US and the World Education Act

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On October 12, 2005, in response to a bipartisan request by the Science and Technology Committee and some of our colleagues in the Senate, the National Academies released the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The distinguished panel, led by Norm Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, and which also included Craig Barrett of Intel, the current Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu, and a cast of other distinguished academic and business leaders, painted a very dire picture. The report made clear that without action, the future was bleak for our children and grandchildren. This report was, without question, a call to arms.

The Science and Technology Committee, along with several committees in the Senate, moved forward by turning the ``Gathering Storm'' recommendation into legislative language. The final result was the enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, with the bipartisan support of 365 Members. Moreover, with the leadership of Senators Alexander and Bingaman and 69 Senate cosponsors, the Senate approved the conference report by unanimous consent. Now, after 3 years, we are back to work on reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act.

Since the enactment of America COMPETES, the Science and Technology Committee has held 48 hearings on areas addressed in the bill considered by the House today. Going through regular order, our subcommittee, in a bipartisan process, brought the full committee to a strong body of work. The bill was approved by the Science and Technology Committee on April 28, with a bipartisan vote of 29-8.

I want to thank all of the members of our committee for their work, and more importantly, their contribution to this bill.

Since I became chairman of the committee, it has been my goal for this to be a committee of good ideas and consensus. But more importantly, I have wanted an inclusive process that encouraged members on all sides to bring forward ideas and to discuss them.

I am proud of the process that we've used in bringing this bill to the House, and I believe this is a better bill today because of the hard work of our members. So I thank them for their efforts.

I would also like to thank the majority and minority staffs for the many hours of thoughtful work they have committed to this bill.

Many significant pieces of legislation come before this House. We all know that. But, honestly, I feel strongly that this bill is a big deal and it's important. It's a big deal and important for our country and for this Congress. It's a big deal and an important step in leading our Nation's innovation agenda in the face of growing global competition. It's a big deal and important for the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable, which is why they have been so supportive. It's a big deal and important to our universities and our national labs, and it's a big deal and important to our children and grandchildren so they will not be the first generation of Americans to inherit a standard of living lower than their parents.

If we are to reverse the trend of the last 20 years where our country's technological edge in the world has diminished, we must make the investments necessary today. The statistics speak for themselves. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be attributed to the development and adoption of new technologies.

The path is simple. Research and education lead to innovation. Innovation leads to economic development and good-paying jobs and the revenue to pay for more research. And as private firms underinvest in research and development because the returns are too far off in the future, there is a clear and necessary role of government to help our Nation keep pace with the rest of the world.

To quickly summarize, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, H.R. 5116, makes investments in science innovation, education to strengthen U.S. scientific economic leadership, supports business, and creates jobs in the short, mid, and long term.

In the short term, Federal programs like the innovative technological Federal loan guarantees addresses the immediate need of small- and medium-sized manufacturers. In the midterm, the bill will strengthen regional economies through programs like the regional innovation clusters.

To ensure its scientific and technological leadership now and long into the future, the bill makes investments in the basic research. The bill includes a reauthorization of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E. Even before the price of oil hit today's record highs, ``Gathering Storm'' recommended greater energy independence. But as we move to a cleaner, more efficient and more balanced economic portfolio, we should not trade our dependency on foreign oil for a dependency on foreign technology. This is why ARPA-E is so important.

The bill also includes an authorization for Energy Innovation Hubs which will each focus on overcoming a single technological barrier to achieving our national energy innovation goals. The bill will double authorization funding for our basic research programs, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, the labs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology over the next 10 years.

Throughout the committee process, there was a lot of legitimate discussion about Federal deficits. And I agree, we must address the challenges presented by our deficits, but we also must invest in our country's future. I remember Newt Gingrich saying one of his greatest regrets was not doubling the funding for NSF when he put NIH on a doubling path.

During the committee consideration of this bill, we made some significant changes to the bill's authorization levels. But we will maintain a doubling path for our research accounts over the next 10 years. We do so on a slightly less aggressive trajectory.

The bill, as introduced, included authorizations totaling approximately $93 billion over 5 years. The bill we consider today includes authorizations of approximately $84 billion. This represents a 10.3 percent reduction in funding for the introduction of the bill, or a reduction of more than $9.6 billion over 5 years.

This bill provides a stable, sustainable, and achievable set of authorization levels that balance the importance of these investments with the reality of our current budget deficits.

Another important element of the funding roadmap in the bill is certainty. As we know, most successful businesses do not operate in a 1-year timetable. They generate plans years in advance. In fact, many businesses operate using at least a 5-year plan. So as we continue to climb out of the worst economic downturn in a generation, we need a 5- year plan to reinvest in our intellectual capital, our research enterprise, and our workforce training. This becomes even more important when comparing our efforts to other nations.

Our global competitors, most notably China, increase innovation in 5- year windows. They write a 5-year plan, watch its progress, and in year 4, they begin on the next 5-year plan. The time has come for our country to establish a clear path forward with a thoughtful, responsible 5-year plan.

Finally, let me say that more than 50 years ago when DARPA was first created, no one had an idea that the research it would fund would be responsible for creation of the Internet or the proliferation of GPS technologies, but it did. Those innovations started with Federal dollars, as did countless other game-changing technologies.

There is an undeniable relationship between the investment in R&D and the creation of jobs, the creation of companies, and economic growth. But don't just take my word for it. The Joint Economic Committee released a report this week that shows the economic benefits from Federal investment in research.

The Science Coalition, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of the Nation's leading research universities, released a report this week entitled ``Sparking Economic Growth: How Federally Funded University Research Creates Innovation, New Companies, and Jobs.'' This report tells the stories of 100 companies, including Google, Cisco, SAS, Genentech, Orbital Sciences, Sun Power, Medtronic, and Hewlett-Packard, that were all created based on research funded with Federal dollars.

And, last, there are the sponsors of this important legislation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Council of Competitiveness, the Task Force of American Innovation, the American Chemical Society, as well as a growing list of over 1,000 major companies, universities, trade associations, and professional organizations, all understanding the benefits to U.S. companies of making a sustained commitment to research and STEM education.

COMPETES is and will continue to be a bipartisan, bicameral effort that every Member of this House can feel ownership of and should take bragging rights on.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, how much time do we have?

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the chairman of our Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the subcommittee chairman of the Research and Science Education Committee, Dr. Lipinski.

Madam Chair, let me first point out that my friend from Texas (Mr. Hall) is not doing a Roy Orbison impersonation today. He had a cataract removed earlier and that's the reason he periodically is wearing his sunglasses. A lesser person wouldn't have made it today. I compliment Mr. Hall for being here.

I yield 1 minute to our very distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird, the outstanding subcommittee chairman of the Energy and the Environment Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a valued member of the Science and Technology Committee.

How much time is remaining?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), the chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the

gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Oversight Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Fudge), another valued member of our committee, a new but active member.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the chairman of the New Dems.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), another valued member of our committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for a colloquy.

The gentleman is correct that NIST does perform critical research on fire safety, enabling safer fire codes and standards and safer equipment for firefighters. Nothing in this restructuring provision will prevent NIST from continuing this important work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

The amendment I am offering today makes a handful of technical and clarifying changes and a few substantive additions to the underlying bill. Most of the changes were the result of negotiations with our Republican colleagues following our full committee markup. We had agreed to work out several issues during the markup, so let me tell you about those agreements first.

Mr. Neugebauer, who wished to ensure that we were leveraging as much private funds as we could in implementing the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program, I agreed to split the match requirement into two categories. The result is that small institutions are also able to participate in this critical program to train STEM teachers, and the large institutions can more easily raise match funds and stretch Federal dollars even further.

There was agreement between Dr. Lipinski and Mr. Inglis on the prize program in section 228. They found a good way to make sure that there would not be double-dipping into Federal funds in order to carry out the prize-winning research.

Mr. Olson requested some changes in the ARPA-E language, and we went ahead, as agreed, and made those changes in this amendment.

Mrs. Biggert had some concerns about the Energy Innovation Hubs and wanted to make sure that the consortia utilized existing facilities when possible, so we made those constructive changes for her.

The amendment also included language to clarify the application of existing law which prohibits the use of funding appropriated to programs in the underlying bill for lobbying. I want to thank Dr. Broun for his passion on this issue and for working with me to make this clarification.

Finally, this amendment also includes a clarifying change requested by Dr. Bartlett for one of his own amendments in committee on STEM internships.

The amendment also adds one new section to the bill. This section requires the Director of NIST to submit a report to Congress examining the use of high-performance computation modeling and simulation by small- and medium-sized manufacturers. There is great potential in the use of high-performance computing resources by small- and medium-sized manufacturers, but their use is relatively limited. This study would look at the current utilization of these resources, examine the existing barriers to their use, and make recommendations for addressing these barriers. I want to thank Chairman Wu, Chairman Lipinski, and Congressman Garamendi for their interest in this issue and for helping to draft this provision.

Now let me talk about a part of the manager's amendment that I think will be a topic of discussion on both sides of the aisle today. Mr. Hall rightfully wanted to do something for veterans in this bill. He offered an amendment to

the committee that gave veterans preference when applying for any scholarships or fellowships authorized under this bill, and the amendment was happily accepted unanimously in the committee.

He also offered an amendment to help disabled veterans who want to pursue STEM studies. I know Mr. Hall was trying to do the right thing, but when we read the language, we didn't think the amendment actually helped disabled veterans in the way Mr. Hall intended. So we had some discussion in the committee, and in the end we decided to accept the amendment as is but continue to work together heading to the floor.

Staff traded several versions of language back and forth over the next 10 days. I talked to my staff, Mr. Hall talked with his staff, and, unfortunately, we could not come up with agreement on which language would be most helpful to our common goal of helping disabled veterans without causing other unintended consequences.

Our shared goal is to encourage and incentivize colleges and universities to provide STEM programs to disabled veterans and to recruit more disabled veterans into those programs by giving them special consideration in the review of proposals when they do. However, we have to be careful not to dilute the notion of special consideration so far that every institution in the country can qualify. If everyone is special, no one is special.

We also want to hold institutions accountable for serving their disabled veterans in their STEM programs. If we give them special consideration without holding them accountable, there is no incentive to actually make sure that veterans get the benefits of the Federal grant funds. Unfortunately, every sincere effort of pro-veteran language that we made was rejected.

Once again, where is the accountability? How do we know that a single disabled veteran student is benefiting from Federal STEM programs because the institution has this designation? We don't. That is the problem with the language.

It is unfortunate that we could not come to agreement. But in the end, we took Mr. Hall's latest offer with only small changes and included it in the manager's amendment. I still think we can do so much better for disabled veterans. Our language may be improved from Mr. Hall's language, but it still doesn't go nearly as far as I would like it to go in holding institutions accountable. I hope to continue to work with Mr. Hall to make sure that we have this accountability as we move forward.

Finally, we borrowed language from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ensure that no funds authorized under this bill can go to child molesters. This is a straightforward amendment incorporating a few suggestions from my colleagues and a small number of other changes to make the bill better, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey), a very active member of our committee and a champion for women and minorities.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Science and Technology Committee from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I just want to briefly inform my friend, Mr. Hall, that I share his interest in finding a way to run down any defaults and collect those. We were told that our committee didn't have jurisdiction to require the Attorney General to do that. Let us continue to work together to find ways to accomplish what we both want to do.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have amendments en bloc at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is a block of amendments that have been well scrutinized by I think the minority and the majority. We feel they are all good amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, Dr. Broun is a valued member of our committee. We've had a number of discussions, as he's been very active. We agree on some things, we don't agree on others. We compromise on some. This is one that we were not able to come to agreement on.

All the provisions, and what this would do is this would strike the title V of this bill. All provisions in title V are aimed at looking at creating real world economic value for research and development.

Title V includes three important provisions to help spur innovation in this country. It creates a loan guarantee program at the Department of Commerce for small- and medium-sized manufacturers seeking to innovate and retool for the 21st century to remain globally competitive. It establishes an Office of Innovation and Enterprise at the Department of Commerce to help turn the good ideas into new businesses, leading to economic growth and job creation. And, finally, it establishes a Regional Innovation Program at the Department of Commerce to empower local communities to leverage regional strengths to promote innovation.

This is a good bill, but this amendment would take away from the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for Mr. Boswell and Mr. Michaud and have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment once again has been before the public, well scrutinized. It would ensure that the biomass technology systems and related courses are included in the list of fields that would be encompassed by the energy systems science and engineering education programs at the Department of Energy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the author of this very good amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a good amendment, and I suggest its approval. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise as designee for Mr. Davis of Illinois, and I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Danny Davis' amendment will ensure that the students enrolled in 2-year, certificate, associate, or baccalaureate programs are eligible for STEM programs. It would also call for a report of agency approaches to increase minority participation in STEM careers.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, this has been well reviewed. This is a good amendment, and I would recommend it for passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of this amendment, Mr. Davis of Illinois.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier in the day, I don't want to trade Americans' dependency on foreign oil for Americans' dependency on foreign technology.

For us to get energy independence, there's going to be a variety of ways to go about it. Just like there's a variety of ways to skin a cat, this is one more way to get energy independence, and I support Mr. Markey's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendments en bloc at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a well-vetted and good amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a former administrator at Long Island College, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers, so let me just conclude by saying that this is a good series of amendments. This makes a good bill even better.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

This amendment establishes a Green Chemistry Research program at the National Science Foundation. Dr. Gingrey has been an advocate for this both on the committee as well as now. I commend him for that. The emerging field of green chemistry will contribute significantly to our environmental sustainability while also driving innovation in the chemical industry sector. Green chemistry research will be instrumental in meeting the challenges of protecting human health and the environment, meeting our energy needs, enhancing the national security, and strengthening the economy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First, let me compliment Mr. Boccieri and his partners for introducing this good amendment. I want to clear up a matter concerning the duplication, title 5, section 502, page 185 under ``coordination and duplication'': ``To the maximum extent practical, the Secretary shall ensure that the activities carried out under this section are coordinated with and do not duplicate the efforts of other loan guarantee programs within the Federal Government.''

This is a good amendment that will label more small- and medium-sized manufacturers to take advantage of loan guarantee programs for innovation, technologies at the Department of Commerce which, in turn, will mean more jobs for Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to speak on H.R. 5116, a bill reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act. COMPETES was originally authorized in 2007 in response to recommendations in the National Academies Report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' and initiatives proposed in President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative that stressed the need for increased investments in basic science research and development. The 2007 House-passed bill was a 3-year authorization that placed three agencies, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy on a 10-year doubling path.

I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act. I like the thrust. I like the goals. Most of us on our side of the docket did. We believe that we should continue to prioritize investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--the STEM--education. These long-term investments, coupled with policies that reduce tax burdens, streamline Federal regulations, and balance the Federal budget, are necessary steps for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace.

However, the bill goes far beyond the original intent and scope of the COMPETES legislation. One of my primary concerns is the cost of the overall package. At $86 billion, it represents over $22 billion in new funding above the fiscal year 2010 basic level. Even if you consider the 10-year doubling path for the three agencies as opposed to flat funding, the bill is still almost $8 billion over that amount.

It is also important to note that these agencies received an additional $5 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Given the current state of our national economy and the fact that our Nation's budget deficit has increased 50 percent since the last authorization 3 years ago, we have to be mindful of our spending if America is to continue to compete globally.

I am also concerned by the creation of several new programs in this bill, including Energy Innovation Hubs at DOE, a loan guarantee program at the Department of Commerce, and regional innovation clusters at the Department of Commerce. Several of these new programs fund activities beyond basic science research and development, and many are potentially duplicative of current efforts and could divert money away from priority basic research.

Given the number of new programs in this bill, it is especially troubling that the authorization length is 5 years, as it limits congressional oversight opportunities and calls for out-year funding increases without regard to the current and future fiscal environment.

At the full committee markup in April, Republicans offered 39 amendments to, among other things, address increased costs, shifts in priorities, duplications of programs, and congressional oversight. Some of these concerns will be debated today as part of our amendment process.

Before I close, I would also like to thank and acknowledge my staff for all of the hard work they have done on this bill. I also want to thank Chairman Gordon and his staff for all of their efforts. Chairman Gordon and I have worked together in this body for several years, and I will absolutely miss working with him when he retires at the end of this year. As a matter of fact, as he leaves this session, I hope we can name part of this program after Bart Gordon because he is the father of it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. Sensenbrenner, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Illinois, a member of the committee, Mrs. Biggert.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairwoman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left?

I thank the chairwoman.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Madam Chairman, we have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

The manager's amendment reflects many things, from technical changes, recommendations from outside groups, agreements reached between our side of the aisle and theirs, and items that as the majority they're able to add unilaterally.

I want to thank the chairman for working with our Members on agreed- upon changes between the full committee markup and now, including the non-Federal matching requirements under the Noyce Scholarship Program, clarifying language on STEM Industry Internships program and the NSF Innovation Prize pilot program, reinstating the cap on the maximum number of ARPA-E employees, and instituting a prohibition on lobbying in the act. I only wish we could have continued the good, open dialogue this past week, particularly with our concerns.

I remain disappointed that the veterans with disabilities language that was agreed to unanimously by voice vote at the full committee markup has been greatly modified in the manager's amendment. I believe if the chairman is sincere he will continue to work with us on this language as we move forward because I do strongly feel that the language in this amendment greatly weakens the intent of the underlying bill.

I also want to express my concern regarding the amendment's modification of language to the new loan guarantee program created by the bill. Specifically, the amendment strikes language in the underlying bill directing the Attorney General to take appropriate actions to recover unpaid principal and interest on loans that go into default. Removal of that language is a major concern as it's key to protecting taxpayers from bad loans. Given the events of the last couple of years I'd hope that the government's beginning to learn something about bad loans. But I'm concerned that with the removal of this very standard provision that we could be setting the loan guarantee program up for guaranteed failure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendments before us, although I do not intend to oppose them. All 11 of the amendments are noncontroversial, and we're generally supportive. I will not oppose these.

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

Mr Chairman, acting as the designee of Mr. Broun of Georgia, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. The amendment would simply strike title V of this bill, which creates bigger government and calls for more spending in areas that go well beyond research and development and authorize potentially inappropriate and duplicative programs.

In particular, I want to note our strong objection to the Regional Innovation Clusters program that's created by title V. Not only does it fund activity well beyond R&D, the language is so loosely written that virtually any type of industry would be eligible to undertake virtually any type of activity. The bill would reduce funding available for high priority R&D programs at the Department of Commerce, such as those at

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this amendment. The amendment would simply strike title V of this bill, which creates bigger government and calls for more spending.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I have no objection to the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I am not sure that we really and truly need to fund yet another study, this one to look at 2-year colleges. But I have a bigger concern with the difficulty of requiring NSF to organize data that it's merely reported. The universities collect this data, and it's my understanding that there would be various issues with even having them do what this amendment proposes.

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

This amendment creates a new program, as Mr. Markey has said, to pursue commercialization of clean energy technologies. This is not necessarily the problem.

We all agree that clean energy technologies are worth pursuing. The problem, however, is that the clean energy technology program created by this amendment is duplicative of another new program already in the bill, the Energy Innovation Hubs program, and I am opposed to the Hubs program because it is largely duplicative of existing DOE and R&D activities. So the amendment duplicates a program that's already duplicative itself.

Further, these programs are expensive and expand the bureaucracy within the Department of Energy, which is already too large. We need to be consolidating and streamlining DOE's many R&D programs, not creating new ones on top of new ones.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the clean energy consortia language, ``support collaborative cross-disciplinary research and development areas not being served by the private sector in order to develop and accelerate the commercial application of innovative clean energy technology,'' that's clearly duplicative. I've stated that in my opening remarks.

``Support multidisciplinary collaborative research development demonstration and commercial application of advanced energy technologies in areas not being served by the private sector.''

I think this is probably the most operative language for the two programs, and I do detect a difference.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of Mr. Markey if he has other speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the amendment. It is duplicative of several other programs, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Under the Miller amendment, any public university receiving funds in this bill would be required to maintain an ``information policy,'' wherein they would have to produce any documents or information that a union requests within 15 days or face the threat of losing Federal funding.

Additionally, it would place a bureaucrat at a grant-awarding agency, say the National Science Foundation, in charge of determining whether a union was entitled under State or local labor law to the information it requested, and whether the university should lose Federal dollars because it has not given to the union every bit of information which it asked for.

Should NSF be determining whether a university is fulfilling its obligation under State and local labor law? I ask that question.

Also, although the amendment applies to all schools receiving grants under this bill, the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a political issue specific to one university, the University of California. It is my understanding that the University of California has been negotiating a contract with the United Auto Workers for some time. These negotiations are completely a function of California State law and have nothing to do with the Federal Government. Rather than attempting to exercise any right or remedy under State law, the UAW has chosen to involve my friends on the other side in threatening the university with Federal dollars to buckle to the union's demands.

This is all I have to say about this. I find this amendment troubling, and urge its defeat.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not intend to oppose it.

I have no opposition or objection to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendments before us, although I do not intend to oppose them. All 14 of the amendments are noncontroversial and are generally supported.

I do have some concern with the Carney amendment. I think while I'm supportive of trying to get students in rural areas more engaged in STEM activities, I just don't believe it's the role of NSF to perform outreach for an industry intern program, period. This amendment is part of a new and duplicative STEM Industry Internship program intended to marry local industry workforce educational needs with local college programing. There's a match associated with this grant, and I think almost any outreach to prospective students or interns should be performed by the participating industry and school with non-Federal money, not with taxpayer money. Therefore, while I will be opposing the Carney amendment, I do not plan to oppose the others in this group.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Dr. Gingrey's amendment. This amendment would establish a green chemistry basic research and development program at the National Science Foundation, aimed at identifying scientific breakthroughs that could lead to clean, safe, and economical alternatives to chemical products. The Science and Technology Committee has supported funding for green chemistry research in a bipartisan manner for many years, and Dr. Gingrey has been the leader on this from day one. His amendment simply builds on those efforts. I thank him for offering this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

This amendment would double to $100 million annually the authorization levels of the new never-done-before loan guarantee program created in the bill. I have major concerns with this program as it stands, particularly because it's heavily redundant with existing loan guarantee programs, such as those at the Small Business Administration where small manufacturers can and do apply for support. Doubling the amount and doubling this spending on an unnecessary and redundant program is not good policy. Accordingly, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and Technology Committee for their work to develop and promote policies to strengthen our Nation's competitiveness in STEM. In particular, I applaud the chairman for his leadership in broadening the participation of individuals and institutions that are underrepresented in STEM. You and your staff actively engaged with me and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus to listen to and address our concerns, and we appreciate that. I also want to recognize and thank Dahlia Sokolov on your staff for sharing her expertise and for being so responsive.

H.R. 5116 includes multiple provisions that respond to concerns raised by multiple reports, STEM experts, and Members of the Congress that stronger efforts to broaden participation are critical to meeting the growing demand for U.S. workers with STEM skills and to improve American competitiveness globally. The amendment that I offer, along with my colleagues Congressman Grijalva, Congressman Honda, and Congressman Kildee, builds upon the existing provisions of the bill to further increase the access of minority students to, and the capacity of, minority institutions to provide STEM opportunities.

I am pleased that this amendment is supported by multiple higher education organizations, including the American Association of Community Colleges, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, the Presidents and Chancellors of the 1890 Universities, the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, and the United Negro College Fund.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for their cooperative responsiveness and the tremendous work that they have done on behalf of all Americans to make us the most competitive Nation that we can possibly be.

I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and Technology Committee for their work to develop and promote policies to strengthen our nation's competitiveness in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. In particular, I applaud the Chairman for his leadership in broadening the participation of individuals and institutions that are underrepresented in STEM. You and your staff actively engaged with me and other Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to listen to and address our concerns. I want to recognize and thank Dahlia Sokolov on your staff for sharing her expertise and for being so responsive.

According to the Census Bureau, 39 percent of the population under the age of 18 is a racial or ethnic minority. Yet, in 2003, only 4.4 percent of U.S. science and engineering jobs were held by African Americans and only 3.4 percent by Hispanics. Further, women represent only a little more than one quarter of our science and technology workforce. Although Historically Black Colleges and Universities represent only 3 percent of our nation's colleges, they graduate 40 percent of African Americans with degrees in STEM areas and 60 percent of African Americans with degrees in engineering; yet, they receive only about 1 percent of all federal R&D support. Many experts maintain that the ability of the US to produce enough scientists will fall far short unless we take strong action to develop the potential of women and minorities. Thus, broadening participation efforts are critical to meeting the growing demand for U.S. workers with STEM skills and to improving American competitiveness globally.

H.R. 5116 includes multiple provisions that respond to concerns raised by multiple reports, STEM experts, and Members of the Congress about the need to broaden participation of individuals and institutions that are underrepresented in STEM fields. The amendment that I offer along with my colleagues Congressman Grijalva, Congressman Honda, and Congressman Kildee builds upon the existing provisions in the bill to further increase the access of minority students to and the capacity of minority institutions to provide STEM opportunities.

I am pleased that this amendment is supported by multiple higher education organizations, including: The American Association of Community Colleges; The Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities; The Institute for Higher Education Policy; The National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education; The Presidents and Chancellors of the 1890 Universities; The Thurgood Marshall College Fund; and The United Negro College Fund.

Our amendment does five things.

First, it clarifies that the new STEM Education Strategic Plan will include a specific focus on broadening participation of individuals and institutions that are underrepresented in STEM. H.R. 5116 recognizes the need to coordinate STEM education efforts within the Executive Branch. Consistent with experts in STEM education, our amendment simply clarifies that the strategic plan for coordinating STEM education across the Executive Branch should have each agency identify steps it takes to broaden the participation.

Second, it includes a National Academy of Sciences report on strengthening the capacity of two-year institutions to provide STEM opportunities. The majority of Latino and African American students attend two-year colleges. Moreover, two-year institutions play an integral role in training STEM professionals through terminal and certification degrees as well as in preparing students to transfer to four-year institutions to complete STEM baccalaureate degrees. Thus, two-year institutions are a critical component of the STEM pipeline.

Although a few reports have examined the role of these institutions in a particular STEM discipline, no study has looked at comprehensively at two-year institutions with regard to STEM. A comprehensive analysis of how Federal agencies can provide increased opportunities for two- year institutions to participate across the portfolios of STEM education and research will do much to improve success of low income and minority students in STEM fields.

Third, our amendment strengthens the data collections related to STEM faculty and Federal research grants by ensuring the data are examined by race/ethnicity and gender. These data are important to assessing progress in broadening participation. Consistent with NSF data collections on students in STEM fields, the amendment simply ensures that these important data collections will be examined by race, ethnicity, and gender.

Fourth, the amendment strengthens the institutional research partnerships provision by including a reporting requirement on partnership grants. In order to ensure that partnerships among institutions are collaborative and equitable, H.R. 5116 requires NSF to award funds directly to institutional partners involved in a research collaboration funded at a level greater than $2 million. The amendment simply includes a report requirement so that we have a fuller understanding of the number and nature of such partnerships.

Finally, our amendment clarifies that undergraduates in two-year programs are eligible for the Undergraduates In Standard Research Grants. The amendment simply clarifies that students in certificate, associate, or baccalaureate degree programs qualify for research grants.

As I close, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member again for their leadership. I

strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment that will strengthen the bill's provisions to broaden participation.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in much of the history of the United States, and certainly in the most recent history of the United States, we have made a decision to build much of our economy on the backs of the best and the brightest that this country has to offer; to go to the research universities and to other universities and develop grants from Federal agencies to the National Science Foundation, from NIH and from the other agencies to do the research necessary to drive basic discovery, and to drive from that discovery innovation, and from that innovation economic growth. And its served this economy and it's served this Nation very, very well over the last 50 years.

But we have a problem here. We have a situation where the best and the brightest people, among the most talented, a select group of people, the postdoctoral individuals, people who've had their master's degrees and their Ph.D.'s in sciences and engineering and mathematics and a whole range of fields participate in that research. They, in many instances, write the grants for that research. The grants are awarded to the universities based upon their work. Those grants provide for escalators so that the principal investigator and the postdocs that he hires, those very bright graduates of our university system to run the labs, to do the research, to assist that individual, that they be provided for.

And yet we find out that in many instances, universities are withholding information that these students have an absolute right under State law to have. And that right is to understand how they are paid and the availability of money in these grants for their increases.

In most of these grants, the Federal institutions and others require that escalators be built into. The universities require when the postdocs and the principal investigators write these grants to submit to the Federal Government and to the agencies that they include an escalator.

And what are the universities doing? In the case of University of California, Berkeley, they withhold. They then take 53 percent in overhead charges. So in a $1 million grant, they get an additional over $500,000 to administer that grant. They take that share of the escalators for themselves, but they don't pass it on to these brilliant young people who are also now--because they've postponed, in many instances, having a family and buying a home, they now become among the lowest-paid people in the region.

All this amendment says is, if they are entitled to the information under the law, that the university should have to provide it. The University of California has been telling these postdocs and telling the Congress of the United States for over a year that they would provide this information, and they have failed to do that.

So what we're saying is that these students are entitled to the law, to that information. It creates no new right. It creates nothing new in collective bargaining. This is not the purpose. The purpose is to--the information that they are entitled to under the law they have.

This is really about the very contracts that the university is administering. And yet a year later after the request by both Members of Congress and the postdoc graduates, they're told that the information is not available. If the information isn't available, it raises questions about the overhead, the $850 million that the University of California took for the purposes of administering these grants.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this has really nothing to do with labor law. The question is whether the postdoctorate employees of the university who are involved in running these very sophisticated labs and experiments and research, whether or not they get the information that they are entitled to under the law. It only applies in those areas where there is an agreement. Many universities don't have this, some do.

But the point of the matter is that if these young people are not able to provide for themselves, we are going to take talented people and they are going to leave the scientific field. They were given these grants because they are among the best grants in the country. They were peer-reviewed. A decision was made that this is the science that is worth pursuing in the interest of this country in a whole range of fields, whether it is in space or energy or food, whatever it is. That is the point. Yet these people are among the lowest-paid people in the country, with the most education, with the most talent.

All we are saying is give them the information so they can see if there is any restrictions on passing through a

portion of, or whatever they can agree to, of the escalators that are built into these agreements. The university is taking its cut off the top without asking anybody, but somehow the postdocs aren't even entitled to that information or the graduate students aren't entitled to that information under the current policy.

It is simply not fair, and it is going to be very discouraging to extremely talented people that we have placed a bet on. This legislation places a bet on the intellectual talent and the curiosity and the skills of these individuals to drive the next generation of innovation, to drive the next generation of economic growth, to drive the next generation of discovery. That is what this is about. That is what it should be about. But we can't do that by mistreating the very talent pool that is so critical to our success.

This is just a simple request for information. It does not provide any additional rights to anyone that don't exist today. And I think it is time that we recognize the needs of these individuals, of their families, if we are going to retain them in the scientific endeavor of which they have spent most of their life pursuing, and they are obviously very accomplished at this and they are a vital, vital asset to this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his support of this legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5116, but let me begin by congratulating Chairman Gordon for the great leadership that he's provided while he's been chairman of the committee, as well as the great cooperation and leadership that Ranking Member Hall has provided us. These two gentlemen have exemplified the very best of our democratic system. Back now to this piece of legislation, however.

The theoretical purpose of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act is to enhance the Nation's long-term economic competitiveness through investments in science and technology. I support this laudable goal, as I have for more than 21 years as a member of the Committee on Science and Technology, including 10 years in which I was a subcommittee chairman. But I cannot support this legislation which, simply put, authorizes too much funding in too many wrongheaded ways.

While I'm certain this bill was drafted with the best of intentions and motivations, I strongly disagree that this is in our Nation's best interests. American investments in science and technology cannot operate in a vacuum. We need a broader strategy that prioritizes spending, reduces debt, eliminates deficits, and provides clarity, stability, and the appropriate regulatory environment. Only this combined policy, with all of the difficult analysis and hard choices that it entails, will allow America to maintain our technological edge. But this legislation makes no choices. It simply authorizes more and more spending.

We cannot enhance our long-term competitiveness by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren. That is precisely what this legislation does. The Congressional Budget Office says that implementing this legislation will cost $85 billion, a 32 percent increase over the FY 2010 baseline. This will clearly elevate the level of deficit spending for our country. We're talking about borrowing money from China and other foreign nations to meet the goals of this legislation. It's new spending on top of old, creating towering debt. Like a game of Jenga, we're eroding the base by piling even greater burdens on an increasingly unstable system, hoping that the whole thing won't just fall apart while we're holding the ball. Well, instead, if we manage to get through this without a total collapse, the way our country is going, we will be burying our children in debt. And that is not an option we should be advocating. We should go at the debt legislation by legislation, as we are today.

At the same time, in this legislation there is no prioritization of programs and spending, no attempt at increasing efficiencies or at restructuring programs that would be expected to be reauthorized in a bill of this size and complexity. There aren't even any commonsense safeguards to make sure that these funds won't promote foreign competitors. If we finance foreign researchers who then return home with their new capabilities, it certainly won't help America compete. Perhaps, if the money will go to train foreigners and subsidize companies not owned by Americans, we should name this the America DEPLETES Act. Creating new Federal programs or expanding existing programs should always be done with caution and oversight. Establishing new programs, especially in times of economic downturn, means increasing deficit spending, which in

itself is something that will drag down productivity and economic activity.

Along with some good things, this legislation creates new programs which are unnecessary and wasteful and which, as some of my fellow colleagues have already pointed out, are redundant to existing programs. All of this while increasing the level of deficit spending. This is not a roadmap to progress for a better future. It's just another well-intentioned spending program, financed by borrowing, that will propel America over the economic cliff to which we are headed.

Over this last year, spending more, borrowing more, taxing more, subsidizing more, and running up the level of Federal deficit spending at such a record pace has not spurred our economy. It has not caused economic growth or reversed the economic crisis and challenge which we find ourselves confronting today. I believe those pushing this legislation are well-intentioned, but they're not diligent. Diligence would require prioritization, program restructuring, regulatory relief, and tearing down the roadblocks to using the technologies that we already have, rather than just spending more and more.

So, with that, I suggest that there are good parts to this bill, but I would have to rise in opposition.