Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 115) authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in state of the remains of the late Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to one of my staffers, Nancy Ostapowicz, who last month retired after serving the residents of West Michigan for 25 years.

As most of us know, being a staff member in a Congressional district office is often a thankless and relatively anonymous job. They usually do not receive the credit they deserve for a job well-done, and all too often they must deal with concern, frustration or anger of constituents who are upset by government actions or have been ill-treated by the bureaucratic system.

Nancy, who has directed my constituent services since I joined Congress in 1993, handled such situations with incredible aplomb, working tirelessly and compassionately with the people who contacted our Grand Rapids office in search of assistance. I was fortunate to have inherited Nancy, as she first started working for Congressman Hal Sawyer in 1979, then continued with Congressman Paul Henry when he took office in 1985.

Over the past quarter-century, Nancy helped literally thousands of people with a wide variety of problems too numerous to list here today, although it is safe to say that she was especially gratified by her efforts helping immigrants and reuniting families so that they could come to the United States and pursue the American dream.

Without a doubt, Nancy's biggest legacy is that those thousands of people would be willing to line up and thank her for the help she gave them. She has served so many people over the years that it is not unusual to see someone walk up to Nancy to thank her for assistance that she provided 10 or 20 years ago.

And so, today, add me to the list of people who have said ``Thank you'' to Nancy Ostapowicz. Others will ably do her job, but no one can ever replace her.

Congratulations, Nancy, on a fine career of public service, and best wishes to you and Dan in your retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation that will move our Nation forward with increased environmental protection and restoration of the Great Lakes--the Great Lakes Protection and Restoration Committee Act.

The Great Lakes are a national treasure that we need to protect and restore. They contain 95 percent of our nation's surface freshwater, provide drinking water to millions of people and form the backbone for billions of dollars in shipping, trade, fishing and recreation. Progress has been made in improving environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, but the lakes continue to face many threats, including pollution from contaminated sediments, stormwater and agricultural runoff, the introduction of invasive species, wetlands and coastal habitat loss, and pollutants washed into the lakes from the atmosphere.

While several federal, state, provincial and local programs have been developed to address these problems, these strategies are not well coordinated. According to an April 2003 GAO Report, ``no one overarching strategy or plan unifies these strategies in the pursuit of a common goal. . . An overarching strategy for the basin is needed to establish restoration goals, outline how restoration will occur, identify the resources needed to achieve restoration, assign accountability for restoration, and provide a mechanism for measuring progress for achieving goals.''

This week, President Bush signed an Executive Order that establishes a task force to improve the coordination of federal agency efforts and to reach out to state, local, and private partners to develop consistent policies and strategies for Great Lakes restoration. I strongly support the action taken by President Bush, EPA Administrator Leavitt, and Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Connaughton because it will help bring collaboration among the broad collection of existing resources and programs in the region.

Next we need comprehensive legislation to continue to move us forward. The Great Lakes Protection and Restoration Committee Act will provide a path forward by bringing together all of the stakeholders in the basin, led by the Great Lakes State governors with the aid of relevant federal agency officials, tribal representatives, scientific experts and environmental and industry stakeholders. The Committee created by the legislation will develop a specific and comprehensive strategy for the purpose of protecting, preserving and restoring the Great Lakes.

Specifically, the task force will:

Assess accomplishments from current programs over the past 10 years;

Analyze the prospects for achieving restoration goals under current programs and authorities for the next 10 years;

Prioritize restoration goals identified by the Great Lakes governors;

Develop specific, measurable benchmarks for achieving those goals;

Recommend legislative options for obtaining such additional authority and funding as are necessary to achieve those goals;

Suggest methods to improve coordination among the existing federal, state, provincial, local, and non-governmental programs operating in the Great Lakes; and

Report to Congress and the President in one year on its findings and recommendations.

My goal is that the task force will develop a comprehensive, strategic protection and restoration program to bring together and coordinate the plethora of smaller programs that we have in place now.

This serious and measured approach mirrors the steps taken in other large ecosystem restoration projects such as the Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. Due to the complexity of those restoration initiatives, which cross over many jurisdictional lines, environmental challenges and scientific disciplines, it was essential to have an overall strategic plan in place to guide activities and funding decisions over long periods of time. The Great Lakes Basin is significantly larger and the environmental challenges substantially more complex than in those ecosystems. We need an overarching strategy in place to accomplish our vision to protect and restore the lakes.

A lack of adequate funding is certainly an impediment to successful cleanup efforts, but improved program coordination and operation under a comprehensive strategic plan is an essential first step. The Great Lakes Protection and Restoration Committee Act will move Great Lakes restoration forward to help protect and clean up this global treasure. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 600, a resolution congratulating charter schools across the United States and their students, parents, teachers and administrators of such schools for their ongoing contributions to education.

Charter schools represent a grand experiment which relies upon innovation and creativity found within American society. Since charter schools are often small and independent, they are able to focus on new approaches for teaching and preparing students for their place in our rapidly changing world. Charter schools often deliver high-quality education and challenge students to reach their potential. Charter schools can be vehicles for improving student achievement and for stimulating change in all educational settings including public schools.

Almost 2,700 charter schools serve students across the Nation, and these schools are found in 41 States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In Michigan, there are over 210 operational charter schools and even more approved to open during the 2004-2005 school year.

I would especially like to commend one innovative and entrepreneurial charter school pioneer in my district, Mr. J.C. Huizenga. He founded National Heritage Academies in 1995 with a vision to create a network of K-8 schools that offer a common-sense approach to education. The cornerstones of this approach include rigorous academics, a strong virtue-based character development program, active parental involvement, and a high degree of accountability.

Mr. Huizenga and his National Heritage Academies operate 39 schools in 5 States and serve nearly 21,000 students.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and congratulating charter schools.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a few moments to respond to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) regarding the extraneous comments he inserted in the debate on the previous measure. He commented that the legislature in Ohio and others there agree that No Child Left Behind is underfunded.

Mr. Speaker, I served in the Michigan legislature for 11 years. During all that time, I never met any legislator who ever felt that the Federal Government was properly funding or overfunding anything.

It is the character of State legislators and State legislatures to believe that the Federal Government should be sending them more money. That simple statement about the Ohio legislature is no indication whatsoever of the truth of the situation.

The truth is that Federal funding for education has more than doubled over the past 8 years. The truth is that if we look at the charts of the funding under No Child Left Behind of this Congress and compare it with the funding under the previous program, we are doing extremely well. It is almost an exponential increase compared to the relatively flat funding prior to that.

Similarly for IDEA funding; if we look at the history of that, IDEA funding was struggling along at a few billion dollars per year for a number of years. Since the Republicans took over, we have quadrupled the amount of funding for IDEA to $10 billion in fiscal year 2004.

The facts are, the Republicans have been very generous with the funding of No Child Left Behind and IDEA, and attempts to say otherwise are simply falsifying the facts and I think are for political purposes and should not have been inserted in the discussion of the military schools debate.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1974 I ran for public office on an environmental platform. I have been an environmentalist for many years, and I have always tried to keep the environment in the forefront in discussions in this Congress. I am also, however, what you might call a common-sense environmentalist. I believe in environmental issues and environmental choices that make sense both for the environment and for the economy. And this bill is a sterling example of precisely what is involved in common-sense environmentalism.

The chemical industry makes and uses a great many chemicals. Disposal of those chemicals often becomes disposal of hazardous waste, which is very costly, very toxic and dangerous to the environment. This bill will help develop green chemistry, chemistry that is in tune with the environment so that both the products and the by-products are safe, and we do not generate as much or any hazardous waste, and we do not have to worry about toxic waste polluting the groundwater.

Much work is required in this area both to change the habits of the educational institutions and the habits of the chemical industry. They have to be made aware of the many opportunities for green chemistry. And this is true also of the businesses that use chemical products. For example, it appears now that liquid carbon dioxide at the critical point is an outstanding cleaning fluid, certainly nontoxic, and would solve the pollution problem that many launderers and cleaners face in this country.

I strongly support this bill. It supports research to develop more green chemistry processes and includes provisions to expand green chemistry education. This will enable the next generation of chemical professionals to bring innovative practices to traditional chemical manufacturing. I am most pleased to support the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3970, a bill that will truly clean up the environment and at the same time aid the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4030, the Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and Science Education. This bill recognizes the outstanding contributions of the private sector in math and science education.

The private sector has created many good programs to inspire and educate the next generations of scientists. Establishing a Congressional Medal will identify, honor, and disseminate these excellent educational programs.

Science and math education as well as technical training are important and have enormous and pressing need. Science and technology underpin our economic strength and national security. Innovation and productivity gains cannot be sustained without a scientifically literate workforce.

Here is a very important point: Jobs of the future will require an understanding of the basic concepts and principles of science and mathematics. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics projects that 10 of the fastest growing industries and occupations from 2002 to 2012 will be in the high-technology fields. All workers from office assistants to rocket scientists will need a fundamental understanding of math, science, and engineering as well as technical know-how to succeed.

I cannot overemphasize the importance of this because the kids who are in schools today will need that education to have good-quality jobs in the future. Unfortunately, currently a full third of U.S. students perform below basic levels in science and math on assessment tests. At the advanced level, only two out of every 100 high school graduates will obtain an engineering or advanced degree, while the numbers are even more dismal for women and minorities who choose to go on in math and science.

There is no quick fix for these problems. Government and the private sector must work with the education and scientific communities to educate and inspire our children and prepare them to compete in the global knowledge-based economy.

It is very important to recognize that nations such as India and China have deliberately improved their math and science education and are producing far more scientists and engineers today than they did previously. And while their enrollments and graduation rates are increasing, our graduation rates for engineers have decreased steadily for the past 20 years.

H.R. 4030 recognizes businesses' achievements in improving math and science education and provides incentive for future participation. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for developing the bill and the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), in moving the bill through committee. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 4030.

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

Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the committee for his hard work on this bill. It is very difficult to allocate these funds. He has tried to allocate them as fairly as possible. The difficulty is the donor States such as my State want a guarantee that they will get a certain amount of money back, and that is precisely what this amendment does.

The State of Michigan over the years has contributed $1.71 billion more to the Federal highway funds than it has received back. They are 48th in the list of 50 States as to how much we get back from the Federal Government compared to the amount of money we send there. This is a very sore point in Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will guarantee a rate of return for my State, and that is extremely important for my State, to receive that guarantee.

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

Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transportation budgets. The public rightly demands safer, less congested roads and more transportation choices.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on solid research. Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to produce solutions. How many of us have used an EZ Pass to breeze past congestion at a toll booth? Or been gently reminded to stay on the road by a rumble strip?

Examples abound of these sorts of benefits gained by transportation research, such as research on pavements focuses on manipulating substances at the molecular level to create materials that are more durable and last significantly longer. This saves money, because more durable pavements need less maintenance and are replaced less frequently. It also saves time, reducing construction zones that are a major cause of congestion.

Furthermore, research on transit focuses on how to make transit systems more cost-effective and efficient. Better transit systems give people more choices and save time by reducing the number of cars on the road.

Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure that we meet future transportation needs.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, which was approved by the full Committee on Science on February 4, increases stakeholder input, expands competition and peer review of research proposals, and ensures greater accountability so that this research actually supports the goals of our transportation system.

I am pleased that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and his staff have worked very closely with me and my staff to incorporate much of the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act and its intent into TEA LU. While I wish we could have provided more funding for research, I must especially thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for ensuring that, as funding for TEA LU was reduced from $375 billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That was not the case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA 21.

I especially wanted to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the research title and its funding as we discuss this issue with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, when most of us think about the highway bill, we ten to focus on funding levels for our States and projects. Few of us think about transportation research. But transportation research is fundamental to all aspects of our transportation system. How many of us have used an EZ Pass to breeze past congestion at a toll both? Or have been gently, or not so gently reminded to stay on he road by a rumble strip? How many of us have benefited from pavements that are quieter and last longer than they did 30 years ago? Every driver and passenger is better off today because of past investments in transportation research and technology development.

Our transportation system continues to face tremendous challenges. Tens of thousands of lives are lost each year on our highways. More drivers are driving more miles, causing severe congestion. An aging infrastructure is putting a strain on State and local transpiration budgets. Changing patterns of where people live and work demand innovative planning for our future needs. The public rightly demands safer, less congested roads, and more transportation choices realizing that we can't simply build more roads to address all of these challenges, especially in urban areas, we must look for new ways to improve the overall system.

Fundamental improvements to the entire transportation system depend on solid research, Solid research will translate to saved lives, saved money and saved time by providing the tools and information needed to produce solutions. For example:

Research on pavements focuses on manipulating substances at the molecular level to create materials that are more durable and last significantly longer. This saves money, because more durable pavements need less maintenance and are replaced less frequently. It also saves time, reducing construction zones that are a major cause of congestion;

Reseach on operations focuses on improving the design of dangerous merges and intersections. This research saves lives by providing planners the information to design safer roads. It also saves time by reducing accidents, which cause congestion;

Research on transit focuses on how to make transit systems more cost- effective and efficient. Better transit systems give people more choices, and save time by reducing the number of cars on the road; and

Research in the social sciences focuses on understanding how future changes in where people live and work will affect future transportation usage, so that planners can make early, smart investments to ensure that we meet future transportation needs at lower costs.

As chairman of the Environment, Technology and Standards Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, I introduced H.R. 3551, the Surface Transportation Research and Development Act. This legislation, which was approved by the full Science Committee on February 4:

Provides necessary but prudent increases to transportation research funding;

Increases stakeholder input to ensure that the people who must implement and use the research agree that it is worthwhile and applicable;

Creates the highest quality research through increased competition and peer review; and

Ensures greater accountability so that this research actually supports the goals of our transportation system.

I am pleased that Chairman Young and his staff have worked very closely with me, and my staff, to incorporate much of my legislation and its intent into TEA-LU. While I think we all agree that we wish we could have provided more funding for research, I must especially thank Mr. Young for ensuring that as funding for TEA-LU was reduced from $375 billion to $275 billion, research was treated fairly. That wasn't the case 6 years ago during consideration of TEA-21. And I want to thank Mr. Young for his pledge to work with me to continue to improve the research title and its funding in conference as we discuss these issues with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Budget Committee weighed several pressing national priorities as it prepared the FY 2005 Budget Resolution, including the continuing war on terrorism, facilitating economic stimulus, and maintaining fiscal responsibility.

I support the Budget Committee's determination to curb overall spending in this year's budget resolution. While I recognize that the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have critical funding needs, I am disappointed that Function 250, which includes basic scientific research and development, did not receive the same level of support. Function 250 was flat funded at $22.8 billion. This clearly does not provide necessary increases in critical basic science programs such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

I am a strong advocate of these programs, and those at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), because scientific research and development underpins our economic and national security. Scientific research and development forms the foundation of defense and weapons development, increased innovation, and economic vitality. Scientific research is an investment that promises, and has historically delivered, significant returns on that investment.

Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military applications and continued economic prosperity, including the development of cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided missiles, and the Internet.

NSF is also the primary source of Federal funding for nonmedical basic research at colleges and universities. It underwrites the education of the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technical workers.

As a nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research and education. Continued underfunding of scientific research and education will erode America's technical and scientific preeminence, diminish our ability to compete economically, and undermine our children's economic prosperity and national security.

While I am disappointed that the FY 2005 Budget Resolution does not increase basic research funding in function 250, I, along with many colleagues who also support science funding, will fight for these programs during the appropriations process. Even in a tight budget year, we must remember that we cannot afford to sacrifice the research and education which current and future generations need to ensure their economic prosperity and domestic security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3873. I thank Chairman Boehner and Mr. Castle for their work on this legislation. I particularly thank them for their willingness to include direct certification of migrant children under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. I also commend Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Grijalva for their persistent efforts to assist migrant children.

Migrant families are among the poorest of the working poor, and are largely eligible for the child nutrition programs. Unfortunately, the mobility of migrant children often complicates their access to the child nutrition programs. Migrant families face significant barriers in accessing federal, state, and local resources due to issues associated with mobility, language and literacy. Currently, migrant children are forced to reapply each time they enroll in a new school district. In addition, literacy and language are a problem at the application phase of the child nutrition program.

I am pleased that this legislation provides direct certification for migrant children. 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 to migrant provisions, I support promoting 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 local school wellness policies will be established by schools participating in the school nutrition programs will promote health and prevent childhood obesity throughout schools in Michigan.

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 Improvement and Integrity Act.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased that we are considering this resolution celebrating the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), and I thank my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Udall, for his work in recognizing this important anniversary. I distinctly remember the first IGY. I was a graduate student in physics at that time. There was much excitement around this coordinated research effort, which led to discoveries with far-reaching impacts on every field of earth sciences. For example, research on making rockets and satellites to better understand weather was a factor in building the technological foundation for the U.S. space program.

As often happens with scientific research, the more we learn, the more questions we develop. Much of the first IGY research focused on Antarctica, setting aside an entire continent for cooperative scientific research. In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty formalized this arrangement by designating Antarctica for scientific investigation ``as applied during the International Geophysical Year.'' I am pleased that this resolution continues that spirit of scientific discovery by directing the National Science Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to pursue plans for a second International Geophysical Year in 2007-08. A second IGY will inspire the next generation of earth scientists to work collaboratively and across international borders to study the most pressing Earth science questions.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely and important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3389, which amends the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to include a category for nonprofit organizations. On the Committee on Science I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, with jurisdiction over the National Institute of Standards Technology, which administers the Baldrige Awards program. In that role I am most pleased to support this bill.

When the Baldrige award was first announced many years ago, my first thought was, well, what is another award? But this has turned out to be a very outstanding action on the part of the Congress and by the Department of Commerce. It has become one of the most important awards in America. It is highly sought after, and it is a tremendous honor to receive the Baldrige Award.

However, the Baldrige Award program is much more than an honor. The criteria of the award are used by companies and organizations nationwide to evaluate their own performance. Also, many State quality awards programs use a national Baldrige criteria. For example, in my district last year, the Michigan Quality Council using Baldrige criteria for evaluation recognized the Grand Rapids Community College for its vision and service to the community.

I am pleased to support this change to the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Including nonprofit organizations will open the competition to groups that have expressed strong support for the opportunity to be recognized for their efforts at the national level. Many States already include nonprofits as a category, and including them in the national program will help strengthen the Baldrige quality criteria.

I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for their work in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise today to support the base bill on the Community Services Block Grant Act. Probably my best way of approaching this is just to describe my own community which has engaged in faith-based activities for years. And I am just constantly amazed at the horror stories that are projected today by Members about what might happen if this bill passes.

Let me tell you what has happened in my community and put some of your fears to rest. My community happens to be quite a religious community of many diverse faiths. But yet these churches and synagogues have always felt a major responsibility to the community and to the world about them.

As an example, when Vietnamese first became refugees, my small community had more refugees initially than any other city in the United States simply because our churches became active early in providing relief for these refugees.

The church that I go to is an inner-city church. My wife and I selected that when we moved to Grand Rapids because we wanted to be involved in the central community. Our church has succeeded in starting a community center. It is a faith-based community center, but anyone is welcome.

In addition to that, our church has started a food program for the people in the neighborhood, many of whom are unemployed, on welfare or in very difficult circumstances. We serve approximately 400 people every Saturday. We have a group of volunteers from our church and other churches who every Friday go out and collect food from stores and from warehouses, and make it available in our church basement. We sell it for approximately 10 cents on the dollar. And a number of families that come through can buy a week's groceries for their family for anywhere from $10 to $20.

No attempt is made to proselytize in any of these organizations in our community. It is simply a recognition of the people of these churches that as part of their commitment to their Lord and to their faith; they have to help others. And that is precisely what they are doing. They are providing social services which the government would provide at far greater cost and far less efficiently. And we do that voluntarily.

My city houses the second largest private mental health hospital in the United States, again, started by a faith-based institution. It is still a faith-based institution. It may discriminate in hiring in certain cases because their treatment is based on a certain philosophy of life and faith and it uses that to effectively treat those patients.

Incidently, many of these institutions do already get Federal funds. For example, the hospital I mentioned gets a great deal of money from the Federal Government and from State government for health treatment. No one raises a question about that. No one says this violates the Constitution. They are providing medical treatment, but they do discriminate in hiring, not in every case but many some cases.

You look at the colleges and universities across the United States, and of those are not State institutions, most were founded by religious group. Today there are still many religious colleges, primarily Christian colleges, but also other faiths, represented in the higher educational system of the United States. All of these can make better use of Federal money than many Federal programs can. And many of them do receive Federal funds, whether scholarship grants, or loans, what have you.

But in the case of an organization such as our church and its food program which I mentioned earlier, we could serve many more people if we had government funds. And we would certainly provide it more efficiently and at less cost than a government entity could with paid employees.

So I simply want to point out to the naysayers on this floor that what we are attempting to do in this bill, is not breaking new ground. It has already been broken in the Civil Rights Act. Those who wish to limit the ability of faith-based institutions are, in fact, attempting to infringe on the civil rights of these faith-based institutions and their supporters by prohibiting support from the Federal Government when these churches are, in fact, doing the job that the Federal Government does. And they are doing it in many cases better.

I urge that we defeat the amendments that have been offered. I urge that we continue the practice as we have it. And I urge that we make certain that these agencies will continue to be able to provide the services in the manner they see best and be able to qualify for Federal funds and not be hampered by restrictions on their hiring practices.

I strongly urge that we defeat the proposed amendments and that we vote for the base bill.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act.

The Community Services Block Grant provides funding for a state-run network of local non-profit community action agencies. Michigan's third Congressional district is served by three community action agencies: the Area Community Services Employment and Training Council in Kent County, the Community Action Agency of South Central Michigan in Barry County, and EightCAP, Inc. in Ionia County.

In partnership with community organizations, these agencies provide services to low-income individuals, and families. The partners include faith-based organizations, such as Hope Network and its Exodus Correctional Ministries. In addition, several faith-based colleges and universities, including Calvin College, Aquinas College, Cornerstone University and Reformed Bible College, are located in my district. This is multiplied many times throughout the United States, which has approximately 500 religious colleges and universities, many of which work with community action agencies.

Allowing these faith-based partners and universities to receive federal funding is nothing new. Faith-based organizations have been receiving federal money to provide social services for decades.

The faith-based provisions within this legislation allow faith-based providers to maintain the character of their organization through their employment practices. These groups do not exist in order to proselytize, but in order to serve those in need. Faith-based providers, including universities, cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. It is faith that motivates these organizations to serve their neighbors in trouble. To deny faith- based organizations the right to shape the character of their groups through their employment practices is to deny them their motivation to serve. Keeping religious-based staffing legal is the only way to ensure equal opportunity and effectiveness for all organizations and to respect the diversity of faith communities that are a part of our civil society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 498, to honor the players, coaches, and staff of the Grand Valley State University football team, which won its second consecutive NCAA Division II national championship on December 13, 2003.

Rising to the top of one's field of endeavor, whatever that endeavor is, is an accomplishment worthy of praise in and of itself. However, repeating that accomplishment is an even more difficult achievement. When you attempt to maintain that top spot, everyone else has you in their sights. You are the focus of their efforts to wrest the trophy from your grasp. That is what makes the achievements of the 2003 Lakers football squad all the more impressive.

Coach Brian Kelly and his staff led their squad of young men through a difficult nonconference and conference schedule, then marched through the playoffs to face the University of North Dakota in the NCAA Division II championship game, a game they lost to the University of North Dakota just 2 years previously.

This time, the Lakers, led by All-American selections Scott Mackey, Keyonta Marshall, David Hendrix, Michael Tennessee and Lucius Hawkins,

defeated the Fighting Sioux 10 to 3, to complete what arguably could be called the most successful 3-year run for a college football team in the State of Michigan. GVSU has rolled up a 41-2 record in three seasons, reaching the national championship game each year and winning the championship twice.

Congratulations to the players, the coaches and staff, the students and the faculty of Grand Valley State University. This jewel of a school, with campuses in Allendale in the district of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and Grand Rapids in my district, is a wonderful institution, not only for its athletic achievements, but also for its academic pursuits. Its contributions to the West Michigan community are too many and too far-reaching to enumerate here today, but we commend University President Mark Murray and the Grand Valley State University Board of Trustees for providing stellar leadership for this wonderful public institution.

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

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of S. 610, the NASA Flexibility Act. The Committee on Science chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the Committee on Government Reform chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) are to be commended for working closely with our colleagues in the other body, as well as with NASA and NASA's unions, in crafting the moderate, targeted and careful package of civil service modifications that resulted in S. 610.

All proposals from NASA, its unions, the House and Senate were considered, refined, debated and discussed in a series of hearings in both the House and Senate committees. Differences were debated openly and in a straightforward manner. These measures were

carefully crafted after a year and a half of thorough deliberation. This has been an arduous process, but the outcome is an excellent piece of legislation with S. 610.

The real winner from all this hard work that went into this legislation will be the scientists and engineers at NASA. NASA is having a difficult time recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest workforce, as many NASA employees from the Apollo era have retired; and unfortunately, the bright, prospective, new talent we need in the agency is instead sometimes attracted to jobs paying more than the government can provide.

NASA does many amazing things, as the Mars exploration rovers have demonstrated, but the agency also faces a number of challenges in addressing the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. S. 610 will help to revitalize the agency, and I ask all Members to support this bill.

Let me also mention another important aspect of this issue. We cannot do good science without good scientists, and we cannot do good engineering without good engineers. In our Nation, unfortunately, the engineering enrollments have been declining for 20 years, in a steady, slow decline. We are having problems in this Nation with getting good, bright engineers and scientists to do the work we need, not only at NASA but elsewhere.

I am very pleased that the President recognized this important factor in his State of the Union speech when he mentioned the need to improve math and science education in this Nation. Today, over half of the graduate students in science and engineering in our Nation are from other countries. Our students are not competing well on graduate student admissions. And when we trace it back, it is because they were not excited about science by the time they finished the K-12 system, even though many are excited going into it. We must address that problem.

We have addressed it to the best of our ability through math-science partnerships in the National Science Foundation and in the Department of Education. We must continue to support that, plus we also have to provide the resources for our Nation's teachers and our education system to provide the education that our future scientists and engineers need.

I believe a combination of improving our K-12 system plus this bill will be a great asset not only for NASA but also for our Nation in the years ahead.