Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5116) to invest in innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1344.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1344 provides for consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act. It is a structured rule, making in order 54 amendments. It also provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member from the Committee on Science. It considers the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be considered as an original bill. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. Finally, the rule provides authority to the chairman of the Committee on Science or his designee to move amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, our Nation's economy fell off a cliff in the fall of 2008. By the end of the Bush administration, we were losing at least 700,000 jobs a month. In the last month of the Bush administration, that number was up to 780,000 jobs in that month alone. Congress then, working in tandem with the Obama administration, passed various pieces of legislation to stabilize our economy in the short term and invest in various fields for the long-run growth of our country.

Fifteen months since the passage of the Recovery Act, we are seeing its impact. We went from 780,000 jobs lost the last month of the Bush administration to 290,000 jobs created in April 2010, a pretty significant swing given the fact that the loss was so drastic and so quick in the fall of 2008 and the first month of 2009. But we are not out of the woods yet. We are turning the tide.

This Congress recognizes no country on Earth can match the creativity, productivity, and hard work of the American entrepreneur. The America COMPETES Act builds upon this idea by investing in scientific research, industrial innovation, and hard science education. It gives our Nation's most creative scientists and engineers the resources they need to develop the breakthroughs which will change the world as we know it and make America even more competitive.

The bill reauthorizes programs in the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy to capture their full potential. This empowers our universities, which are undergoing tremendous strain as they weather the recent financial collapse.

In my own district, the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Colorado Health Science Center will have access to more funding to develop green energy, medical communications, and other technologies. The bill improves science, technology, engineering, and math education to ensure that our Nation's workforce has the training and know-how to maximize the investments that we make. It gives our innovators the chance to compete for more resources so they can research, develop, commercialize, and eventually transform our economy.

As we speak, there are scientists, inventors, and engineers in our Nation who are devising the next groundbreaking advances. We cannot afford to let those ideas wither on the vine. So I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying bill, which will create jobs and solidify the foundation for the long-term growth and prosperity of the United States.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to a couple of the things my friend from Florida said.

First, I'd remind him that at the end of the Clinton administration there was a budget that was balanced. There was, in fact, a surplus going forward; but under the Bush administration with tax cuts for the wealthiest, the prosecution of two wars without paying for them, and a financial sector in total disarray at the end of the Bush administration, the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.

But in moving forward with the actions taken by this Congress to stabilize the financial system and put people back to work, there's been a swing now from the last month of the Bush administration, where almost 800,000 jobs were lost, to a gain last month of 260,000, well over a million-job swing towards putting this country back on track. That will assist with revenues as the economy gets better. That deals with budget deficits.

My friend is right. We have to look at the spending that this country is engaging in, but we have got to put people back to work. This America COMPETES Act does that by building on our science foundation. We have, in this bill, endorsements and support from virtually every kind of company and association possible, from business associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, TechNet, et cetera, to various societies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, university associations as well, and a whole host of businesses, because they know how important this bill is towards the investment that we're going to make in the future for this country. But it's jobs today.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his remarks regarding Muftiah.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Madam Speaker, I say to my good friend, Congressman Broun, that he has forgotten that this bill satisfies the PAYGO rules which CBO has scored at zero, so that there is not an increase, a rule that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle eliminated, which helped drive up the debt of this country.

And I would just say to my friend, the investments that are being made in science and technology and in the education of scientists and engineers and mathematicians is the kind of investment for the long- term health of this country that has to be made right now.

I yield to my friend from California (Ms. Matsui) 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California, it is common sense. The Rules Committee understands that Federal funds can only be used for legal purposes. That must be in the statutes 550 times. So he just wants to have a little more redundancy in the law.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Madam Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Speaker, I would yield 2 minutes to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Madam Speaker, I would like to now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate what Mr. Klein from Florida was saying about the purpose and the need for this bill at this time in this legislation. The America COMPETES Act is about moving this country forward, making sure that for the next 20 years we continue to have a strong science and engineering and technological future for the country. The bill, as we said, provides all sorts of funding to the National Science Foundation, to NIST, to NOAA, and to the Department of Energy, so that we can do research in a whole variety of ways across this country through our universities and other kinds of facilities and institutions of higher learning.

Now I guess I'd like to speak on behalf of Muftiah--or speak to Muftiah. Many people have presented a lot of accolades that I can't top. But what I can say is, as a new member to the Rules Committee, that we have had some very contentious, rough and tumble bills, to use a couple of the terms Mr. Dreier used, Ms. Matsui, but we can look to Muftiah--I can look to Muftiah--to give good advice and to bring a calming influence to the committee and certainly to me as we were going through the whole list of parliamentary procedures--what's in order, what's not in order, why is it in order. She has stood out as somebody who really knows the rules, understands the policy, and is willing to work with both sides of the aisle and with all the members certainly on the Democratic side of the Rules Committee to make sure we do the best job that we can do. I thought I brought a lot of experience from the practice of law, having served also in the legislature in Colorado. But the rules and the

approach that's taken in the Congress, there are many more layers and many more things that have to be understood.

I would say to you, Muftiah, you are a heck of an adviser. You are a great teacher. I just wish you the best, as I know all the other members of the Rules Committee and the Members of the House just wish you the best in whatever you do, whether it's practicing law or raising your family or just enjoying life, because we put in a lot of hours. Thank you very much.

With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his courtesy in how he debates these bills, debates the rules; I just appreciate that. But he and I differ very much on the passage of this rule. This rule and this bill should be passed.

In listening to some of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle who are wanting to draw back, wanting to draw down at a time when America must really move forward, must look to its long-term future and towards its prosperity and its ability to compete in the world, this is the rule and this is the bill that moves us forward, with its investments in science and technology and math and engineering. Those are very key things.

It reminds me of those who would have asked Abraham Lincoln to stop building the dome and rebuilding this Capitol during the Civil War because of its costs and the country should look towards the Civil War and worry about that. Legitimate concerns, but President Lincoln said: No, this country is going to succeed. Its long-term prosperity is going to occur, and I am going to keep moving forward with the construction of the dome of the Capitol. I'm not going to back off.

We in this country, Americans, look forward. We are a forward-looking people. We believe in our future, and there is no place like continuing to build our abilities in science, technology, math, and engineering. That is the place where we have to start putting our investments. It is jobs today, and it is long-term investment in the prosperity and success of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In order for the United States to compete in today's global marketplace and to spur long-term growth, we must invest in basic science research and development. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, collectively known as the National Academies, published the report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report concluded that the United States faces a serious challenge with regard to our future competitiveness and standard of living. That report led to the bipartisan enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, which implemented the report's recommendations.

Today we are set to consider H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. The bill reauthorizes the America COMPETES Act for 5 years, increases authorization spending levels to $86 billion, and creates new programs.

I understand and I support the underlying principles of the America COMPETES Act, prioritizing and strengthening investments in basic research and development and STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. But we need to have an economic strategy that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete, to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces taxation, that brings our Federal spending under control, and controls the spiraling national debt.

So, Madam Speaker, as much as I would prefer to support the underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending levels.

The bill has an overall authorization of nearly $86 billion, which represents approximately $20 billion in new funding above the fiscal base of this year. That is a significant increase when we're facing record budget deficits. And that is after the so-called stimulus bill injected 6 billion additional dollars into the agencies funded by this bill.

The current national debt projections and the majority's insatiable appetite for spending are unsustainable. And if we continue on that trajectory, the America that we know, love, and admire will be severely threatened. Our excessive spending threatens the very foundation of our economy and our way of life. We could very well find ourselves in a position, soon, similar to today's Greece.

As we saw last week when the House considered the legislation on credits for refurbishing homes by my friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch), Congress is beginning to realize the magnitude of the Nation's fiscal problem--though the congressional majority leadership has not yet realized it or simply does not care.

I may have voted in favor of the underlying legislation if the majority, nevertheless, had allowed the House to consider and vote on amendments that would have reduced the spending levels on the bill.

For example, my colleague Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida came before the Rules Committee yesterday to request that the

committee allow the House to consider his amendment to cut the authorization of the bill from 5 years to 3 years. His amendment would have lowered the cost of the overall bill. It would also have given Congress the ability to come back in 3 years and determine if the legislation was achieving its intended purpose.

Perhaps if that amendment had been allowed, a number of Members like myself who are concerned about the uncontrolled spending of this majority could have voted for the bill. Instead, the majority in the Rules Committee decided that they would block consideration of the Mario Diaz-Balart amendment and also the Sessions amendment, amendments that sought to reduce the spending in the bill. Not only did they block the Diaz-Balart and Sessions amendments, they blocked out almost three- fourths of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, while allowing nearly 90 percent of the Democrat amendments. So today we will consider four Republican amendments and 48 Democrat amendments. That's quite a contrast.

It's especially glaring when you consider that we were told that it would not be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress in history; yet week after week the majority continues to block an open process. We have yet to consider even one open rule during this entire Congress--not even on the historically open appropriations process. It is quite sad.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for reminding us of the Clinton years.

I was elected to Congress when President Clinton was elected President. Two years later, we, the Republicans, captured the majority here in the Congress, and I remember how we had to fight tooth and nail to balance the budget. President Clinton never submitted a budget with a deficit less than $200 billion a year. I remember ad infinitum his budgets at least had $200 billion of deficits. It used to be, Madam Speaker, that $200 billion was a lot of money for a deficit. And I remember how this Congress had to fight day in and day out, and we finally achieved, in very arduous negotiations with the executive, a balanced budget. So that's the record.

I would like, at this point, to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Speaker, we have great differences, great disagreements often here on the floor of this House. Rare is the occasion when there is no debate, when there are no differences.

Muftiah McCartin enjoys the admiration of all Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked with her. She personifies the best of this institution. She personifies competence, professionalism, and courtesy. And as someone who has had the privilege of working with her, I thank her for her service and commend her for her professionalism, competence, and that courtesy.

So the best to you, Muftiah, and your family as you move on to other endeavors. You are an example of the wonderful men and women who have through the years made possible what this Congress gets accomplished. And so I join all of my colleagues in wishing Muftiah the best.

I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Mr. Perlmutter, for his courtesy and for his management on the majority side of this rule.

While reiterating that I am so pleased that Members on both sides of the aisle have joined to commend and wish the best to Muftiah McCartin, with regard to the legislation that we are bringing to the floor with this rule, I would say, Mr. Speaker, while not minimizing its importance because I think it's obviously dealing with a very important set of subjects that enjoy bipartisan support in this Congress, I would bring to the attention once again of all Members what we saw last week with legislation on--I believe it was a $6 billion tax credit to allow--I remember it was a credit for home refurbishings, brought to the floor by my good friend Mr. Welch. And I noticed at that time a--I think it was a change in attitude.

I was impressed. I was certainly impacted by what I perceived as a change in the Congress on what normally I think would have faced little opposition. Certainly it would have been expected that that legislation would have faced little opposition. We saw--what I saw, what I perceived was a ground swell of concern on the spending. You know, refurbishing one's home and encouraging citizens to refurbish their homes to keep them energy efficient, you know, that's not something that in itself would have opposition. It was the spending that touched a nerve because of the moment we're living. And so with the legislation that we bring to the floor today that is being increased from the basic spending by about $20 billion, I certainly would not be surprised if we see a similar nerve being touched. That doesn't mean that the subject is not of great importance.

Science, education, keeping the U.S. leading edge, cutting edge in so many ways, that is obviously something that has enjoyed bipartisan support, and it should. But I think the majority is failing to sense that moment that the Nation at large and the Congress now is finally manifesting or reacting to. There is concern about the path we are on with regard to spending.

Having said that, I again thank Mr. Perlmutter for his courtesy and management of this rule, as well as thanking all who have participated in this debate today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us today, I want to join my colleagues in saluting the wonderful work of Muftiah McCartin. She began her work on the Hill--it couldn't be 1976. I can't believe that. She has worked on the Appropriations Committee and is now leaving her tenure as staff director on the Rules Committee.

We all know that she loves this institution. She has poured her heart and soul into her work. We were all so proud when she became the staff director of the Rules Committee. Her policy and technical expertise have served both sides of the aisle over many years. She is a mother of four children. It's hard to imagine she is now a grandmother. We have been blessed with her service over many, many years. She will be sorely missed.

Muftiah, thank you very much for all that you have done. This is coming as news to me, by the way, so I'm quite taken aback by the fact that you're leaving us. But thank you for your service. I wish you well in the future. We have been very blessed by your service. Congratulations on where you're going next.

Madam Speaker, 10 years ago, President Kennedy summed up America's commitment to innovation when he launched the ``man on the Moon initiative'' to send a man to the Moon and back--in those days, they said a man--but a man to the Moon and back safely in 10 years. At that time, he said, ``The vows of this Nation can be fulfilled only if we are first, and therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort.''

Over the past half century since then, Americans have lived up to these words. Science and technological innovation have formed the backbone of our progress as a people and our prosperity as a Nation. And today in passing this innovation bill, this COMPETES Act, we are reaffirming our leadership in science and in industry, and we are keeping America first.

Few have done more for the cause of innovation in the Congress than Chairman Bart Gordon, and I'm sorry he is not on the floor yet--he will be momentarily to manage this bill--who was first in sounding the alarm and heeding the call of the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That was a report presented by a great innovation leader, Norm Augustine, and the National Academy of Sciences. It provoked us to send a team of Members, legislators around the country.

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from the Silicon Valley invited Chairman George Miller, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee and the Education and Labor Committee, to a meeting at Stanford University to launch a series of meetings in a bipartisan way to develop an innovation agenda.

We met, of course, with academics. We met with workers. We met with venture capitalists to see where the private dollar would go because we believed that this had to be a market-oriented initiative to build the competitiveness of America. We met with every aspect of putting together an innovation agenda, and we met all across the country to do that. We had particularly strong presentations from members of the Asian American community who were quite impatient with the lack of progress that was happening in terms of public policy, and that accelerated the pace of our time table for this.

So what came from that was the COMPETES Act that Chairman Bart Gordon was instrumental in bringing to the floor in 2007. We had strong bipartisan support in passing that legislation, I am pleased to say. And again, we are here today to reauthorize the COMPETES Act, to spur innovation, invest in cutting-edge research, modernize manufacturing, and increase opportunity. And I thank you for your remarks, Mr. Perlmutter, and your leadership on this subject as well.

As a result, new industries will provide good jobs for our workers, markets for American products will expand, we will reassert our leadership throughout the world and give future generations a better chance to realize the American Dream. It's about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

Simply put, this legislation supports our efforts to keep America number one, following President Kennedy's lead to keep America first and following the call of President Obama at his inauguration for swift, bold action now to do just that. The COMPETES Act will keep our Nation on the path that we promised, to double the funding for the scientific research over 10 years, create jobs with innovation technology loan guarantees for small- and medium-sized manufacturers and enhanced manufacturing extension partnerships--these MEPs are a very valuable tool for job creation, promote regional innovation clusters--this is new--that strengthen regional economies and expand scientific collaboration, and invest in high-risk/high-reward research through ARPA-E--again, this is a major initiative of Mr. Gordon-- helping ensure American energy independence.

Since we know that innovation begins in the classroom, I want to commend Mr. Miller for yielding to Chairman Gordon because we didn't want this bill held up by one jurisdiction or another of committee, and Mr. Gordon has carried that principle that innovation begins in the classroom, and we have those considerations in the bill. This bill will help raise up the next generation of entrepreneurs by improving science, math, technology and engineering education at all levels. It will also train young people to think in an entrepreneurial way and will secure a central role for women and minorities in these fields.

As we go forward with this innovation--we had the industrial revolution, we had the technological revolution, and now we have this revolution--we want to do so in a way that brings everyone into the fullest participation in the new prosperity of America and will strengthen and diversify our workforce as, again, we create jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.

In this Congress, in addition to jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, which is a four-letter word we use all the time, there are four words that describe our agenda. They are: science, science, science and science. Science to provide health care for all Americans. And in our health care bill that we passed and in the Recovery Act of last year, we have major investments in science and technology to make America healthier; science to keep America number one in innovation. In the new technologies to protect the environment and the rest, we have to be competitive. Science and technology will take us there; science to keep our air clean and our water clean for our children and the safety of the environment in which they live; and science to promote our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and to advance the technologies to keep us preeminent in terms of our country's defense.

This bill comes down to good-paying jobs for Americans, strong American leadership in the global economy and long-term growth for America's workers and families. It does so in a way that doesn't just put people back to work as we are trying to address the need for more jobs. It puts them back to work in better jobs. It puts more people to work, some who have been unemployed no matter how well educated they are or how economically deprived their areas have been. Some of this is really ground floor, ground floor. We're bringing women, minorities, people from urban areas and rural areas, again, people with a wide range of educational backgrounds but with a prospect for great success.

So with this, we are not just solidifying the disparities in our economy. We are opening up avenues for, again,

everyone to participate in the prosperity for our country.

With that, Madam Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to make a very strong bipartisan vote for jobs, for science, and to keep America number one by voting for the COMPETES Act.