Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join the speakers in rousing approval of this bill, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. As a scientist, I have been familiar with the National Science Foundation almost since its inception. It is an outstanding American institution. It is the best science research institution in the world in terms of their strong peer review and the good results. Just a few weeks ago, we had the announcement of the latest round of Nobel Prize winners. All of the Nobel Prize winners this year in the sciences were from the United States, and one of them was formerly funded by the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation has now provided funding for 170 individuals who have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. By far, we are the leader among all the Nations, and it is not just our population. It is our ability to engage in meaningful and good research, research that results in earth-changing results, and that is extremely important to the foundations of science. The National Science Foundation has done so many good things since its inception, and as I said, it is one of the leaders in the world. It also has received awards from the Office of Management and Budget just within the past few years as the most efficiently run government agency. Now, that is indeed an important prize. I understand we are going to have a few amendments to try to reduce the budget of the National Science Foundation, and I think it is absurd to punish the best-operated government agency while we are continuing to fund other agencies which do not do as well, and we are not reducing their budget. Another factor is we often talk in the Congress about investments. Sometimes I think we never spend a penny of our money; we invest it all because everyone talks about their particular project as a good investment. Well, let me tell you, if we are investing money here we will get a higher rate of return on the money that we invest in the National Science Foundation than in any other government agency, except perhaps NIH, simply because the results are so astounding and so ripe for development by the manufacturing sector. I could give many, many examples, but let me just mention one. A friend of mine, Charlie Townes, a number of years ago, decided that he could develop a laser. Now, LASER stands for lamp amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. The initiative for that discovery came originally from Einstein in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, a theoretical physicist predicted that stimulated emission would result from a photon hitting an excited atom, yielding two photons of the same wavelength and the same phase traveling in the same direction. Mr. Townes decided he could build a laser out of this, and in fact, he did. I do not know what types of grants he had, but I think the total was probably less than $10 million. Today, the laser industry is a multi, multi, multibillion dollar industry. Every sewer that has been laid in this Nation and most parts of the world for the last 30 years has been leveled with a beam of laser light. Every suit, every piece of clothing that the people in this room are wearing has been cut out by a laser light, not scissors, but lasers guided around, cutting out the patterns before they are sewn together. I could go on and on with many other examples, including medical examples, by the way. So that small investment of about $10 million resulted in thousands and thousands of billions of dollars in our economy. That is why it is totally absurd for anyone to think about reducing the budget of the NSF. If anything, we should increase it because the payback on our investment there is so good, so strong, that we should be increasing NSF funding, not decreasing it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. I appreciate the kind words offered by Mr. Baird and Mr. Gordon, and frankly, producing this bill was a lovefest. I am very impressed with the work they did on it. I am very appreciative of the very hard work that they did in putting together a bill, including direct interaction with members of NSF, talking to scientists who were familiar with the NSF, scientists who had received funds from NSF, and out of all that, we have written a bill that I think is a very good one. My colleagues and I on the Science and Technology Committee have introduced a strong reauthorization bill for the National Science Foundation. It is a straightforward 3-year bill which provides authorization for the various research and education activities of the National Science Foundation. I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway to double the total budget of the Foundation. In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly supported a 5-year doubling path for the Foundation, and I strongly supported that and was very pleased to vote for it. Unfortunately, appropriations have fallen far short of that target. Last year I had consultations with the President, and partly as a result of those consultations, the President introduced a plan known as the American Competitiveness Initiative that sought to double the research budgets of the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science over the next 10 years. In other words, twice as slow as the previous decision of the Congress. I would prefer the faster increase, but I recognize realities and the tough financial conditions we have. So I am pleased to sign on with doubling over 10 years. The National Science Foundation was included in the ACI because it conducts world-class research in areas that support new, innovative technologies, which, in turn, lead to advances in telecommunications, homeland security, alternative energy and other areas of great importance to our Nation. I have the utmost confidence that the National Science Foundation will use the authorized funds in the most prudent manner, as NSF consistently earns the highest possible score in the annual Office of Management and Budget ratings of financial and budget performance. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 will support the education and training of more than 225,000 scientists, engineers, teachers and students. In addition to discipline-specific research, NSF activities include cross-cutting initiatives on nanotechnology, networking and information technology, climate science change and the International Polar Year. It also supports the construction of major research facilities that are shared within and across many disciplines of the scientific community. NSF research and activities touch every State of this Nation and provide tremendous support at all levels of education. NSF is a unique agency because it is the only agency with a primary mission of supporting fundamental scientific research, as well as engineering research. Unlike some of our other science agencies, NSF is not a mission agency in the sense that it has an established program to target. In fact, it solves many problems through the process of fundamental research, often in a serendipitous manner. As Nobel Prize winner Theodore Svedberg remarked, as he accepted his reward in 1926, ``A glance at the history of science and technics shows that it is precisely the search for truth without any preconceived ideas, research for the sake of knowledge alone, that in the long run has most benefited humanity. The investigations which have seemingly been the most purely abstract have often formed the foundation of the most important changes or improvements in the conditions of human life.'' It is challenging in this day and age to support this type of research. The U.S. has many pressing needs that require solutions on very short time lines, particularly related to national security and the health of our aging population. For this reason and others, we have seen companies decrease their investments in long-term research projects. Nevertheless, economists have confirmed the accuracy of Dr. Svedberg's statement that fundamental research has, indeed, paid the highest dividends to humanity over the years. Estimated return on investment in research and development is difficult to calculate, but generally ranges from 20 to 400 percent. That is an incredible payback. Furthermore, past investments in NSF have contributed greatly to major technological advances in areas and industries that are critical for U.S. economic growth such as biomedical applications. The former Director of the National Institutes of Health, Harold Varmus, is well-known for his following statement: ``Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an engineer.'' Continued support for fundamental research lays the groundwork for innovations in other disciplines that directly impact the lives of every American. We are here today to authorize a continued investment in this type of NSF groundbreaking work. I thank Chairman Baird and his dedicated staff for their work on preparing this bill in a bipartisan manner, and encourage my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to Mr. Kirk for a colloquy.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for those comments. We will be happy to continue working with him. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. These are always very difficult questions, and I have learned long ago never to judge the research by the title of the proposal. These are complex issues, and I don't know if the gentleman was here earlier when I spoke about the rate of return on research at the National Science Foundation. The best estimate is that the rate of return is a minimum of 20 percent and a maximum 400 percent on individual research projects. Now, I challenge anyone in this Chamber to find investments that will year after year give you that rate of return on the investment. Another point I would like to make is, as I said, you can't always judge the full proposal by the title. This was evident a few years ago when we went through exactly the same charade when discussing the National Science Foundation budget. Some of my colleagues came down to the floor to amend the NSF appropriations bill, and one offered an amendment to remove grants for the study of ATM. This person gave a magnificent speech why we should not spend money at the National Science Foundation or the Department of Energy to study ATM. His argument was, let the banking industry do the research on ATMs. What he didn't know is that the proposal was not on automatic teller machines but the proposal was on studying asynchronous transfer modes, which involves the way computers talk to each other. This research led to a substantial change in the speed at which computers were able to talk to each other. This is a good example of why it is dangerous to just look at titles and make a judgment. I would also pick up on the comment of Mr. Baird about cultural studies. I think one of the basic problems in Iraq, and I have told this to people in the White House, is that there were not enough people in the White House, perhaps even in the State Department, who understood the culture of the countries we were dealing with, and we failed to realize what would happen once we moved into that country. A good NSF-funded study beforehand would have been invaluable in determining what would happen. Another example: a few years ago there was a grant on game theory. Once again, one of our colleagues rushed to the floor and said we have to eliminate funding for that. In fact, game theory is extremely useful in calculating the operation of nuclear reactors. So I urge defeat of this amendment. It is very easy to sit on the House floor and pontificate about these issues. But if we are going to cut the budget, there are much more fertile fields in which to cut. Why would we cut the one agency that gives us a guaranteed rate of return on our investment when there are many other areas we can cut where we are getting little or no payback at all?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to respond to the statement that we can't fund every proposal that comes along, and that is absolutely true. The National Science Foundation funds a small fraction of the proposals that come through, and that is why we are beginning to slip as a Nation compared to other nations, because we are simply not, as a Congress, providing sufficient funds for the National Science Foundation. And I forget the current figure, but I think it is in the neighborhood of 20 percent of the grant applications are being funded; 80 percent are not being funded. It's a tough business, and these are all peer-reviewed grants. I cannot defend them individually without looking at them. As I say, you can't judge a proposal or a grant by its cover.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First of all, I'll make a deal with you; I won't make any judgments about medical research if you don't make judgments about NSF research. The point of this really is that you cannot predict what will result from the research; that is the idea behind basic research. Years ago when I was a graduate student at Berkeley, we were spending tremendous amounts of money to examine the behavior of elementary particles, protons, neutrons, mesons, and so on. And no one, even in the scientific community, could ever imagine any practical use for that. But later on the results from doing that research led to the development of a CAT scanner and the MRI. Now, who would ever have thought that elementary particle physics would lead to major findings in medicine which every doctor relies upon today?

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will try to be brief. We have beat this subject to death, but I find it ironic that we talk about cutting the funding of the one agency that returns more on its money than any other agency does. If we're talking about cutting the NSF by 1 percent, we should cut everything in the budget by 1 percent. And I might even vote for that if you are willing to cut defense by 1 percent; Cut every department, cut Social Security by 1 percent, and so on down the line. Then you might have something that would be worth doing. But to attack something that actually benefits this Nation, increases our health and wealth, and is allowing us to at least try to keep up with what other nations are doing, is utterly unrealistic. I would point out, and I can show you graphs indicating that we are falling far behind other nations. We occupied the premier spot in research for a number of years. But now South Korea, as an example, is very rapidly getting very close to what we are spending on research as a percentage of GDP. I expect them to pass us in a few years. It is incredible to me that we are supposed to be the brightest, most powerful Nation in the world, and yet we are losing ground compared to nations such as South Korea. If we are serious about competing with other countries, we absolutely have to keep investing our money in research, whether it's the National Science Foundation or whether it is the Department of Energy or the National Institutes of Health. In addition to that, I would mention that the National Science Foundation is just about the lowest-cost research institution. We spend a lot less money in the National Science Foundation than we do in the Department of Energy, than we do in National Institutes of Health or that we do on NASA. One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank you for the clarification.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just briefly, I want to comment on a comment made by my friend from New Jersey about health care, a very, very important issue. But the only way we are going to be able to offer better health care to everyone is by reducing the cost. One huge element of cost in health care is cancer treatment. Today at lunch I met with the latest seven Nobel Prize winners all of whom happen to be from America because we support this research.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to continue, today the Science Committee had lunch with the latest Nobel Prize winners, all of whom are from America because we try very hard to provide funding for the research. They, I might point out, did the research a number of years ago. I hope we can continue to provide Nobel Prize winners by adequately funding the National Science Foundation and others. But in speaking to the gentleman who got the award in physiology and medicine, he talked about his discovery and the impact it is going to have on cancer treatment. That is very likely to cause a substantial reduction in the cost of the treatment of cancer using his approach. What does his approach depend on? That is the Human Genome Project which we started a number of years ago in NIH and were the first Nation to do that. It is always amazing to me how discoveries that we find in one area can have application, and no one, I think, dreamed that when we did the Human Genome Project that we might find the cure of cancer there rather than in medicine. So it is very important that we continue funding the fundamental basic research so we can continue to enjoy the fruits of their research.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, to the gentleman from Arizona, I totally agree with your comments about earmarks. I have fought hard here to keep this body and the other body from providing earmarks for scientific research, because all grants should go through the peer review process. I might also add parenthetically that when the gentleman from Arizona was on the antiearmark bandwagon a few years ago, I believe I voted with him more than most Members of the House, because I oppose earmarks in general, but particularly in scientific research. I would also comment that the fact that industry supports us is not indicative of the National Science Foundation doing industry's research. National Science Foundation does the basic research, the fundamental research, which has no apparent immediate use. Industry picks up on that and says, okay, let's see whether we can develop something out of that. In other words, industry does not do very much research, they do a lot of development. NSF does almost totally research and essentially no development. So it's a very good symbiotic relationship. As I mentioned earlier, before most of the people here were on the floor, the rate of return on our research money in the National Science Foundation has been incredible. Any accountant looking at this would say this is the best investment that the United States Government makes because it has great results in our economy.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise with some reluctance to speak against this amendment, because I like the idea of what the gentlewoman from California is trying to do. But my concern is twofold. First of all, this will cut into the funding that the NSF already has. It's an added requirement for them. But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and have taught at the college level. I have always felt this is the responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this. The job of the colleges and universities is to teach. What this is proposing is that the NSF will be responsible for teaching these students how to communicate their research. I always tried to do that with my students when I had graduate students. I think that's an integral part of the education program. So I reluctantly urge defeat of this amendment, simply because I think we ought to make it clear to the universities and the colleges that this is part of their responsibility.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a particular problem with this amendment. We have, for some time, had activities within the National Science Foundation aimed at teaching future teachers, teaching them how to teach math and science, and this generally fell into the rubric of a math-science partnership, because the Foundation itself did not teach the teachers but rather responded to grants submitted by professors at various institutions who were pleased to set up programs to teach these future teachers or existing teachers how better to teach math and science. These have been very successful programs and are commonly referred to as the math-science partnership. Recently, the Department of Education has developed programs involving professional development for teachers in elementary and secondary schools to try to bring them up to speed on the latest developments in math and science and how to teach them. They ended up calling it the math-science partnership. This has resulted in a problem because some in the administration decided to cut the budget of the National Science Foundation because they felt this was a duplication of programs. It is not. The National Science Foundation concentrates on doing research. The Foundation's model is designed for competitive grants to spur innovative programs that will be peer reviewed and evaluated to enhance research on effective math and science education, whereas the Department of Education ensures that this knowledge is disseminated to as many school districts as possible. Knowledge gained from the competitive foundation scholarships, in other words the National Science Foundation math-science partnerships, can be used and is used to prove and enhance State investments in programs developed by the Department of Education. In other words, these are two programs that happen to have the same names. They are very symbiotic. The discoveries out of the research at the National Science Foundation transfers directly over to the Department of Education, and is there applied to instructions in the classrooms and for teacher training programs. Another reason I come to offer this amendment is because the other body, the Senate, is working on this same issue, this same bill, and they have added an amendment which clarifies the difference between the National Science Foundation programs and the Department of Education programs. I am offering essentially the same amendment so that when we go to conference with the Senate, this will be preagreed to. It's a necessary and important clarification of the functions of the two, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. In the midst of all this serious debate about an extremely important bill, I would like to pause just a moment to have a lighter moment that we can all enjoy as we recognize that one of our leading Members in this Congress tomorrow reaches a major milestone. The ranking member of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall, tomorrow will begin the second half of his life. He reaches the age of 84 tomorrow. So we can all celebrate with him and appreciate the tremendous contributions he has made to this Congress and to this country. And I think it is entirely appropriate that on the eve of this important occasion, he spends the entire evening in this Chamber debating the esoteric aspects of science and its results. So I hope all of you will join me at some point in the next day of wishing Mr. Hall an immensely wonderful 84th birthday tomorrow.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dale Cooper, chaplain of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who will retire after 30 years of service at Calvin. Chaplain Dale Cooper began his work at Calvin College in 1976. Three years later, he became chaplain, and has over the past three decades provided students, faculty, and staff at Calvin College with remarkable guidance. Chaplain Cooper's devotion to God and love for all people led him to become chaplain, and by all accounts, his career at Calvin can be regarded as wholly successful. In his time there, he has provided invaluable spiritual guidance to students, whether they had suffered a loss in the family or were struggling to cope with a rigorous class schedule. Through his counseling, preaching and other interactions with students and faculty, Chaplain Cooper embodied the creed of the Christian Reformed Church to incorporate faith and to honor God in every aspect of life, including work and study. Chaplain Cooper has helped see the Calvin College community through both good times and bad, and has left a lasting impact on everyone he has come into contact with. One of Chaplain Cooper's most remarkable endeavors occurred when he drove his 1941 John Deere ``B'' tractor across the Midwest, from Calvin College all the way to Alton, Iowa. It was a spiritual journey for Chaplain Cooper; his father was a farmer and John Deere tractor enthusiast. He had to give up farming after his wife, Dale's mother, was paralyzed from the neck down by polio. The illness confined Dale Cooper's mother to an iron lung for 40 years of her life. Incredible spiritual journeys such as this are not uncommon for Chaplain Cooper. Chaplain Cooper's effectiveness as a spiritual guide to students at Calvin College is validated by their affection for him. Known simply as ``Coop'' to most students, Cooper has a gift of immediately connecting with people. His friendliness, open door policy, and love for Calvin College and its students, faculty and staff have earned him a sterling reputation around campus, and in the greater community. In addition to providing guidance, Chaplain Dale Cooper will leave behind a number of programs at Calvin College that reflect his dedication to the institution. Cooper worked to constantly reform the college to welcome people of all backgrounds and faith traditions. For these and other acts of caring, compassion and dedication to Calvin College and the community it serves, we honor Dale Cooper in his retirement. The impact he has had on people at Calvin cannot be measured by any tangible means. But ask anyone who has gotten to know him there, and it is evident that the mark he leaves behind at the institution is immeasurably large. I hope Dale Cooper's life continues to be as fulfilling for him in retirement as it has been in his years at Calvin College.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, all of us go back to our districts regularly and meet with our constituents, and some of the most sorrowful meetings I have are with students who have just graduated from high school and say, I can't get a job. I can't get a job. What a shock to them, after years of education. And I am not talking about dropouts. I am talking about students who have studied hard, worked hard, and tried to learn a lot. When I analyze the problem, much of it circles around the fact that today, and, indeed, all the jobs of the future, require a good understanding of the basic principles of mathematics and science, and many students in today's curriculum are not getting that knowledge. What can we do to help solve that? There are a number of aspects to the problem. Obviously, the first thing is to entice students to take those courses. But, secondly, and more importantly, is to make certain that all those teachers in our high schools across this Nation are adequately trained and adequately prepared to teach math and science courses and do it in a fashion that excites the students and entices them to take these courses so that they will develop the background in math and science that they need to get a job, both now and in the future. The world has changed. China and India recognized this 20 years ago and changed their educational system. We did not change. We did not recognize what was happening, and so we have to play catch-up. This bill, which I strongly support, is a good bill which will help us to improve U.S. math, science, and engineering education at all levels; K-12, undergraduate and graduate. As most people in Congress know, I am a scientist. What you may not know is that over 40 years ago, I dedicated myself to trying to improve the science educational programs in the United States, basically from preschool through graduate school, because we were simply falling behind other countries in the areas of mathematics and science. I am not talking only about producing good engineers and enough engineers, or good scientists and enough scientists. That is very important, and we must do it. We are losing out on that as well. But what we certainly have to do is to prepare everyone for the workplace of today, and especially the workplace of tomorrow. This bill will help do that. This bill builds on the Noyce Scholarship Program, an excellent program that has been in effect for a number of years and which was initially proposed by the former chair of the Science Committee, Sherry Boehlert. It is named after the person who helped to found Intel and make it grow into what it is today. They also have funded a number of scholarship programs, and this is our counterpart. But this program does more than that. It strengthens and expands the Noyce Scholarship Program, but it also strengthens and focuses the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation, a program which has fallen on hard times in the last few years, primarily because the President's budget has sought to eliminate funding for that program. I think this is based on a misunderstanding in the administration or in the Office of Management and Budget about what the program does, and the mistaken belief that this program was a duplicate of one residing in the Department of Education. As a result the program in the Department of Education grew, and the one in the Science Foundation was cut back. The fact of the matter is they are both good programs and necessary programs, and they are complementary, not competitive. We need both if we are going to strengthen our teacher training programs. That is why I strongly approve of the aspect of the bill that will strengthen and focus the Math and Science Partnership Program. The bill also extends the authorization of and expands the NSF Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, better known as the STEP program, which provides grants to colleges and universities to improve undergraduate science, math and engineering education. This bill enables NSF to fund the creation of centers at colleges and universities to develop new approaches to undergraduate education programs, and expands the focus of STEP beyond its initial focus of increasing the number of graduating STEM majors to also include increasing the number of nonmajors taking STEM courses. The bill also establishes a pilot grant program at NSF to create a partnership to support science lab improvements in secondary schools, a proposal initiated by Mr. Hinojosa in a separate bill, but that we are incorporating into this bill. In short, this bill does a great deal to strengthen several programs at the NSF and, develop innovative programs which will provide better math, science education at all levels from the elementary schools through the undergraduate and the graduate programs. We have worked together on this in a nonpartisan way. I commend Ranking Member Hall. Mr. Hall has been a strong person in this area and has strongly pushed this bill. I also commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Gordon, who has also worked very hard on this. It has been a copacetic experience in the Science Committee to hear this discussion and see the progress we have made. I strongly support the bill, and urge the House to adopt it.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and I think we should approve it, but I would like to spend the majority of my time discussing the previous amendment which we already accepted. I would like to make a point in connection with that. A very good part of that amendment is that it provides an additional stipend for teachers during their 4-year service requirement. We have a major problem in America with math and science teachers; in fact, we have a major problem with a lot of teachers who do not stick with their field. We just don't have the retention rate we should. But that is especially true of good math and science teachers because the market out there for them is tremendous. Frequently, they can double their salary by going into industry, and at the very least they can increase their salary by 40 or 50 percent. It is very difficult for the schools to compete with that, although I have argued for years we should have a salary differential for those teachers who have very strong economic incentives to leave the teaching profession and to go into another job. We simply have to meet the market, and unfortunately that has not been the tradition in the schools. I think we should establish that. If you don't meet the market, you are going to lose your best teachers, and we certainly don't want to lose them after all the work we have done through these various scholarships to develop good teachers. So I strongly support the part of the Noyce amendment No. 2 which Chairman Gordon offered, and I hope that we can work, not just within this Congress but within this Nation, with the teachers, the school boards, and the teachers unions to develop a system that recognizes that a mechanism is needed to meet the market for those teachers who are offered large inducements to leave the teaching profession and go to another field. I simply wanted to make that point in connection with the first amendment simply because that amendment is a start in the right direction, and I hope we can carry that principle onward. I appreciate Chairman Gordon offering the amendment, and I hope that we can continue along that path in future bills relating to the subject.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise with pleasure to support this bill. The National Science Foundation for years has been one of the primary sources of research funding for outstanding research in this Nation. In addition, the Department of Energy Office of Science has been a leader in certain areas, particularly high energy or particle physics, but also in a number of other physics areas, including the high energy light sources such as we have at Berkeley and a few other labs. I strongly support these programs, but a difficulty that has developed over the past few years is that we have some early career researchers, some young people just entering the field, and they really have difficulty obtaining funding because the tendency of the reviewers at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office of Science is to say well, we have this group of very well-known good researchers. We know their backgrounds and we know they can produce and how well they can do; we should just give them the money because we don't know for sure about the early researchers. Now, I don't think they actually say that, but, unfortunately, I think it is in the back of the minds of the peer review folks as they consider proposals. I experienced this personally with my son, who as a young scientist had trouble breaking into the field and had a number of proposals denied before he finally received funding. Even though he had made some national strides and was well-known in the field, yet it was difficult to get the funding. These programs will be very, very helpful to support the early career researchers. But there is another aspect about which we need some new thinking and some change, and that is the fact that more and more science is becoming interdisciplinary, where you may have biology and physics, or biophysics; and you have relationships between biology and chemistry or chemistry and physics. You can go on and on. There are all sorts of different variations. Sometimes you may need five or six different disciplines represented in the research program to really cover all of the aspects of the research. When you submit a proposal, usually you are required to specify one field and if you specify interdisciplinary, sometimes the other fields are not adequately represented on the peer review panel. I admit these are perhaps exceptions; but, nevertheless, we have to make sure that all of these bright young scientists or those wishing to branch out into another discipline, for example, having a very good background in physics and deciding they can really do some good work in biophysics. So we need to take account of that, and this bill will provide that within both the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. I strongly support this bill. I believe both agencies, I know NSF supports it, and I am sure that the Department of Energy Office of Science also supports this bill because they have also noted the need for these changes.

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment, although I would say I would be delighted to support it if we could also be guaranteed that the budget of the National Science Foundation would be increased by another $1 billion. I say that because the National Science Foundation has not been treated well in its budgets over the last 12 or 13 years. It has increased very slowly. We even had a decrease 2 years ago for the first time in many, many years. It's a shame that we have not treated the National Science Foundation adequately. It has hurt our Nation, it has hurt our economy, and we certainly have to improve that situation. We are in a catchup mode. I am reminded of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was instrumental in getting the doubling of the National Institutes of Health, who today has told me, and I have heard him tell audiences in speeches a number of times, that he regards one of his great mistakes, perhaps the greatest, the failure to double the National Science Foundation at the same time that we doubled the NIH. Nevertheless, that didn't happen, so we are in a period of poverty for the National Science Foundation. Therefore, I oppose adding a new program. Even though at this point it's only $281 million, I am sure it will be a popular program and end up costing well over $1 billion. We simply cannot afford it at this time. I would be happy to consider this proposal at some time in the future if we, in fact, do double the NSF as we hope. But even that will leave us with a skimpy budget there. The other factor is that this program does already exist in the Department of Education. It's a very good program. It has been in operation for several years. I hope that we will keep that in mind, that we will turn down this amendment at this point, and perhaps consider it sometime in the future when we are bound to have an abundance of money at the National Science Foundation.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Grand Rapids Community Sustainability Partnership's accomplishment in being named a Regional Center of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development by the United Nations. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members of the Partnership. The Grand Rapids Community Sustainability Partnership is an enterprise comprised of the City of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapids Public Schools, Grand Rapids Community College, Grand Valley State University, Aquinas College and 104 corporate or institutional members that strive to promote leadership in sustainable development in the West Michigan area. The recognition bestowed upon the Partnership by the United Nations has thrust Grand Rapids into the global spotlight as a community at the forefront of environmental stewardship. Grand Rapids is located at the Grand River watershed, Michigan's largest drainage basin, and the region is blessed with some of America's most beautiful and precious resources. The watershed drains directly into Lake Michigan, which provides drinking water for millions of people and serves as a source of fishing, recreation and transportation to the region's residents. The Great Lakes contain twenty percent of the world's fresh water supply, making them one of the world's most important natural resources. As Michigan's second largest city, Grand Rapids has dedicated itself to preserving the environment for future generations while promoting economic innovation and growth. The Partnership formed between public and private interests in Grand Rapids has worked together to educate the area's residents on sustainable development. It has played an important role in making sure that the region's economy and environment remain vibrant. The Regional Center of Expertise, among other things, will work to manage sustainable urban growth, conserve energy and water, improve the region's infrastructure, and educate the public on how best to conserve our treasured natural resources. To this degree, the Grand Rapids Community Sustainability Partnership will ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a thriving community. Through the leadership of the Grand Rapids Community Sustainability Partnership, Michigan remains a principal player in the conservation and protection of not only our economy, but also our environment. I have dedicated a major part of my life and career as a scientist and representative in local, State and Federal Government toward advancing these same goals of sustainable development and environmental stewardship, so I am especially proud of my hometown on this achievement. I commend the Partnership's activities to my colleagues in the House.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I first met Juanita Millender-McDonald in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is a wonderful committee, and I am sure the current Chair would agree with that. A great diversity of tasks there, and I came to know her at that committee. I was amazed at Ms. Millender-McDonald in a number of ways. You just heard the previous speaker talk about her grace and elegance. That was apparent from the moment you saw her and talked to her. She and I became rather good friends because it happened that her father was a pastor, and my father was also a pastor. There is a special bond between preachers' kids or PKs as they are called, and we used to jokingly discuss the need to develop a PK caucus in the Congress so that we could address major issues of the times, particularly those with a moral or human content to them. Our friendship continued over the years, and I have to confess, I was continually amazed at new things I discovered in Juanita Millender- McDonald. First of all, just imagine being born African American in 1938 in Alabama and becoming the first African American woman to chair a committee in the Congress. That is a long and difficult road, and she traversed that road, once again, with elegance and grace. After having five children, she went back to school, received a bachelor's degree and then became a teacher. She later went back to school again and obtained a master's degree, showing amazing persistence and drive to do that. She then entered the political arena, became the mayor of the city in her district, and then later the State Assembly, and then the Congress. So she had considerable drive and interests in serving others, and that stood out from the moment you first met her. But I found it interesting, too, on a personal relationship, she was a good friend of mine but a very private person, and I was dismayed recently to find out that she had cancer because she had never discussed this with me and never alluded to it in our discussions. I knew something was wrong, but I did not know what. I wish I had known so I could have offered her more comfort and help. We have had our amusing moments as well. One time she insisted in talking far past her limit in our committee when I was chairman, and I gaveled her out of order, which she refused to admit and kept talking. So I gaveled louder and she kept talking, and I gaveled louder yet, until she could no longer speak. She was not pleased with that. But when she became the chairwoman, I called her to congratulate her and I said, now, I fully expect you to gavel me out of order every opportunity you get, and that was the type of relationship we had. In spite of our differences of party, in spite of occasional differences in perspective and differences on how we should accomplish things in this Congress, we remained good friends throughout. And I think because of that, together, we were able to accomplish a great deal in that committee this past year, and we were continuing to do that this year under her leadership. We have lost a good friend. We have lost a good compatriot. We have lost a good Member of Congress. It is not easy to deal with that type of loss, and our comfort is that she is in a better place, that she has served our country well. She has served her people well. I am sure as a teacher she served her students well. I think she has left the Congress a better place because of her having been here and with the example that she set for us.