Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce H. Con Res. 488, a resolution recognizing the hard work and dedication of the employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (better known as NOAA) who provide hurricane forecast and warnings to our citizens. In the past month, the state of Florida was hit by back-to-back hurricanes, a tragedy which has not occurred since 1964. The employees of NOAA worked tirelessly to provide timely and accurate warnings to residents of the affected areas. They remain hard at work even at this moment as another tropical storm, Hurricane Ivan, is heading towards the U.S. coast.

Let me name the various offices in NOAA that contributed to accurate forecasts of Hurricanes Charley and Frances: The National Hurricane Center; The Southern and Eastern Region Weather Forecast offices of San Juan, Miami, Tampa Bay, Key West, Melbourne, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile and Morristown; The National Ocean Service, which provided help with storm surge prediction; The National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, which provided the satellite images we all saw on television; The NOAA Marine and Aviation Operation Hurricane Hunters, who fly planes into the hurricanes to gather data; and The Southeast River Forecast Center, which provided flood predictions

And I would be remiss without acknowledging the additional hurricane reconnaissance missions flown by the Air Force Reserve out of Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. Also, I want to acknowledge the work of the local and national media in disseminating NOAA's hurricane forecasts and warnings.

The dedicated employees at these offices worked round the clock, spending days at a time in their offices away from their families and homes that were often directly affected by the hurricanes. I commend these government employees for their service to provide life-saving warnings and information to the people in the hurricane's path and support them as they continue to provide us with critical information during this (and every) hurricane season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the congregation of the First Baptist Church in Lowell, Michigan, which celebrates the 150th anniversary of its formation on Sunday, September 19, 2004.

The First Baptist Church was started on Sept. 18, 1854, meeting for worship originally in the Lowell Schoolhouse under the leadership of their first pastor, the Rev. A.C. Powell. In 1860, the congregation moved into its own building, which was erected by the congregation members themselves. By 1866, the congregation boasted 74 active members.

In 1898, the nearly 40-year-old building was moved approximately 20 feet and expanded to hold about 400 people. The congregation flourished in the community and sent many young men out for church mission work throughout the country. However, by the late 1930s, the church saw major declines in its membership and it temporarily closed its doors. In the early 1940s, the church reopened as a struggling mission church under the Rev. Mel Stadt.

In 1949, the Rev. M.K. McIver took the pulpit, and the church saw such resurgent growth that the old building soon was deemed outdated and inadequate. By 1967, a new church building was dedicated and continues to serve as the church's home today. In 1983, a new auditorium was added and, through the years, staff continued to change and new positions were added.

In the past decade, the church has undergone a three-phase renovation that has added space for programs and staff, while hosting five new missionaries since 1999. Today, the church continues to thrive under the leadership of Pastor of Ministries Rev. W. Lee Taylor and Youth Pastor Wayne Haines.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that you and all of my colleagues will join me in congratulating Rev. Taylor, Pastor Haines and the members of First Baptist Church for their 150 years of service and worship in Lowell, Michigan. They have been blessed in their ministry, and their community has been blessed by their presence.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. The goal of my legislation is simple: It is to help small and medium-sized manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace. Why is this necessary? Because manufacturing is in trouble in the United States.

You have heard the figures of the over a million jobs lost in manufacturing in the past few years. At the same time, the funding has been cut for this particular program.

Like communities all over the United States, industries in my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, face countless challenges. Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our small and medium-sized firms are particularly vulnerable to these changes.

Many are literally fighting for survival.

I asked them what I could do to help. In talking to manufacturers in my district, one thing was clear. They all said the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program was a tremendously important program in helping them remain competitive.

The MEP program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance to help increase productivity and efficiency.

As an example, the Michigan MEP regional office in Grand Rapids, known as the Right Place Program, helped the family-owned Wolverine Coil Spring Company to develop a more efficient packaging and auditing system that cut in half the wait time for delivery of finished products.

Unfortunately, Congress cut funding for the MEP program from $106 million in fiscal year 2003 to $39 million in 2004. This limited funding caused many centers to lay off people and cut back their services at a time when businesses needed them most.

Another major concern raised by my constituents was technological advances by other countries. For our firms to compete today and in the future, I was told we need more research and development into how to manufacture products better, faster, and cheaper. I also learned that we need to provide a way for manufacturers to learn quickly about the latest advances from the research community.

With these thoughts in mind, I developed H.R. 3598, the Manufacturing Technology and Competitiveness Act. This bill specifically will establish an interagency committee and external advisory committee on manufacturing research and development to ensure that Federal agencies will coordinate their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target them on concerns that matter most to industry. It will also help industry improve manufacturing processes and technology by establishing a pilot grant program that would fund joint efforts by universities and industry to solve challenges in manufacturing technology. It would also train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing sciences by establishing post-doctoral and senior research fellowships at the National Institute for Standards and Technology. In addition, it would authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers remain open.

Let me just offer a comparison to show that this is certainly a perfectly acceptable amount of funding. If we compare it to the Agriculture Extension Service, which everyone agrees has worked very, very well for a very long time, to the extent that what is discovered in the lab one year is used out in the fields the next year, we find the Cooperative Extension Service of the Agriculture Department is funded at over $440 million per year, four times what we are suggesting for the MEP program. At the same time, in agriculture, we have just 1.5 percent of the American workforce. Manufacturing has approximately 14 percent of the workforce. Clearly, we need a program such as MEP so that we can do for manufacturing what for years we have done for agriculture.

The bill also provides new ways to help small and medium-sized manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program for MEP centers. And it authorizes the laboratory programs at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, which provides critical research and standards for most of our industries.

This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Small Manufacturing Coalition, and the National Council for Advanced Manufacturing, just to name a few, all support this legislation. I have also worked with the administration to ensure the bill can be passed into law and will receive the President's signature.

Mr. Chairman, this is the key point I want everyone to understand: I wanted to develop legislation that would help our manufacturers and that could make it through the entire congressional and administrative process to become law. Our manufacturers need our help and support now. Some of my colleagues are going to offer amendments that would seriously jeopardize the bill from passing into law.

One such amendment will be offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon). His amendment would increase the authorization of MEP by an additional $90 million over the next 4 years and increase the amount the Federal Government contributes to the program from one-third to one-half. While well intentioned, this amendment will upset the delicate balance of support for full funding of the MEP program and could lead to some centers receiving less money. We are back on the right track with the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill which passed the House yesterday with $106 million included for MEP, and I do not want to jeopardize the commitments made to achieve this funding level.

I acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for their help on getting this appropriation.

As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop and pass into law legislation that would help our small manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace, and H.R. 3598 does just that.

I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the ranking member of my subcommittee, and the gentleman from

Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member of the full committee, for their help and input throughout this process. I especially want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Science, who has done an outstanding job on that committee; and I thank him for his unwavering commitment to move this legislation through the Congress and be signed into law.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge everyone to support small and medium- sized manufacturers by supporting H.R. 3598.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not provided a built-in cheering and applause section, but I believe my ideas are probably worth more applause.

What the gentleman proposes is not a bad idea. I had proposed this myself some time ago, and not only in this department but also in the Energy Department I have worked on a similar proposal. The administration at the same time has advanced a proposal to reduce the number of under secretaries and does not support the development of new under secretaries.

But what the administration did in response to our request to create this under secretary for manufacturing in the Department of Commerce, the administration heeded these calls and it created a new assistant secretary for manufacturing and took other steps to create a focus on manufacturing in the department, such as creating a manufacturers' council which met just 2 weeks ago. They had their initial meeting. I was present at that meeting, and I was impressed with the quality of the appointees, and I am delighted that the President and the administration took these steps.

So I think it is really time to declare victory and go home on this issue because we basically got what we asked for. If instead the Larson amendment were adopted at this point, and if it passed through the Senate and were signed into law, it would force the administration to reorganize yet again. I think that would be counterproductive at that point. I am quite willing to live with the assistant secretary for a time and make sure it works out. If it does not work out, in a few years, we will resurrect the under secretary proposal.

In addition, I object to the reorganization the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has proposed. I do not think it is the best way to proceed because it would add to the bureaucracy that sits on top of NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, when in fact, our goal should be to get NIST out from under the burden of overmanagement. We would like it to have as much of its own funding as possible, as much latitude as possible, and control its own destiny through its own management structure. So I certainly object to that provision in the Larson amendment regardless of the rest of it.

I could go on regarding several other points, but I know there are many people anxious to have this debate ended soon and have the opportunity to go home and be with their families for the weekend. Let me close by saying I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Tennessee.

There are two reasons. First of all, it increases the MEP authorization by a considerable amount above the levels that are likely to succeed in the House and the Senate and through the administration; and we simply cannot, given the budget situation this year, increase the level that much and have any expectation that the appropriations will match that.

Furthermore, the second reason is that the Gordon amendment will increase the Federal share of money for the centers; and given the shortage of money that we have this year, we want to maximize the use of the funds that we do have available and certainly do not want to add to the Federal burden, particularly because there might be some danger that the States will simply say, well, if the Federal Government has more money to give, we are going to reduce our share because, as we know, every State of this Union is facing severe financial difficulties. We certainly do not want to try to change the formula, first of all, because we do not have the money to do it and pay more and, secondly, because of the fear that the States may use this as an opportunity to reduce their share.

So I oppose the Gordon amendment; and perhaps when better times come and we have a better budget situation, it will be entirely appropriate to increase the authorization levels and also the funding levels, and it would be my dream that that happens. But it is not going to happen this year or next fiscal year, and I doubt very much it will happen during the lifetime of this authorization.

So I urge the defeat of the Gordon amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support our efforts to defeat it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to thank my colleague the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for coming to the floor to indicate his support for this bill, and especially to thank him for his hard work on the Committee on Appropriations in getting the $106 million funding for this year.

I also want to join in thanking the staff, Eric Webster, Olwen Huxley and David Goldston, who have worked so hard on this bill, as well as my staff member, Cameron Wilson. They have done yeoman work, and I deeply appreciate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring up H.R. 3598, my bill on manufacturing technology competitiveness. I believe this rule is fair and balanced.

The main goal of H.R. 3598 is to authorize manufacturing programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology that help small and medium-sized manufacturers innovate so they can remain competitive in the global marketplace. One of these programs is the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership program.

This program has roughly 60 centers and 400 satellite offices throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance to increase productivity and efficiency. They do many things, and for one, they try to bring ideas from the laboratory down to the manufacturing floor. Another example, they might help to redesign a factory floor or help to train workers on how to use the latest technology or equipment. The net impact of these centers has been very beneficial on small to medium-sized businesses and is strongly supported by them as well as the National Association of Manufacturers.

The legislation also creates a collaborative grant pilot program to support research partnerships between academia, industry, nonprofits, and other entities to develop innovative technologies and solutions to scientific problems in manufacturing.

To truly help the manufacturers, we must have a bill that can be passed into law. Therefore, I want to keep this legislation focused on these specific programs that have strong bipartisan support. However, others have wanted to add extraneous provisions that, while well intentioned, take away from the focus of the bill. This is why I may oppose some of the amendments made in order, because I believe they will detract from the bill.

This rule largely helps ensure that the debate will remain on the manufacturing programs at NIST. I think that is fair and is in the best interests of our manufacturing community. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.

I would like to take a few minutes to respond to the ranking member of the Committee on Science for his statements a few minutes ago. I have no question that his intentions and the intentions of his colleagues are good. They are genuinely concerned about manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, just as I am. My concern is that it has taken considerable effort to negotiate this bill. They mentioned that several attempts have been made to kill the MEP program. I believe this bill now fully supports that program, and as written will also receive the support of the administration. I urge my colleague to support the rule and the bill.

I have no difficulty with the ATP program. I think that is something that also has to be revised and resurrected, and I will be working in the future to do precisely that. So I want to assure my colleagues that we are in accord on basic ideas, but we have a lot of work to do before we can proceed with the additional activities that they recommend. And I am certainly willing to help them and work with them as we try to do that in the future.

With that, I conclude by once again urging my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, and we hope they will also support the bill and bring it into effect.

Madam Speaker, I have been in Congress almost 10\1/2\ years, and I have enjoyed the friendship of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) almost that entire time. I have always been extremely impressed with him. He is a very fine person.

Approximately a decade ago, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) pulled me aside in his role as leader of the congressional delegation to NATO. He explained to me what the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was, explained to me that Europeans all had scientists serving on the Science Committee, but no one from the U.S. did. He asked me to serve since I am a physicist by training. I acquiesced rather reluctantly because it seemed like a huge assignment as a brand-new Member of Congress, but it has given me an opportunity to come to know Doug and Louise much better.

I would like to talk about the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) as a diplomat. He is a consummate diplomat. He is patient, with a calm demeanor. He is always polite, no matter what point of view he is being forced to listen to. He is a careful listener. He is a good negotiator, and a decent person, a man of integrity. All of these are hallmarks of a good diplomat. Doug has served not only Congress but our Nation well as a diplomat in his position of serving and leading the NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation from the United States. It has been a pleasure to serve with him and to learn from him in that role.

His wife, Louise, is also a good diplomat in the many contacts she has had to make over the years with Members and their spouses, but also with members and spouses from other countries, and she has handled this role with grace, tact, and great care.

Also, I have been impressed with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) as a legislator. He has done such good work in so many different areas but above all in international relations. Frankly, my heart is broken that he is leaving us, because I was looking forward to the day he would become chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and I knew he would be a superb chairman.

I would also like to mention Doug as a friend. He has been a good friend to me, a confidante and an adviser. I could not have had a better friend and confidante to discuss issues with. He always had wise advice and helpful comments to make when I discussed with him the problems I was having on the Science Committee, particularly in dealing with recalcitrant members from other countries who seemed to enjoy making trouble more than making progress.

With his help, I was able to serve 4 years as a rappateur on the Science Committee. The rappateur controls all reports which come before the committee, in fact has to write most of them, and I am currently vice chairman of the Science Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and was asked to serve as president and declined with some regret simply because of my heavy workload in the Congress.

I am very pleased that Doug has finally achieved the job of his dreams, to serve in this new position. He is a perfect fit for the job, and the job is a perfect fit for him. I certainly want to wish him and Louise well as they leave this area and move to San Francisco to take up this new position. We hate to see you go, Doug and Louise; but we certainly wish you well and we know you will do well as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1856) to reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1856, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is timely that we are considering this bill about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Just last week, beaches in the Chesapeake Bay were closed due to a harmful algal bloom.

I introduced H.R. 1856 more than a year ago after learning about the nationwide problems caused by harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and also, the harmful effects from hypoxia. Harmful algal blooms are dense mats of toxic algae that can harm marine animals and humans. Hypoxia occurs when an algal bloom depletes oxygen in the water and leaves behind conditions that essentially choke all of the marine life in the affected area.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia occur nationwide in areas including the Chesapeake Bay, California, the Pacific Northwest, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. In 1998, Congress passed a 3-year bill authorizing harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research programs with a focus on the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and Pfiesteria in the Chesapeake Bay. Since the authorization of these important research programs expired, I decided to reexamine the issue at a hearing in the Committee on Science last year.

At that hearing we learned that successful research supported by the 1998 authorization enabled scientists to move closer to being able to predict HAB outbreaks; and in some regions, they have learned enough about the phenomena to start developing mitigation and control methods. We also learned that the occurrence of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia is increasing in fresh-water locations such as the Great Lakes, and there is sometimes a disconnect between the research being performed and the local resource managers who should benefit from the science. In response, I developed H.R. 1856 to amend and update the 1998 act. Today, I offer a manager's amendment that reflects discussions with the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure who are also interested in this bill. I especially want to thank the

gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources, as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) from the Committee on Resources, chair of the Fisheries Subcommittee, for their help in guiding this bill through the process. Also I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Science, including the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), who have provided useful input. I appreciate all of their help in improving the bill.

The manager's amendment maintains the current level of authorization for harmful algal blooms and hypoxia programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, and maintains that current level of authorization at $19 million annually over the next 3 fiscal years. It adds fresh-water regions such as the Great Lakes as an important focus area for harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research.

The bill also increases participation of local resource managers to ensure that the research is prioritized to address the questions facing people managing these problems. Also, the bill requires that NOAA administer all research funding through a competitive, merit-based, peer-reviewed process.

Finally, the bill reauthorizes funding for effective programs that evolved out of the 1998 act. For example, the MERHAB program, which stands for Monitoring and Event Response For Harmful Algal Blooms, partners State and local research managers with university researchers. Research from this program has resulted in innovations such as rapid test kits that beach managers can use directly in the field to test for harmful algal blooms. These kits eliminated the need to take samples back to a lab and wait days for confirmation of the presence of toxins, providing an early warning for the public about harmful algal blooms.

H.R. 1856 does not mandate any specific regulatory actions. It is purely a research, development, and demonstration bill, with a goal of improving our understanding of these phenomena so that we can predict their occurrence and develop tools for improved detection and mitigation of these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words for the Members who may not understand what harmful algal blooms are, and I also want to emphasize that this bill does not increase authorization or funding above the previous bill; it maintains the same level at $19 million per year, and we believe that will be sufficient to continue the project.

Harmful algal blooms are sometimes referred to as a ``red tide.'' These are algae that for some reason proliferate very rapidly under certain conditions, and the net effect of that is that they consume so much oxygen and produce toxins that they basically create a dead zone. In the Gulf of Mexico, it is not unusual to have a dead zone equal in size to the State of New Jersey. Obviously, this is not only harmful to the Gulf of Mexico, but also harmful to the fishing industries who like to use that area because of the large number of fish that are killed by the lack of oxygen and the toxins.

What is of special concern is that the harmful algal blooms now are appearing in fresh-water areas, particularly the Great Lakes, one of the greatest sources of fresh water not only in this Nation, but in the world.

We want to head that off very early, and try to find out precisely what is happening in the Great Lakes that would allow these harmful algal blooms to develop there and create the same difficulties that we have observed in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as in the State of Washington in the bay area around Seattle and Puget Sound.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential for us to address this. We reached the conclusion after our hearing that a great deal of good research has been done, that the emphasis now can switch from research, although not entirely; we must continue some research, but we also have to convert that into action now. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) in particular has a problem in the Puget Sound area that has to be addressed immediately. We hope that, as a result of this bill, we will see greater action through demonstration projects, and more than demonstration projects as time goes on, so that we can deal with this problem, actually solve it, and get rid of the harmful algal blooms and the hypoxia which occurs and which kills other organisms.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill has reached this point. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington. He is one of the most helpful committee members on the Committee on Science, but particularly on this bill because of his expertise and the situation they have in the State of Washington. He has been most helpful in our discussions; and I hope that, as a result of this action, we will be able to address the problems in the State of Washington as well as other areas of the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my thanks to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for their work on moving this bill through the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the Committee on Resources. Finally, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his hard work bringing this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1856 will provide a timely update for these important programs that help our coastal communities deal with harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 1856.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) supporting the goals and ideals of the World Year of Physics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 301, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are considering this resolution recognizing the importance of physics to our everyday lives. This resolution supports the goals and ideals of the World Year of Physics and at the same time celebrates the 100th anniversary of Einstein's development of the theory of relativity. I am certain we are all familiar with the equation E=mc2 which, for the first time, recognized that mass is a form of energy and in fact could be converted into energy. This was a key factor in discovering nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

The resolution recognizes the important contributions of physicists to technological progress and the health of many industries. I could go on and on listing all the various benefits that we have developed in today's world resulting from the work of physicists. Many people do not realize, for example, that some of the most important developments in health care come directly from the world of physics. As an example, x- rays were discovered by a physicist. The CAT scan was developed based on work that physicists had done. And MRI imaging, which is very useful for health diagnosis and research, was developed by physicists resulting from work done on nuclear magnetic resonance, which was discovered while I was still a graduate student.

In addition, what has developed with lasers is a very important aspect of what was at first a small, unknown field of research, very related to the field of research in which I received my doctorate. Discovery of lasers was the first proof of something that had been developed years ago theoretically, that photons passing through a material in an excited state would result in the emission of additional photons precisely in phase and at the same frequency as the photon that initiated the emission. That was the heart of developing the laser.

The ramifications and uses of the laser are so numerous that I can scarcely begin to mention them. They are used in surgery. They are used in factories to cut steel and to cut out patterns for clothes. In many, many other areas lasers play an extremely important role.

As I said, I could go on and on talking about the contributions that physicists have made to technological

progress in many industries, but this resolution, in addition to recognizing that, encourages the people of the United States to observe next year as the World Year of Physics in conjunction with the United Nations declaration of 2005 as the International World Year of Physics.

As a physicist, I recognize the physics principles that are part of our everyday lives. From mechanics and gravity to optical technologies that enable our CD players, physics is all around us. Through physics we can explore the depths of the universe and black holes, as well as the tiniest parts of the atom. And what has always fascinated me about my study of the atomic nucleus and also my readings in cosmology is that we humans are basically at the center of that scale. We are about as far removed from the size of an atomic nucleus, as we are from the size of the universe. I think it is just absolutely marvelous that we can explore our world in both the smaller and larger directions and have not reached limits at this point.

This resolution encourages the American public to take note of the physics used every day and encourages them to learn more about it. I hope that the American people will observe the World Year of Physics by supporting physics education and research. I encourage physicists and educators to engage the public, especially the children, in physics to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers.

I commend the American Physical Society for promoting the World Year of Physics. This is a perfect opportunity to recognize and celebrate the importance of physics in our lives, promote public understanding of physics, and express our support for physics research and education.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 301, supporting the goals and ideals of the World Year of Physics.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for their work in bringing this resolution to the floor today.

As I mentioned before, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) has been most helpful in the Committee on Science. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and I, as the two physicists in the Congress, have worked together closely on many issues, including this one. So I want to recognize both of them for their work and for their long history in recognizing the importance of not only physics but science in general.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 301.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her astute comments on the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the role it plays. I have worked extensively on this issue, because it is under my jurisdiction as chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards of the Committee on Science. We have spent a considerable amount of time over this past year working on this issue and have developed a bill which will be on the floor tomorrow which will deal with this.

Everything that the gentlewoman from Connecticut has observed about the program is absolutely true, and it has always puzzled me why there is some opposition to this program.

Just to give an example of the benefits of this type of program, I think one of the finest programs we have had in the Agriculture Department for a number of years is the Cooperative Extension Program, which has been invaluable in getting research out of the laboratory and into the field. It has always amazed me that we have an amazing technology transfer rate in the agriculture arena, because of that program. A laboratory researcher at a university can discover something new one year and the farmers are actually using it in the field the next year, a tremendous accomplishment in terms of transferring technology from the lab to actual operations. We certainly do not do that well in most other fields. We do not do that well in manufacturing.

I find it interesting that we, as a Federal Government, spend $441 million per year for the Agriculture Cooperative Extension Program, and yet we seem to fuss and muss a lot about $100 or $110 million for essentially the same program for manufacturers. At the same time, there are only about 1.5 percent of Americans employed in farming, and there are roughly 14 percent employed in manufacturing. So clearly our priorities are wrong if we think we are spending too much in assisting manufacturers.

The MEP program, Manufacturing Extension Program, is designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses, and particularly provides technology transfer from the lab to the marketplace. In addition to that, it also provides business expertise, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut observed, to assist in exporting, and to assist in getting permits from other countries to export. The MEP program has been a very, very valuable program for small- and middle-sized businesses and, in many cases, has allowed them to increase and become large businesses. So it is an excellent program.

I certainly want to support what the gentlewoman has said. This is a good program for us to do, and I hope that tomorrow we will have the support of a large number of Members as we consider the bill which will reauthorize the program. I certainly support what the chairman of this Appropriations subcommittee has done in allocating money for that program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2507. I thank Chairman Boehner and Mr. Castle for work on this legislation. I particularly thank them for their willingness to retain direct certification of migrant children and policies promoting wellness during negotiations with the Senate.

This legislation works to protect eligible children's access to the child nutrition programs by extending automatic eligibility to children who qualify for migrant educational services under Title 1, part C of the No Child Left Behind Act. It allows for direct certification of migrant children if they are identified by the district's migrant education coordinator. Such a change makes it easier for migrant children to receive school meals as soon as they enter a new school.

In addition, this legislation promotes nutritional education and physical activity. I am very pleased that this legislation promotes such education and physical activity at the state and local levels to prevent childhood obesity. I am hopeful that the local school wellness policies, which will be established by schools participating in the school nutrition programs, will promote health and prevent childhood obesity throughout schools in Michigan and throughout the Nation.

Finally, I support strengthening partnerships between local agriculture and schools. I cosponsored Representative Upton and Representative Kind's Farm-To-Cafeteria Projects Act, and I am pleased to see these provisions included. This legislation will promote partnerships between local Michigan farms and the child nutrition programs to ensure that children receive fresh and local produce.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased, along with my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, to introduce the President's bill to establish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). As Chairmen of the House subcommittees with jurisdiction over NOAH, we are introducing this bill as a courtesy to the President.

NOAA was created by Executive Order in 1970. Since that time Congress has not passed a comprehensive law describing the mission of the agency. On April 20, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long awaited Preliminary Report with recommendations for a coordinated national ocean policy. One of its key recommendations is that Congress should pass an organic act for NOAA. I have already introduced my bill creating such an organic act (H.R. 4546). This bill Mr. Gilchrest and I are introducing today is the Administration's response to the recommendation.

I look forward to working with Mr. Gilchrest and the Members of the Science Committee and the Resources Committee as we consider comprehensive legislation for NOAA.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 232-242, I was detained by a meeting with Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and his newly appointed Manufacturers Advisory Council, at which I spoke. The delay was compounded by an airline delay which prevented me from voting on the last three rollcall votes, on all of which I would have voted ``no.''

Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 232, ``yes''; rollcall No. 233, ``yes''; rollcall No. 234, ``yes''; rollcall No. 235, ``yes''; rollcall No. 236, ``yes''; rollcall No. 237, ``yes''; rollcall No. 238, ``yes''; rollcall No. 239, ``yes''; rollcall No. 240, ``no''; rollcall No. 241, ``no''; and rollcall No. 242, ``no'';

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce H.R. 4546, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. Better known as NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was created by Executive Order in 1970. As Chairman of the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, I oversee much of NOAA. 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 is a first step toward Congressional passage of comprehensive legislation for NOAA.

On April 20, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its long awaited Preliminary Report with recommendations for a coordinated national ocean policy. One of its key recommendations is that Congress should pass an organic act for NOAA. At a recent Science Committee hearing, the chairman of the Commission emphasized the importance of this recommendation and I strongly agree with him. The time is right for Congress to consider, and pass, this organic act for NOAA, an agency that provides vital services to the Nation that range from weather forecasts and warnings to cutting-edge marine research.

My bill contains three major sections. Title I is an organic act for NOAA. It establishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce and defines the mission of NOAA. This mission is ``to understand and predict changes in the Earth's oceans and atmosphere and the effects of such changes on the land environment, to conserve and manage coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes ecosystems, and to educate the public about these topics.'' My bill maintains the current leadership structure at NOAA, but adds a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology to serve as the point person for the agency to coordinate the research and science activities of NOAA across the agency.

Title I of my bill also describes the functions of NOAA, which are divided into three broad groups to improve cooperation among NOAA's

programs, as recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. First is the National Weather Service, which provides weather, water and climate forecasts and warnings to the Nation. The second group is operations and services, which includes all of NOAA's satellites services and its mapping and charting services. The third category of functions is research and education.

The bill focuses on pieces of NOAA under Science Committee jurisdiction, and does not currently include any references to NOAA's fisheries or resource management, which are under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee here in the House. I am hopeful that we can work with other committees in the House and our colleagues in the Senate to pass a truly comprehensive organic act for NOAA, but for now we must start with this piece of legislation.

The second part of the bill is a three year general authorization for NOAA's line offices. The third part of my bill in Titles III-VII is a series of NOAA-related legislation from the 108th Congress that I believe are important programs to specifically authorize at this time.

I believe it is critical for NOAA's mission to be clearly defined so it can better fulfill its role in observing, managing, and protecting our Nation's coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to pass this bill into law this year. This will not be an easy task, but it is so important to our environment, our economy, and our children's and grandchildren's future, that we must succeed.

Mr. Speaker, for many years I have heard comments about the power of ideas. I learned as a youngster that the pen is mightier than the sword and that there is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. President Ronald Reagan demonstrated that these and similar statements, are true. He was living proof that ideas win battles.

He was not regarded as an intellectual, but yet he understood the importance of the basic, simple ideas that this country is founded upon, the ideas of peace and freedom, freedom to worship, freedom to speak, freedom of the press, but he also went beyond that. He recognized that these are not ends in themselves, but these are means to an end, and freedom to worship is meaningless unless you use it to worship. Freedom of the press is meaningless unless you use it to print ideas that are for the betterment of the Nation.

Simple ideas, valiantly fought for. With grace, charm and a twinkle in his eye, he succeeded where others had failed. He inspired a troubled Nation. He brought us together. He conquered the symbolic Iron Curtain and brought it down, along with the very real Berlin Wall. He led to nuclear disarmament, the greatest threat to humanity during his tenure.

I rise today to thank President Reagan for what he did for this country, for the ideas he fought for and the transformation he made in the culture and the attitudes of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 444) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the late Honorable Ronald Wilson Reagan, the fortieth President of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, this may seem like a routine resolution because we must pass these resolutions to allow the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for certain events, but frankly, this is a very auspicious moment.

By statute, we have defined how state funerals are to proceed in this Nation's Capital. We have very few of them. I believe the last one was at the time of the death of President Lyndon Johnson of Texas. It is a great honor to host an event such as this in the rotunda, and today I rise to present a resolution which will grant permission to have the body of President Ronald Reagan rest in state in the rotunda of the Capitol so that the Members of Congress and members of the public may join in honoring him by viewing the casket.

This is, as I said, a very auspicious event, and fortunately, we do not have to do this often. But it inspires in us, again, respect for the ideals of our Nation and for the things that we do and that we believe in.

When President Reagan's body will arrive, the casket will be placed on a caisson, according to tradition and law, and that horse-drawn procession will proceed from near the White House to the Capitol. It will be followed by a black, riderless horse, indicating a fallen leader. The boots on that horse will be placed in the stirrups backwards, indicating the fallen leader reviewing the troops behind him. When that arrives at the Capitol, with great pomp and circumstance, an honor guard will present the casket and the body and carry them inside the Capitol, displaying the casket in the rotunda.

This evening we will have a memorial ceremony, restricted to the Members of Congress, in the Rotunda. Following that, the people of this Nation, anyone who wishes, may stand in line and view the casket and give their respects to our fallen President.

It is my pleasure to be able to present this resolution honoring President Ronald Reagan and providing the opportunity for the Members of Congress and for the public to view the casket and to pay their respects to this great man. It is the least we can do, and I wish we could do more because he did a marvelous job of leading this Nation in a very troubled time. When we had a broken economy and a dispirited people, he restored their spirits with grace, charm and a twinkle in his eye and eventually helped us prevail over the Soviet Union, which had threatened us for decades with nuclear weapons.

The world is a far better place because of Ronald Reagan, what he did, and the leadership he provided, and it is my pleasure to present this resolution and honor him in this way.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), a representative of the home State of President Reagan to offer some comments on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present this resolution. I have pointed out the historical significance of it, and I urge the entire Congress to cast a unanimous vote. It is the last time to win one for the Gipper, and it is appropriate for us to express our appreciation to a previous leader and President at the time of his death.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 444.