Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today I rise in support of H.R. 2608, the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2003.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards of the Committee on Science, with jurisdiction over the National Institute of Standards and Technology, more familiarly known as NIST, I want to comment on the interagency coordinating committee in section 3 of H.R. 2608.

This section designates NIST as the Chair of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Coordinating Committee. While I believe that NIST is more than capable of carrying out these responsibilities, and should have this position, I am concerned that the institute will not receive adequate funding to perform these duties. In the past, NIST's earthquake research activities have not received the full funding authorized for them, and this section designates additional responsibilities for NIST.

Adequate funding for NIST labs continues to be a concern. The funding levels for NIST labs in the fiscal year 2004 House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill are $30 million below the administration's request and flat compared to the fiscal year 2003 appropriations.

For the building and fire research lab, where NIST's NEHRP activities are based, the funding level in the fiscal year 2004 House bill is $3 million less than fiscal year 2003 levels.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations' representations for these labs are at the administration's request level. Given that the final number will likely be somewhere between these two, this budget situation could leave many of NIST's vital initiatives underfunded. Any funding level less than the President's request would result in a reduction in force of up to 50 scientists and staff from NIST labs.

NIST is a world-class science institution, home to two Nobel Laureates and scores of other experts who diligently provide the scientific expertise and measurements and standards that is the basis of technologies we use every day. This Chamber has passed laws giving NIST new responsibilities for programs including voting standards, building safety, and nanotechnology. Yet, given the difficult budget climate, it has been a challenge to ensure NIST receives adequate funding to carry out these important duties. You simply cannot keep piling on additional duties without providing funding for them. I am very concerned about that trend.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that I do support this legislation with NIST taking the lead on earthquake leadership activities. However, I intend to work with the other members of the NEHRP Interagency Coordinating Committee, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Appropriations Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies to ensure that NIST receives adequate funding and support for these additional responsibilities. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and in supporting H.R. 2608.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3087 and to offer my continued commitment to passing a long-term surface transportation bill that will adequately fund the transportation needs of our Nation.

Investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure is central to a strong economy. High-quality roads enable the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the country, facilitate just-in-time delivery and move interstate and international trade across our borders. By contrast, congestion and traffic gridlock cause workers and others to lose valuable time and result in dramatically higher fuel consumption. Improved transit systems contain unban sprawl, promote economic growth and get people to work and to entertainment in a cost- effective, environmentally friendly manner. I firmly believe that a strong investment in transportation infrastructure will provide a stimulus for economic growth at a time when our economy needs a kick start.

An efficently operating transportation system is vital to the economic health of my home State of Michigan. As the global center of the automobile industry, our manufacturers, among others, depend on the ability to ship and receive their products without delay. Manufacturers in West Michigan must be able to get their component parts to their destinations ``just in time'' for their use in the manufacturing process. This sytem breaks down when delivery trucks are struck in traffic, causing significant lost productivity.

The national economic and social costs of congestion are staggering: $67 billion annually in lost productivity and wasted motor fuel; 3.6 billion hours of delay; 5.7 billion gallons in excess fuel; 1,160 in costs to the average peak road traveler; and more than a week-and-a- half of work (62 hours a year) per worker lost while sitting in gridlock.

My constituents have been calling out for Congress to take steps to stimulate our economy. What better way to do so than to pass a robust, long-term transportation infrastructure bill?

I understand that this short-term extension is necessary to keep our surface transportation programs operating past September 30 and to give us more time to complete our work on a long-term bill. I also understand that this extension will not make major programmatic or funding changes from our current programs. But, I do want to take this opportunity to make one comment about funding equity. Michigan ranks 48th out of all States in terms of the rate of return for all federal highway funds. Michigan currently receives only a 43 percent return for transit funds. Since the inception of the federal highway system in 1956, Michigan has paid $1.71 billion more into the Highway Trust Fund than it has received back, the fourth highest amount among all States. I am a cosponsor of Mr. DeLay's SHARE bill to mandate a 95 percent rate of return for highway funds for all States, because Michigan needs to get its fair share. I also support the Transportation Committee leadership's reauthorization funding levels because their proposal will help bring equity to transportation funding and help bridge the historic gap between donor and donee States. We must pass a long-term bill that will address the equity needs of donor States and provide necessary improvements to our roads, bridges and transit systems.

I look forward to continuing work with Chairman Young and my fellow Members of the Transportation Committee on the reauthorization of TEA- 21.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a bill to improve transportation efficiency and to facilitate trade along our country's major international borders and trade corridors--the National Highway Borders and Trade Act of 2003.

Congress created two programs in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to assist the flow of people and goods through the United States-Canada and United States-Mexico borders and international trade corridors. Over the last 6 years, the funds provided through the borders and corridors programs have contributed to the critical improvement of the roads and bridges along these routes. However, despite this dedicated funding, our trade infrastructure is increasingly strained. Border crossing times are significantly delayed, interrupting the efficient flow of goods and disrupting the just-in- time delivery that is critical to our manufacturing and commercial sectors. Moreover, our highway system currently carries 70 percent of the total goods shipped in the United States, and freight traffic is expected to double in the next 20 years. This increased congestion will lead to lost productivity and have a negative impact on our economy. Changes to the borders and corridors programs are essential if we hope to address these increasingly growing concerns.

The National Highway Borders and Trade Act of 2003 will help reduce border crossing congestion and delays and will improve the highway corridors that carry international commerce by boosting funding for the borders and corridors programs to $200 million for each program annually for the next 6 years.

Under the bill, the borders program is converted to a more predictable, formula-based program in order to stabilize funding levels for States' border projects. Under a commonsense formula that considers factors that are directly related to delays and the effect of trade on the economy, funding will be based on cargo weight, trade value, and the number of commercial and passenger vehicles passing over the border. Eligible uses for border program funds include improvements to infrastructure, construction of safety enforcement and inspection facilities, operational improvements such as ITS technology, and coordinated planning with Canadian and Mexican authorities.

The bill also makes improvements to the existing corridors program. The legislation focuses funding eligibility on roads that are one of the previously designated high priority corridors, as determined by Congress, and an intermodal road connector to an ocean or inland sea port that accepts a certain minimum amount of international commercial cargo. The corridors program is maintained as a discretionary program, and eligible uses include corridor planning and design activity, location and routing studies, multistate and intrastate coordination, environmental review, and construction costs.

Finally, the bill maintains fiscal responsibility and ensures State investment by mandating a 20-percent State or local share for projects carried out under either program.

This bill is similar to S. 1535, a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Levin from my home State of Michigan. I look forward to working with Senator Levin toward passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that will strengthen the role that science plays within the Environmental Protection Agency. This legislation is precisely the same bill that passed the House in April of last year (H.R. 64 in the 107th Congress).

I introduce this today on the heels of the Administration's renewed interest in passing legislation that would promote EPA to a cabinet- level department. I still support efforts to elevate EPA without significant structural changes, yet I strongly believe that the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency should be more integrated. The Administration has recently shown a new willingness to accept some restructuring proposals as part of legislation to elevate EPA. In fact, during a recent congressional hearing the acting EPA Administrator testified that, ``the time has come to establish EPA as a permanent member of the Cabinet, modernizing its structure in a straightforward way to ensure it can respond effectively to future environmental challenges.''

If restructuring proposals are included in elevation legislation, then the most fundamental and straightforward reform needed at the EPA is to strengthen the role that science plays in the Agency's regulatory decision-making process. Science must infuse this process. Too often it is used as a cudgel to win a legal battle, or as an afterthought to the regulatory process, rather than as the foundation of a regulatory decision.

The need to strengthen science at the EPA is well-documented. The most recent report, issued by the National Research Council, made two major recommendations. First, that the EPA create a new Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology to serve as an advocate for and reviewer of science at the most senior levels of the Agency. Second, that EPA set a fixed term for the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development. These changes would help elevate the role of science in the decision-making process at the Agency, as well as provide more stability to existing research efforts inside of the Agency. The legislation I am introducing today captures both of these ideas and will help ensure that science informs and infuses the regulatory work of the EPA.

I urge the Administration not to go too far down the road of ``structural changes'' and to tightly adhere to their goal of accepting only straightforward ones. This legislation is one of the simplest, straightforward, and yet most effective structural changes Congress can make. It will truly improve the decision-making process at EPA. Additionally, this proposal has already passed the House and garnered the support organizations from the scientific and business community. I look forward to working with the Administration on this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce a resolution recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program coordinated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This is a truly valuable educational program from the perspective of both Members of Congress and the fellows that serve in it. It gives Ph.D.-level scientists a wonderful opportunity to step out of the lab and into the political process. They get a behind the scenes look at how our laws are made by working as legislative assistants in Congressional offices--writing speeches, developing legislation, and serving as liaisons to Committees on which a Member serves. At the same time, Members of Congress and other policy makers gain a valuable new resource to help them better understand the scientific and technical issues underpinning complex policy debates. Six different fellows have served on my staff and each one used their unique talents and understanding to help shape my legislative agenda.

After 30 years this program is still going strong. Over 800 scientists have now served Republican, Democratic and Independent Members of Congress, and many are currently working for Congress and the Administration. These individuals have contributed not only their scientific expertise but also a fresh perspective to policymaking.

Congratulations to AAAS for organizing this program, and, also to all the sponsoring scientific, engineering, and mathematical societies that provide financial support.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Financial Service.

Mr. Chairman, constituents in my district have brought to my attention a problem regarding the inability of certain people to obtain a credit rating from a credit bureau, even when they are very creditworthy. This is an extremely troublesome issue given the importance of a credit rating in our society today. It is very difficult to function without credit. From placing a deposit when renting a car, to staying in a hotel to getting a mortgage for a home, people rely on credit every day. Indeed, credit bureaus wield a great deal of influence in this respect.

Unfortunately, the rules and formulas they apply can yield unjust and nonsensical results. For example, visiting scholars at our colleges and universities or other temporary workers from overseas who have good credit in their home countries, often industrialized countries with advanced credit and accounting systems, often cannot obtain credit when coming to America. This prevents them from obtaining a credit card which is so vital for proper functioning in this society.

As another example, one woman in my district worked overseas for about 10 years during which time her credit cards expired and she stopped transacting business with credit cards from America. Upon returning she had a nearly $20,000 cash balance in a bank account but she was unable to get a credit bureau to rate her. She could not get a mortgage for a house, a credit card or even a retail store charge account. Despite her many years of good credit rating, this lull in credit usage eliminated her creditworthiness in the eyes of the number crunchers at the credit bureaus.

At the same time, credit card companies turn around and grant credit cards almost willy nilly to high school or college students with no credit history at all. These kinds of situations are unfair given the importance of a credit rating, good or bad, for so many financial transactions. It just does not make sense in many situations that some creditworthy people cannot get a credit rating at all despite having adequate cash resources or a positive history in another country.

Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the time and effort of you and the committee to investigate whether a solution to these problems can be found.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his assistance

and I look forward to working with him and the Committee on Financial Services on this important issue.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kanjorski

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

It is a pleasure to rise and defend this bill. And as the chairman of the subcommittee has mentioned, I have been shocked by the misunderstanding about this bill that has been propagated throughout this country. It is a good bill, and I wanted to comment about one part of it that I think has really been improved.

The migrant and seasonal children of this country are special children who need special help. They need special help because they are moved from place to place, and they have special conditions that have to be dealt with. For example, in my community they must be attended to in Head Start programs from early summer to mid-fall. That is not the standard school year.

But that is just one of many ways in which they have to be treated specially. I am very familiar with their problems because in my youth I lived in a farming community. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side by side with migrant workers, both in the fields and in the packing sheds and even in transporting produce to markets.

It is very important to provide services for migrant children. When these children are not served, parents sometimes will bring their children to the field and sometimes even have them working. This certainly exposes them to harmful conditions.

Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000 children and operates in 39 States in every region of the country. But in contrast to the normal Head Start program that serves approximately 60 percent of eligible children, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves only approximately 19 percent. That is a dramatic shortfall, and we must improve that.

I am pleased that I was able to get an amendment approved by the committee that, first of all, will allow all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate Early Head Start programs. That is not true of all Head Start programs, but it is essential because that way the youngest children of the migrant and seasonal workers can participate in Head Start programs rather than being taken to the fields.

My amendment will also require the Secretary to ensure that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the planning and coordination of the State system of training and technical assistance. In addition, part of my amendment, in combination with a change that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) made in his substitute, specifically makes one-fourth of 1 percent of all the total authorization available for seasonal and migrant Head Start. This means that we will have an additional $17.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and $18.5 million in 2008. This also means that the funding that will be available will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to receive services in 2005 and up to 2,500 in 2008. I expect that these provisions will allow the migrant and seasonal Head Start program to successfully take care of a substantially greater number of migrant and seasonal Head Start children.

Mr. Chairman, there is an incredible amount of misunderstanding about the bill, and apparently about football uniforms as well.

Mr. Chairman, let me clarify a few points. I find so many people misunderstand the intent dealing with faith-based organizations receiving Federal funding. This is not money that is going to religious groups to proselytize students or kids or indoctrinate them. This is money provided to organizations who, in seeking to carry out their religious faiths, are trying to help their communities by establishing institutions that serve the people of their community. Head Start is just one example of that. There are many other examples of charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, which do good for the community.

My community is almost a poster child for that. We have the second largest private mental hospital in the world in my community. It is a faith-based organization. People come from all over this country and even from some other countries to get the service there because it is so extremely good. We have the largest adoption agency in the world headquartered in my district. It started there by a faith-based organization to serve with adoptions.

These are not people who are trying to proselytize. They are people who are trying to serve and serve in the name of God. That is what we are talking about.

I heard a reference from the gentleman from Massachusetts earlier about this is awful, that we are taking unbelievers' money and giving it to faith-based institutions. I would remind the gentleman that religious people pay taxes as well, and I can guarantee you that the amount of tax money collected from believers is considerably greater than the amount of money going to faith-based institutions. That statement simply makes no sense.

We have a long history in this Nation of supporting faith-based institutions. I taught at a State university. I have taught at a private religious college. The grants I received from the Federal Government were the same at both institutions. The Federal Government treats them evenhandedly.

I believe it is very important that we continue the faith-based practice outlined in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and it is my pleasure to rise and defend this bill, and particularly the provisions in it regarding seasonal and migrant workers.

The migrant and seasonal children of this country have special needs and should get special help, and I do not disagree with the minority on that part. They need special help because they are often moved from place to place, and they have special conditions that have to be dealt with.

For example, in my community, they attend Head Start programs from early summer to mid-fall. Obviously, this is not the standard school year. But that is just one of the many ways in which they have to be treated specially. And I am personally very familiar with their problems because in my youth I lived in a small farming community in the great State of Ohio. I worked on a produce farm. I worked side by side with migrant workers, in the fields and in the packing sheds, and even in transporting produce to markets.

It is very important for us to provide the services for these children. When these children are not served properly, parents will often bring them to the fields and sometimes even have the slightly older ones working. They certainly can be exposed to harmful conditions that way. Today, migrant and seasonal Head Start serves close to 35,000 children in 39 States in every region of this country. But in contrast to the standard Head Start program, the part that serves the migrant and seasonal serves only approximately 19 percent of the eligible children. That is dramatically lower than the 60 percent of eligible children served in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be able in the committee to offer an amendment that was approved by the committee that allows all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate early Head Start programs. Not every Head Start program is allowed to operate early Head Start, but this amendment allows all migrant and seasonal Head Start grantees to operate these.

Why is that important? Because frequently migrants have small children and they need the early Head Start program, or they are going to be taken to the fields. That is one great improvement.

Another is that my amendment will require the Secretary to ensure that migrant and seasonal Head Start programs are included in the planning and coordination of the State systems of training and technical assistance. In addition, part of my amendment, in combination with a change that has been made in the substitute, will provide at least 25 percent of any remaining technical assistance funds which are used in migrant and seasonal Head Start programs. And the bill specifically makes 1 percent of the technical training assistance funds available in this category. This means we will have an additional $17.4 million in fiscal year 2005 and an additional $1 million in 2008. This will provide an additional 2,300 slots for children to receive services and up to 2,500.

This is not just a magic authorization improvement. This is money that will be there. These are slots that will be there. These are children that will receive service. It is not simply increasing authorization; it is producing additional spots for the kids to go in.

We have covered a good deal of this problem in this bill through this amendment. Let us vote for this bill, let us reject the recommittal motion, and let us go on and get this bill into effect and help all the seasonal and migrant children of this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his staff for their efforts. I know this was a difficult bill to reconcile.

As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards of the Committee on Science, my subcommittee authorizes and oversees more than 70 percent of the Department of Commerce's budget through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, known as NOAA, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, known as NIST. While the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) did the very best that he could for these agencies, I do have serious concerns, especially about funding for NIST laboratories. Much of the technology and standards that we use day to day comes directly from research by scientists at NIST. The work at the institute is vital to our efforts on cyber-security, building safety, voting standards and nano- technology to name just a few.

These laboratories are home to some of the Nation's best and most gifted scientists, including two Nobel Laureates. While the funding level for their laboratories is $800,000 more than last year, NIST needs about $3 million just to cover the 4.1 percent mandatory cost-of- living adjustments, leaving about a $2 million shortfall. This shortfall could result in about 50 scientists being let go. We cannot afford to lose their expertise and the vital work they do every day.

I pledge to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) as the bill moves forward to help find the resources to cover this shortfall in the NIST laboratory account.

Regarding NOAA, I am pleased that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) funded many of the programs that are important to the Committee on Science, such as weather satellites, climate change research and especially funding to upgrade the NOAA weather system to be a fully automated, all-hazard warning system, not just for weather emergencies, but for chemical spills and even terrorist attacks. This warning system truly helps to save lives every day. Those who have these radios can receive alerts 24 hours a day even when the radio is turned off or when people are asleep.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his staff for working with me and the Committee on Science on these issues and I urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor someone whom I consider to be the ideal public servant and one of the finest legislators I ever met--Peter Kok of Grand Rapids, Michigan, who died Sunday, June 22, 2003 at the age of 83.

Peter Kok's obituary appeared in papers around the world in the week following his death, and with good reason. It was his refusal to bomb a defenseless and innocent village in northern Italy while a captain in the Army Air Force during World War II that became the basis for Joseph Heller's famous 1961 novel, Catch 22, and the subsequent 1968 movie of the same name. Rather than bomb the village, he dropped his B-25's payload on an open field outside the village and the rest of the bombers in his command followed suit.

For his heroism in completing 67 bombing missions over Italy and southern France as a member of the 488th Bomb Squad of the 340th Bomb Group, Peter received the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Airmen's Medal and a Purple Heart.

After the war, Peter returned to Grand Rapids and established a real estate brokerage firm. Later, he decided to jump into the political fray by running for the Michigan State House of Representatives in 1964, defeating two incumbents in a primary; he was then re-elected to a total of seven terms before retiring from public office in 1978.

Peter Kok became a champion for open housing legislation that prohibited so-called ``redlining.'' Other pet causes included mental health services, special education and environmental legislation--all before these causes became popular issues.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, Peter Kok was the ideal public servant. He was decent, honest and a truly superb legislator. I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a member of the Kent County Board of Commissioners and later had the honor of holding his former seat in the Michigan House a few years after his retirement.

For those who remember Peter Kok as a pilot, as a real estate agent or as a legislator, we all mourn his loss, and we offer our condolences to his family.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak about a bill we will be discussing today, H.R. 438, the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2003. This bill recognizes a major problem we are having in our K-12 educational system, that is, the shortage of qualified teachers in special education, math, and science.

This bill addresses that by offering incentives to teachers to enter these fields and also to remain in these fields, primarily incentives through loan forgiveness of their student loans which they take out in order to obtain the proper training.

To show my colleagues how serious this situation is, note that in: science, in American junior and high schools, 57 percent of the teachers do not have either a major or a minor in the subject that they are teaching. In high school physics, it is even worse: a significant percentage of teachers have not even taken one course in college physics.

Those teachers who are highly qualified in science are tempted to leave teaching because they can double their salary in industry, and so this bill is a good effort to maintain our teaching staff and retain them in the positions where we desperately need them. I urge its passage.

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

I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill. It is something which is very badly needed, and the reason it is needed is very simple. The good jobs of the future are going to require a basic understanding of math and science. I will address specifically the math and science portion of the bill, although I recognize full well that special education also is in great need of teachers. This bill will address these issues through the loan forgiveness program.

Let me give some of the facts on why it is important that we improve our K-12 education in math and science. First of all, we have had a decline in undergraduate enrollments and graduation rates for the past 17 years in engineering. Currently, our graduation rates in all the physical sciences, which includes engineering, computer science, space science, physics and chemistry, are well below what they were 10 years ago. The only field that has higher enrollments is the life sciences.

If my colleagues ask why we are graduating fewer people, it is because the sciences are not being taught properly in the K-12 system, and the reason

is that many teachers, good hearted as they are and try as they may, have not had the proper training and they cannot do the job. So it is very important that we reward and attract better-trained teachers to these positions and also give them the tools to work with.

The teacher shortage in math and science is real. According to the latest figures, 70 percent of our schools have vacancies in mathematics teachers; 61 percent have vacancies in biology or life sciences; and 51 percent have vacancies in physical science.

Even when teachers are available, a high percentage are not adequately prepared to teach the math and science courses. At the current time, for junior and high schools combined, 57 percent of those who teach the physical sciences do not have either an undergraduate major or a minor in the subject they are teaching. So how can they be expected to inspire students to a career in science and engineering?

Inadequately trained teachers leads to students who are unprepared. According to the ``Third International Math and Science Study,'' 12th grade U.S. students' test scores rank at or near the bottom of all developed countries in math, science and physics achievement.

Teachers want to do the job right. They want to teach well. They want to be in the schools; but if they have not been properly trained and if they are feeling the lure of higher pay in industry for the skills that they do have, it puts the schools in an impossible situation. This is not true, incidentally, of all schools. This bill only addresses the problem in title I schools, but that is extremely important because these are the students who really need an opportunity in life; and if we want to give them a real opportunity in life, we have to train them properly, and that means training in the jobs of the future, training in math and science.

In conclusion, this is a good bill. I support it. I hope it passes. Above all, I hope it has the effect we anticipate.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I had known the gentleman was going to be so complimentary, I could have yielded more time.

I want to also finally compliment the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has done yeoman work in preparing a good bill, one that will really meet the needs of the children and provide jobs for them in the future.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to register my very, very strong support for this bill, and my opposition to the Cannon amendment; not that I oppose the intent of the Cannon amendment, but simply because that is likely to be a poison pill for this bill and result in its immature death. Let me ask a few questions.

Does gambling cause any social good in this country? The answer is absolutely not. It creates a great many social problems but provides no social good.

Does it help when we assess taxes on it? Does that not provide some good? It may salve our conscience a bit, but it certainly does not overcome the problems that arise from gambling.

Is gambling addictive? Yes, without doubt. I can recount an example that was just told me a few weeks ago by one of my constituents, where a gentleman who had been reasonably well off had to go into bankruptcy because his wife had become addicted to gambling. She had very carefully hidden it from him. She had taken out credit cards which he did not know about. The accumulation of debt from her gambling addiction drove them into bankruptcy.

Does gambling attract crime? Yes. Terrorism? Yes. Why? Wherever there are large amounts of cash available with minimal accounting standards, as we have with Internet gambling, we are going to attract crime. We are going to attract terrorism.

What is the worst form of gambling? Internet gambling. It is easy, it is convenient, it is anonymous, and we can do it from our own homes or from a public library or any of a number of other places. It is very tempting for any addicted gambler to use Internet gambling, and use it surreptitiously when necessary, to cover the fact that he or she is addicted.

I very strongly support this bill. I hope the Congress will approve it, that the Senate will approve it, that the President will sign it, and it will become law.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 192 and 193, I missed these votes because my airplane flight was delayed. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I wish to speak on the general merits of the bill. Nanotechnology is an extremely important scientific development, one in which we are just beginning to scratch the surface. Few people in this country realize the tremendous potential that this has. At the same time, as a scientist, I have to say if someone asked me what are we going to get out of this, I have to simply say I am not sure. And that is the nature of basic research. In 1931 when theorists first started investigating stimulated emission of radiation, if one asked the question what is this going to come to, they would have said I do not know. And when Charles Townes first developed the hydrogen MASAR, microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and someone asked what is this going to come to, he probably said it would be a time standard, but was not certain of any development beyond that. And yet that research led to the development of the laser, and the development of the laser led to a multitude of applications in business, commerce, medicine and the military. The laser today is ubiquitous. Back then it was a precious, expensive discovery, but today we use tiny, inexpensive lasers just to point at slides on a screen. It has been amazing progress. And we will find the same thing with nanotechnology. It is a very promising field, but we do not know where it is going to lead.

Some of the promise of nanotechnology could be incredibly strong, light materials which could create a revolution in space travel and in ordinary airplane travel. Other uses for it could be in the medical arena, being able to entrap health-enhancing molecules within a nanoscale shell so that the medicine can be directly applied to the site we are trying to reach. For example, we might treat cancer in a very direct way by having a mechanism of transporting the chemotherapy molecules directly to the cancer cells and not to other cells. That would also be a marvelous development, but we really do not know if it will work out.

The point is simply that this is a very new technology, and already we know enough about it to know that it is a major breakthrough. It is absolutely essential that we pursue this research in a thoughtful manner and that we, as a Nation, commit ourselves to development of nanotechnology and research in nanoscience.

I am very much a supporter of the bill, and I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Science and the ranking member for bringing this bill forward. It is a good step forward for our country. Frankly, we are going to need much more in the future in terms of guidance for how this new discovery is supposed to be used, including some of the ethical and societal concerns; but the first thing to do is to promote research on nanotechnology, find out exactly what promise it has, what may become of it, and then pursue those avenues of research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize John W. Kluge for his constant and unwavering support for the Library of Congress.

Mr. Kluge is the greatest individual benefactor in the history of the Library of Congress.

He came to this country as a young boy from Germany, with virtually nothing but a china Dresden Horse--which he still has. From these humble origins, and through hard work, he received a full scholarship to Columbia University. After service in the United States Army during World War II, he went on in the business world to create a vast media empire which he converted into a great engine of philanthropy, supporting many educational programs, aimed in particular toward helping minorities.

Mr. Kluge is the founding chairman of the James Madison Council, the Library of Congress's private sector philanthropic organization, where he has inspired many others to join in support of the Library and its programs.

Through his generosity, John Kluge helped the Library of Congress bridge the gap into its third century by enabling it to invest heavily in technologies that bring the vast collections of the Library to people all over the world.

Thanks to an endowment from Mr. Kluge, the Library of Congress established the John W. Kluge Center, which brings some of the world's best minds--the Kluge Scholars--into residence to use the rich resources of the Library and interact with national policy makers. The Kluge Center also accommodates Kluge post-doctoral Fellows who are pursuing interdisciplinary and cross-cultural subjects using the Library's rich and diverse collections. The first million dollar John W. Kluge Prize in the Human Sciences will be awarded this fall for lifetime achievement in the humanities.

The work and the generosity of spirit of this great American will live on for generations. For years to come, individuals will be able to attend college on a John W. Kluge Scholarship who might otherwise be unable to afford it. Countless future national leaders will benefit from the intellectual stimulation that this man has made possible through his work at the Library of Congress. He is a man who has made a difference. During a lifetime of philanthropic activity and quiet assistance for those in need, John W. Kluge has touched countless lives and truly deserves the recognition of this body.