To establish a laboratory science pilot program at the National Science Foundation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 362, and yield myself such time as I may consume for an opening statement.

In 2005, the National Academies assembled a blue-ribbon committee of national leaders in academia, business and government to address concerns about the national prosperity and the global economy in the 21st century. The Academies' report was entitled, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.'' That report catalogs a number of worrisome indicators and presents recommendations that the Nation must follow to maintain its competitiveness.

What did this distinguished committee tell us is most important to the future of the economic health of our Nation? Here is the first recommendation from the report: Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education.

The Gathering Storm report goes on to tell us where the focus should be in efforts to improve K-12 science and mathematics education. In brief, it says, ``Focus on the teachers.'' H.R. 362 follows that blueprint.

In January, I partnered with Mr. Hall, ranking minority member on the Committee on Science and Technology, to introduce H.R. 362, whose purpose is to implement all of the action items from the Gathering Storm report and address the report's first recommendation.

I want to thank Mr. Hall for his assistance in developing this bill. With his support, it was favorably reported by the Science and Technology Committee by a unanimous vote.

This bill is endorsed by a wide variety of educational organizations and business coalitions, including the Association of American Universities, the Business Roundtable, the Council of Competitiveness, the National Education Association, the National

Science Teachers Association, and the STEM Education Coalition. These organizations are enthusiastic about H.R. 362 because it will dramatically improve the national corps of math and science teachers.

We call the first title of the bill ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.'' The bill will create thousands of new teachers with content and teaching skill expertise in their area of teaching.

The vehicle for accomplishing this goal is the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation. Noyce awards go to universities that build model programs for recruiting math and science students into teaching. These programs provide mentoring, early field experiences, and a streamlined path toward teaching certification. Students who enroll in this program will receive $10,000-per-year scholarships. In return, they will make commitments of several years to the teaching profession.

H.R. 362 will also create summer institutes and graduate programs that provide sustained, content-oriented professional development to in-service teachers through the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation. We have a critical shortage of math and science teachers in the U.S., and many of our math and science teachers have no degree or certification in the field they teach. In fact, 87 percent of middle school and 58 percent of high school physical science teachers lack these qualifications.

This bill tackles this problem from both ends. On the one end, we bring in a new cadre of math and science teachers who are well-educated and well-prepared. That is what the Noyce program does. On the other end, we improve the teachers that we have through innovative, effective programs led by disciplinary faculty from higher education. That is what the Math and Science Partnerships program does.

Other provisions of H.R. 362 include an expansion of the STEM Talent Expansion Program at the National Science Foundation, a program to enhance the undergraduate education of the future science and engineering workforce, and a pilot program at the NSF to improve laboratory science in high-need secondary schools.

To maintain our high national standard of living, we need a workforce that is prepared in a world-class math and science education system. But there is a dark cloud looming. American students have performed poorly in recent years on an assortment of international tests of math and science achievement. That does not bode well for the future. Our next generation of innovators, where will they come from? That is what the gathering storm on the horizon is all about. To rise above it, we need to reform the math and science teaching profession. That is what this legislation now before us will do.

The stakes are high and the concern is urgent. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 362.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. The NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, as amended by H.R. 362, is specifically designed to help place highly qualified STEM teachers in every classroom across the Nation. I further agree with the gentleman that it is particularly important to reduce the number of out-of-field teachers in the schools that have a high proportion of minority students, who are currently underrepresented in science and technology.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield

further, let me first of all thank the gentleman for his recommendation and assure you that it is my intention when we go to conference on H.R. 362 to work to increase the size of the Noyce scholarship to $12,000 per year for students who agree to carry out their teaching commitment in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I certainly do; and I once again thank the gentleman for bringing this up.

As the gentleman points out, H.R. 362 now requires the National Science Foundation track the proportion of Noyce graduates who elect to teach in high-need schools. I will seek to expand this provision in conference to require NSF to assess the effect of increasing the size of scholarships on attracting graduates of the program to teach in high-need schools.

Mr. Chairman, once again we are on the same page. I agree with the gentleman that an important goal of the Noyce program is to reduce disparities in the distribution of highly qualified STEM teachers among schools in different regions of the Nation. I support the gentleman's proposed modification to section 103 of the bill and will pursue this change in conference.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the gentleman for his constructive efforts in making a good bill even better.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Education and Labor.

Committee on Education and Labor,

Washington, DC, April 3, 2007.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding consideration of H.R. 362, the

``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math

Scholarship Act,'' which was referred to the Committee on

Science. As you know, the Committee on Education and Labor

has a jurisdictional interest in H.R. 362, particularly as we

move forward to reauthorize the Higher Education Act this

term.

Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,

I do not intend to request the sequential referral of H.R.

362 to the Committee on Education and Labor. However, I do so

only with the understanding that this procedural route should

not be construed to prejudice this Committee's jurisdictional

interests and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to the

Committee on Education and Labor in the future. In addition,

should this bill or similar legislation be considered in a

conference with the Senate, I would expect members of the

Committee on Education and Labor to be appointed to the

conference committee on such measures.

Finally, I ask that you include a copy of our exchange of

letters in your committee's report on H.R. 362 and in the

Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do

not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

George Miller,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say amen to most of Dr. Ehlers' eloquent statement. He is a very constructive and positive force on our committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a former science teacher.

I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for his support for this bill, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) who has spent so much time working on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman for his generosity. There is a lot of interest in this bill.

I would like to yield now 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan), another active member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the vice chairman of the Science and Technology Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), the former State senator.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to the generosity of our ranking member, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to one of his fellow Texans (Mr. Hinojosa), chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the amount of time that we have left here?

Mr. Chairman, let me take just a moment to thank the staff, Jim Wilson, and our minority staff for the time they have put in on this bill. Two years ago, Lamar Alexander, and our former chairman, Sherry Boehlert, asked the National Academies to do a recommendation on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. The recommendation was good news and bad news. The bad news was that we are in a very competitive environment and that we are on a losing track.

The good news was we had some recommendations. That is what we tried to do. We didn't try to make a Democratic or Republican bill; we took their recommendations and made a bipartisan bill. I think that today the bipartisan bill is the result of that. I again thank all the Members for their constructive efforts in doing this.

I understand that the Speaker is so committed to this bill that she is on her way to the floor, and she is not only on her way, but she has arrived, and I yield her the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at the National Science Foundation aims to increase the number of first-rate math and science teachers in the U.S.

The program targets two resources from which to recruit these teachers: one, undergraduates who are majoring in the math and science field; and, two,

science and math engineering professionals who want to switch to a teaching degree.

The reported version of H.R. 362 considerably expands the Noyce program. It also amends a part of the program that targets undergraduates. But the part of the program that targets professionals was left for the most part unchanged. This amendment establishes within the Noyce program a new model for recruiting professionals to a teaching career.

This new model is based on a program called Math for America, which has shown astonishing success in making first-rate teachers out of former scientists and engineers. Math for America was launched in 2004 by James Simons, a mathematician who founded an enormously successful private investment firm in New York City.

Mr. Simon's philanthropic foundation has provided much of the funding for Math for America. This is just the third year of Math for America, but already they have recruited 90 teachers for New York City public schools. The math for America model has so much in common with the Noyce program at the National Science Foundation.

Consistent with the Math for America model, my amendment has the following features: An institution of higher education wishing to establish this new program must create a partnership with at least one non-Federal entity to be eligible for the NSF support; a scientist or engineer participating in the program must demonstrate advance content knowledge through a nationally recognized standardized test; participants take specialized education courses in a 16-month teacher certification program during which they receive a stipend; graduates from the program must teach in a secondary school for a period of 4 years, during which they receive a teaching supplement to their ordinary salary.

The teaching supplements are provided by the partnerships from non- Federal sources. This amendment, therefore, adds a component to the Noyce program to develop the kind of public/private partnership that we see working so well in Math for America.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to thank Dr. Gingrey for his support for this bill and, more importantly, his constructive role that he plays on the Science and Technology Committee. Again, I want to thank Mr. Hall for his constructive role, and also for his generosity in having additional time for us.

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

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

The Noyce program at the National Science Foundation has up to now required scholarship recipients to teach in high-need schools. H.R. 362 substantially expands the program, scaling it up from fewer than 1,000 pre-service STEM teachers per year to 10,000 per year.

The Noyce program is being scaled up by H.R. 362 to address the needs of schools in all parts of the Nation which have large numbers of out- of-field STEM teachers. For example, the percentage of physical science teachers in

middle schools with neither a major in the field nor certification is nearly 90 percent.

As part of enlarging the program's scale, the bill also removes the requirement that all graduates teach in a high-need school. But the bill also adds in its place an incentive for teachers to serve in high- need schools. The amendment I am proposing makes clear that we are not backing away from our firm commitment to address the requirements of high-need schools.

The amendment has two provisions. The first provision requires the NSF to broadly disseminate information about the program, including to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This is to ensure that students in minority schools have improved chances of seeing a minority teacher prepared through a Noyce program.

The second provision requires the foundation to maintain a clearinghouse on teaching opportunities in high-need schools. This will assist Noyce scholars in finding their ideal placement.

Without this amendment, Noyce scholars seeking placement might not know which schools meet the definition of high-need in any given year or which such schools have openings.

This amendment will both help increase the number of individuals from minority-serving institutions who participate in the Noyce program and will help recruit Noyce scholars to teaching positions in high-need schools. I recommend adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank Dr. Ehlers for his support for this bill, but more importantly for making a good bill a better bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, this motion simply states the status quo, and we are glad to accept it.

Yes, he does.

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, all of us go back to our districts regularly and meet with our constituents, and some of the most sorrowful meetings I have are with students who have just graduated from high school and say, I can't get a job. I can't get a job. What a shock to them, after years of education. And I am not talking about dropouts. I am talking about students who have studied hard, worked hard, and tried to learn a lot.

When I analyze the problem, much of it circles around the fact that today, and, indeed, all the jobs of the future, require a good understanding of the basic principles of mathematics and science, and many students in today's curriculum are not getting that knowledge.

What can we do to help solve that? There are a number of aspects to the problem. Obviously, the first thing is to entice students to take those courses. But, secondly, and more importantly, is to make certain that all those teachers in our high schools across this Nation are adequately trained and adequately prepared to teach math and science courses and do it in a fashion that excites the students and entices them to take these courses so that they will develop the background in math and science that they need to get a job, both now and in the future.

The world has changed. China and India recognized this 20 years ago and changed their educational system. We did not change. We did not recognize what was happening, and so we have to play catch-up.

This bill, which I strongly support, is a good bill which will help us to improve U.S. math, science, and engineering education at all levels; K-12, undergraduate and graduate.

As most people in Congress know, I am a scientist. What you may not know is that over 40 years ago, I dedicated myself to trying to improve the science educational programs in the United States, basically from preschool through graduate school, because we were simply falling behind other countries in the areas of mathematics and science.

I am not talking only about producing good engineers and enough engineers, or good scientists and enough scientists. That is very important, and we must do it. We are losing out on that as well. But what we certainly have to do is to prepare everyone for the workplace of today, and especially the workplace of tomorrow.

This bill will help do that. This bill builds on the Noyce Scholarship Program, an excellent program that has been in effect for a number of years and which was initially proposed by the former chair of the Science Committee, Sherry Boehlert. It is named after the person who helped to found Intel and make it grow into what it is today. They also have funded a number of scholarship programs, and this is our counterpart.

But this program does more than that. It strengthens and expands the

Noyce Scholarship Program, but it also strengthens and focuses the Math and Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation, a program which has fallen on hard times in the last few years, primarily because the President's budget has sought to eliminate funding for that program. I think this is based on a misunderstanding in the administration or in the Office of Management and Budget about what the program does, and the mistaken belief that this program was a duplicate of one residing in the Department of Education. As a result the program in the Department of Education grew, and the one in the Science Foundation was cut back.

The fact of the matter is they are both good programs and necessary programs, and they are complementary, not competitive. We need both if we are going to strengthen our teacher training programs. That is why I strongly approve of the aspect of the bill that will strengthen and focus the Math and Science Partnership Program.

The bill also extends the authorization of and expands the NSF Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, better known as the STEP program, which provides grants to colleges and universities to improve undergraduate science, math and engineering education.

This bill enables NSF to fund the creation of centers at colleges and universities to develop new approaches to undergraduate education programs, and expands the focus of STEP beyond its initial focus of increasing the number of graduating STEM majors to also include increasing the number of nonmajors taking STEM courses.

The bill also establishes a pilot grant program at NSF to create a partnership to support science lab improvements in secondary schools, a proposal initiated by Mr. Hinojosa in a separate bill, but that we are incorporating into this bill.

In short, this bill does a great deal to strengthen several programs at the NSF and, develop innovative programs which will provide better math, science education at all levels from the elementary schools through the undergraduate and the graduate programs.

We have worked together on this in a nonpartisan way. I commend Ranking Member Hall. Mr. Hall has been a strong person in this area and has strongly pushed this bill. I also commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Gordon, who has also worked very hard on this. It has been a copacetic experience in the Science Committee to hear this discussion and see the progress we have made. I strongly support the bill, and urge the House to adopt it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I do support this amendment and I think we should approve it, but I would like to spend the majority of my time discussing the previous amendment which we already accepted. I would like to make a point in connection with that. A very good part of that amendment is that it provides an additional stipend for teachers during their 4-year service requirement.

We have a major problem in America with math and science teachers; in fact, we have a major problem with a lot of teachers who do not stick with their field. We just don't have the retention rate we should. But that is especially true of good math and science teachers because the market out there for them is tremendous. Frequently, they can double their salary by going into industry, and at the very least they can increase their salary by 40 or 50 percent. It is very difficult for the schools to compete with that, although I have argued for years we should have a salary differential for those teachers who have very strong economic incentives to leave the teaching profession and to go into another job.

We simply have to meet the market, and unfortunately that has not been the tradition in the schools. I think we should establish that. If you don't meet the market, you are going to lose your best teachers, and we certainly don't want to lose them after all the work we have done through these various scholarships to develop good teachers.

So I strongly support the part of the Noyce amendment No. 2 which Chairman Gordon offered, and I hope that we can work, not just within this Congress but within this Nation, with the teachers, the school boards, and the teachers unions to develop a system that recognizes that a mechanism is needed to meet the market for those teachers who are offered large inducements to leave the teaching profession and go to another field.

I simply wanted to make that point in connection with the first amendment simply because that amendment is a start in the right direction, and I hope we can carry that principle onward.

I appreciate Chairman Gordon offering the amendment, and I hope that we can continue along that path in future bills relating to the subject.