To amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, and also to thank him for his help on this bill we are going to be taking up.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we have had differences of opinion, differences of policy and differences concerning procedure for the last couple of days. You have that at the end of a session before you go into a work period, and I am afraid we are going to have some more, and that is unfortunate. But we have an opportunity, at least for the next hour, to have a little window of civility, a little window to work together on a bill, a conference report that is bipartisan and bicameral. It is a competitiveness bill. It is a bill that is going to make America a better place for all of our kids and grandkids. I want to take just a little time to tell you about it.

This bill is a compilation of five bills that we passed out of the Science Committee on a bipartisan basis that came to the House floor, none of which received more than 23 votes against them. Then we piled them all together as a suspension and it passed unanimously.

Lamar Alexander in the Senate did yeoman's work by going to the Senators and getting 70 cosponsors. It passed in the Senate 88-8. Truly this is a bipartisan, bicameral bill.

The reason is, it is a good bill that is going to help manufacturers and businesses, it is going to help workers, it is going to help teachers, it is going to help students, to be able to help America to be in the lead in the world in terms of manufacturing, research, technology and innovation.

Again, I want to tell you how this bill came about. Three years ago, Sherry Boehlert, then the chairman of the Science Committee; Lamar Alexander, who was chairman of the Science Committee in the Senate; myself and Jeff Bingaman, we all asked the National Academies to do a report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st Century. It was a sobering report.

Norm Augustine, the former chairman of Lockheed, Craig Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and several noted scholars and other business individuals came together and said America was on a losing track, which meant that my 6-year-old daughter, many of your children and grandchildren, these two children right here, could be the first generation of Americans to inherit a national standard of living less than their parents, a complete reversal of the American dream. That is why so many of us came together to try to do something.

This is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. This simply is a compilation of the recommendations of the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

Let me tell you a little bit about this bill. It really composes three general areas.

The first is they said we have got to lead the world in terms of our science and our research, our innovation. So this bill is an authorization that is going to double over the next 7 years the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and the Department of Energy, as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Let me remind you, because I know there are some folks who are going to say this is going to be too much money. This is an authorization. My friend from Tennessee and the other appropriators will determine whether it is going to be too much. We will work together to make that determination. This is a responsible, I think, 7-year increase.

Then they came back to us and they said that American manufacturers and American workers have to work at a higher skill level. There are 7 billion people in the world right now, and half of them make less than $2 a day. We don't want to compete like that. We can't compete like that. So that means if they are making one widget in India or China, we have got to make 50 widgets here in America. And we need to be not only making the widgets, we need to be inventing the widget maker and manufacturing that widget maker here in this country.

If we are going to do that, then whether you are a high school graduate, a junior college graduate, a college graduate, you have got to work at a higher level, which means you are going to have to have science and math skills.

But the report tells us we are not doing very well in that area. As a matter of fact, right now, only Cyprus and

South Africa have lower scores than we do in the science and math areas.

So what do we do about this? Well, they looked around and tried to figure out what the problem is. Are Americans just not as smart? No, that is not the problem. Do we need maybe smaller classrooms or more equipment? Those things would help. But the real problem is this, and listen to this: The fact is 67 percent of the teachers that teach in middle school in this country have neither a major nor a certification to teach math. And 87 percent of the physical science teachers in this country have neither a certification nor a major to teach those subjects. So it is very difficult to teach or inspire if you haven't had an opportunity to really understand those courses. This is not a slur to those good teachers. I want to give you a personal story.

My father was a farmer. World War II comes along. He enlists, comes back, and he wants to be even a better farmer. So he takes advantage of the GI bill and goes to college at Middle Tennessee State University. He gets a degree in agriculture. Well, a few years later I come along and my mother had to give up her job. She was working at a high school cafeteria. So my father applied to be a teacher in addition to being a farmer. He was the last person hired to teach at Smyrna High School in my home county. So since he was the last person hired, you might imagine, he was assigned to teach high school science and to coach girls basketball. I am not sure which he knew the least about, which really wasn't fair to him or his students.

And so we want to take care of those good smart people, those good smart teachers, and help them do a better job. So we are going to bring those kinds of teachers during the summer and, with stipends, allow them to get their certifications, hopefully AP, IB. Hopefully they will get a master's.

We are also going to have a whole new corps of teachers. We want to provide competitive scholarships for 10,000 students a year that will go into math, science and education and agree to teach for 5 years. And 5 years is important, because we find that half the teachers quit teaching in the first 5 years. We have to get them over that hump.

Next they said, and this may sound familiar, they said that America needs to be energy independent. This was before we started talking about the price of oil going up. This was before that. They gave us a way to do that. They suggested we look at the Department of Defense, DARPA, for a model. There is something in the Department of Defense called DARPA. It is an advanced research operation that takes high risk, high rewards. It is where the Internet was discovered and developed, and it is where stealth technology was developed.

They said this is a proven model. Take it over to the Department of Energy and set up a high-risk, high-reward agency there, but have very narrow management. Have a few employees and let them manage programs. Take the seven or eight most cutting-edge types of technologies, those that can really jump us ahead, and let's crash on them. Let's bring in the national labs, the private sector, the public sector and our universities, and let's make some real breakthroughs. Now, if one doesn't work, fine; pull the plug. But let's not be afraid to fail because we have to make these types of jumps in technology so we can have not only energy independence, but we will also have new jobs and new exports for America.

That is what we did. We brought all of these things together, and that is why we have a bipartisan, bicameral bill. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my friend and ranking member for the work that he did in bringing this bill before us today. I also want to thank him on all of the good things that he said about this bill. It sounds like we almost got him.

We did have a conference, and when you have a conference, you have to make compromises. This is probably not a perfect bill, but as Dr. Ehlers said earlier, he has never seen that perfect bill. But I will remind everyone that every Senator, Democrat and Republican, signed the conference report, and it was bipartisanly signed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand my friend from Wisconsin's concerns. In the House, we did pass a 10-year doubling of the National Science Foundation. In the Senate, they passed an authorization for 5 years. Seven was a compromise, I think a reasonable compromise, and I remind everyone that we're in a pay-as- you-go budget, and the appropriators know they have to pay for what they appropriate. So I think that was a good and fair compromise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), a very valued member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the eloquent remarks of Mr. Ehlers. He's a great addition to our committee.

Mr. Speaker, would you report on the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Lipinski.

I thank my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for not only his support for this bill but his very active, passionate work on the Science Committee. He is a valued member.

Also let me point out that I think the endorsements of this bill, by the National Chamber of Commerce, by the National Association of Manufacturers, by Business Roundtable indicate very well that this bill very much is in the economic scope.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Science Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friend from Illinois that there is nothing, nothing in this bill that says that the Department of Energy, the Office of Science, or RPE cannot do research on coal-to-liquid. Nothing in this bill stops that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Science, Mr. Lampson from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I know the minority leader is very sincere about his concerns here. I wish I had the time to address them one by one.

Let me just quickly remind everyone that we look at this bill, the American Chamber of Commerce thinks it is a good investment, the National Association of Manufacturers thinks it is a good investment, the Business Roundtable thinks it is a good business. Virtually every business major in America thinks this is a good investment. All the universities and research agencies thinks it is a good investment. But there can be sincere differences of opinion.

Mr. Speaker, could you report to me the time I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes of those to my friend and colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. Eshoo.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

I say to my friend from Tennessee, ``Well said.''

And now I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the great Speaker of the House of Representatives (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new but valued member of our committee, Mr. McNerney from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our very able subcommittee chairmen, Mr. Baird.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hall earlier in the presentation said that he was going to have a motion to recommit on coal to liquid. Let me just remind all of my colleagues there is not one word, not one single word, in this bill that would stop any investment, any research in coal to liquid.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the Democratic and Republican Members that attended all those meetings where we could develop this good bill. I want to say thank you to subcommittee Chairmen Baird, Lampson, Udall, and Wu; Ranking Members Ehlers, Inglis, Feeney, and Gingrey for their effort in putting this bill together.

Let me also say we have 70 Democratic and Republican staff members that have worked on this bill, and that is basically what we have been doing for the last few months. I would like to thank every one of them personally, but there is not going to be the time. So let me just say thanks to Chuck Atkins, our chief of Staff; Leslie Gilbert; and Mr. Hall's chief of staff for all the work they have put together. I hope that the staff's thank you is seeing this bill enacted, seeing the good work that is going to come from this, knowing that their kids and grandkids are going to live in a better America. I don't know a better thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

We've heard a lot of discussion, pro and con, on this bill. It is a good bill. Now, it spends more money than I would like. It actually lists more money than we will ever spend. This is an authorization bill; it is not an appropriations bill. And I know from 14 years of trying to get the appropriators to spend more money on science research that they will not appropriate anywhere near the money that we are authorizing in this bill. So, please don't think because it's a bigger bill than we expected that it's actually going to result in those expenditures.

Let me also comment about the investment aspect. I get tired of the word ``investment'' here. Everyone says we're going to invest money in this, we're going to invest in that, when actually we are just spending money. But this is a bill where we're clearly investing money, and there is a return on the investment in this money, because we are investing in research with a return on it.

When I first came to the Congress I was commissioned by Chairman Sensenbrenner and by Speaker Gingrich to write a report on where we should be going in science in this country. I did so and I examined this investment issue. I tried to pin it down.

There are lots of expert estimates on the return on investment on scientific research. The lowest figure I found was 25 percent annual return. The biggest number I found was 4,000 percent annual return. Take your pick between, but it's better than any other investment you can do. There is substantial return on science investment.

Let me give you one example. Years ago, when I was a graduate student, a friend of mine, Charles Townes, now a Nobel Prize winner, developed a laser. We all knew the principles of it. We knew he would likely succeed at some point. He operated with government funding, through a research contract. I don't know the exact amount, but I doubt if it was a great deal more than $10 million in the dollars of that day. He did develop the laser.

Today, the laser has created a multi-, multi-, multibillion dollar industry. The clothes you are wearing were cut out with lasers. Many of you have had laser surgery in hospitals or in doctors' offices. Every pipeline laid in this country is laid with directional laser beams. Every ceiling hung in this country and throughout the world is hung with the use of lasers.

The first laser I had cost about $1,000. I used it for research in the lab. Today, for $15.00 I can buy an equivalent laser in the gift shop in the Longworth building to use as a pointer. All of that, this multibillions of dollars simply from a $10 million Federal grant. That is the type of return we're talking about here.

This bill is a blueprint for the direction we want to go. We will by no means do all the projects in here. We will by no means invest all the money that is authorized here. Science is a progressive field. We will do the research. We'll find what pays off, and what doesn't pay off. This progressive process of science will allow us to efficiently allocate our resources as we determine the results.

Now, there are some things in this bill I don't think are that good. ARPA-E receives a lot of mention. I don't know if it will work. It worked fantastically in the Defense Department when we did it there. Will it work here? We don't know. We'll find out. If not, we kill the project.

We spent a lot of money here in the first years the Republicans took over this majority in doubling the investment in the National Institutes of Health. The amount of money we put into the National Institutes of Health alone during that period is greater than the total sum of money authorized in this bill. We put it in. It has paid off. Better health products, better analytical techniques to determine illness, to find cures. Very rarely, if you do the science carefully and it's peer-reviewed, very rarely do you find out that it is a bad investment.

Another aspect, we are losing out to other nations in international competition. We are losing out in science and math education. We're losing out in innovation. We're losing out, obviously, in manufacturing because of outsourcing.

If you look at the proof of that, simply examine the scores of our students in 12th grade classes in math and science in international tests across the entire world. Where do we come out? You've heard Chairman Gordon mention some of that a little while ago, but we are not proud of the results.

In physics, we are last of the developed countries in our student scores in 12th grade physics. We are second from the last to all developed nations in the scores for mathematics in 12th grade. We are about fifth from the bottom in general science, just a composite of science subject. In the PITA studies which were completed recently in mathematics comparing students in developed nations, the United States was last out of 21 nations.

We cannot compete in this world if we don't improve. We have to teach our students better. We have to train our teachers better. We have to train the teachers coming out of college so that they can teach in the high schools. We have to train the teachers who are already teaching, who from my experience I know want to teach better, but they have never been properly taught science and math or how to teach it. That again is part of this bill.

America is based on competition. We are a competitive Nation. We survive on competition. We thrive on it. Give us a chance. Give our kids a chance by properly training them to be able to do the scientific research and the technical work that this world needs.

We have to conquer this manufacturing problem we have now. We talk about jobs going overseas because there are cheaper wages. I have talked to manufacturers. I have a manufacturing district. That's not it. They're going overseas to get the talent, not to get the cheap salaries.

With our cutback on H-1B visas, many of my manufacturers are being forced to go abroad to get the work done. I don't like it. They don't like it. And if we do the job right, we will once again bring those jobs back to this country.

Finally, I just want to mention the huge number of endorsements this bill has received. The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it and is scoring it. The National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed and is scoring it. And I've a list here and Chairman Gordon has also handed out a list of some 30 different scientific organizations supporting this bill.

This is not a fly-by-night bill. It may be more expensive than we want, but we won't spend all the money, I can guarantee that, because the research will be thriftily done and through a progressive scientific method of handing the money out and doing the research step by step.

This conference report represents the culmination of years of work by many people. Expert reports from the National Academies, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and Business Higher Education Forum--just to name a few--kept telling Congress that the federal government must increase its investment in basic research and in science and math education, and must ensure that the funds it invests are spent on programs that will keep the U.S. competitive in the global economy. These reports had an enormous impact on the White House's thinking about competitiveness, and resulted in the President's introduction of the ``American Competitiveness Initiative''. Congress has responded to the recommendations about precisely what steps the government should take in the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 before us.

Beginning in 2006, the President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), launched a three-pronged approach to competitiveness by strengthening research at the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and the laboratories and construction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This bill fully supports the ACI-requested improvements as well as strengthens programs focused on teacher training and education in science, technology, engineering and math.

The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 also includes some new ideas, such as the establishment of a DARPA-like agency at the Department of Energy. While I have been skeptical of this idea, it did originate with the experts at the National Academies, and, if it is able to achieve its goals of overcoming some of the great technology hurdles needed to

solve our energy problems, it would be revolutionary. The conference committee recommended $300 million to get this idea off the ground, a much lower amount than was originally proposed.

Last but not least, the bill also addresses the long-term problems facing our nation's manufacturers by broadening and strengthening manufacturing extension services and reviving manufacturing innovation through collaborative research and development. Although manufacturing has experienced tremendous technological gains over the last few years, international competition has exacted a toll on our nation's manufacturers. There is no evidence that these pressures are likely to go away, but this bill takes steps to help our manufacturing workforce grow and innovate.

It is clear that our nation is at a crossroads. The U.S. will either invest in innovation or witness the gradual erosion of our economic position and, quite possibly, the quality of life to which Americans have become accustomed. I recognize that many of my colleagues are concerned that this bill spends more than $40 billion dollars over the next three years. If there is ever an investment that will guarantee an economic return, this is it. To quote from the executive summary of the National Academy of Science (NAS) report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future:

Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the

committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and

technical building blocks of our economic leadership are

eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering

strength . . . [W]e are worried about the future prosperity

of the United States . . . We fear the abruptness with which

a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the

difficulty of recovering a lead once lost.

Science and technology are the fundamental movers of our economy, and if we want to remain globally competitive, this bill is the sure fire way to guarantee results. The dividends paid by training scientists, engineers, and teachers will multiply throughout all sectors of our economy.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working on all of the bills that have become a part of the 21st Century Competitiveness Act. I hope my colleagues will support this investment in our nation's future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

What an exciting day for the Congress. Some of you are too young to know this, but you have read about it in the history books. Mr. Hall and I remember when President Kennedy came forward and said that he was going to inaugurate a program that would send a man to the moon and back, safely, within 10 years.

Now, for those of you who weren't born yet, you have read about it in history, you have to know that sending a man to the moon as an idea was such an impossibility. It would be almost like a magician cutting somebody in half and then putting them together again.

How could this possibly happen, that somebody would go into the sky, to the moon and come back?

At the time that he did that, it was a remarkable lift to the American people because it had followed upon Sputnik, as many of you know or have read in the history books and some of us remember. When he did that, President

Kennedy made the following statement. He said, ``The vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we are first, and therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others all require us to make this effort,'' hearkening back to our Founders, those magnificent, courageous, optimistic, confident people, and President Kennedy referenced our vows to their great work.

This is our innovation agenda which is reflected in the legislation before us today. In answering President Kennedy's call, at that time, to put a man on the Moon, America unleashed unprecedented technological advances that built the world's most vibrant economy. The talent, intellect and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people that made this country the leader is being seriously challenged today by other countries. Americans must continue to innovate in order to create new, thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for the next generation.

The distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and the distinguished ranking member, in bringing this bill to the floor today, are giving us our opportunity at our time to meet the challenge for the future. Today Congress has the opportunity to make a decision for the future.

Nearly 2 years ago, House Democrats created our innovation agenda in a very bipartisan way, which guarantees our national security and our economic prosperity, expands markets for American products, and asserts our leadership throughout the world in the decades to come. Already this year the New Direction Congress has led the way in promoting innovation and investments in education, science, research and development.

Today, with the COMPETES Act, we have bipartisan, bicameral legislation that implements much of the innovation agenda. Again, I want to recognize the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Bart Gordon and the Science and Technology Committee and the ranking member for their leadership on this conference report. Chairman Gordon has energized this committee, ensuring that our Nation will continue to be the world leader in education, innovation and economic growth.

The COMPETES Act focuses on four key areas, as has been referenced: education, research and development, energy independence, and small business.

In education, the COMPETES Act recognized that America's greatest resources for innovation are in the classrooms across this country. This legislation invests in creating the most highly qualified teachers and training the next generations of scientists, mathematicians and engineers through public-private partnerships. This bill also takes steps to ensure that future innovators reflect the diversity of our country.

What I love about this bill and this legislation is that it's market- oriented, public-private entrepreneurial partnerships to keep us number one.

We know that innovation begins in the classroom and that scientific research provides the foundation for innovation and future technologies. The COMPETES Act makes a sustained commitment to research and development by putting us on a path to doubling funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

I heard Congressman Wamp with great enthusiasm talk about the ARPA-- Energy. I'm excited about it as well. To help achieve energy independence, the COMPETES Act focuses on energy research and innovation by creating a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E.

Mr. Chairman, I know your enthusiasm for that issue for a long time, and congratulations on bringing it to fulfillment here. This initiative will provide talent and resources for high-risk, high-reward energy research and technology development and attract investment for the next generation of revolutionary technologies.

And finally, the COMPETES Act recognizes that small businesses are often the catalyst for technological innovation and the backbone of the strong economy. It puts us on a path to doubling the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and creates a new initiative, the Technology Innovation Program, to support high-risk, high-reward, pre- competitive technology for small and medium-sized companies.

Because this bill is a decision in favor of future jobs and future economic strength, it's earned the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce, many university presidents, ITI, TechNet, and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. And before I close, I want to acknowledge the great leadership of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman George Miller, who is the Chair of our Policy Committee, for the work they did bringing people together, Democrats and Republicans, entrepreneurs, high tech, biotech, academics, people in the work force, students, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, all to come to bear, all over the country. Meetings were held all over the country to put together the innovation agenda which is reflected in this legislation. Mr. Baird had an event in Washington State. As I look around, I could name so many Members who had events in their States. In doing so today, in passing this bill, we will assert our global economic leadership, create new business ventures and jobs, and give future generations the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

I began my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by quoting President Kennedy, who was an inspiration to so many of us of a certain generation who are active in public service today.

He hearkened back to our Founders and our vows to our Nation, and I want to hearken back to that place too, because our Founders were among the earliest American entrepreneurs. They were magnificent disrupters. They thought new and fresh and different ways. They came together. Imagine the confidence. They came together, declared their independence from the greatest naval power in existence at the time, did so in a declaration that asserted the equality of all people, and then went forward to win the Revolutionary War, write a Constitution that made us the freest people in the world. Thank heavens they made it amendable so that we could even become freer. And when they did so, they designed the Great Seal of the United States. And on it, it's in your pocket. You're carrying it around if you don't know it. It's on the dollar bill. And on that great seal it says, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum.''

These people, with all that revolutionary spirit, with all that disruption of the status quo, had so much confidence in what they were doing, so much faith in themselves, faith in this country to be and faith in God that they said that what they were establishing was for the centuries, for the ages, ``seclorum.'' Those of you who know Latin know that that means ``forever.'' And it was that optimism, that confidence that built America. And it is in that spirit of disruption, of change, of doing something different, of having a big goal of aspiring to greatness, that we, as President Kennedy said, do honor the vows of our Nation. And this legislation is very much in their pioneer and entrepreneurial spirit.

I thank you again, Chairman Gordon, for your tremendous leadership.

Mr. Speaker I reluctantly rise today in opposition to the America COMPETES Act of 2007, H.R. 2272. I am a firm supporter of education and innovation in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. Unfortunately, I cannot endorse a bill that creates 40 new programs and spends tens of billions of dollars.

I devote a great amount of my time working on manufacturing issues. The congressional district I represent has over 2,500 industries. Manufacturing has several components, one of which is getting workers with adequate skills to be machinists, plus having an adequate supply of engineers and others involved in that aspect of manufacturing. At present I am involved in trying to solve workforce problems, which in turn, in many cases, depend upon people who have a good understanding of science, tech, engineering and math. I am a member of the Council on Competitiveness, a co-chair of the Manufacturing Caucus, and Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on Manufacturing. As previous Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I held countless hearings on competitiveness. I travel this country and overseas studying machine tools, manufacturing efficiencies, global supply chains, manufacturing financing, IP protection, export controls, etc. I've also lectured extensively on America's need to be globally competitive.

In a good faith effort by both parties to make America more competitive, I believe we may be sliding a slope very few realize even exists. For example, this bill forgives student loans for individuals who teach math and science. While this is a noble idea, this sets the precedent for other vocations to receive loan forgiveness. When will we draw the line? Will we forgive loans for firefighters, policemen, federal government employees, doctors, and lawyers? Who decides which profession deserves preferential treatment? Extending the years of loan payment or perhaps reducing interest rates on critical professions in underserved areas may be a consideration, but loan forgiveness can put us on the road to ``free'' federal education for everybody. The price tag is unimaginable.

Furthermore, today's bill is a composite of five different bills which have already passed the House. Attaching these bills together is not prudent legislation because it forces a Member of Congress to vote for or against the entire package even though he may have been in favor of a more modest approach. For example, I voted in favor of the authorizations for the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867) and the National Institute for Standards and Technology (H.R. 1868)--two agencies whose missions are vital to America's competitiveness. In addition, a third bill, H.R. 1068, updating research goals of the National High-Performance Computing Program, is also worthy

and actually passed on a voice vote. However, these three bills were combined with: H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act. These two latter bills forced me to reluctantly vote against the whole package--especially since this combined bill contains $20.3 billion more than the five original bills and creates forty new science, tech, engineering and math (STEM) programs. I find this to be particularly wasteful when considering the fact that scores of current programs have not been found to be effective as evidenced in three separate studies by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the US Department of Education (DOE), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The GAO in October, 2005, issued a report stating that in fiscal year 2004 there were over 207 different science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs spending approximately $2.8 billion annually spread throughout 13 agencies. Only half of the programs have been internally evaluated, with the reporting agencies stating the programs were effective and met established goals of attracting more students to study STEM courses, but, GAO added, ``some programs that have not been evaluated have operated for many years.'' These agencies made suggestions to GAO, but GAO concluded that before adopting any suggestions ``it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM education programs are appropriately targeted'' so as to make the best use of available federal resources. The purpose of GAO is to determine whether taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. GAO's language indicates there is no basis to make that conclusion because too many programs simply have never been evaluated for efficiency.

The second study--a Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in May of 2007--showed 115 evaluations were submitted for 105 STEM programs and only ten evaluations were found to be ``scientifically rigorous.'' The report went on to say that, ``[b]ased on the 115 evaluations, the ACC's review that despite decades of significant federal investment in science and math education, there is a general dearth of evidence of effective practices and activities in STEM education (emphasis original).''

The third study was conducted by the OMB through a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Analysis of 88 programs within the Department of Education and only four were proven to be effective. Among those programs whose results were not demonstrated was the Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnership program. This program provides grants to state and local education agencies to improve student's academic achievement in math and sciences. The program was not found to be well managed, and it did not establish performance measures.

On the basis of the information provided by GAO, DOE, and OMB, I am surprised that we are considering the creation of 40 additional STEM programs. We should be evaluating and consolidating all existing STEM programs, and save money at the same time. Instead, the House of Representatives is adding more programs and spending tens of billions more.

While I continue to remain a firm supporter of U.S. industry and competitiveness, I believe that there are better ways to accomplish this than spending billions of dollars on new and unproven programs while hundreds of programs continue with little or no accountability. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Motion to Recommit, which still spends too much money, but as opposed to the combined bill reduces the overall spending of the combined bill by $20.3 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007,'' and in particular Section 1001, which authorizes approximately $712 million for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion in Norfolk Harbor at a Federal cost share of 50 percent, or approximately $356 million. The Virginia Port Authority's Eastward Expansion is a project of national significance and is vital to the efficient movement of goods for our country.

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of those individuals whose strong commitment and tireless efforts made Section 1001 possible. First and foremost, I would like to recognize my distinguished leader of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Ranking Member John Mica for once again delivering on his promise to support the needs of his Committee members on issues of importance to them and their districts; also, Congressman Richard Baker, Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for his leadership and legislative expertise without which WRDA would have once again gone unauthorized; and Senator John Warner, Craney Island's champion and the Commonwealth of Virginia's leader in the Senate; for his steadfast dedication to seeing this vision to fruition.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to two other individuals, not Members of Congress, but without whom we would not be here today. As Governor of Virginia and then Senator, George Allen always supported the expansion of Craney Island, recognizing its impact not only on the Commonwealth but the Nation. Robert ``Bobby'' Bray, who retired this year after 29 years as Executive Director of the Virginia Port Authority, always saw the Craney Island Eastward Expansion not only as a major port development project but also as an opportunity to enhance the quality of life for all Americans. To these and countless others, on behalf of the 2nd District of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and our Nation, I extend my sincere gratitude.

The Eastward Expansion of Craney Island is truly a matter of national significance. When complete, this landmark project will provide capacity for additional material dredged to maintain navigability of the region's shipping channels in addition to providing land on which to build a much-needed fourth marine terminal in Hampton Roads.

In 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of Craney Island. The study has been completed and the Eastward Expansion of Craney Island was recommended as the best alternative. Initially, the project costs considered for Federal participation comprised only the design and construction of the dredged material placement site, known as the Eastward Expansion. At that time, the Federal cost share for the project was identified as approximately 4 percent, and the Virginia Port Authority share as approximately 96 percent. It is important to note that the cost of the marine terminal construction (approximately $1.6 billion) will be solely the responsibility of the Virginia Port Authority.

Because the Corps had been constrained by policies that did not take into account the unique dual nature of the Craney Island Project, the initial plan formulation and cost share were determined based only on the Federal interest in the least cost for dredge material placement only part of the authorization to conduct the study. This method of determining the cost share did not take into account the substantial National transportation savings benefits associated with the port construction on the Eastward Expansion of Craney Island, which is the second part of the study authorization.

This Craney Island Marine Terminal will provide national economic development benefits of nearly $6 billion in transportation savings. The Port of Virginia is a major international gateway to the Midwest. In fact, more than 55 percent of the cargo handled by the Port originates in or is destined for locations outside the Commonwealth. More than 3,000 companies outside Virginia use the Port because of the cost-effective and reliable movement of freight to and from the Port of Virginia.

Container traffic in Hampton Roads is projected to triple by 2030 and will exceed the Port's capacity by 2011. Without the additional capacity created by a new marine terminal at Craney Island, cargo that would otherwise use the Port of Virginia will be rerouted to other ports, resulting in freight moving over longer distances at a higher cost. This increase will generate a total of $6 billion in additional transportation costs when applied to the amount of cargo that would be rerouted to other ports over a 50-year period.

However, with a new marine terminal at Craney Island, this additional $6 billion cost is avoided and becomes an origin-to-destination cost savings to the Nation in terms of maintaining the efficient, low-cost transportation afforded through the Port of Virginia.

The Eastward Expansion of Craney Island also meets National Defense needs. The ability of the United States to respond to military contingencies requires the availability of adequate U.S. commercial port facilities. The Port of Virginia is one of 14 port facilities designated by the Department of Defense as a strategic port through which military deployments are conducted. The Port of Virginia is expected to be able to make its facilities available to the military within 48 hours of written notification. When complete, the Craney Island project will provide additional capacity to meet military logistical needs and ensure the safe, secure, and smooth flow of military cargo through the Port of Virginia while minimizing commercial cargo disruptions.

Mr. Speaker, the Virginia Port Authority has been working for many years in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan for the Eastward Expansion of Craney Island. By authorizing the Federal cost share at 50 percent, the WRDA Conference Report acknowledges the importance of expanding Craney Island to both Hampton Roads and to the entire Nation. I am grateful the Congress has supported this endeavor. And, I look forward to seeing the same support from the President.