined the STEM Education Caucus that I founded in 2004.

Of course, I'm sure by now everyone knows that STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It's very important to make that clear, because tomorrow we'll be debating a few stem-cell issue bills on the floor, and this bill has nothing to do with that.

This year, an estimated 111,000 students in Michigan will graduate from high school and may face the pricey but critical investment in their future known as paying college tuition and fees. In Michigan, the average cost of tuition fees is about $6,200 per year at a 4-year public university and $13,250 at a 4-year private university, according to the Chronicles of Higher Education.

Unfortunately, data have shown that some students do not attend college or graduate school because they think they cannot afford it. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, science and engineering students who had taken out loans as undergraduates were more likely to indicate a cost-related reason for not applying to graduate school, compared to students who had never borrowed funds.

Unbeknownst to some students, significant financial aid resources are available. The Federal Government alone provided about $80 billion in student financial aid this fiscal year, with States providing almost $8 billion in additional financial aid. Also, the private sector provides significant financial aid resources.

The National STEM Scholarship Database Act will provide students with better information about available financial aid resources related to the STEM fields. It simply establishes a database to be accessed on the U.S. Department of Education's Website. I am very hopeful that this database will link students with available financial aid resources, and I particularly hope this will encourage more students to enter STEM- related careers by entering graduate schools related to the STEM fields.

This is an excellent bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I again thank Congressman Holt for his work on improving STEM education and urge all of our colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the Christian Reformed Church in North America, which is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding. The church is in the midst of a year-long series of observances and services centered on the theme ``Grace Through Every Generation,'' in three phases of emphasis: Remembering, Rejoicing, and Rededicating.

The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) is a group of nearly a thousand Protestant churches in the United States and Canada. The CRC has its roots in the Reformation of the 16th century. In 1517, the Reformation divided the Christian church, and several Protestant denominations were born. One branch developed under the influence of theologians Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. The ``Presbyterian'' church flourished in Scotland and the ``Reformed'' church in northern Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, with an emphasis on the sovereignty of God, faith in Him alone for salvation, and the preeminence of Scripture in worship.

Dutch Protestants brought their deep faith and their practical piety with them when they emigrated to the United States in the 1800s. My district in West Michigan has some of the deepest roots of Dutch- American history and heritage in the country. Dutch explorers, traders and settlers were a significant part of the earliest European exploration of the New World, especially in New York and New Jersey. However, the first major wave of Dutch immigration began in the 1840s with the Calvinists. Like so many of the original settlers here in America, they wanted more religious liberty than they experienced in their home country. They dared to journey across the Atlantic to New York and then moved across northern New York and finally settled near the shores of Lake Michigan. Waves of Dutch settlers soon found Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, to be the places of stability and religious liberty they were seeking. In 1857, a group of four churches--about 130 families--officially broke from the Dutch Reformed Church and formed the Christian Reformed Church in North America.

Throughout its 150 years, the CRC has maintained a commitment to the teachings of John Calvin as well as the great Dutch theologian, Abraham Kuyper, who called the church not only to holy living but to assert Jesus Christ's lordship over all of creation. This means that every aspect of life belongs to God, and every sphere of life--from schools to homes to businesses to government--can be a forum for learning more about God and helping to make the world a better place.

Throughout its 150 years, the CRC has wrestled with many of the same social issues faced by other churches and the country in general. The church's worldview has shaped its level of accommodation of different lifestyles and cultures, its discussions of ways to combat racism, its debates over the place of women in church leadership, and its consideration of the appropriate response to war and other international conflicts.

Throughout its 150 years, several CRC programs and ministries have developed and grown to reflect this worldview. This includes The Back to God Hour, the church's worldwide radio and Internet ministry program; Christian Reformed World Missions, supporting more than 300 missionaries in 30 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia; the Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, which provides financial assistance and recovery workers in response to disasters and establishes long-term self-promotion and sustainable living projects around the world; and Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary, the church's educational institutions that help equip students for lives of work in God's service in every field.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a member of this church denomination, which has helped me and millions of others through the last 150 years to worship God faithfully, to experience fellowship with other believers, and to provide spiritual and physical care to those in need. I commend its members during this special time of remembering, rejoicing and rededicating. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the CRC on its 150 years of service.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of the members of the 2007 United States Physics Olympiad Team.

It is very challenging to earn a spot on this prestigious team. After taking a preliminary exam, 200 high school students qualified to take the second and final screening exam for the U.S. Physics Team. The 24 survivors of that group represent the top physics students in the U.S., and they are now at a ten-day training camp of intense study, examination and problem solving hosted by the University of Maryland. Five of these exceptional students will advance and represent the United States in a tremendous international competition in July at the International Physics Olympiad in Isfahan, Iran.

The 24 members of the 2007 team include: Erik Anson, Sophie Cai, Tucker Chan, Joseph Chu, Benjamin Connell, Kenan Diab, Nicholas Dou, YingYu Gao, Kenneth Hu, Rui Hu, Sunny Kam, Jenny Kwan, Jason LaRue, Allen Lin, Andy Lucas, Sarah Marzen, Kynan Rilee, Aleksandra Stankiewicz, Philip Streich, Arvind Thiagarajan, Philip Tynan, Haofei Wei, James Yang, and Danny Zhu.

I commend the American Institute of Physics and the American Association of Physics Teachers for organizing this annual event and fostering a passion for science in these students. I know that for every finalist represented here, there are numerous colleagues and parents who have provided tireless support to help them reach this point. As a former physics professor, I also am well-aware that this level of achievement is usually backed by a host of exceptional teachers dedicated to their profession and to educating individual students. I hope each of the Olympiad finalists will make a point of thanking and recognizing the teachers that have guided them over the years.

Science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) practitioners are very important to our national competitiveness. I imagine that many of these students will become leaders in the science and engineering community in the future. While they represent the pinnacle of physics achievement in high school, I believe Congress must work to improve the opportunities in STEM education for all students, even those who may not choose scientifically-based careers. Making sure our teachers are well-equipped to teach science and math is very important in fostering the interest of future generations in these subjects because every job will soon require a basic understanding of math and science.

I am very pleased that these students take time away from their purely scientific endeavors to meet with their legislators in Washington. I believe it is very important for scientists to engage with politicians regarding the impact that science and technology can have on issues such as national security, climate change, and healthcare. Furthermore, I hope some of these students will consider running for public office and add their expertise to the policy world. I am very thankful for these future leaders and ask that you please join me in congratulating them on their wonderful achievements. We wish the top 5 the best of success as they represent the United States in Iran.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 128, authorizing the printing of a commemorative document in memory of the late President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford.

It was an honor for me to serve as a scientific adviser to Congressman Ford in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and I then came to know President Ford in many capacities throughout the years. I now have the privilege of serving the people of Grand Rapids and western Michigan in the exact seat he held from 1949 until 1973, and I am now most pleased to recognize one of the great sons of the State of Michigan.

Although President Ford's life ambition was to become Speaker of this esteemed body, fate and the Lord had other plans for Jerry Ford. While he was not a man who sought the Presidency, Ford was a tireless public servant who did not shrink from duty when his country needed him most. He bore the mantle that had been thrust upon him with great humility, never forgetting the solid Michigan values that were his compass in the most trying of times.

When he ascended to the Presidency upon President Nixon's resignation in 1974, Ford served with honor and dignity, telling us that ``our long national nightmare is over.'' He was recommended and approved for his position by people in Congress who knew him very well. In fact, I believe he is the only President of the past one and a half centuries who served as the choice of the Members of Congress. Their trust in him aided him in governing and leading our Nation out of that nightmare. In pardoning President Nixon, he essentially gave up any chance he had of a second term as

President; but, in doing so, he literally healed the Nation. And I recall a very personal discussion with him one time where he said he knew full well that he would likely lose the election, because of the pardon, but he saw no alternative but to pardon President Nixon in order to put the whole Watergate episode behind us and get the Nation moving again.

I am privileged, and I have always felt a sense of honor, to be serving in the same House seat that Congressman Ford served. By publishing this book, we will educate future generations about the contributions of a great man who came from ordinary beginnings yet found himself performing well in extraordinary circumstances. Jerry Ford personified the many good traits that west Michigan has to offer our Nation, with his honesty, his forthrightness, and his hard work. And I urge my colleagues to support the creation of this commemorative volume. I urge strong support of this resolution.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jay Eagen on the occasion of

his retirement from the position of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the U.S. House of Representatives, effective May 31, 2007.

For the past 20 years, Jay Eagen has dedicated himself to serving the public through a variety of roles in the House of Representatives. He began his career as a Legislative Assistant in 1982 and a year later was appointed chief of staff to Rep. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin. In 1985, he joined the office of Rep. Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania first as his chief-of-staff, then as minority and majority staff director of the Committee on Education and the Workforce under Goodling's leadership.

When Republicans assumed the majority in 1994, we were determined to professionalize the operations of the House, many of which currently exist within the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer. In 1997, Jay was chosen to become the CAO. For the past 10 years, Jay Eagen has demonstrated what a commitment to the effective, transparent administration of the House will yield. Once he assumed the role of CAO, Jay quickly established an environment of financial stewardship and responsibility, which would yield eight consecutive ``clean opinions'' on the House's annual financial statements. A considerable achievement considering that previously those records were so poorly kept they could not even be audited.

Although Jay was appointed and sworn in by Speaker Newt Gingrich, he always conducted himself as a steward of the institution, without regard to party or politics. He mastered that rare feat of catering to all Members, while being beholden to none. Members often sought Jay on this very floor to express their feelings on everything from the menu selections in the Members' Dining Room, to the preparations for such historic events as the passing, and subsequent lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda, of Presidents Reagan and Ford. Regardless of whether an ``R'' or ``D'' followed the Member's name, no issue was too large or too small for Jay to attend to. He personally took responsibility for countless requests, and worked with the staff of his organization to find a resolution to each one.

Madam Speaker, in an institution where it is rare for Members on both sides of the aisle to agree, few will dispute the dedication that Jay Eagen has demonstated to this body over the past 20 years. Soon Jay, his wife Cathy, and their son Keiran will leave the Washington, D.C., area for the tranquility of Durango, Colorado. While Jay will likely welcome the change provided by his newly sylvan surroundings, those Members whom he has so capably assisted for these many years will acutely feel the loss of this tireless public servant.

On behalf of the Members and staff of the House, I would like to extend my warmest wishes to Jay and his family in the months and years ahead as they embark upon the next chapter of their lives.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the memory of Stephen Bransdorfer, who passed away after a courageous battle with cancer on March 15, 2007 at age 77.

Mr. Bransdorfer lived a full and rewarding life as a dedicated public servant, highly esteemed attorney and loving husband. In his illustrious career, he served as president of the State Bar of Michigan, was a deputy U.S. attorney general under President George H.W. Bush, and was a lieutenant in the U.S. Army during the Korean War. Mr. Bransdorfer was a scholarly man as well, graduating with law degrees from the University of Michigan Law School and Georgetown University. He also worked in the U.S. Justice Department following law school, and served as the public spokesman for the Department when the federal government ordered schools to integrate in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. His deep commitment and expertise in law left a lasting impact on our country, and his legacy is one all Americans should turn to as a model for professionalism, dedication and patriotism.

Mr. Bransdorfer was a noted lawyer in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he practiced at the law firm of Miller, Johnson, Snell and Cummiskey. Later he formed his own firm with his sons. Mr. Bransdorfer was a devoted member of the Westminster Presbyterian Church, where he worshipped with his family for many years.

Mr. Bransdorfer was an active civic leader in many areas of public life. He was very well known in my district for his committed public service, and his work with the Kent County Republican Party. He ran as a Republican for state attorney general, and put in many years of dedicated service as a leader in his church, his community, and the Republican Party.

We have lost a model citizen from my community, and I extend my most heartfelt condolences to his loving wife Peggy and his children, their spouses, and their children.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Marjorie Kelaher on the occasion of her retirement from the position of Deputy Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, which became effective as of May 1, 2007.

For over 25 years, Gigi Kelaher has worked for the House of Representatives in a number of different roles. Like many before her, Gigi got her start on Capitol Hill as an intern. Although many young people choose to leave the Hill once their internship has concluded, Gigi found a home in these halls. Though she was in the earliest stages of her career, her work in the fall of 1978 for Congressman Silvio O. Conte (R-MA) would be the beginning of a lifetime of public service.

Following her graduation from Villanova University in 1979, Gigi returned to Capitol Hill and became a full-time employee for Congressman Conte, the Ranking Minority Member of the House Appropriations Committee. She remained in his office in several different capacities until the Congressman's death in 1991. In September of that year, Gigi became the Federal Agency Coordinator for the White House Conference on Aging under President George H. W. Bush, before joining the office of former Congressman Peter I. Blute (R-MA) in 1993.

If her early career enabled her to serve a single Member at a time, Gigi soon discovered a way to serve every Member of Congress--by joining the Office of the Clerk of the House. In 1995, she began her position as Chief of Legislative Operations with the Clerk. In that position, Gigi managed a staff of twenty who supported day-to-day House Floor operations. She continued to build upon her experience in the Clerk's office, and was appointed Assistant Clerk of the House in December 2003. Her duties included the operations and planning of a 250-person organization responsible for the administration of the legislative processes of the House. In April 2006, Gigi was promoted to Deputy Clerk, where she continued to monitor Floor operations and administration for the Clerk's organization. This month, Gigi will retire from her position to devote more time to her family in Holyoke, Massachusetts. While she will be missed terribly, I admire the commitment to her family that led to Gigi's decision to retire. After so many years serving the public, it is no surprise that she is once again putting the needs of others first.

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Gigi Kelaher for her years of public service and devotion to the House of Representatives. Without the hard work of dedicated staff like Gigi, the ability of Members of Congress to represent the American public would suffer tremendously. I know that my colleagues join me in thanking her for her assistance over the years, and in wishing her the best now, and in all her future endeavors.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation Manufacturing and Stimulation Act of 2007.

I certainly want to thank the Chair of the subcommittee for working very, very closely with us in producing this fine bill.

This bill provides a 3-year authorization for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, familiarly called NIST. Since 1901, NIST scientists and engineers have worked directly with American industries to address their needs for measurement methods, tools, data and technology, the building blocks that allow industry to grow and prosper.

NIST is one of three agencies targeted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double the Federal investment in physical science and research over the next 10 years to ensure that America remains technologically competitive in the global context marketplace. Yesterday this body passed an authorization bill for one of the other ACI agencies, the National Science Foundation. I am very pleased that today we are supporting a second ACI agency by authorizing NIST labs at a rate that would double the budget over the next 10 years.

H.R. 1868 is a bipartisan bill that incorporates recommendations from the administration for some of NIST's programs. However, earlier this week, the administration sent up a critical statement about H.R. 1868, and I want to clarify some misunderstanding that may have arisen from that statement.

H.R. 1868 does not underfund the NIST labs, contrary to the statement and the administration's comments. H.R. 1868 provides a 10 percent increase above fiscal year 2007 for the NIST labs and sets the NIST lab budget on a path to double over the next 10 years. This is entirely consistent with the President's overall stated goal for the American Competitiveness Initiative.

H.R. 1868 does not fund or subsidize management consulting services. H.R. 1868 fully funds the highly successful manufacturing extension partnership, better known as the MEP program.

MEP helps businesses improve manufacturing processes, reduce waste and train workers to use new equipment, which keeps high-paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States. This House has already twice passed this MEP authorization in both the 108th and 109th Congress.

Another comment, MEP receives one-third of its funding from the Federal Government, one-third from the States, one-third from fees charged to participating small manufacturers. MEP has over 350 manufacturing extension offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico.

H.R. 1868 creates the Technology Innovation Program based on recommendations from the administration. This bill is very clear that only small and medium-size companies can apply for Federal funding.

Universities partnering with this small company can apply for funding, actually expanding the role of university participation, not limiting it as the administration's letter suggests.

The program's sole goal is to accelerate the development and application of challenging high-risk, high-reward technologies in areas of critical national needs, thus, targeting major societal needs that the administration's letter asserts are not part of the bill.

H.R. 1868 authorizes an important investment in our Nation's future economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Technology and Innovation Subcommittee Chairman Wu for working with us on this important piece of legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey) to improve this legislation.

I also want to make an additional point. At times, some have considered this as being improper legislation. In particular, the President's statement indicates that is the beginning of an industrial policy.

That is simply not true. For those who are critical of this particular proposal, I want to ask them, first of all, do they oppose the current agricultural extension program, which has been in effect for nearly a century, which has been of inestimable value to our farming communities and to our farmers.

No one would think of ending the cooperative extension service in the agriculture department. It has been extremely valuable to this country. I have been in this body for 14 years. I have never heard anyone offer an amendment to defund the cooperative extension program, even though it costs $400 million a year and benefits less than 2 percent of the workforce in this country.

At the same time, I have met a number of people, and apparently including some in the administration, who want to kill the MEP program, which is only $100 million a year and benefits industries that employ 14 percent of the workers in this Nation.

Now, how can it make sense to want to keep a $400 million program that maintains a workforce of less than 2 million, and kill a program that costs one-fourth as much and helps about eight times as many workers? It doesn't make sense. So that argument is simply out the window.

If we do like the Cooperative Extension Service, we should approve the manufacturing extension partnership, which is of exactly the same nature and is designed to help small- to medium-sized manufacturers develop more jobs in our economy.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I reiterate my strong support of H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act.

This bill is a key part of the President's American competitive initiative, and I am pleased it moved through the Science and Technology Committee in a bipartisan manner, and also moved through speedily.

I thank the staff for their hard work on this bill, including Jenny Healy from Dr. Gingrey's office and Julia Jester from my office. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1868.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

This is a good amendment and I support it. In response to concerns from the administration, as explained earlier, it clarifies that the Technology Innovation Program will only support projects that address critical national needs.

It also expands the definition of high-risk research to ensure that the TIP program will only support projects that are too novel or diverse to fare well in the traditional peer review or venture capital process.

I urge my colleagues to support the Wu-Gingrey amendment. And I also want to just comment, Mr. Gingrey certainly wished to be here. I am filling in his role only because he had to travel home for a funeral, and he may reappear yet before the end of this particular bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, there's no need to repeat the contents of the amendment. I believe it is a good amendment. I believe it is a needed amendment, and I particularly like that it will be self-funding, although there is a small amount of money needed to start it off, but from that point it should be self-funded, should NIST decide to do that. So I urge support for the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise to say I have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly address a topic which I have not heard discussed here, although I have heard it discussed numerous times within the committee itself. I am very unhappy with the resulting bill that came out this year. The issue I wish to discuss is Head Start programs operated by faith-based institutions.

What has happened in this bill is that we basically have reversed the Civil Rights Act, which provides that faith-based institutions may discriminate in hiring by hiring people of the same faith as the institution. If it is a church, for example, they can hire people who are members of their church or denominationm without violating civil rights laws. That is specifically legal under the Civil Rights Act. This bill prevents an institution from doing that; if they wish to operate a Head Start program, then they are not allowed to hire on that basis. So this bill is actually a reversal of the Civil Rights Act.

Now, why is this important? Why do churches need to do that? A perfect example was given last year during the debate on this bill in committee, when Representative Tom Osborne, better known as Coach Osborne, related an example in his district where a small church which had a small staff decided to operate a program similar to the Head Start program. They wanted to hire someone who could serve on their staff half-time and also operate the

educational program during the other half of their time. But they needed someone of their faith to do the church work. But this bill would prohibit that person to also teach in the school, but they were hired on a religious basis.

There is so much misunderstanding on this issue, and it really puzzles me, because I have very good friends over on the other side of the aisle whom I know have a deep religious faith. But why they are so anti-religious on this subject, I do not understand. They seem to believe that they have to prevent anyone with a religious belief from operating within a program of this sort.

I have to keep reminding everyone, this is not a case of churches trying to proselytize by having someone of their own faith running the program and teaching the kids that faith. That is not it.

The point is simply that faith-based institutions, by virtue of their faith, are determined to help people in the community who need help. It doesn't matter whether it is a Head Start program, whether it is a food program, as we operate in my church back home, or many other programs. They are doing it as an expression of their faith.

Now, is this wrong? Do we have to say, I am sorry, you can't run this program because you are a member of this church and you might express your faith? That is not what they are trying to do. So why do we have to go to great lengths in this particular bill to stop people from doing that, to prevent churches and other faith-based institutions from operating a Head Start program, unless they hire people from outside their church? That, to me, is grossly unfair. Frankly, I think it violates the Constitution, and I am strongly opposed to that practice.

Other than that, I think it is a wonderful bill and I would like to support this bill, but I am terribly disturbed by this anti-religious altitude that I have seen manifested here. I hope we can change this in this bill.