Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 216) to honor the late playwright Arthur Miller and the University of Michigan for its intention of building a theater in his name, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 216, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 216, which honors the great American playwright Arthur Miller, and also honors the University of Michigan for building a theater in his name. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz) for his work on this resolution, and I recognize his contributions to the University of Michigan and its alumni association.

As a talented and brilliant playwright, Arthur Miller was a legend of his time. Most widely known for his work ``Death of a Salesman,'' Miller enjoyed a successful career and earned great celebrity status. Miller's significant contribution to theater and society at large can be felt even today. According to Robert Falls, director of Chicago's Goodman Theater, ``Not a day goes by that, somewhere around the world, one of Miller's plays is not being performed.''

Miller's fame, however, did not come without hard work and an ability to translate the human condition onto the American stage. Throughout his life, he overcame much adversity, and this struggle played out through his many works.

After graduating from high school in 1932, Miller worked in an auto- parts warehouse to earn money for college. Reading great novels by world-famous authors, Miller decided to become a writer. In order to follow this passion, he applied to the University of Michigan in 1934 to study journalism. Ironically, the university initially denied admission to Miller because of his less-than-stellar high school career. He failed algebra three times in high school. (And, of course, that stabs me right in the heart as a scientist!) He gained admittance only after appeal to the dean. After being accepted, however, Miller thrived at the university and won two of the university's prestigious Hopwood Awards for his playwriting.

After graduating in 1938, Mr. Miller returned to New York and launched his career. His first successful play was in 1947 when ``All My Sons'' ran for 328 performances on Broadway. In 1949, Miller won international recognition and a Pulitzer Prize by producing his most famous work, ``Death of a Salesman,'' which is known as one of the major achievements of modern-day theater. The story portrays the tragedy of Willy Loman, a salesman living around the time of World War II, who fails in pursuit of the American Dream. The powerful story is still well known and read today.

Throughout his successful career, Miller maintained his connection to the University of Michigan. He often visited to meet and work with students in the theater program. The university awarded him an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters in 1956, and Miller worked with the Alumni Club of New York to establish the Arthur Miller Award for aspiring writers. In 2000, Miller sent a simple postcard to the university allowing it to name a theater after him.

Therefore, it is fitting that Arthur Miller's lasting contributions as a playwright and author will be forever remembered through the Arthur Miller Theater. It is my pleasure to commend the University of Michigan for honoring his memory and impressive accomplishments. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Schwarz), my distinguished colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a few closing comments. I was struck by the fact that Mr. Miller spent some time working in an auto-parts warehouse. There must be some relationship between that and the University of Michigan because my youngest son also spent some time working at an auto-parts warehouse because he did not intend to go to college or a university. After a short time, he decided to go to college and today is a faculty member in geophysics at the University of Michigan. So for those wishing to succeed at the University of Michigan, they may consider starting to work at an auto-parts warehouse.

I also want to recognize the importance of the preeminent play that Mr. Miller wrote, ``Death of a Salesman.'' Very few works of the theater or cinema have affected me as much as that, simply because it struck me as someone who is a generation removed from the time of that particular play. I was just astounded at the generosity of Willy Loman's neighbor who recognized that Willy was in trouble, tried to help him, and every once in awhile would slip him $20 and say, ``Do not worry about repaying it. Whenever you get it, just give it back to me.''

What struck me about that was there was no widespread social network in those days, and people depended on their neighbors. This is something we have lost today. Handing a neighbor $20 in the 1930s and early 1940s is equivalent to handing them more than $100 today; and how many of us would casually slip $100 to a neighbor and say, Here, do not worry about it, just pay it back when you can. I think that encapsulates the spirit of that era. It was very tough times in the 1930s after the Great Depression, yet everyone helped each other, and that is how we as a Nation survived and became the great Nation we are today.

I have many personal differences with Mr. Miller and his stance and position on various issues, but I think it is appropriate to recognize genius when and where it exists, and it is certainly appropriate for us to honor him today. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution honoring Mr. Miller and the University of Michigan for its role in naming a theater after him.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I would just like to add my voice, and I know the Chamber is not as full as it should be for this occasion, but I have served in public office for approximately 30 years. I am relatively quiet, but I do a lot of observation. And I have noticed over the years that there are some people who are simply very outstanding by making a lot of noise but not doing much.

The people I prefer, whom I have observed also, are those who do a great deal but do not make a lot of noise about it. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is in the latter category. I have watched him over the years I have been here. An outstanding person, very hard worker, always behind the scenes, not asking for credit or bragging about what he has done. This is what makes the government work. This is what made the House work. And I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and wish him the best of everything in his new position. I am sure he will do equally well in that position and will continue to serve this country well.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill that is a critical component in our efforts to combat aquatic invasive species--the Aquatic Invasive Species Research Act. This legislation is similar to legislation that was reported out of the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress. It creates a comprehensive research program that supports federal, state and local efforts to prevent invasive species from ever entering our waterways, as well as detection, control and eradication efforts once they are here. It complements a bill introduced today by Mr. Gilchrest in the House and Senators Collins and Levin in the Senate to reauthorize the National Invasive Species Act. This legislation is a critical component in our battle against these harmful and extremely damaging pests.

In undertaking this effort, I have found that many people wonder-- ``What is an invasive species? Why it is so crucial to keep them out of United States?'' It is important that we understand these questions so that we can appreciate the scope of the threat that invasive species pose to our economy and environment.

The introduction of non-native species is not new to the United States. People have brought non-native plants and animals into the United States, both intentionally and unintentionally, for a variety of reasons, since the New World was discovered. Some examples include the introduction of nutria (which is a rodent similar to a muskrat) by trappers to bolster the domestic fur industry, and the introduction of the purple loosestrife plant to add rich color to gardens. Both nutria and purple loosestrife are now serious threats to wetlands. Non-native species may also be introduced unintentionally, such as through species hitching rides in ships, crates, planes, or soil coming into the United States. For example, zebra mussels, first discovered in Lake St. Clair near Detroit in the late 1980s, came into the Great Lakes through ballast water from ships.

Not all species brought into the country are harmful to local economies, people and/or the environment. In fact, most non-native species do not survive because the environment does not meet their biological needs. In many cases, however, the new species will find favorable conditions (such as a lack of natural enemies or an environment that fosters propagation) that allow it to survive and thrive in a new ecosystem.

Only a small fraction of these non-native species become an ``invasive species''--defined as a species that is both non-native to the ecosystem and whose introduction causes or may cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. However, this small fraction can cause enormous damage, both to our economy and our environment.

The economic damage includes the cost of control, damage to property values, health costs and other factors. Just one species can cost government and private citizens billions of dollars. For example, zebra mussels have cost the various entities in the Great Lakes basin an estimated $3 billion during the past 10 years for cleaning water intake pipes, purchasing filtration equipment, and so forth. Sea lamprey control measures in the Great Lakes cost approximately $10 million to $15 million annually; and, on top of these expenses, there is the cost of lost fisheries due to this invader. In fact, invasive species now are second only to habitat loss as threats to endangered species.

Given the enormous economic and environmental impacts these invaders cause, two clear goals emerge: First, we need to focus more resources and energy into dealing with this problem at all levels of government; second, our best strategy for dealing with invasive species is to focus these resources to prevent them from ever entering the United States. Spending millions of dollars to prevent species introductions will save billions of dollars in control, eradication and restoration efforts once the species become established. In fact, one theme is central to both Mr. Gilchrest's bill and this legislation. It is an old adage, but one worth following--``An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.''

To successfully carry out this strategy, we need careful, concerted management of this problem, supported by research at every step. For example, we know that we must do more to regulate the pathways by which these invaders enter the United States (ships, aquaculture, etc.), which is an important component of Mr. Gilchrest's legislation. However, research must inform us as to which of these pathways pose the greatest threat and which techniques used to manage each pathway are effective. This legislation would help develop this understanding through the ecological and pathway surveys conducted under the bill. In fact, research underlies every management decision aimed at detecting, preventing, controlling and eradicating invasive species; educating citizens and stakeholders; and ensuring that resources are optimally deployed to increase the effectiveness of government programs. These items are also reflected in the legislation, which I will now describe in more detail.

The bill is divided into six main parts. The first three parts outline an ecological and pathway research program, combining surveys and experimentation, to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the United States Geological Survey. This program is focused on understanding what invasive species are present in our waterways, which pathways they use to enter our waterways, how they establish themselves once they are here and whether or not invasions are getting better or worse based on decisions to regulate pathways. In carrying out this program, the three principal agencies will develop standardized protocols for carrying out the ecological and pathway surveys that are called for under the legislation. In addition, they will coordinate their efforts to establish longterm surveys sites so we have strong baseline information. This program also includes an important grant program so that academic researchers and state agencies can carry out the surveys at diverse sites distributed geographically around the country. This will give federal, state and local managers a more holistic view of the rates and patterns of invasions of aquatic invasive species into the United States. Lastly, the principal agencies will coordinate their efforts and pull all of this information together and analyze it to help determine whether or not decisions to manage these pathways are effective. This will inform policymakers as to which pathways pose the greatest threat and whether or not they need to change the way these pathways are managed.

The fourth part of the bill contains two programs to develop, demonstrate and verify technologies to prevent, control and eradicate invasive species. The first is an Environmental Protection Agency grant program focused on developing, demonstrating and verifying environmentally sound technologies to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species. This research program will give federal, state and local managers more tools to combat invasive

species that are also environmentally sound. The second is expansion both in terms of scope and funding of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Fish and Wildlife Service program geared toward demonstrating technologies that prevent invasive species from being introduced by ships. This is the federal government's only program that is focused solely on helping develop viable technologies to treat ballast water. It has been woefully underfunded in the past and deserves more attention.

The fifth part of the bill focuses on setting up research to directly support the Coast Guard's efforts to set standards for the treatment of ships with respect to preventing them from introducing invasive species. Ships are a major pathway by which invasive species are unintentionally introduced; the ballast water discharged by ships is of particular concern. One of the key issues that has hampered efforts to deal with the threats that ships pose is the lack of standards for how ballast water must be treated when it is discharged. The Coast Guard has had a very difficult time developing these standards since the underlying law that support their efforts (the National Invasive Species Act) did not contain a research component to support their work. This legislation provides that missing piece.

Finally, the sixth and final part supports our ability to identify invaders once they arrive. Over the past couple of decades, the number of scientists working in systematics and taxonomy, expertise that is fundamental to identifying species, has decreased steadily. In order to address this problem, the legislation sets up a National Science Foundation program to give grants for academic research in systematics and taxonomy with the goal of maintaining U.S. expertise in these disciplines.

Taken together, both my bill and Mr. Gilchrest's bill represent an important step forward in our efforts to prevent invasive species from ever crossing our borders and combat them once they are arrive. New invaders are arriving in the United States each day, bringing with them even more burden on taxpayers and the environment. We simply cannot afford to wait any longer to deal with this problem, and so I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to codify the Executive Order that established the Invasive Species Council and gave the Council responsibility for coordinating all invasive species activities across the federal government (Executive Order #13112, issued in February 1999). Invasive species, such as the snakehead fish and zebra mussel, cause an enormous economic, ecological and human health toll on the United States every year. There are over 20 different federal agencies involved in prevention, eradication, control, monitoring, research and outreach efforts to deal with the threat of invasive species, and this Executive effort seeks to make these efforts more coordinated, effective and cost-efficient. Better management of invasive species efforts across federal agencies is critical to an effective response to this threat, and the Executive Order was the right first step. However, it is only the first step. Congress now needs to pass this legislation to give the Council more authority to effectively meet this threat.

Since its inception, the Council has made progress in achieving its mandate. In particular, in January 2001 the Council issued the National Management Plan to provide a general blueprint of goals and actions for federal agencies to better deal with invasive species. While this broad plan lacks detail in some areas, it helps focus the various federal efforts on common goals and coordinated actions. In addition, the Council established a federal advisory committee consisting of 32 members from a broad array of stakeholders. The advisory committee has met several times in order to provide guidance on the development of the National Management Plan and on federal agency actions regarding invasive species in general.

While the Council has had some success, its authority to coordinate the actions of federal agencies has been limited. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recognized this problem, reporting that agencies did not incorporate the components of the National Management Plan into their annual performance plans. In addition, the GAO recommended that the Council study whether or not a lack of legislative authority has hampered its mission. Key agencies of the Council have already recognized this lack of authority as problematic and have supported codification of the Council in testimony before a November 2002 joint hearing of the House Resources and House Science Committees on aquatic invasive species.

The legislation I am introducing today essentially keeps the existing structure of the Council intact, while at the same time it addresses issues raised by the GAO by giving the Council a clear statutory mandate.

First, the legislation maintains the Executive Order's statement of administration policy that federal agencies should not undertake actions that may lead to the introduction or further spread of invasive species without careful consideration of the costs that the proposed action may cause. The legislation requires that the Council on Environmental Quality, in conjunction with the Council, issue guidelines for federal agencies to help them consider the consequences of any proposed action. The intent of this provision is to create a common set of guidelines by which all federal agencies can measure their actions, not to give individuals a private right of action against government agencies that take actions regarding invasive species.

Second, the legislation makes some modifications to the existing institutional structure of the Council. The membership of the Council will remain the same; however the legislation updates the membership, as described by the Executive Order, to reflect additional agencies that have been added since 1999. It also

makes the Council an independent entity within the Executive Branch, to be chaired on a rotating basis by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. This is a change from the Executive Order, which called for the Council to be housed within the Department of the Interior and chaired by that agency. If the Council is to be a truly independent entity that can work with all federal agencies, this change is necessary.

Third, the legislation retains the duties of the Council as described by the Executive Order (including development of an updated National Management Plan), but it adds some new duties in order to give the Council more tools to use in coordinating federal programs. In particular, the Council must submit an annual list of the top priorities in several different areas related to addressing the threat posed by invasive species. The legislation also specifically calls upon the Council to work with federal agencies during the budget development and submission process in order to ensure that budget priorities reflect the priorities of the National Management Plan. The legislation also calls on the Office of Management and Budget to develop a crosscut budget of all invasive species efforts in the federal government. This is a necessary tool for the Council to coordinate efforts among the various federal agencies.

Finally, the legislation retains the existing Invasive Species Advisory Council to serve as an important contributor to the ongoing dialogue between the federal government and stakeholders to ensure that the federal government acts in the most effective way.

This legislation will help further the federal government's efforts to combat invasive species, and I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005, which today was introduced by Rep. Wolf. I thank him and his staff for their work on this important legislation. I am very pleased to join him as the lead cosponsor, and pledge that I will work with Rep. Wolf to move this legislation through the House.

A number of developments in recent years have fueled concerns that world technology leadership could shift from the United States to other countries. In today's global economy, American manufacturers and other businesses rely on innovation to stay competitive. For the United States to remain a prosperous country, we must maintain our technological leadership in the world.

Our knowledge-based economy is driven by constant innovation. The foundation of innovation lies in a dynamic, motivated, and well- educated workforce equipped with math and science skills. An understanding of scientific and mathematical principles, a working knowledge of computer hardware and software, and the problem-solving skills developed by courses in science, technology, engineering and math are now basic requirements for many entry-level positions or for admission to college. In fact, I fully expect that all of the jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of the concepts and principles of math and science.

Unfortunately, we are continuing to see disturbing trends in American student performance on basic math and science tests. The recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) highlight the shortcomings of current K- 12 science and math students in the United States when compared to other developed countries.

We have also seen that fewer students are pursuing degrees in math and science. This should be of particular concern when we consider the large educational and workforce development investments made by emerging economies with huge populations, such as China, India and Russia.

We must encourage girls in grades K-12 to become interested in math and science and urge young women to pursue degrees in math and science. While the percentages of women holding baccalaureate degrees in biological and physical sciences closely mirrors that of their male counterparts, recent statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics show that women are underrepresented in engineering and computer science baccalaureate degrees.

The Math and Science Incentive Act of 2005 is a direct response to the needs I have outlined. The bill will help recruit and retain direly needed science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers and workforce professionals. It allows the Secretary of Education to pay up to $10,000 in interest on undergraduate loans for those who qualify and agree to enter into a five-year service agreement with the Secretary.

Clearly, we must recommit ourselves to leadership in science, technology, mathematics and engineering. This legislation puts us on the path toward ensuring that we will have STEM teachers and workforce professionals in place.

Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar have done an impressive job moving the transportation reauthorization so quickly in the 109th Congress. With this summer's construction season nearly upon us, it is critical that we enact a strong transportation bill prior to the current extension's expiration--May 31, 2005. It's just as critical that this legislation be fair for all States. That's why I've supported efforts to increase the rate-of-return in the minimum guarantee to 95 percent.

Keeping the scope of programs covered by TEA 21's Minimum Guarantee calculation at the TEA 21 level of 92.6 percent is an essential part of achieving improved highway funding equity.

Keeping the scope in TEA-LU consistent with current law will provide more funding to my State's core programs and help address the funding inequities for donor States.

I am pleased that the Manager's Amendment includes a new distribution formula that brings the scope of programs covered by the Minimum Guarantee closer to current law under TEA 21. Michigan and other donor States need to prevent going backwards on scope and to improve our rate of return to 95 percent.

I thank Chairman Young for his cooperation with donor States on this issue. I hope to work with my colleagues to improve the rate-of-return when we get to conference with the Senate. For my State, we're depending on a higher rate of return as well as the scope improvements we're making today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Honda/Ehlers amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify and make explicit that DWI courts are eligible for funding under the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures section of the bill.

It has become clear that the traditional process is not working for repeat drunk driving offenders. Punishment that is unaccompanied by treatment and accountability is an ineffective deterrent for the repeat DWI offender. The outcome for the offender is continued dependence on alcohol; the outcome for communities is the continued threat of drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

DWI/Drug Courts are distinct court systems dedicated to changing the behavior of alcohol/drug dependent offenders arrested for DWI. The goal of DWI/Drug Courts is to protect public safety by attacking the root cause of DWI: alcohol and other drug abuse.

DWI/Drug Courts utilize all criminal justice stateholders (prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation, law enforcement, and others) along with alcohol/drug treatment professionals. This group of professionals comprises a ``DWI/Drug Courts Team,'' which is usually accountable to the DWI/Drug Court judge who heads the team. The DWI/ Drug Court Team uses a team-oriented approach to systematically change participant behavior. This approach includes identification and referral of participants early in the legal process to a full continuum of drug/alcohol treatment and other rehabilitative services. These courts have been very successful in Michigan, where approximately one- third of all DWI courts are located.

A five-year study conducted on the Lansing, MI DUI/Drug Court demonstrates a 13 percent recidivism rate for graduates of the DUI/Drug Court program versus 35 percent for a comparison group. Unfortunately, funding and resources are often an obstacle to starting DWI courts.

Adopotion of this amendment will deliver a clear and unmistakable message to the American people that Congress will take the necessary steps to stop drunk driving. It will send the clear and unmistakable message that we support the valuable work being done by DWI/Drug Courts.

Clarifying that DWI courts are eligible for funding will encourage more state and local courts to pursue these comprehensive, treatment- driven programs. I encourage my colleagues to support the Honda amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I urge the body to adopt this rule and to pass the bill.

I will be addressing just one particular topic which has been controversial in committee discussions and will be the subject of an amendment later on, and that is turning the clock back on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and changing what it says. Those who are opposed to this bill on that ground believe that somehow it is wrong to allow religious institutions to receive Federal funds for programs that benefit the public at large, are not restricted to people of particular faith but are operated by organizations that are religiously based.

I have listened carefully to the debate in the committee. We have had this same debate several times in committee. I have yet to understand precisely what the objections are, but it seems that opponents are afraid of two things: one, that this provision in the bill somehow will allow these organizations to discriminate on other grounds in their hiring, which is, first, contrary to the Civil Rights Act, and second, I would say religious organizations are the least likely to discriminate on the basis of race or any of the other forbidden categories.

The other objection appears to be that somehow these churches are going to use this Federal money to try to proselytize, to get people in these programs and then they will say, okay, now isn't this wonderful, you should join this church.

I would like to say, that is also not true. It just does not happen. I can speak from my personal experience. When my wife and I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966 to take on a new position, we looked for a church. In fact, we spent 3 months trying out different churches, looking, trying to find a certain something: we wanted a church in the inner city because we wanted to be able to contribute to solving the problems of the city of Grand Rapids, particularly in the inner city.

And so we joined Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church because of its location and because of the attitude of its people. They worked very hard in the community. As an example, they established a community center. There was none at that time either federally funded, State funded, or city funded. The church stepped in and started it. It was on the top story of a ramshackle building which housed a small convenience store in the lower floor. It grew slowly at first, but then took off. Today it is a large community center, one of the best, if not the best, in the city. They purchased a school which was being abandoned, filled up that

school, and they now have just successfully completed a $2.5 million capital drive to add on to their facilities and improve them.

Our church started that. We did have and still largely do have religious restrictions on the hiring of individuals, but the facility serves all people in that community. It has brought in medical care workers of all faiths to work and provide medical care and dental care for the recipients in that community.

We started a housing program which turned into the Inner City Christian Federation, and we spun off this organization as well as Baxter Community Center, but they are still largely faith-based organizations. ICCF, the Inner City Christian Federation, developed housing programs, and they had built many houses before Habitat for Humanity started in our community; but ICCF has built and remodeled more houses than almost any organization within the city that I am aware of. Again, it is faith-based. The employees are hired partially on the basis of their faith and their commitment to serving in the inner city and often work for less pay than they could get elsewhere.

Our church, not our individual congregation, but our denomination started a mental health institution, Pine Rest, years ago because the people of our church and of our community were not getting adequate mental care. Today it is one of the largest mental health hospitals in our Nation. It serves many people of different faiths and of no faith, but it is a faith-based institution because their treatment modalities are based, to a large extent, on our beliefs about the nature of people and their interaction with each other. It has been very successful. It has received millions upon millions of dollars of aid from the Federal Government, from the State through community mental health funds and from the local community.

No one has ever said a word about this, that using Federal money for this is improper. The reason is simply that Pine Rest provides services that really are unequaled anywhere else. And so they have received Federal dollars through Medicaid and through Medicare, and State dollars through community mental health. It is an outstanding operation.

Then, finally, something we have ongoing in our church right now. Every Saturday, I wish you could visit our church; you would see people of all races, all colors, all faiths walking in the church basement which we have stocked with food that we have collected from different stores, warehouses and so forth: produce, baked goods, and many different types of perishable food.

We have purchased a truck to go around and collect this on Fridays. And Saturday morning anyone from that city can walk in with no test of their faith, no means test, they can just walk in and say, I need some groceries, and they go through the line. We charge them roughly 10 cents on the dollar because we think it is a good thing for them to feel they have bought something; but a family of four can buy a week's worth of groceries for about $10. That is a good deal. It is staffed by people from our church and from other churches, and it is a very successful operation. If we adopt the Scott amendment, which we will be discussing later, we simply could not do that.

There is one other factor here as well, and that is every church that I am aware of does not have a surplus of money. The people that they hire have to do many different jobs. That is true in our church as well. We have hired individuals who work in the church. Those individuals not only operate programs such as the food program, or getting community centers started, but they also have duties within the church and by necessity, and clearly within the intent of the Civil Rights Act, they are performing religious duties. A church cannot go out and afford to hire a different person to run each different program. You have to be multifaceted to be on the staff of a church, and that is precisely what we have in our church.

For these reasons, and many others I could enumerate, I urge the Congress to pass this rule and this bill, and to defeat the Scott amendment, so that churches and faith-based organizations of other sorts can continue to do their good work for the people of this country without fear of their programs being damaged because they would have to hire additional personnel who do not have a faith compatible with the organization.

I believe the system as we have it now, and have had it since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has worked, it has worked well, and I urge that we keep it that way and not adopt the Scott amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of physicist Allan Bromley to this nation's science and technology enterprise.

Dr. Allan Bromley, a Yale University professor, nuclear physicist and architect of national science policy during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, passed away on Thursday, February 10, 2005, at the age of 79.

A native of Westmeath, Ontario, Canada, Dr. Bromley earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Queen's University and a doctorate from the University of Rochester in 1952. He subsequently received 32 honorary doctorates from universities on four continents.

Bromley was the first scientist to artificially form nuclear molecules through high-speed collisions using a five million-volt particle accelerator that he pioneered in 1959. He founded the A. W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory at Yale and served as its director from 1963 to 1989. During the same period, his outstanding teaching contributed to his laboratory graduating more Ph.D.s in experimental physics than any other institution in the world. In 1988, he received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest scientific award, for his remarkable contributions to the advancement of science and the characterization of atomic nuclei.

Dr. Bromley's tremendous accomplishments were not limited to the confines of the academic laboratory. As the first person to hold the Cabinet level rank of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Dr. Bromley increased both the staff and budget of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy by factors of more than five between 1989 and 1993. He supported increasing scientific research in the federal portfolio, considering it a necessity to remain competitive with other nations' investments. He championed the expansion of the ``data superhighway,'' the precursor of the internet, and is credited with convincing the president to attend a summit on global warming. Among his many other accomplishments, Dr. Bromley has served as the president of the American Physical Society, a member of the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics, and as a member of the National Science Board.

Curiously, Dr. Bromley became a U.S. citizen through rather unusual circumstances. In 1970, after visiting a high-security testing site, someone realized that Bromley wasn't a U.S. citizen. With the help of a judge, this oversight was quickly remedied.

At the time of his death, Dr. Bromley was still actively teaching physics at Yale as the Sterling Professor of Sciences.

Dr. Bromley served his country in a variety of ways, from the Oval Office to the classroom. He will be remembered as one of the most influential science advisers ever, as well as one of the most beloved teachers in higher education. We fondly remember his leadership and invaluable contributions, and we extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to a company located in my district, Universal Forest Products Inc., which clearly deserves its place under the heading of ``American Success Stories.''

Universal Forest Products, Inc. was incorporated on February 10, 1955, as a lumber wholesale office specializing in sales to the manufactured housing industry. William F. Grant was the major stockholder and sole salesman. When Mr. Grant decided in 1962 to grow his business, he hired a graduate of Michigan State University, Peter F. Secchia. Nine years later, when the company had sales of $12 million, Secchia, today's company chairman, purchased control of Universal. A year later, he hired William G. Currie, today's CEO and vice-chairman. Together, they have led Universal through three decades of strong, steady growth and great success.

Today, Universal is a $2.5 billion, publicly traded company, trading on the NASDAQ index as UFPI. The company is the leading supplier to the four strong markets it serves--do-it-yourself retail, suit-built construction, industrial and other packaging and components, and manufactured housing. Universal is the largest producer of pressure- treated lumber in the world, the largest producer of roof trusses for manufactured housing in North America, and the nation's largest residential truss manufacturer. Furthermore, it is a leading supplier of value-added products to the do-it-yourself market, maintaining this leadership role as a result of the company's commitment to manufacture, distribute, and market its own products.

Universal is an employer of choice, where more than 9,000 people work. In fact, among the senior ranks, the turnover has been virtually zero; most officers have been with the company for decades. The same is holding true for the new generation of leadership: They're joining the company and staying.

With 96 locations throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico, Universal produces finished goods within the markets it serves, offering unparalleled distribution and service to its customers.

In 2004, Foress once again named Universal to its ``Platinum 400,'' an annual ranking of the 400 best performing companies in the U.S. with more than $1 billion in revenue, and continues its climb up the Fortune 1000 list, up 35 places to No. 734 in the most-recent rankings. In addition, Industry Week magazine in August 2003 named Universal to its list of ``Top 50 U.S. Manufacturers'' and CNN's Money Gang show named Universal a ``Stock Pick of the Day'' in February 2004.

Universal is a great American business success story and it is my privilege to honor the company, its chairman, Peter Secchia, and its thousands of employees today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Congratulations on the occasion of Universal's 50th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations and recognition to Prof. Gary Schmidt for having his book for young adults, ``Lizzie Bright and the Buckminster Boy,'' recognized as a 2005 John Newbery Honor Book and as a 2005 Michael L. Printz Honor Book.

Professor Schmidt, a member of the English Department faculty at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in my district, took 3 years to write ``Lizzie Bright and the Buckminster Boy,'' which he based on a tragic 1912 incident--the eradication of a small African-American community from a Maine island by townspeople from the nearby community of Phippsburg, Maine. The story follows the friendship between two teenagers--Lizzie Bright Turner, an African-American resident of the island of Malaga, and Turner Buckminster, the son of Phippsburg's newly arrived minister.

In making the award, Newbery Award Committee chair Susan Faust said Professor Schmidt's book is ``[s]teeped in imagery and laced with surprising humor,'' and that it ``. . . explores powerlessness, possibility and the profound impact individuals can make.'' ``We spent a year studying the universe of eligible books, and it is a thrill to name this as one of our honor books,'' Faust said.

Despite his success as an author, Professor Schmidt continues his work as an educator. In fact, he found out about his honors while leading a group of students on a 3-week study trip in Massachusetts and, after dealing with the requisite media interviews, celebrated with his students.

``It's a tremendous honor in a year when the books are strong and wonderful,'' Schmidt said. ``The (book) is very close to my heart.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a book that we can recommend to all young people, with a wonderful theme of young people learning to make important decisions. It is a story that illuminates that important transition from childhood to adulthood.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in congratulating Prof. Gary Schmidt and his fellow honorees: 2005 Newbery Medal winner Cynthia Kadohata for her book, ``Kira-Kira,'' and fellow Newbery Honor Book recipients Gennifer Choldenko (``Al Capone Does My Shirts'') and Russell Freedman (``The Voice that Challenged a Nation''), as well as 2005 Printz Award winner Meg Rosoff for her book, ``how i live now'' and fellow Printz Honor Book recipients Kenneth Oppel (``Airborn'') and Allan Stratton (``Chanda's Secrets'').

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 250, ``The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act.'' I introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress, and it was passed by the House. I am re-introducing it in this Congress in the precise form passed last year. I am doing this because the global competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing remains a pressing issue.

This bill will help address long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by coordinating existing federal manufacturing programs, creating a new program to revive manufacturing innovation through collaborative research and development, and broadening and strengthening manufacturing extension.

Although manufacturing has experienced tremendous technological gains over the last few years, international competition has exacted a terrible toll on our nation's manufacturers. In particular, our small- and medium-sized firms are under tremendous pressure to become more efficient, to modernize, and to cut their prices. There is no evidence that these pressures are likely to go away.

In my conversations with manufacturers, I learned of their deep concern that the decline of manufacturing in the U.S. is undermining our ability to innovate. Innovation is the key to the development of new industries, without which our economy could stagnate. Governments of our global competitors are eagerly supporting investments in manufacturing R&D because they know that it is the foundation for sustained economic development.

If we are to continue to be the world technological leader, we need to rise to this new global challenge by supporting our manufacturers. The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act, which received broad support in the House in the 108th Congress, will accomplish that by:

Creating an Interagency Committee that will coordinate the existing federal manufacturing research and development activities to ensure that they work as effectively and harmoniously as possible;

Creating a new collaborative research and development program for manufacturing technology;

Reauthorizing the critical programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal research laboratory dedicated to ensuring U.S. leadership in technology-based standards and industries;

Creating a fellowship program at NIST to develop U.S. manufacturing research expertise; and

Reauthorizing and creating a new grant program within the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program so that the MEP Centers can extend their expertise to a range of problems beyond their current scope of activities.

Mr. Speaker, globalization is in full swing. It is incumbent upon this Congress to provide a coherent federal response to the changes that are underway in manufacturing, and to support the technological innovation that is fundamental to retaining our manufacturing strength. This bill provides a mechanism for that crucial response and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue in the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce ``The Surface Transportation Research and Development Act of 2005.'' This legislation is actually a reintroduction of the bill that passed the Science Committee last Congress. After the bill passed the Science Committee, I worked with my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to have many of the provisions included in the House version of the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--better known as TEA-21. Unfortunately, the House and Senate were not able to reach consensus on a final transportation bill.

As we prepare to complete the reauthorization early in this Congress, my legislation still provides the needed emphasis on transportation research and development that will ensure our whole transportation system can meet the tremendous challenges of today and especially for the future. Considering that we won't have the ability to simply build more roads to address these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look at new ways to improve the overall system, to make it safer and more efficient, and to ensure that the system meets future needs. Good research, properly done, will more than pay for itself in longer- lasting roads, better bridges, faster traffic flow, and fewer accidents.

In the last Congress, as chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, which shares jurisdiction over surface transportation research with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I held hearings to hear from experts on the state of the Federal Government's current surface transportation research program. In addition, we heard from a wide array of interests on how to improve and reform the research program, and the levels at which research should be funded. Based on this input, I introduced the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act last Congress.

This legislation I am introducing today is identical to the bill that passed the Science Committee last Congress. It has three overarching goals: to increase stakeholder input to ensure that the people who must implement and use the research agree that it is applicable to everyday challenges; to create the highest quality research through increased competition and peer-review of all projects; and to ensure greater accountability so that our research supports the goals of our surface transportation system.

More specifically, the bill:

Creates and funds an important research program run by the National Academy of Sciences to address short to medium-term research needs. Research will focus on reducing congestion, renewing existing roads and bridges while minimizing impact to the public, improving safety by reducing crashes, and developing tools for getting more out of our existing highway capacity and assessing future needs. All projects funded by this program will be competitively awarded and peer-reviewed;

Provides needed funds to implement a public-private cooperative environmental research program, with the goal of developing the knowledge, tools, and performance measures that will help us better understand and manage the linkage between the environment and the transportation system;

Calls on the U.S. Department of Transportation to take the lead in carrying out fundamental, long-term research to achieve breakthroughs in transportation research;

Increases funding for University Transportation Centers and ensures greater competition among universities which seek to become transportation research centers;

Reforms and increases the responsiveness of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the needs of the transportation community; and

Provides States with additional resources to better train and educate the transportation workforce.

This legislation will significantly, yet prudently, increase funding for transportation research starting at $500 million a year in fiscal year 2006 for Federal research programs and gradually rising to $850 million a year by 2010. When Congress increased funding for overall transportation programs by upwards of 40 percent in TEA-21, funding for transportation research remained relatively flat. I believe that lack of investment in research has hurt our ability to meet new challenges. My approach ensures that our transportation research is well planned, peer reviewed, properly funded and evaluated and will go a long way to help solve the many challenges facing our Nation's transportation system.

I look forward to again working with my colleagues on the Science and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees, the U.S. Department of Transportation, state transportation departments, and all other interested stakeholders as we try to finish the job begun last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. Better known as NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was created by Executive Order in 1970. It is the nation's lead civilian agency for oceans and atmosphere, yet Congress has never passed an overarching organic act describing the mission and functions of the agency. Instead, over the past 34 years Congress has defined the mission of the agency in a piecemeal manner with legislation focused on specific issues. The bill I am introducing today, which passed the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee in the 108th Congress, is a first step toward Congressional passage of comprehensive legislation for

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I certainly appreciate his sponsoring this particular Special Order and particularly his encouragement of the American people to contribute.

We are impressed that the President has designated $350 million to deal with this tragedy, but I would like to point out that that is very little more than $1 per person this country and very little more than $2 for every working person in this country. Certainly we can do better than that, and I encourage all Americans to send contributions to the charities that the gentleman mentioned. I would also mention the American Red Cross will play a role in this through its international arms. I am also aware in my community of relief organizations such as the Christian Reform World Relief Committee, which is very active in this. International Aid is another organization in Spring Lake, Michigan, which has dispatched $3 million of medical equipment and other supplies already. And I am sure every American can look around their own community and find similar organizations that they can contribute to to help during this incredible tragedy.

We certainly want to express our sympathy as the American Congress and the American country to the people who have suffered this tragedy. It is almost incomprehensible. For years scientists have talked about the possibility of a mega-tsunami and it has largely been dismissed even though tsunamis can be very large, but the idea of a mega-tsunami has been dismissed by most scientists. This one does not quite measure up to that in terms of the power and the energy it contained, but it certainly is a mega-tsunami in terms of the damage and the death, the destruction that it has caused. So I do want to express my personal sympathy and that of the Congress for those who are suffering and encourage all Americans to help.

But the main thrust of my comments this evening are going to be about the science of tsunamis. That may seem inappropriate at this point when we are all dealing with a tragedy, but I know there is a lot of interest because I have fielded a number of questions from colleagues and staff in the Congress, and so I think it is worth time talking to our colleagues about what a tsunami is, how it happens, particularly as it relates to the possibility of developing a warning system for tsunamis.

First question, how do tsunamis occur? They have four major sources. Earthquakes are the primary source but also volcanos can cause tsunamis either through eruption or collapse. Other possibilities are landslides, slumps, or rock falls. If they are large enough, they can cause tsunamis. The last category is more esoteric. Asteroids, meteorites. They are very rare, but they cause the largest tsunamis. And also man-made explosions, which many people think could cause them, but, in fact, it would be very difficult to do that. I will discuss each of these a bit later.

But let me also address, first of all, why we cannot warn people. And I should mention some have asked me why the name ``tsunami,'' why do we use that. Do we not have an American term? Actually we do not have an equivalent American term. It is from two Japanese words that mean harbor and wave, and that is literally what it is. It is primarily waves in harbors or coastlines.

If we look at the natural disasters we have in this world and the warning systems that we have, if we look at the very largest natural disasters, such as volcanic explosions, we generally have hours to months of warning time before a volcano will explode, and the emphasis is generally on months provided we have seismic devices measure the activity within the volcano. Hurricanes, we have days in which to prepare and to evacuate or to tighten up our homes or other buildings. Tsunamis, we could have hours of warning if we have a good warning system, and that is the big ``if,'' which I will talk about a bit later.

Tornadoes we generally have 10 minutes to an hour of warning. And earthquakes we have no warning whatsoever. We know of no good warning system for earthquakes. Although there are some precursors, we can never predict an earthquake precisely. And since earthquakes cause most tsunamis, that means it is very difficult to predict tsunamis. But because they take from minutes to hours to reach the shore once we detect the earthquake and detect whether or not it causes a tsunami, we do have some warning time available and we have a warning system in the Pacific Ocean, which has been quite successful.

Let us talk about some of the science behind tsunamis. Why do they occur? What is going on? How does an earthquake cause a tsunami? First of all, not all earthquakes do. If it is an earthquake that does not cause much shifting of the surface under the ocean, there is generally not much of a tsunami. Also if it is a weak earthquake, it generally does not create a tsunami. But if we have a large earthquake, let us say above about 7.0, in that neighborhood, on the Richter Scale, and if it involves substantial motion of material, we will get a tsunami.

And the most common way in which these are called is when there is a subdeduction, when a tectonic plate sliding under another tectonic plate in the ocean and if there is a big movement and if it extends for many miles or many kilometers in the direction, we get a lot of motion in a very quick time. The water pours in to try to fill up that space. It is sort of like throwing a rock in a pond, and we get ripples coming up. But if we are talking about an ocean, and a typical ocean depth is in the neighborhood of, let us say, 15,000 feet, we have a huge amount of water being moved in a very short time, and it is like throwing a very, very, very large rock in the ocean.

The waves that spread out from this disturbance are not very big. Typically the wave that is caused by an earthquake or an underwater volcano will only have a height ranging from a few inches to a few feet. So the waves that are traveling across the ocean are barely noticeable to a ship that is sailing on the ocean. And that is why we have this strange situation, terrible destruction around the Indian Ocean now, but the fishermen who were out in their ships were not injured. They scarcely even knew that they were lifted up a foot and then let down again as the wave went under. But the waves are very deep; and as they approach shore, it becomes shallower. All of that energy of motion is condensed together and the waves add together and create huge walls of water that hit the coast and travel inland from the coast.

So if we have an earthquake, a volcano, a landslide, a slump, a rock fall, anything that generates motion of a lot of water, as that spreads out across the ocean, it loses a little energy but not very much, and depending on the depth of the ocean, it can travel very rapidly. If the ocean is deep, we can get speeds of these waves on the order of the speed of a jet airplane. And it is just a tremendous speed to travel. That is why we do not have much warning time, because they travel very rapidly.

As they approach shore, as I said, they slow down, mount up, and we get this huge wall of water. And it depends entirely upon the geology of the area, the shape of the land, the nature of the source of the earthquake. One of the most destructive that occurred was the one up in Alaska some years ago, and it was not that large an earthquake, but the wall of water that hit the land was over 100 feet high. It hit a reinforced concrete lighthouse and demolished it and killed everyone inside. It had that kind of force, much more force than we had in the Indian Ocean last week, but it did not have as great

an extent. Interestingly enough, that tsunami which was close to Alaska did cause substantial damage in Hawaii and killed more people in Hawaii than it did in Alaska because Alaska is not very heavily populated and Hawaii is.

So we have many different sources of tsunamis, and I hesitate to go into a great deal of detail on that. I do want to point out for the people who like to be terrified or those who like to make movies to terrify people that the largest tsunamis, as I mentioned, would result from asteroids or meteorites. If one of those lands in an ocean area, we would have a tsunami that could totally decimate all of the surrounding coastal area for miles inland. That has happened in the past geological history of this planet; but, in fact, it is quite rare. Usually the time between those is measured in millions of years, sometimes many millions of years.

What about the warning system? As I said earlier, we do have the Pacific warning system. It has worked fairly well. What we have to do is have a good system to detect earthquakes since they are the main cause and seismographs that could not only detect earthquakes but could detect a volcanic explosion or a volcanic collapse, anything that would move a lot of material and therefore create a big hole for the water to pour into or else an explosion that would make the water move out.

So if we have the seismographs that can detect that, then we have to have a method of calculating where the earthquake occurred, and we have that in many parts of the world. Unfortunately it took a while to establish the exact location of the earthquake in the Indian Ocean and find out its magnitude and find out really what the danger was. And then that tells us the starting time of the tsunami.

Then we have to be able to detect the motion of it, the velocity. So we have to have buoys displaced around that can measure these waves I mentioned, which are not all that large; but we have to have a buoy system that can detect that so we can calculate the speed.

And above all we need a warning system that will send out a warning to the people in the countries that are going to be hit. That is where we completely failed in the Indian Ocean, because no one expected a tsunami of this size in the Indian Ocean. The Pacific system has worked reasonably well, but even then we cannot always predict far enough in advance exactly where it is going to hit and how hard it is going to hit. And as I said before, not every earthquake results in a tsunami.

So we are going to have false alarms. We may send out the alert and the people will all quickly evacuate the coastal areas, get to high ground, and there is just a minor little wave that comes in. It is like the boy who cried wolf. If this happens several times, people say, well, it is a good warning system, but we really do not need it. But we never know when the big one is going to come, so people have to be trained to follow the warning system no matter what and recognize that not every time will it result in a major tsunami in every location that is warned, but sometime it will.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to lead the way as we have in developing the Pacific Ocean tsunami detection system which has saved a lot of lives. We cannot protect against a tsunami; so we cannot stop the property damage. But at least we can save the lives.

We know how to do it. The problem is, the nations around the Indian Ocean and in other threatened areas are going to have to join the effort and, above all, they are going to have to develop a warning system and train their people how the warning system will work and how tsunamis work so that they will take the warning seriously and flee to high ground at the first indication of any disaster of this sort.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I hope I have not taken too much time. But as I said, since so many people are interested in the nature and the science behind tsunamis, I thought this might be helpful, particularly as this Congress will be involved in the next year or 2 in helping to decide on what type of warning system should be developed worldwide and what our role is going to be in that.

Lest we think that all the tsunamis are in the Pacific, just because the majority are, be aware that there is potential for huge tsunamis in the Atlantic and, as we all know, we have a heavily populated Atlantic coastline, New York City just to name one major population center, but all the way from Maine down to Miami. We will have to worry about it. And the likelihood of it is small, but if it occurs, the probability of major damage is so high that we should not just concentrate on the Pacific Ocean, the Indian Ocean, but we should also worry about the Atlantic Ocean and our eastern seaboard.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention one point which I did not include, a very practical point for anyone who is in an area that might suffer a tsunami. There is a very natural warning system that nature provides, but it is very short term and that is before a tsunami, before the big waves roll in, the water recedes, not always, but almost always, and that is precisely what happened in this case. In fact, that killed more people because they did not recognize it. Any time one is on the coast and you see the water receding for some unexplained reason, head for high ground. That is your first warning. But, in fact, what happened, all the fish were left stranded on the shore, people rushed out, and especially children rushed out to grab the fish because obviously they need the food and they were out there beyond where they should have been when the water hit. They had no chance of survival whatsoever.

So there is one good warning system every person in every country should be aware of, in case you are ever on shore, you see the water running out, you run in, and head for high ground as fast as you can.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give recognition to the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Public Museum of Grand Rapids, Michigan, located in Michigan's Third Congressional District, which I represent.

The Public Museum of Grand Rapids is a collections-based educational organization that explores and celebrates the world and our place in it. It seeks to educate and delight the public, contribute to the well- being of its community, and enhance the quality of life in west Michigan.

Founded in 1854, the Public Museum has been owned and operated by the city of Grand Rapids since 1906, serving a broad regional audience of all ages. It is Michigan's oldest museum open to the public and the State's third largest museum, hosting visitors annually from every Michigan county, U.S. State and Canadian province and many foreign countries.

The Public Museum's beginnings date back to December 17, 1854, when a group of amateur historians, scientists, and collectors of antiquities gathered to form the Grand Rapids Lyceum of Natural History. By 1868, the Lyceum had allied itself with a group of interested high school students to form an actual museum with rooms open for ``public inspection'' in the city's Central High School. Increasingly, the museum shifted away from the display of natural curiosities and oddities, and acquired systematic collections that were useful tools in teaching about human culture and the natural world. A new name was adopted that emphasized the museum's expanded educational role as an operation of the Board of Education: The Kent Scientific Institute Museum. By 1917, the museum occupied two adjacent mansions in the downtown area, was a chartered department of municipal government, and had developed a huge lending program of instructional materials and mounted specimens and artifacts for use in schools.

In 1936, the institution was renamed the Public Museum to better reflect its citizen ownership and operation and multidisciplinary, program-focused character. It had a professional staff and had seen a great increase in historical collections and programs as well as permanent installations. In 1938, the museum's board matched a WPA grant with a bequest and built an innovative, modern building that looked and acted more like a department store than a traditional museum. Inspired by the writings of Newark Museum director John Cotton Dana, the museum was populist in philosophy and presentation, marketing itself in 1940 when it opened as being ``as convenient as your corner store, and friendly as your neighbor.'' By 1964, an incredible growth in service-oriented programming had necessitated building additions and the construction of the Roger B. Chaffee Planetarium along with the acquisition of the 143-acre Blandford Nature Center. The Voigt House, an unusually well-preserved, late-19th century residence, was acquired in 1974 with all of its original furnishings and archives. It is a house museum that balances the didactic historical displays developed in the main museum, especially those focused on furniture design, manufacturing and marketing.

In the late 1970s, even as it became the first museum in the Nation to be accredited by the American Association of Museums, 1971, it was evident that expansion was necessary again in order to maintain standards and better serve a growing audience. In 1982, an extraordinary public planning process was begun that resulted in the creation of a master plan for the museum's growth on a new site in the heart of downtown Grand Rapids. This culminated on the museums 140th anniversary in 1994 with the debt free opening of its 155,000-square- foot VanAndel Museum Center. In total, $42 million was amassed from more than 25,000 public and private donors for its completion, with major support coming from the VanAndel family.

Community-based exhibition development, object conservation and program development were planned, fabricated and implemented simultaneously with the structure, resulting in multiple exhibitions exploring regional urban, social and industrial history, ethnology, regional art, and environmental education. The museum boasts numerous unique features, including a fully operational 1928 amusement park carousel and completely restored 1928 Mighty Wurlitzer theater organ.

With growth came new opportunities. Professional staff was expanded. Citizens formed a private foundation in support of museum programs that now manages assets of more than $6 million. The city of Grand Rapids renewed its commitment to operations, while facilitating and encouraging the museum to become entrepreneurial. In response, annual institutional attendance climbed to nearly double the city's population simultaneous with the Public Museum's third award of AAM accreditation (1996). The museum staff manages a collection that now includes nearly 1 million objects in more than 350,000 record groups.

A new temporary exhibition program was initiated, which reached new heights of success with the organization of a proprietary exhibition of The Dead Sea Scrolls, organized in collaboration with the Israel Antiquities Authority. Between mid-February and June 1, 2003, the exhibition hosted a record 235,541 visitors, having an economic impact on the region of $9 million. It was the second-most-attended temporary antiquities exhibition worldwide in 2003.

As 2004 draws to a close, the museum is again poised to expand both with new programs and exhibitions as well as a new 140,500-square-foot, state-of-the-art Community Archives & Research Center providing excellent preservation of the permanent collection and expanded public access. The center houses not only museum collections, but also the archives of the city of Grand Rapids and the county of Kent, which collaborate in its planning and operation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in congratulating the Public Museum of Grand Rapids on the occasion of its 150`h anniversary. Its long history of service to the west Michigan community is laudable indeed and we look forward to its continued work in the future.