Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.

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.

Thank you, Lady Sutton. I will grace you by not taking that full 20 minutes.

I want to thank Mr. Welch for his kind words. I want to thank Mr. Hastings for not being too ugly about this bill, and I want to make my friend on the Science Committee, Mr. Gingrey, feel better about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few hours of every session, it doesn't matter who is in the majority or who is in the minority, things get a little bit tense. Folks want to get going for their district work period, and so this is an opportunity for us all to come together.

This is a bill that was based on a suspension that passed out of this House unanimously, based on a bill out of the Senate that passed 88-8. This is a bipartisan, bicameral bill.

The National Chamber of Commerce supports this bill. The National Association of Manufacturers supports this bill. The Business Roundtable supports this bill. Every university that is represented in this body supports this bill

because it is a good bill. It's going to help American workers, businesses. It's going to help students and teachers be able to compete in the world. It's going to help us regain and maintain a leadership in research, innovation and technology.

Let me just take a moment and tell you a little bit about the bill.

Well, it's also based on, of course, Sherry Boehlert, the former, very good Republican chairman of our Science Committee, myself when I was ranking member, Lamar Alexander, who has done Herculean work in the Senate, as well as Jeff Bingaman asked the National Academy of Science to do a report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st century. Norm Augustine, the former head of Lockheed Martin, Craig Barrett at Intel, many other scholars, as well as academic and business individuals, came together and they told us in a very sobering way that America was heading in the wrong direction in terms of competitiveness in the 21st century.

Now, this is not just an idle thought for the ones of us that have kids and grandkids, because I am very concerned that the next generation of Americans could be the first generation of Americans that inherit a national standard of living less than our parents if we don't do something. This bill will help change the corner, turn that corner.

Let me tell you about it; it deals really with three main areas. First of all, following the recommendations of the rising above the gathering storm, we are going to increase our expenditures and research in this country, in the National Science Foundation that does such a good job, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. And, again, for my friend from Georgia, these are just authorizations.

If they can't justify what they are doing, then the appropriations will not appropriate those funds. This is just authorization. It doesn't spend any money, but it does give us a great blueprint.

The next thing we are going to do, we have to recognize that there are about 7 billion people in the world, half of which make less than $2 a day. We can't compete with that. We don't want to compete with that. We don't want our kids and grandkids to have to be in that situation.

What do we do? We have to compete at a higher level. If they are going to make one widget in China or India or elsewhere, we have got to make 50 in this country at the same time. We need to be inventing the widget maker and we need to be manufacturing the widget maker. That's what this bill is going to help us do. But to do that, our workers have to perform at a higher skill level. We have to help them do that.

When you look, and it's a sad situation right now, but only Cyprus and South Africa have lower overall math and science scores than we have in this country right now. What is the reason for that? Is it that we are not as smart as other countries? No, that's not the case.

The problem is we have very good and talented teachers in this country, but unfortunately, when it comes to math and science, about 63 percent of the math teachers at the middle school have neither a major or a certification to teach math.

The science teachers in this country are trying to do a good job, but 87 percent of them have neither a major or certification to teach the physical sciences. It's hard to inspire. It's hard to really convey information when you don't have a good background. I want to give you an example of that.

My father was a farmer. He went to World War II, and he came back, and because of the GI Bill, he was able to go to college. He got a degree in agriculture. I come along, and my mother had to give up her job at the cafeteria, so my father needed a second job.

So he applied to teach, and he got the last teaching job at Smyrna High School in my home county. So since he was the last person to get a job, they assigned him to teach high school science and to coach girls basketball.

I am not sure which one my father knew the least about. He was a bright, able fellow, but they put him in a difficult situation. And it was tough for his students, I am sure.

Well, we have got to do better than that. And so what this bill is going to do is really two things in that area. We are going to take those good teachers like my father, bring them back into school. We will do it in the summer, so they can get their certification, hopefully go ahead and get a master's, get an AP certification so they can do a better job.

We are also going to provide scholarships for approximately 10,000 students each year on a competitive basis that want to go into math, science, and education and agree to teach for 5 years in high-need areas. This is going to go a long way to helping our skills.

And so, finally, we are going to look at one other area, one other area that Rising Above the Gathering Storm mentioned, was we have to become energy independent in this country. We have been talking about a lot of energy bills and are going to hopefully pass an energy bill at least in the House. The Senate has done. It is a long way to getting something completed.

But, today, this is a conference report. This is not just a bill that then goes to the other body and goes to conference. This is a conference report that was passed out of that conference on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, and it does something about energy independence today. And let me tell you about that, and this is a recommendation that came from the National Academies of Science.

We are going to set up an agency within the Department of Energy modeled after DARPA, which is in the Defense Department, a high-risk, high-reward group. It is going to look at the the seven or eight most cutting-edge types of new technologies. And we are going to bring our private sector, the public sector, the national labs, the universities all together with a very narrow bit of management that is only going to be like project directors to bring all these folks together. And, just like in the Department of Defense, the Internet was developed, stealth and technology was developed, but there were a lot of things that didn't work out, because they weren't afraid to try. High risk, high reward. That is what we are going to do.

We are going to get in there, and we are going to find those areas that are new technologies that are going to bump our ability to create renewable energy in this country, which is going to help us become energy independent, it is going to create jobs, and it is going to create exports.

This is a very good bipartisan, bicameral bill that is endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, by the National Association of Manufacturers, by the Business Roundtable, universities. And this afternoon we will talk about this some more. I am going to bring you a list of businesses and organizations that support this that is going to go on and on and on.

So, my friends, let's put aside I guess just the natural bit of tenseness that goes with ending a session. Let's work together and get something good today and pass this bipartisan, bicameral bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 602 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration and considers the conference report as read.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 602 and the underlying conference report on the 21st Century Competitiveness Act. Too often, we hear that our Nation is struggling to properly educate our students in math and science, and as a result we are falling behind in this world. This is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this Congress.

But today we have the chance to change this. Today we make a true commitment to our future. Today we can make it clear that we support American innovation and understand the vital need for our Nation to remain competitive in the global economy.

The 21st Century Competitiveness Act will help ensure that our students, teachers, businesses and workers are prepared to continue to keep this country at the forefront of research and development. Our bill increases funding and makes improvements for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and at the Department of Energy Office of Science. The bill increases funding for science, technology, engineering and math, also known as STEM research and education programs.

This bill also allocates funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. These MEP programs leverage Federal, State, local and private investments to stimulate new manufacturing processes and technologies. It's through these new processes and technologies that we can ensure American manufacturers have the tools to compete effectively and efficiently against overseas manufacturers.

The MEP program has proven to be remarkably effective in my home State of Ohio where small and midsize manufacturers face limited budgets, lack of in-house expertise and lack of access to the newest technologies. MEP assistance provided training, expertise and services tailored to the critical needs of Ohio's small and midsize manufacturers.

Through this assistance, many manufacturers in Ohio have increased productivity, achieved higher profits, and remain competitive by providing the latest and most efficient technologies, processes and business practices. In 2006, in fact, as a direct result of MEP assistance, my State enjoyed over $150 million of new investment and over $500 million in increased or retained sales. Companies in Ohio participating in the MEP reported cost savings of over $100 million.

Through the continued funding of this vital program, we can bring these vast benefits to even more small manufacturers across the country. Our efforts here today are vital to stopping the offshoring and outsourcing as well that may have hurt many communities in my home State of Ohio and all across this Nation.

This Congress can send a strong message today that we want to ensure that our Nation is prepared for the future. Let's pass this rule and the 21st Century Competitiveness Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I just want to make it clear, as has been stated on this House floor

many times in recent days, that the FISA legislation will be on the floor of this House before the August recess. We're happy that we are here today to pass this rule and this legislation, and we are also able to deal with FISA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to yield 20 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology, Mr. Gordon, whose leadership brought us here to this great day.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my privilege to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my honor to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, a member of both the Rules Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman if he has any remaining speakers. I'm the last speaker on this side, and I'll reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we make a commitment to our students who want to succeed in the fields of math and science. It's time that we help our manufacturers and promote innovation and industrial competitiveness. With this legislation, we are setting our course.

While there are many things that must be done on many different issues to see real improvements, passing the 21st Century Competitiveness Act today is one very positive and enormous step in the right direction. We are saying we want to invest in our teachers. We want to invest in our students, invest in science and research and development and innovation. We are developing our workforce for the jobs of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we are preparing our Nation for a bright future. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 602 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the

definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.