Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a small farming village in Minnesota. There was no need for after-school programs because after school, everyone went back home to the farms to milk the cows, feed the animals, and so forth. We live in a different world today, and it is absolutely essential that children have appropriate, meaningful, and useful activities after school in today's world. This resolution commemorates a very good program, the ``Lights on Afterschool'' program, which has been invaluable in many communities, and I am pleased to join in this resolution to honor that effort and to recognize it.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Resolution 66, offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). This resolution seeks to support the goals and ideals of ``Lights on Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after-school programs. This year's Lights on Afterschool rally, taking place October 20, 2005, is expected to include more than 7,000 events in the United States and at military bases around the world. This event is aimed at bringing attention to the need for high-quality, after-school programs that keep kids safe, help working families, and improve academic achievement. I support this resolution, because after-school programs are an important part of many American students' lives. High-quality after- school programs provide safe, challenging, and fun learning experiences that help children and youth develop their social, emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills. In my hometown of Grand Rapids, Michigan, after-school programs have proven to be highly beneficial. For example, the LOOP after-school program has shown that students who participated 3 or more days a week did better academically and had better attendance in school than students who did not participate. I am pleased we are able to bring attention to the critical importance of after-school programs in the lives of children, their families, and their communities. I commend the communities across the Nation that engage in innovative after-school programs and activities and ensure that the doors stay open and the lights stay on for all children after school. This resolution is simple and straightforward. It supports the goals and ideals of ``Lights on Afterschool!'', a nationwide celebration of after-school programs. I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for her leadership in offering House Joint Resolution 66 and urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) supporting the goals and ideals of ``Lights on Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after-school programs.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.J. Res. 66.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is a debate we have had before, particularly in the committee as we discussed this bill last year. And I have difficulty understanding the rationale for opposing this amendment because it has been established in law for some time that churches have the right to hire on the basis of religion and the activities they pursue. I understand some of the arguments offered, but I would point out the difficulties that one can discover immediately. As an example, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) pointed out in the debate last year that one of his local churches operates a Head Start program, but they do not hire full-time people for that. They hire part-time people who also work for the church the rest of the day. Obviously, they should be allowed to hire on the basis of religion for the operations of the church. Why then prohibit that person from also teaching in the Head Start program? I come from a city that is often called the City of Churches, Grand Rapids, Michigan, a great many churches often working together. And when the call came in after Hurricane Katrina, the Red Cross was asked to organize a relief effort, asked to provide emergency shelter and housing for 500 people. Their first call was to GRACE, the Grand Rapids area ecumenical group, which, through the churches, put together a shelter in a matter of 2 or 3 days. They could not have done that without that, but virtually every church in the city worked on it. Again, all of these workers were affiliated with churches and were hired partly on the basis of their religious faith. Why exclude such a potent social force from working with the government in cases of emergency or at any other time? I think there is a basic misunderstanding here, something along the lines that we cannot have this because these people might try to proselytize some people and try to get them to join the church. That is not the motivation of the churches in Grand Rapids or across this country. They understand, based on their spiritual commitment, that they have a responsibility to their fellow human beings and that, in the name of God, they are to minister to others who are in need. And that is why they are an effective social force in meeting the needs of the poor, meeting the needs of those who are hurting, and that is the reason that they are an effective agency of the Federal Government to work with in terms of crisis, emergency, or simple pain and need on the part of certain people. This amendment that is being offered will allow the continuation of that effort in the Head Start program; and, frankly, we should allow it in every program. Why should we rule out one of the most effective and one of the most potent social organizations in the Nation, that is, religious organizations, who are dedicated to doing good, who are seeking to do good, who are trying to honor their Lord by doing good, and they can be a very effective force? We should not exclude them in any way from their work and from their participation with the government as partners.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to bring up H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. I believe this rule is fair and balanced. The main goal of H.R. 250 is to authorize manufacturing programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology that help small- and medium-sized manufacturers innovate so that they can remain competitive in the global marketplace. One of these programs is a highly successful manufacturing extension partnership program, better known as the MEP program. This program has roughly 60 centers and 350 satellite offices throughout the country. These centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance on how to increase productivity and efficiency. They do many things. For example, they might help to redesign a factory floor or help to train workers on how to use the latest technology or equipment. This 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 oppose some of the amendments made in order, because I believe they will detract from the bill. This rule largely helps ensure the debate will remain on the manufacturing programs at NIST. I think that is fair and is in the best interest of our manufacturing community. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee raises a valid question. I understand the gentleman's concern about the actions of the Committee on Rules; I have served in the minority at the State and Federal level myself. But I also want to tell the gentleman that members in the majority upon occasion are also disappointed by the decisions of the Committee on Rules. I recently jested, during the famous annual ice cream socials that committee has, that my ice cream was the first thing I had received from the Committee on Rules. But I must add that they have been very kind to me. In response to the gentleman's question, the ATP program is, by and large, a good program. But it needs improvement. And I am willing to put in the time and energy to try to improve that program and to have it be accepted by all.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to observe a few things. First of all, the original version of this bill, which I introduced last year, did establish an Under Secretary position, as the Larson amendment did. The administration took the hint and created the present position of an Assistant Secretary. And furthermore, I would like to comment in spite of the comments made that there is no funding and no authority, this person does have authority, this person does have funding, this person does have staff. In addition, he has formed a council of manufacturers. It is a good committee that is actively working. They held one meeting in my district, which I attended. And things are rolling. I think it would be inappropriate at this time to pull the rug out from under that operation and start fresh with a new position. Let us give these folks and this individual a chance to perform and then make our judgment after we have seen how their performance ranks.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. I have to say there are very few Members of this Congress who have worked harder to improve NSF funding than I have. I have spent many, many hours at it and we are grateful to get a few percent increase every year. In this bill that is before us now, we have given a greater than 20 percent increase to this particular item. If that ends up being appropriated, it will be the largest increase for any part of NSF that they have received for many years, and yet the amendment would increase it even more. It would result in a huge increase; much, much greater. We simply cannot afford that in NSF. We have a great deal of research to do to keep this Nation moving. We have to improve our math and science education programs in this Nation in order to meet competition from abroad and to have a better-educated electorate. We simply cannot afford to pour all that money into this one particular item without causing detriment to the rest of the National Science Foundation. I simply do not want to see that happen. I urge a rejection of this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 250, the Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act. This bill is essentially the same bill that I authored and which the House passed in July 2004. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take up the legislation because of a dispute involving the ATP program, so the bill died in the Senate. I am hopeful that this time the bill will make it all the way through the process and be signed into law by the President. The goal of my legislation is simple: It is to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace. However, my passion for this issue is not related or restricted just to manufacturing. For some 20 years, I have been speaking out about the need for a better technology transfer system in this country, and repeatedly throughout that time I have used an existing system as a model; that existing program is the cooperative extension service in the Department of Agriculture. I was amazed, when I was in the State legislature in Michigan, to learn that a new discovery made in the labs of Michigan State University one year was used by the farmers in the field the next year. That is a model of tech transfer that is worth copying. That is partly what this bill attempts to do, to strengthen a manufacturing extension service. I believe it is absolutely essential for us to do this. It is even more essential for us to fund it appropriately. For those who have objected to the money authorized in this bill, I would simply remind them that every year, without the blink of an eye or a single question, this Congress appropriates over $400 million for the agricultural extension service, which serves an industry which is very, very important but employs less than 2 percent of the people in this country. In view of that, I have always been troubled why it is so difficult for us to find $100 million to help a manufacturing industry that employs 14 to 15 percent of the workers in this country. Grand Rapids, Michigan, my hometown, like other communities all over the U.S., has been struggling with multiple threats to its industries. Globalization is rapidly changing the way business is done, and our small-and medium-sized firms in particular are at the mercy of this process and the exposure to the increased competition that it brings. As the Congressman from Grand Rapids, I wanted to do what I could to help these small but important firms. In talking to manufacturers in my district, one thing was clear: They said that the MEP program was a tremendously important program in helping them remain competitive. MEP has over 350 manufacturing extension offices located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico. These centers provide small manufacturers with tools and assistance in how to increase productivity and efficiency. For example, the Michigan MEP center in Grand Rapids, known as the Right Place program, helped a struggling company, Wolverine Coil Spring, to develop more efficient packaging and auditing systems, and in this case turned it into a very successful company. In the fiscal year 2004 appropriation, Congress cut funding 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. Fortunately, Congress has now restored their funding in the current fiscal year and the program has recovered. I am pleased that this year both House and Senate Appropriation Committees are recommending appropriate funding. Another major concern that has been raised is the increasing technological advances being made by other countries. For our firms to compete today and in the future, we need more research and development into how to manufacture things better, faster, and cheaper, and that is also handled in this bill. With all these thoughts in mind, I developed this bill, which will specifically: Authorize the MEP program at $110 million to ensure all centers remain open and provide additional ways for MEP to help small- and medium-sized manufacturers by establishing a competitive grant program for the centers; Ensure that Federal agencies will coordinate their programs related to manufacturing R&D and target them on concerns that matter most to industry; help industry improve their manufacturing processes and technology by establishing a pilot grant program that would fund joint efforts by universities and industry to solve problems in manufacturing technology; Authorize the laboratory programs at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, better known as NIST, which provide critical research and standards for most of our industries; And train more students and senior researchers in the manufacturing sciences, and provide technology training programs for future manufacturing workers by establishing postdoctoral and senior research fellowships at NIST. It will also increase support for the Advanced Technological Education program (ATE) at the National Science Foundation. This legislation has received widespread and bipartisan support. I note that the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Small Manufacturers Coalition, and the National Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing, just to name a few, all support this legislation. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for their help in providing the program with $106 million in the next fiscal year budget. As I said from the beginning, my goal was to develop legislation that would help our small manufacturers better compete in the global marketplace, and H.R. 250 does just that. I want to conclude by thanking the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), 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; and especially I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) for his unwavering commitment to help move this legislation through Congress and get it signed into law. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support their small and medium-sized manufacturers by supporting this bill.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the Catholic Secondary Schools (CSS) of Greater Grand Rapids, Michigan, which are located in the Third Congressional District of Michigan, which I proudly represent. The Catholic schools have a long and illustrious history in our area, serving thousands of children and their families for the past century. The Catholic Secondary Schools of Greater Grand Rapids are pioneering coeducational high schools whose conception, growth, and evolution were driven largely by the desire to offer students a quality, Catholic education. Catholic Central High School opened its doors in September 1906, as Catholic Central for boys and Sacred Heart Academy for girls. Established by Bishop Joseph Richter, with the support of Father Robert W. Brown of St. James and Father John Schmitt of St. Andrew, the first graduating classes consisted of 7 boys and 20 girls. The decision to open a central Catholic high school, let alone a co-educational one, was unprecedented in the Nation at that time. Later growth led to the opening of West Catholic High School in 1962. This innovative diocesan co-educational school would survive both world wars, the Great Depression, fire, financial stress and clergy shortage. Along the way it inspired hundreds of other schools nationwide and grew into two schools with multiple facilities. The 2 high schools have produced more than 27,000 graduates and thousands of community leaders. The 2005-06 school year marks the centennial anniversary of Catholic high school education in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Catholic Central and West Catholic's success represents the united effort of the bishop, parish clergy, teaching Sisters and parents. Together they were the foundation that helped realize the dream of having a Catholic high school education in Grand Rapids. This centennial is a true celebration and testament to the enduring resilience of Catholic high school education in Grand Rapids. Graduates of the CSS have entered into religious life; careers in medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, education and coaching, accounting, banking, engineering and retailing and many other walks of life, contributing in a positive, moral, generous and caring fashion to the communities in which their homes and businesses are located, particularly West Michigan. For nearly a century, the mission of the CSS of Greater Grand Rapids has been to empower students to define their vision and pursue their goals with confidence, competence and Christian generosity. In an environment deeply rooted in faith formation, student achievement and appreciation of God-given talents, Catholic Central and West Catholic students are challenged to become fully integrated persons who lead through service. CSS, in dynamic partnerships with families, alumni and the community, promote learning for everyone, encourage understanding and embracing of diversity, and establish a foundation for life-long learning. Please join me in honoring the 100th anniversary of the Catholic Secondary Schools of Greater Grand Rapids.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I simply want to join in the chorus in support for this bill. It is difficult for us to recognize how far reaching the implications and consequences of Hurricane Katrina have been. And I know, for example, when I mentioned to another individual today that we would be dealing with the Pell grant in the context of the hurricane, this Member did not see any connection whatsoever until I pointed out the consequences. I am very pleased that we are taking such rapid action in this Chamber to deal with the wide-reaching consequences of the hurricane and recognize that there are so many dimensions of our citizens' lives that have been affected by this. I am pleased at this rapid action. I am grateful that this bill is presented to us. I will certainly support it and vote for it, and I hope the other body will give equal consideration and rapid consideration so that we may service our students. Let us also remember to continue in prayer for all the victims who have been affected in their lives in so many different ways, and let us continue to work together to ensure that very rapidly we can deal with restoring the Southern States to their positions, their economic position, and, above all, the positions of the families who live there so that they may return to their homes.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 365 I was on the floor and voted, but for some reason the vote was not recorded by the electronic system. Had the vote been recorded, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 283 I missed the vote because my flight arrived nearly two hours late. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement regarding the importance of investing in fundamental research at the Department of Defense. This statement would have been offered as a colloquy, but unfortunately my flight was delayed and I was unable to participate in a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense. Scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased innovation, economic vitality and national security. In 2001, the Hart- Rudman Commission concluded that, ``. . . the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine.'' While our focus on immediate national security threats is certainly warranted, it is necessary for us also to consider longer-term threats. Basic research is essential to advances in medicine, military applications and continued economic prosperity. In fact, the development of cancer therapies, global positioning system (GPS), laser-guided missiles, and the Internet are all products of DOD fundamental research endeavors. Who could have imagined that physicists' experimentation with the atomic clock in the 1950s and 1960s would provide the foundation for a technology that allows any soldier to know his precise location no matter where he or she is on this planet? The diversity of the basic science research portfolio ensures discoveries that lay the foundation for advances in defense. As a Nation, we cannot afford to starve basic science research. Historically, a fifth of DOD basic and applied research has been performed by universities and colleges. This year, we see a continuing disturbing trend of cutting the fundamental research budget at DOD in favor of focusing funds toward more applications-oriented research, or away from research altogether and shifting toward development. I recognize that this committee worked to restore many of the proposed cuts to these areas, and sincerely appreciate those efforts. However, we are still faced with a 4 percent reduction in our fundamental research budget at DOD. We can't expect to defend our nation twenty or fifty years from now if we focus only on the needs of today. We have to prepare for the future, and that investment takes place through university partnerships. I hope that in the event that any additional funds may become available in the future, that the Committee and Chairman would be willing to examine the possibility of devoting such funds to the basic research budget. I believe the support in these areas must remain strong to foster new ideas generated by the unique intellectual resources of our universities and colleges.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have to make a correction. The gentleman from New York keeps saying that he is not cutting NSF. Actually, the National Science Foundation appropriation under this bill is still less than fiscal year 2004 due to the large cut last year. Furthermore, the Research and Related Activities account, which we have been discussing with this amendment, will be cut $60 million below fiscal year 2004 levels by this amendment. We have not only started to eat our seed corn, I read an article last week that said the seed corn is almost gone. Because other countries are making this a high priority, they are doing much better than we are in research. Let me illustrate the importance of research activities. When I was a graduate student fifty years ago, a friend of mine, Charlie Townes, was working on development of a laser. Today I hold in my hand a laser which I purchased downstairs in the stationery shop for $15. That is how far we have come in 50 years. The laser industry, which rose from a simple grant to Dr. Townes from the National Science Foundation of a few million dollars, is today a multi-multibillion-dollar industry in this country. That is the kind of rate of return we get on our investment in research and our funding of the National Science Foundation. Reject this amendment. It goes in totally the wrong direction.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of Robroy Industries Company, which is the privately held parent company of Stahlin Non-Metallic Enclosures, a large and progressive employer since 1935 in Belding, Michigan, which is in the Third Congressional District of Michigan. On June 18, Robroy officials will be celebrating their centennial with an event at their Belding facility. The company was founded as the Enameled Metals Company in 1905 by Scottish immigrant Peter McIlroy in Etna, Pennsylvania. The company's headquarters were relocated to Verona, Pennsylvania in 1958, and in 1977 the renamed Robroy Industries acquired the Stahlin operation in Belding. Today, the company's five plants in Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan and its headquarters employ about 350 workers. Stahlin Enclosures is a widely recognized leader in the electrical products industry, making fiberglass electrical enclosures that are used worldwide. The nearly 90 Stahlin officials and employees are very active in their community, contributing to the Belding Public Schools band and athletic programs, the Belding scholarship program, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Special Olympics and other charities. The company also was named one of ``West Michigan's 101 Best & Brightest Companies to Work For'' by a local publication. I hope you join me in congratulating Robroy Industries Company on their century of business and their subsidiary, Stahlin Enclosures, for their 70 years of business in Belding, Michigan.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dreier amendment, not because I am opposed to the intent of the amendment, but rather opposed because of the source of funding that he has taken. We have already increased in this bill the funding for the cause he is trying to increase, namely, incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. We have already added $54 million, which is an 18 percent increase over last year. At the same time, NOAA has been cut $500 million. Let me say that again: NOAA has been cut $500 million below last year's number in this bill, and I fail to understand the logic of stealing more money from NOAA when it has already been cut $500 million. I appreciate that this comes from administrative expenses, but at a certain point that has got to cut into the science. NOAA, as we know, provides crucial services to this country. Each year we cope with on average 10,000 thunderstorms, 2,500 floods, 1,000 tornadoes, as well as six deadly hurricanes. The National Weather Service alone pays for itself over and over in terms of the protection it gives to people and to property. So as much as I sympathize with the intent of the gentleman from California, I think it is a poor choice of where to take the money from. Why would one take an additional $54 million away from an entity that has already been cut $500 million in this budget compared to last year? Mr. Chairman, I urge that we oppose the amendment and that we defeat the amendment. I know I am up against tough company here with the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, but I would be happy to help the gentleman try to find some other areas. Why take it out of science? The National Science Foundation was cut last year, the worst cut in almost 2 decades; and now we are proceeding to cut NASA, another science agency. At some point we have to recognize that the future of this country is directly tied to our research effort, and our research effort is dependent upon funding that we provide here. I urge opposition to the Dreier amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I especially thank the chairman of the committee for his wonderful work, with a very tight budget this year and insufficient allocation. Nothing in my comments is to be interpreted as a criticism of the committee or its work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies. Within the Education and Human Resources Directorate of the National Science Foundation, better known as NSF, I am especially concerned about the Math and Science Partnership program. This program connects States and local school districts together with higher education institutions to strengthen pre-K-12 math and science education. The partnerships also aim to increase the number, quality and diversity of math and science teachers. The Math and Science Partnership program budget has been greatly diminished since 2002, when it was funded at $160 million. This year the committee was able to fund the program at $60 million, which will prevent NSF from starting any new partnerships. This spring, 76 Members of Congress signed a letter supporting the funding of this program at $200 million for fiscal year 2006. In addition, the National Science Board, the guiding body of the National Science Foundation, has publicly stated, and I quote from a letter I recently received, ``Should funding become available to restore some of the cut programs, clearly, retaining the MSP program in NSF is the highest priority.'' ``Large-scale, sustained experiments like the math and science programs are crucial for developing models of excellence in science, technology and math education, linking precollege and college education and providing other links to the community and the workforce.'' And, Mr. Chairman, I will include this entire document for the Record. We know our students need to improve in math and science education. We know that other countries are investing in these areas and that their students are succeeding where ours are not. We know that the United States will not be able to compete with the rest of the world indefinitely if our workforce is not on the cutting edge of these fields. I would appreciate Chairman Wolf's willingness to consider, in the event that any additional funds may become available in the future, that his committee examine the possibility of devoting such funds to the Math and Science Partnership program. I believe this program must be able to fund some new starts and target the partnerships in this most needed of areas. I recognize that the gentleman's committee has taken steps to help address the educational areas of greatest need to improve in math and science education, and I look forward to working with him on this endeavor. Mr. Chairman, the document from the National Science Board, which I referred to earlier, is herewith submitted in its entirety for the Record: National Science Board, Arlington, VA, May 26, 2005. Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Ehlers: Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2005 in which you requested that the National Science Board (NSB, the Board) delineate the priority of programs within the Education and Human Resources portion of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Budget, to help Congress to focus any additional funds for NSF back to education, should they become available. The Board appreciates your continuing strong support for the NSF's role in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. The Board is, like you, concerned by the decline in funding for education in the NSF budget. We agree with you that such cuts would undermine the NSF's role in education in STEM fields at a time when STEM skills are becoming increasingly vital to the continued security and prosperity of our Nation. NSF is unique as the only Federal agency with both science research and science education in its charter. The programs in the NSF Education and Human Resources directorate are designed to support and improve U.S. STEM education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and informal). These programs are unique in their capacity to identify and study the most promising ideas for math and science education, to develop new and improve materials and assessments, to explore new uses of technology to enhance K-12 instruction, and to create better teacher training techniques. The results of NSF supported research can then be transferred into practice. NSF's highly-regarded peer review system that enlists leading scientists, mathematicians, engineers,and academicians to improve K-12 STEM education programs is at the center of this education improvement infrastructure. The proposed NSF FY 2006 budget begins an end to the commitment for large experimental programs in the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program, which builds on NSF experience in large-scale precollege and preservice experiments. The proposed budget also reduces critical areas of education research and undergraduate education. You have asked for the Board's priorities for education, should funding become available to restore some of the cut programs. Of the three major areas, all of which contain experimental programs to advance STEM learning, clearly, retaining the MSP program in NSF is the highest priority. Large scale, sustained experiments like the MSPs are crucial for developing models of excellence in STEM education, linking precollege and college, and providing other links to the community and the workforce. NSF has the mandate, depth of experience under its Systemic Initiatives and other large-scale multifaceted education activities, and well-established relationships to build such partnerships for excellence in K-12 STEM education. In 1983, the NSB Commission on Precollege Education in Science, Mathematics and Technology published its recommendations for U.S. students to become first in the world in science, mathematics and technology. Most of the recommendations of this report are still relevant today. Some progress has been made in precollege STEM education through research and implementation of model programs, but much more is needed. As a workforce with basic STEM skill has become ever more essential to American economic prosperity and national security, it is now critical to our future that our precollege education system is prepared to perform its essential role in U.S. STEM education. Today it clearly is not. Certainly, world class STEM education is a moving target, as science and technology advances and as other nations raise the bar for STEM education in their own precollege systems. The Board therefore has determined, in response to requests from the Congress and other stakeholders, to undertake an update of the 1983 Commission report. The Board is hopeful that our Nation is ready to implement an aggressive, research-based program in precollege STEM education. Within the framework of No Child Left Behind legislation, it is critical that U.S. education systems implement research-based strategies to improve STEM learning, with the goal of international leadership in precollege STEM education. It is also critical that we build on and continue the long-term research in K-12 education sponsored by NSF. We thank you for your efforts on behalf of NSF, and we offer our further assistance in any way that would be helpful. Sincerely, Warren M.Washington, Chairman, National Science Board. Elizabeth Hoffman, Chair, EHR Committee, NSB.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 241 and 242, I was absent because I was detained in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both.