International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2014

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify my position on rollcall votes cast between July 9, 2014 and July 17, 2014.

On rollcall vote No. 371, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McAllister I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 372, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Hahn I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 373, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Gosar I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 374, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Wenstrup I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 375, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Swalwell I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 376, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Byrne I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 377, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McClintock I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 378, on consideration of H.R. 803 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 379, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McClintock I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 380, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Bonamici I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 381, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Speier I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 382, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Titus I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 383, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Schiff I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 384, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Quigley I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 385, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Chabot I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 386, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Titus I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 387, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. DeLauro I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 388, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. King I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 389, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Lankford I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 390, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Cassidy I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 391, on ordering the previous question for H. Res. 661 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 392, on consideration of H. Res. 661 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 393, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Burgess I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 394, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. LaMalfa I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 395, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Stockman I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 396, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Stockman I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 397, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. McKinley I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 398, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Ms. Blackburn I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 399, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Gosar I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 400, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 4923 by Mr. Hudson I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``no.''

On rollcall vote No. 401, on the motion to recommit for H.R. 4923 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 402, on final passage of H.R. 4923 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 403, on the motion to recommit to H.R. 4718 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 404, on final passage of H.R. 4718 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 405, on consideration of H.R. 4195 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 406, on consideration of H.R. 5029 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 407, on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 669 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 408, on passage of H. Res. 669 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 409, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Jackson Lee I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 410, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Moore I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 412, on consideration of an amendment offered to H.R. 5016 by Ms. Waters I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``aye.''

On rollcall vote No. 413, on consideration of the motion to recommit with instructions H.R. 5021 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 414, on passage of H.R. 5021 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 428, on ordering the previous question to H. Res. 670 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 429, on passage of H. Res. 670 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 430, on the motion to instruct for H.R. 3230 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 431, on the motion to recommit for H.R. 4719 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 432, on passage of H.R. 4719 I did not vote. It was my intention to vote ``nay.''

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify my vote on final passage of H.R. 4923 and H.R. 5021.

On H.R. 4923 I would have voted for the bill despite concerns about the increase in funding for fossil fuel research at the expense of decreases in funding for renewable energy technologies. Furthermore, I was concerned by a policy rider that would prevent the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with rulemaking to clarify the definition of Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act.

On H.R. 5021 I voted yes because it is critically important that we keep our Highway Trust Fund solvent and transportation projects moving forward. However, I am frustrated that we have not yet been able to achieve a longer-term fix for the Highway Trust Fund. In crafting a new highway reauthorization I urge my colleagues to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure a reliable, dedicated funding source for our highway projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my friend, Chairman Smith,

for his leadership on the Science Committee in promoting STEM education. I am grateful that we are able to advance these important provisions today in a bipartisan fashion, thanks in large part to his willingness to work across the aisle.

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson and Representative Lipinski for their leadership on the committee and their thoughtful guidance on these issues.

The STEM Education Act of 2014 provides critical support to the teachers and advocates of STEM education who are preparing our students with the skills they need to succeed in our increasingly competitive global society.

As Chairman Smith said, the bill includes three provisions to support and promote STEM education in this country. It supports teachers who are passionate about STEM education, codifies the importance of informal hands-on STEM education, and expands the definition of STEM education to explicitly include computer science.

As a mother of three, I know firsthand the importance of having teachers who are engaged and passionate about being in the classroom, particularly science and math teachers.

From my own experience--my son just graduated from college with a degree in astrophysics--and from our time studying these issues on the committee, we know that when children are excited about science projects and math problems at a young age, they carry that passion with them throughout their lives. That is why we must encourage talented people to go into teaching, and this bill does just that.

It expands the Robert Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship at the National Science Foundation, so that more people who are enthusiastic about the sciences can teach our children.

I am grateful to see portions of my bill, the STEM Jobs Act, included in the legislation before us today. Currently, the Robert Noyce Master Teaching Fellowship provides mentoring, training, and financial support to people who have a master's degree in a STEM discipline and who want to enter the teaching profession.

The program is designed to ensure that these passionate individuals have the tools they need to become highly effective math and science teachers.

In Connecticut, the University of Bridgeport's Master Teaching Fellowship program is dedicated to placing physics teachers in our high-needs schools. At UConn's Teachers for Tomorrow program, we prepare teachers to effectively teach math to elementary, middle, and high school students.

The bill before us today expands the master teaching fellowships, so those working towards a master's degree are also eligible to apply. This expansion will allow more gifted individuals to be in our classrooms, preparing our children to become the next generation of engineers, scientists, and even astronauts.

However, no matter how great your math teacher is, studies show that all students thrive in a hands-on learning environment.

We are fortunate in Connecticut to have a terrific partner in informal STEM education at the Connecticut Science Center, which opened in 2009, to support STEM education in our schools.

When students visit the center, they can navigate through outer space, use lasers to learn about sight and sound, experiment with forces and motion, and explore our very own Connecticut River.

These interactive learning environments also provide structured support for teachers and for students. For example, the Connecticut Science Center trains more than 800 teachers annually. In teaching skills and content to support our school curriculum, these teachers then return to the classroom across the State of Connecticut and provide our students with the high-quality education that they need to succeed.

Programs like these are hosted by museums and science centers around the country. This bill directs the National Science Foundation to continue to award competitive grants to support these out-of-school, hands-on STEM learning experiences.

Finally, as Chairman Smith noted, this bill takes an important--in fact, a critical step forward in expanding the definition of STEM to include computer science. Computer science is a critical component of STEM education. As he noted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects there will be more than 4 million computing and information technology jobs by the year 2020.

Students who study computer science can be leaders in diverse fields such as energy, manufacturing, defense, and health care. Unfortunately, computer science has all too often been overlooked at our elementary, middle, and high school levels. Even more concerning, only 25 percent of computer scientists are women, although women make up 57 percent of the workforce.

Manufacturing is the backbone of our economy in Connecticut, and I know, from conversations with our manufacturers, that they are desperate for high school and college graduates who have the computer skills necessary for our manufacturing jobs--high tech manufacturing jobs.

Our need for graduates with these skills will only continue to grow, and that is why it is so critical that we focus on building these skills in our elementary, middle, and high school students today.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we have put together a bipartisan bill to support an advanced STEM education. Preparing our students with the skills they need to thrive in a global economy transcends partisan politics.

Again, I want to thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, Representative Bucshon, Representative Lipinski, and all of the committee staff for their hard work on the STEM Education Act. This bill is an important step in securing our children's future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5031) to define STEM education to include computer science, and to support existing STEM education programs at the National Science Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5031, the bill under consideration.

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

The STEM Education Act of 2014 is bipartisan legislation that ensures computer science is included in the definition of STEM education for programs and activities at our Federal science agencies.

The bill also supports and strengthens ongoing STEM education efforts at the National Science Foundation. I thank Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson and Representatives Elizabeth Esty, Larry Bucshon, Chris Collins, Randy Hultgren, Robin Kelly, Joe Kennedy, Dan Lipinski, and Frederica Wilson for their initiative on this bill.

Earlier this year, the Science Committee held a hearing on STEM education. The discussion that took place at that hearing helped to illustrate the importance of STEM education and why we should include computer science as a component of STEM education. Frankly, it is hard to believe it hasn't been done before.

Today, a variety of jobs from banking to business to medicine require familiarity with computer science. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, computing and mathematics will be one of the top 10 major occupational groups from 2010 to 2020; and by 2020, there will be over 4 million U.S. jobs in computing and information technology.

Unfortunately, America lags behind many other nations when it comes to STEM education. American students rank 21st in science and 26th in math. That must change for the better.

We need to ensure that young adults have the scientific and mathematical skills to strive and thrive in a technology-based economy, but we have to capture and hold the desire of our Nation's youth to study science and engineering, so they will want to pursue these careers.

H.R. 5031 also includes language to support informal STEM education programs and activities at the National Science Foundation. These activities reach students outside of the classroom and strengthen a student's engagement in STEM subject areas.

The STEM Education Act ensures that teachers working towards a master's degree in STEM subjects can participate in the Robert Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship program. This program provides more opportunities for teachers who want to strengthen their teaching skills and now will encourage more teachers to pursue advanced degrees.

A healthy and viable STEM workforce, literate in all STEM subjects, including computer science, is critical to American industries. A well- educated and trained STEM workforce ensures our future economic prosperity. More graduates with STEM degrees means more advanced technologies and a more robust economy.

We must work to ensure that students continue to go into these fields, so that their innovative ideas can lead to a more innovative and prosperous America. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) for her interest in this subject of STEM education and for her contributions to this bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), who is a member of the Science Committee and also a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time on this side, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further individuals who have requested time, so I am ready to yield back if the minority is ready to yield back.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and former member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak in support of H.R. 5029, the ``International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2014.''

I would like to thank the Chairman Smith and Ranking Eddie Bernice Johnson of the Science, Space, and Technology House Committee for their work in advancing scientific cooperation around the globe that will benefit our domestic efforts to remain competitive and stong in a wide range of scientific fields.

The United States federal science agencies are already effective in collaborating with international agencies and organizations on Science and Technology (S&T), but this bill would ensure that there is a group that coordinates and looks for new opportunities to get involved with our international partners.

International cooperation in Science and Technology will help us answer scientific questions, and conduct elaborate research and development more quickly and efficiently.

According to the International Science and Technology Strategy for the United States Department of Defense, the non-U.S. component of global research and development is more than 60 percent of the total global investment and is expected to continue to outpace the U.S. contribution.

International collaboration would help us address global challenges on a broader scale and would give mutual enhancement of resources for both the United States and its partners.

A few enhancements would allow access to unique research laboratories and facilities, risk reduction through multiple technical approaches to solve difficult technical problems, improve the warfighting capabilities of all involved, and potentially enhance interoperability during coalition operations.

Our partnerships with Service-sponsored international offices in the U.K., Japan, Singapore, and Australia, along with our partners in South America, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom in the Technical Cooperative Program, and the NATO Research and Technology Organization, give us a broad range of resources to work with across the world.

We must continue to enhance and strengthen our foreign relationships in S&T to broker new research, identify mutually advantageous opportunities, and exchange information with potential partners regarding research interests.

The International Space Station, which was built 16 years ago, and continues to operate under the collaboration of several countries around the world, is one of many portrayals that show how international relationships can produce profound research and discoveries.

The European Council for Nuclear Research which conducts in-depth studies on Earth's fundamental matter and particles is another prime example of how foreign collaboration is beneficial and effective in producing elaborate research.

The Center for Disease Control's World Health Organization is also one of the best illustrations of foreign collaboration used to advance the efforts in finding cures for diseases and conducting vital research and studies for global health concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in my support for H.R. 5029, and understand the importance of our international relationships involving Science and Technology, so that when successful, may lead to cooperative research, development and technology programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5031 and the three other science, Space, and Technology bills being considered today.

Earlier this year, all of my Democratic committee colleagues joined me in introducing H.R. 4159, the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2014. Three of the bills considered today are similar or identical to the provisions we included in our Competes bill, and the fourth bill similarly reflects a longstanding bipartisan effort. I will speak briefly about each of the four bills.

First, I want to thank Chairman Smith and my Democratic colleagues, Mr. Lipinski and Ms. Esty, for introducing H.R. 5031, the STEM Education Act of 2014. While we still have much work to do to improve access to high-quality STEM education for all young Americans, this bill is a good step in the right direction.

American students and American companies are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to having a well-prepared information technology workforce. While there is no silver bullet, it is important that we include computer science in the definition of STEM.

This bill also authorizes informal STEM education grants at the National Science Foundation. Learning happens in all settings at all times of the day, not just in the classroom.

While we know that informal STEM education holds great promise to increased engagement and learning in STEM by diverse populations, R&D and NSF helps ensure that we are developing and implementing the most effective programs.

Finally, H.R. 5031 amends NSF's Noyce Master Teacher Fellowship program to expand eligibility to current math and science teachers who already have a bachelor's degree in a STEM field.

This update ensures that we are tapping into our entire pool of talented STEM teachers who might serve as master teachers in their schools and districts. I urge my colleagues to support this good bill.

Next, I want to thank my fellow Texan, Mr. Neugebauer, who introduced H.R. 1786, legislation that would reauthorize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, or NWIRP. The last several years have been devastating years for natural disasters across the country. Tornadoes have resulted in significant loss of life and property across the Midwest.

Superstorm Sandy caused widespread destruction and death along the eastern seaboard, and it was not so long ago that Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast. We cannot stop these windstorms, but we must make sure our communities have the tools they need to prepare for and respond to and recover from these disasters.

H.R. 1786 reauthorizes NWIRP, an important program that helps our Federal agencies and communities across the Nation develop and implement new model building codes and many other measures to minimize the loss of life and property during windstorms and to rebuild effectively and safely after such storms.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important bill.

I also want to thank Mr. Bucshon and Mr. Peters for introducing H.R. 5056, the Research and Development Efficiency Act. I think we can all agree that when federally funded researchers are spending more than 40 percent of their time on administrative burdens rather than doing science, we are not getting the most we can out of our investments in