Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 766) to provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 766.

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

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As is the practice of the Committee on Science, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that reflects the important contributions of both majority and minority members of the committee.

I am going to keep my remarks brief today because nanotechnology is a subject on which there is already broad agreement on both sides of the aisle, in the administration and, indeed, in the country at large.

Nanotechnology can be a key to future economic prosperity and might improve our lives, and the Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting the basic research that will make this possible.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most promising and exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines with widespread applications in electronics, advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. Nanotechnology represents the future of information processing and storage. Other future applications include new sensors to detect biological agents, stronger and lighter building materials, new cancer treatments, and more environmentally friendly chemical processes. Some have estimated that a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology will develop in little over a decade.

With this in mind, I introduced H.R. 766 with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and with senior members of the Committee on Science on both sides of the aisle as cosponsors. The committee held two hearings on the bill, one on nanotechnology research programs and commercialization efforts, and one on societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology. The academic and industrial research communities were articulate in their support of this legislation and on the need to consider the societal, environmental, ethical, and economic questions that will arise as new nanotechnology applications are developed and enter the marketplace.

H.R. 766 authorizes the President's National Nanotechnology Initiative and supports and improves the Federal Government's nanotechnology efforts in a number of ways. It emphasizes interdisciplinary research, it strengthens interagency coordination, it supports increased research on societal consequences of nanotechnology, it encourages commercialization of nanotechnology applications, it requires outside reviews of the program, and it provides incentives for Americans to pursue degrees in science and engineering.

H.R. 766 builds on the excellent budgets that have been put forward by the administration for nanotechnology. It has been endorsed by leading industry groups, and that is very important. A companion bill, S. 189 sponsored by Senators Wyden and Allen, is moving forward in the Senate; and I am optimistic that this bill will be sent to the President's desk in the near future.

In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their able leadership on this important piece of legislation. It has been a pleasure working with them, and their contributions have made this bill a better bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Chairman, I have additional requests for time, but those requesting the time are not yet here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) because I think it overspecifies the issues that should be addressed by research directed towards societal and ethical concerns. I also want to point out that the administration, which is championing this initiative and who were of the same mind, opposes this amendment.

H.R. 766 already makes it clear both in the bill and in the accompanying report language that societal and ethical concerns include concerns related to potential societal and environmental consequences associated with nanotechnology development. The language is general in order to permit the broadest range of research on the societal and environmental implications of nanotechnology.

We spent a great deal of time on this very issue during our committee's markup of the bill last week. The committee took particular care as to how societal and ethical concerns were described in the bill and how the national nanotechnology research and development program is required to address them.

We need to have broad authority to ensure that this research can focus on questions that may not seem important to us today but emerge as the science matures. This amendment takes us in the wrong direction by limiting the research on environmental concerns authorized in the bipartisan committee bill to toxicological and environmental impact statements.

The administration opposes the amendment. I do, too. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, who can be against clean, inexpensive energy? I am not, but does it make sense to pick out this one laudable goal and hold it up above all others, including medical advances, homeland security, technology that can drive faster economic growth? Yes, energy is important and this bill recognizes it.

It is an important part of H.R. 766 and it is demonstrated by the portion of the bill that authorizes $265 million for nanotechnology research at the Department of Energy next year alone. That is significant. But energy is not more important than many of the other things that nanotechnology will do. Would you say it is more important than finding a cure for cancer? Or more important than protecting our borders in our fight for homeland security? These are all important, laudable goals, and the bill covers them all.

Once again, we are not just throwing petty cash at this subject. We are devoting $265 million to it. The administration opposes this amendment, and so do I because it is too prescriptive. Therefore, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Let me state at the outset that I support and the administration supports broader public participation. We have been assured by the administration that every meeting will have a set-aside period for public participation, the type of participation that the gentlewoman wants and is a cherished part of our system. So I applaud the gentlewoman's objective but the fact of the matter is we do not need a whole bunch of new panels.

Let me point out, if you want me to use some additional time, this is modeled after the Danish system. I was told that research puts that into question, that sort of formalized structure. A scholarly study on the impact of just such a citizens panel in the United States, not in Denmark, here, concluded that not even those engaged in organizing the U.S. citizens panel thought it had any actual impact. Let me quote from their report: ``The single greatest area of consensus among the respondents was that the Citizens Panel on Telecommunications and the

Future of Democracy had no actual impact. No respondent, not even those government members of the steering committee or expert cohort, identified any actual impact.''

Having said that, does that mean that I agree that we do not need any citizen input? Not at all. I agree with the gentlewoman that we do need citizen input. I applaud her effort, but I have to oppose this particular amendment to be so prescriptive and just to set in motion just who has to do what and when.

My staff tells me we tried very hard, because we talked in committee about this and I offered to work with the gentlewoman to strengthen the requirements for public participation in the underlying legislation. The staff have had conversations back and forth and apparently we could not bridge the differences. But let me assure the gentlewoman that she is absolutely right in calling for public participation. I want public participation. So does the administration. I just do not think we have to be so prescriptive in this bill as to set the parameters for that public participation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the staff is busy discussing, as we always do as a committee on bipartisan basis, a way to accommodate our mutual interest.

Mr. Chairman, we are working this out. So the gentlewoman has kindly withdrawn her amendment from consideration; and during this interim period, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) will be up next with her staff. Staffs are trying to work out language that assures both sides that we get what we want, active citizen participation.

Mr. Chairman, during the time that the gentleman has been speaking so eloquently, the majority and minority have reached an agreement on the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) amendment which has been withdrawn, and now she is willing to offer a compromise amendment that we are prepared to accept. So I thank the gentleman for his input, and I anxiously await the words of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I think we worked out a very fine compromise that ensures the citizen input, and the majority is pleased to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share the commitment of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to ensuring that research is conducted on the social and ethical issues relating to nanotechnology, but believe that this amendment does not take the preferred approach.

Our committee has given this issue a great deal of consideration, and we decided rather than going to just one center, but to fully integrate research on the social, environmental and ethical issues into the research being conducted under the entire National Nanotechnology Initiative. This ensures that social, ethical and environmental implications research will be fully grounded in the science of nanotechnology and that scientists conducting nanotechnology research will be aware of and be active participants in research on the social and societal implications of their work.

The provisions were further strengthened in committee by amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).

The Jackson-Lee amendment is derived from a provision contained in the Senate bill that takes us in the opposite direction. It creates a stand-alone research center financed by the National Science Foundation. Based on our experience with the Human Genome Program, this will undermine our effort to ensure that social, ethical and environmental issues are part of the fabric of each nanotechnology center grant, and nearly guarantees that research on important societal and ethical concerns will not be relevant to or influence the research actually being conducted.

So rather than just focusing on one center, we wanted to build it, weave it, into the entire fabric.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, I am not prepared to go that far, and I usually go very far in trying to accommodate the wishes of all the members of my committee, regardless of affiliation or position on the dais.

But the fact of the matter is we have made a conscious determination that rather than focusing on one center we are going to weave this into the entire fabric of the whole nanotechnology initiative. For that reason, I think we better address the issue.

Therefore, while I am reluctant to oppose, I do oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

Was it Will Rogers that said I do not belong to an organization? No, never mind, I will not go into that one.

The fact of the matter is we are in general agreement on societal and ethical concerns and we have to pay a lot of attention to it, as we should. But I am unwilling to say that we have to devote an entire center to that one subject area, when in fact we are addressing that need by asking all of the centers or all of the research engaged under the National Nanotechnology Initiative to take into consideration societal and ethical concerns.

So I think we are actually broadening it in a way, without being so prescriptive that says we have to have brick and mortar in one location in America, and that is the solution to the problem.

I do not think that is the solution to the problem. I think it is to energize every single person who is operating under a research grant under this National Nanotechnology Initiative to be ever-mindful of the societal and ethical concerns.

Mr. Chairman, let me observe here that I am not unwilling to spend the taxpayers' money for a good reason, to support a wide range of programs that provide for a better lifestyle and improvement in our society.

But one of the reasons why our government is so big and so all- pervasive is that we have a bill like this and we say, now, we want everybody involved in a national nanotechnology initiative to be concerned about societal and ethical concerns; and we want all of these grants, and we want the grantees to pay attention to that. Then we say, in addition to that, we are going to build this new center over here, and I do not think we need the new center.

If we were silent on this very important subject area in the rest of the bill, then I would probably be jumping up and down in support of the Jackson-Lee amendment, but we are not silent. We have had the whole history of our committee deliberations, the whole history of this floor debate, and congressional intent is very important and it is clear in our intent: we want to address societal and ethical concerns. But there are going to be a whole bunch of people financed by the Federal Government saying that we do not need a brand-new center to do it.

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

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

(Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in support of this act. It authorizes an interagency research program that will

have enormous consequences for the future of our Nation. It is bipartisan legislation introduced in the Committee on Science by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who took the lead on it. It is cosponsored, of course, by Members from both sides of the aisle. This bill, which was ordered reported by a unanimous vote of the committee, will authorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative that is part of the President's budget request.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), and I thank him for his leadership, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) in developing this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Boehlert for working very cooperatively with Democratic leaders and Members and moving the bill through the committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for his hard work on the bill. His efforts have led to a strengthening of the outside advisory mechanism for the research program and to a process to help facilitate the transfer of research innovations to commercial applications.

Mr. Chairman, the advancement of civilization has been tied to human capabilities to manipulate and fashion materials. For example, the Stone Age gave way to the Bronze Age, which, in turn, gave way to the Iron Age. The trend has been a better understanding of material properties at a smaller and more detailed level.

We know now that we stand at the threshold of an age in which materials can be fashioned atom by atom. As a result, new materials can be designed with specified characteristics to satisfy any of those specific purposes.

The word ``revolutionary'' has become a cliche, but nanotechnology truly is revolutionary. In the words of a report from the National Research Council: ``The ability to control and manipulate atoms, to observe and simulate collective phenomena, to treat complex materials systems, and to span length scales from atoms to everyday experience, provides opportunities that were not even imagined a decade ago.''

Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information industry, for manufacturing, for medicine, and for health. Indeed, the scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product untouched.

The potential reach and impact of nanotechnology argues for careful attention to how it may affect society and, in particular, attention to particular downsides of the technology. While some concerns have already been raised that seem more in the realm of science fiction, there are also very real issues with the potential health and environmental effect of nanosized particles.

I believe it is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the very beginning in a straightforward and in an open manner. We know too well that negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. This has been the case with such technologies as nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and stem cell therapies.

Research is needed to provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology applications in order to allow informed judgments to be made by risks and cost-benefit trade-offs for specific implementations of the technology. Efforts must be made by the research community to open lines of communication with the public to make clear potential safety risks are being explored and not ignored.

We cannot once again go down the path where the research community simply issues a statement to the public: ``Trust us, it is safe.'' I am confident that this bill will help accomplish this goal.

My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), will offer an amendment at the appropriate point to further strengthen this aspect of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 766 authorizes $2.4 billion over 3 years for nanotechnology research and development at five agencies: the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and EPA. In addition to setting funding goals, this bill puts in place mechanisms for planning and coordinating and implementation of interagency research programs.

The bill also includes provisions for outside expert advice to help guide the research program and ensure its relevance to emerging technological opportunities and to industry. The advisory committee required by the bill is charged to review the goals, the content, the implementation, and administration of the nanotechnology initiative. The bill provides the administration with the flexibility either to designate an existing advisory panel or to establish a new panel to carry out its role. It is important, I think, whatever approach is used, that the advisory committee encompass a range of expertise needed to assess the technological content of the initiative as well as the education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical research aspects of this program.

Equally important, the advisory committee must focus sustained attention on the Nanotechnology Initiative over its lifetime in order to meet the comprehensive assessments required and the requirements specified by this legislation.

So I am pleased that H.R. 766 has identified the need for research to provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology applications. Annual reporting requirements, added by an amendment in committee by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), will allow Congress to track the agencies' activities that are related to societal and ethical concerns.

A problem that was identified in the Committee on Science's hearings on the bill is the difficulty that can arise in transitioning results from nanotechnology research into actual products and commercial applications. The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) successfully proposed an amendment in committee that will help address the problem through greater use of the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as is clear from the hearing record for H.R. 766, this bill enjoys widespread support from the research community and from industry. This is an important bill. It will help ensure the Nation maintains a vigorous research effort in a technology area that is emerging as increasingly important for the economy and for national security.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support its final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the Silicon Valley of California (Mr. Honda). I have already explained his importance to this legislation, his background and his ability to lead the development of nanotechnology. I am glad to recognize him as one of authors of this bill.

(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a very valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Dallas County, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have a great bill. We think that this amendment would help it. I support the bill whether we put the amendment on or not; but it seems to me that this just adds toxicological studies, which simply means in plain American language is we want to add health effects to it. In subsection 5, page 4, line 23, they point and ensure that societal and ethical concerns, including environmental concerns and potential implications of human performance enhancement and the possible development of nonhuman intelligence will be addressed. This simply adds health to it.

I think it aids the bill substantially. It brings some common sense to it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense, and the gentleman who offers the amendment is from Houston, Texas, which is a salient part of the energy thrust. And Texas being one of the 10 States that produces energy for the other 40 States thinks this is important. I think it is important to add it. It is simple. It simply adds including research on the potential of nanotechnology to produce or facilitate the production of clean, inexpensive energy. I think it helps, and I think it is consistent with the rest of the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, Texans cannot only think big, we can think little, too; and that is what we are doing.

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

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was correct when he pointed out that the amendment directs NSF to provide assistance to the National Nanotechnology Initiative in setting up and running the citizens panels, and I think that has to be in there because otherwise how would they know how to run the citizens panels if they do not hear from the citizens?

I yield to the gentleman from New York. And I think the gentleman is being cooperative in trying to help. I recognize that.

Mr. Chairman, I will wait to see the fruits of the gentleman's labors, and I thank the chairman for this extra work he is going into.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will paraphrase Will Rogers, who said he never met a man he didn't like. I think it is pretty obvious that Ms. Jackson-Lee, who is one of the hardest workers that I know in this Congress, never met an amendment or a bill she could not upgrade and she could not talk about and could not suggest on. I think she stresses the protection of societal and ethical issues.

As I said in my opening statement, I think it is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the beginning in a straightforward and open manner, and I think that is exactly what the gentlewoman has done. This is the amendment she requested, and this is the time I think to look at this amendment.

We are not going to burn the barn down and run the cattle off if we do not get every amendment we want. The chairman has worked with us and tried to help us. If there is any way to work this out to something less than the request she made, this is the time to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the chairman to get his feelings about whether or not that can be done or whether or not we have to simply put it to a vote of the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for that, and I yield back to the author to make an answer.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I have assured the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that we will give her representation at conference, and I have the greatest belief that the chairman will give us his ear during that time and as much support as he feels is justified at the time and under the circumstances. I am happy to do that for the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will try to drag out my speech as long as necessary so that the chairman's speakers will have time to arrive on this floor.

Mr. Chairman, small is big. Nanotechnology is very small, roughly the size of a molecule, and very small is going to be very big. Nanotechnology really encompasses virtually all of the cutting edge science that will pretty much determine our future this century, because it includes what is being done in genetic engineering, what is likely to be done in computer engineering, and it includes the molecular manufacturing dealing with a host of new products created molecule by molecule.

Nanotechnology offers the possibility, I think the probability, of solving most of the problems that we wrestle with here on the floor such as energy and health care. But if it is able to do that, it will also create even more challenging problems.

Nanotechnology will operate below the surface for quite some time until the basic technological and scientific challenges are met. But once we are able to manipulate matter at the molecular level, there will be an explosive impact on our society.

The last such explosion was the development of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Einstein and others wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939, describing the possibility of nuclear fission, and in less than a decade we as a species had to deal with the realities of nuclear weapons not only in the hands of America but other countries as well. That is why it is so important that this bill includes not only scientific research, but also every possible effort to deal with the societal implications that arise from this technology.

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for the bipartisan approach and the very reasoned approach taken during the markup of this bill to make sure the bill includes mechanisms to examine the societal impacts.

I bring just one of those impacts to your attention, and that is the creation of new levels of intelligence, whether that is done through what is sometimes referred to as wet nanotechnology, that is to say, genetic engineering; or whether it is done through what is sometimes called dry nanotechnology, computer engineering. Either of those two approaches may well create levels of intelligence that may be our protector, may be our competitor, or may simply regarded us as pets, or it may change our definition of what it is to be a human being.

Before we confront questions of that type, it is important that this bill, as it does, provides mechanisms for us to get input from a wide range of society because while these issues will not confront us this decade, it will take us more than a decade to see how we can deal with them.

I see that other speakers have arrived so my effort to stall has been successful, and I want to yield back my time just after I make one comment, and that is I understand that there are four amendments that will be offered today. I do not know if they will all be offered, but each of them is designed to enhance the bill further by having us take a look at the societal implications of nanotechnology, and I would hope that each such amendment would be perhaps accepted without a rollcall vote so that this bill can move over to the other body in the best possible form.

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

I rise in support of this amendment. It is my understanding that the amendment does not limit the societal impact that is going to be evaluated, but simply specifies that among the things to be looked at are the toxicological and the environmental.

I do not know whether the gentleman from Texas would want me to yield to him so that he could further explain whether his amendment would limit or perhaps just identify certain areas for such review.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the bill does a good job of dealing with the societal impacts. This amendment would make it better.

I just returned from spending 2 days at the conference of the Foresight Institute in Palo Alto devoted exclusively to looking at the societal impacts of nanotechnology. There I had extensive discussions with Eric Drexler who coined the term ``nano- technology,'' and got to meet the people from the Singularity Institute who are focusing on the implications of artificial intelligence.

One good aspect of this bill that I should point out is Michael Creighton's book ``Prey'' is identified with nanotechnology; and, in fact, whether or not what he describes in that book is possible, the bill already identifies six standards to be included in the safety standards for the research done in this technology. Following even some of those standards would be enough to put ``Prey'' to rest.

So the bill does have some excellent aspects to it. I think it could be enhanced by the amendment from the gentleman from Texas. I would also point out that the bill calls for societal impacts to be reviewed as part and parcel of scientific research so that when it is practical to fund scientific research, that the societal impacts are reviewed.

The bill also, and I think this is important, would allow us to look at the societal impact separately and prior to the time when it is appropriate to fund practical scientific studies. So it may be that we are not funding a particular type of technology because it is not ripe, but we do need to look at the societal impacts of that technology even before it is ripe to develop it.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to being part of the process as this bill moves to the other body. I think it is a bill that covers the societal impacts, and the amendment would only make it better.

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

I rise in support of this amendment. I think getting all of the citizen input possible is called for. I know that it has been discussed that perhaps the citizen panels on telecommunications did not create sufficient community interest. I for one found Tauzin-Dingell to be boring. I am not sure that my constituents found telecommunications to be a reason to drive long distances to participate in citizen panels. I think the issues that nanotechnology brings before us are simply going to create more citizen involvement and that the citizen panels here will be quite important.

Among the questions that this technology will raise, when I took the CPA test, they would not let me bring a calculator. A decade from now, chips will be implanted in people's brains. Can they take the CPA test? Do we have to disable the chip? I do not know. Today Shaquille O'Neil is the most dominating force on the basketball court, but what if parents decide that they want genes moved this way and that way so that their son or daughter could be even taller, even bigger? Will this person be eligible to participate in the NBA, and if so, will the Lakers get to draft that person? I do not know, but it strikes me as more interesting than much of telecommunications, and I know there are Members of this body very interested in telecommunications, and I praise them for that involvement.

The entire issue of artificial intelligence and what happens when a computer first asks us for the minimum wage, I do not know how we are going to react; but I think that these are questions we are going to confront in the next few decades. They are questions that should involve all of society. They involve the very issue of what it means to be a human being. They will arouse a level of theological debate that we did not face in telecommunications; and for those reasons I think that even if panels were not successful on that issue, they will be quite interesting on it. Before we change what it is to be human, we ought to ask humans what they think about.

I yield to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this shows the kind of bipartisanship and camaraderie that has been achieved under the chairman and ranking member on the Committee on Science, and I salute it.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and feel that it is really our next step for scientific discovery, and I want to thank our chairman and ranking member for the open and bipartisan manner in which this committee operates.

We do have potential for enormous consequences, and most of the real breakthrough research has come under the leadership of this committee throughout the last 2 or 3 decades. This bill could cause a great deal of brightness for the future in terms of studying the small particles and determining how it might lead us to another breakthrough.

I do value the public input, and I will be offering an amendment later, but I feel that the public should have some way to have some involvement. More and more we have more people getting involved in the public debate, asking questions and attempting to clarify what is going on, and often good scientific procedures interrupt it because we have an uninformed public and people who feel they have been left out; and because of that, I feel very strongly that we should have some type of offering for the general public to have input, to listen to the witnesses when there is a hearing, so that they can feel a part of this.

This is going to be publicly financed, and we are hoping that this would eliminate some of the suspicion and paranoia that often comes from very honest and interested people simply because they do not know what is going on.

I think that it would add a valuable asset to this legislation. I am going to support it whether or not the amendment is adopted, but I do feel that that is the one thing we have left out, that it can be of great value to this legislation and, more importantly, to the process of this research.

The area from which I have come will be a leader in some of this research, and I am from a pretty highly educated, involved community that will be asking these questions, and we have a lot of demonstrators that will be marching to find out what is going on. I think we can eliminate much of this with a simple amendment that allows for some type of public input as we move along into this new area of broadening of the activity in this new area of nanotechnology.

I thank the leadership of the committee and the Members for working so closely together.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that I have for H.R. 766. It has to do with adding under the auspices of the National Science Foundation a citizens advisory committee. There is nothing sinister about my desire to do this. I want to do this because I feel that more and more citizen input is demanded by citizens. This research will be paid for by citizens. And to have someone to sit and listen and get an understanding simply creates a more positive attitude throughout society, I feel, with the research.

This is going to be research that people do not understand very well. Even the researchers will not understand it too well until they start to do the research. It could provide revolutionary advances in health care and dramatically increase our life-span. But people need to know this. They need to know that this is not going to be perhaps research on stem cells or whatever, so

that the fears can be allayed, the anxieties can be eliminated because of this. This powerful and pervasive technology, while promising great benefits, has its downsides.

While I support the bill, I do have that one concern, that the views of the general public who will bear the brunt of the consequences, both good and bad, have no input in the planning and execution of the research program and no input as to asking questions and getting answers as the research goes on. As I indicated, taxpayers are paying for the development of this technology and they have a right to have a voice in this research agenda.

My amendment goes to the heart of this problem. It provides for small panels of ordinary citizens to be assembled to examine important societal issues about nanotechnology. Panelists would be selected across the socioeconomic spectrum, ordinary, practical Americans. These citizen panels would hear expert testimony from those doing the research, listen to arguments about the applications and consequences presented by all sides and develop an agenda of major public issues to address. These John Q. Public panels will provide agencies carrying out the nanotechnology R&D program and the broader public of the common ground among the cross-section of Americans on the goals and directions of this R&D program.

The bill does provide support for experts to address the societal and ethical concerns of nanotechnology. However, that is the problem when only the experts are involved. These are the same type of experts that did not provide effective guidance on how to address societal and ethical concerns on genetically modified foods, and now we still have a question about whether or not they are safe to eat, human stem cell research and cloning. As a witness pointed out during a hearing on nanotechnology, social and ethical expert panels frequently become captive to the technology they are supposed to be providing oversight on. I believe that there is evidence that expert panels are not by themselves sufficient to address broad public concerns. That is why my amendment explicitly calls for citizen panels.

Members may ask, why is this important? Just think about the public backlash and debate on genetically modified organisms, think Frankenfoods, human stem cell research, and cloning to name a few. When the public was asked to accept the results of these technologies and asked simple, commonsensical questions, the research community said trust us, the fatalists said the world would come to an end, and no one really required the science community to sit down with the public and discuss the benefits and possible costs of these technologies. As a result, the full potential of these technologies have not been realized. Citizen panels promise to avoid this logjam by allowing the public's voice to be heard during the development period of the technology, not after it is introduced.

Today I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to put in place a proven approach to help increase public understanding of nanotechnology and provide an avenue for ordinary Americans to influence the direction of this R&D initiative.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have heard a couple of times that the amendment was opposed because the administration did not want it. Could you tell me the objection of the administration? How did they find little old me with this little old amendment to object to it?

If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, there was other language that had been attempted as substitute language. Would the gentleman accept that as an amendment? I have it prepared to submit it.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask the chairman of the committee. Since there is objection to the details of this citizens panel, there was a suggestion after much dialogue with the chairman and staff to recommend a more watered-down version of it. I would rather have the watered-down version than to not have a citizens panel because I think it is just going to prevent a great deal of turmoil later. I do not know how long it will take us to convince people that genetically modified foods are safe; but I think that if the education had started right along with the research, we would not be dealing with that problem.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and wait for the details to be worked out.

Mr. Chairman, this substitute amendment which I am offering now does essentially the same thing except that it is very voluntary; and if that is acceptable to the Chair and to the majority, then I will accept this amendment. So I would move its adoption.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the traditional approach on environmental and health concerns for new technologies is to simply wait until there is a problem.

Instead of reacting down the line in response to environmental or health problems that may arise in the development of nanotechnology, we have the opportunity through this amendment to understand the risk involved as we move forward in our research now.

One common, often fair, criticism of government is that we are slow and reactive. Here is a chance for all of us to be proactive.

This amendment will ensure that the environmental and toxicological impacts of nanotech applications are studied during the developmental process so that problems can be spotted early on and fixed before any damage is done. Prevention is better and cheaper than cleanup. I think everybody would agree with that.

History has many examples of promising technologies whose hidden costs and risks were only determined after widespread adoption. These include nuclear power, which continues to generate an enormous amount of toxic waste; DDT, which wiped out malarial mosquitoes in the U.S. but was harmful to animal life; semiconductor manufacturing, which ushered in the computer revolution but resulted in environmental contamination.

There are other examples of science moving forward but then looking at the implications after the fact. Probably the best most recent example is stem cell research; and regardless of where one lines up in that debate, I think everyone can agree that it would have been smarter for us to look at some of the societal concerns while the research was being developed instead of after the fact.

We have a responsibility to quantify the risks ahead of time. We have a responsibility to minimize the unintended consequences. Currently, the toxicological impacts of nanotechnology are not being studied because no funding has been allocated to make it happen. Ultrafine particles, particles larger than nanoparticles, such as asbestos and ultrafine quartz particles, have been known to cause damage to the lungs.

We would like to know the toxic effects of nanoparticles. To date, only one comprehensive study has been performed to examine the possible toxicity of nanoparticles. A group of researchers recently discovered that mice and rats develop scar tissue in their lungs after exposure to carbon nanotubes. This was the first preliminary study that examines the possible toxicological risks of nanotechnology. I would submit that these studies must continue.

What is the impact on the human body? The answer is that we do not know, but that is a question that we must be able to answer. These very preliminary studies show us that further research is needed. There are issues of risks associated with every new technology. Concerns about nanoparticles' toxicity must be addressed while the field is still young and exposure is limited.

We in this body have the responsibility to ensure that the necessary research is being performed to ensure the continued safety of our communities in the face of this exciting new technology.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

In no way would it limit, and that is why we specifically used language that said ``including toxicological and environmental concerns.'' Researchers in this area would still be free to study a wide range of societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology. We just want to make sure that included in that research will be research going toward toxicological and environmental concerns as well.

Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Science and I happen to disagree on what could possibly lead to arbitrariness as this research concerning nanotechnology goes forward. It is my fear if we do not set forth some of the areas in particular that we would like to see studied, they could be overlooked. But it is in no way limiting the scope of the research that will be conducted regarding societal and ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, just after being sworn in as a Member of Congress, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Richard Smalley, who is a Nobel Laureate who now teaches at Rice University and is recognized as a leader in the area of nanotechnology.

During the course of his speech, many of his remarks were directed towards the impact that photoresearch and the area of nanotechnology could have in the area of energy. He pointed out to the crowd assembled that evening how in this particular area regarding energy, nanotechnology could very much change the world in which we live. I am not a scientist, but when people start talking about how something could change the world in a very beneficial manner, those words get my attention.

The purpose of the amendment that we present here today is to single out energy, along with the other important areas for research that are already set forth within the bill.

Nanotechnology holds the promise to make energy production cheap and relatively pollution-free by reducing the cost of solar and fuel cell technology anywhere from 10 to 100 fold. Nanotech lighting technology could replace incandescent and fluorescent lights with enormous energy cost savings across every sector of the economy.

If we look at what is going on in the United States today regarding the cost of energy, the price of gasoline skyrocketing all across the country, the cost of natural gas rising so high that plants are threatening to close and move overseas on an almost daily basis, I think all of us can understand the need for looking for low-cost alternative energy sources, especially when it could be a clean source of energy.

Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology holds the promise of tomorrow because it

truly is the technology of the future. Its application will be felt across the spectrum of scientific research. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the development of this exciting field and pinpoint energy as an area that is very much deserving of further study.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out if we can get a group of Texans excited about looking for a clean, inexpensive form of energy, the House of Representatives should not balk at that opportunity.

This is an extraordinary opportunity in many respects. We are not trying to limit the research, just as I pointed out previously in regard to the earlier amendment.

This is simply to include a provision in the bill that will lead researchers to look at energy technology and provide funding for energy technology down the line so we can study this. This is not an area that is widely discussed when people talk about nanotechnology. But given what some of the leaders in this area of research have pointed out, there is tremendous optimism that it could lead to a sustainable, clean-burning, inexpensive source of energy; and we should not miss the opportunity to look at that as we are studying nanotechnology.