Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2693) to amend title VII of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2693, the bill now under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as we all know, on April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred aboard the BP Deepwater Horizon drill rig that claimed the lives of 11 men and resulted in the largest environmental disaster in our Nation's history. While the flow of oil from the well might have stopped for now, as long as our economy is dependent on oil, we risk similar tragedies happening again and again.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the relevant Federal agencies are equipped with the technology and intellectual and financial resources needed to prevent future oil spills and to effectively respond when they occur. With that, I am pleased to bring before the House two bills that enhance U.S. preparedness for future oil spills and improve worker safety.

The first bill is H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, introduced by my friend from California, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey. I congratulate her for her foresight in introducing this bill.

This bill was passed out of the Science and Technology Committee last week by a voice vote after considering 21 member amendments, and it incorporates a few additional changes, partly to address minority concerns raised in the committee markup.

H.R. 2693 amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. In response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill, OPA 90 was enacted to improve the Nation's ability to both prevent and mitigate oil spills. Unfortunately, little progress has been made since then, and today's responders are left with virtually the same set of tools they had in 1989.

Ms. Woolsey recognized this critical shortcoming in response to the COSCO Busan oil spill in her district in 2007, and she drafted this amendment to the OPA 90 to improve the interagency research program.

The BP Deepwater Horizon tragedy has made the intent of this bill all the more relevant today. H.R. 2693 enhances the research and development activities, sets up a more efficient Federal management structure, and provides for more robust oversight and accountability of the interagency R&D program established in OPA 90.

I would like to thank my ranking member from Texas (Mr. Hall) and other Republican colleagues for working with us to improve this bill.

Also, once again, I commend Ms. Woolsey for her foresight and for her commitment to enhancing the Nation's preparedness for oil spills through H.R. 2693.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Dr. Baird.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, once again I want to thank the gentlelady from California (Ms. Woolsey) for bringing this bill before us, Dr. Baird for getting it through the subcommittee, the 26 Democrats and Republicans on the Science and Technology Committee that brought amendments to make a good bill better, and the majority and minority staffs for working together to bring this bill before us.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, as we move forward today with floor consideration of H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act of 2010, I would like to recognize and thank Chairman Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman Oberstar of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their cooperation with respect to this piece of legislation. Both Chairman Thompson and Chairman Oberstar have been very supportive in getting this bill to the floor today, and at this time I would like to insert exchanges of letters between myself and each of the Chairmen into the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2010.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 2693,

the ``Federal Oil Spill Research Program Act''.

H.R. 2693 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to

bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious

manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential

referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration

of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision

to forgo a sequential referral of the bill does not waive,

reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 2693.

Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees

during any House-Senate conference convened on this

legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the

Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to

support any request by the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 2693

or similar legislation.

Please place a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee

Report on H.R. 2693 and in the Congressional Record during

consideration of the measure in the House.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

James L. Oberstar, M.C.,

Chairman.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5716) to provide for enhancement of existing efforts in support of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities to advance technologies for the safe and environmentally responsible exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas resources, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5716, the bill now under consideration.

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

Advances in drilling technologies have allowed industry to venture into ever deeper waters in search of the enormous oil and gas reserves found there. Operating in such extreme environments entails immense engineering and technological challenges, the complexity of which is encountered in few other endeavors.

In the hypercompetitive field of energy, the industry is naturally guarded about sharing information and collaborating on proprietary technology development. But safety is universal, and it's time we use Federal resources in pushing the technology envelope towards safer and more environmentally responsible oil and natural gas exploration and production.

My bill, H.R. 5716, the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act, does just that by realigning the focus and funding of existing programs set-up under section 999 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on environmental and worker safety and accident prevention and mitigation. I introduced this bill after close collaboration with my friend from Texas, Mr. Hall, who has been a long- time champion of this program.

As we look toward Federal resources to rapidly advance this field, it is somewhat fortuitous that the 999 program is already in place. Both the outside research consortium, RPSEA, and the program at the National Energy Technology Laboratory are well-suited to take on challenges of R&D into the technologies for drilling safety and accident prevention mitigation.

As a DOE lab for fossil energy, NETL has an extensive research infrastructure and a long history of expertise and excellence in this field and through the relatively new RPSEA, currently has approximately 170 members from across industry, academia, NGOs, and government research entities. Furthermore, the program does not require new spending since it's already funded from $50 million in royalty revenues.

If properly realigned to meet the current challenges, this research program, authorized by section 666, represents the Department of Energy's best resources for improving safety and reducing the environmental impact of offshore and onshore oil and natural gas exploration and production activities.

As I said, H.R. 5716 is the product of significant bipartisan collaboration, and I want to thank Mr. Hall, his

staff, and the other members of the Science and Technology Committee for their continuing good work as we move this legislation forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy).

I certainly respect the gentleman's opinion on this matter and do, in fact, foresee that employees at the National Energy Technology Laboratories will continue their work on ultra deepwater research under the program's new name of Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research. They've done an excellent job in the past, and I'm sure they will continue to do an excellent job.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, Dr. Baird.

I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I want to once again thank Ranking Member Hall for his initiating this bill. He is the father of this bill, and I think we all recognize his good work there.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 292) supporting the goals and ideals of National Aerospace Week, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 292, the concurrent resolution now under consideration.

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

No matter how many times you fly, there is still something magical about the first moment of takeoff when acceleration gives way to the sudden lift and you soar into the clouds. Behind that moment of wonder lies over a century of hard work, long hours, and sacrifice spent uncovering the secrets of aerodynamics and mastering the engineering of heavier-than-air flight. It should be a point of great pride that the United States was a leader in making aviation a reality. So in recognition of National Aerospace Week, we honor a national history of achievement in both aeronautics and in space.

America's achievements in aerospace inspire awe and admiration around the world. From the very first heavier-than-air flight in 1903 to the Moon landing in 1969, America has led the way in aerospace.

Today, we continue to move forward by sending robotic probes to the far reaches of the solar systems, sending observatories into space, and leading the international team that constructed the international space station.

American superiority in aerospace is part of the foundation on which our security rests. Satellites provide our troops in distant lands with everything from vital intelligence about local weather and terrain to updates on NBA finals. Unmanned aerial vehicles and communications, and satellite-based navigation and position systems are essential tools that members of the Armed Forces rely on to do their job safely and effectively.

Space-derived systems like GPS and weather satellites have become integral to civil society as well.

The aerospace industry employs many hundreds of thousands of Americans and is one of the most vibrant and innovative sectors of our economy. Industry sales are estimated to reach $215 billion in 2010.

In addition to the 831,000 Americans who work in the aerospace industry, an additional 11 million work in the field of commercial aviation.

For its contributions to science and engineering, to our national security and economy, as well as to the general well-being and progress of humankind, the aerospace industry deserves recognition. With this resolution, we take a moment to remember the glories of the past and the anticipation of wonders for the future.

I want to thank the sponsor of this resolution, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for his long support of our Nation's aerospace industry and for his support for science and technology generally during his tenure in Congress on the Science and Technology Committee. We think of him as the conscience of science, and we thank him for this good resolution today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me say all the accolades that Dr. Ehlers has received have been well deserved. He has left a thick trail of accomplishments in this body.

I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of a valued staff member of the Committee on Science and Technology, Michael Quear. Mike has served on Capitol Hill for over 20 years, most recently as the Staff Director for the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee.

Mike Quear grew up in Indiana on a farm where his work for 4H and his demanding piano teacher taught him the importance of principled, disciplined hard work. Every day Mike came to work for the Committee for the last 20 years, he brought that attitude to the job with him. It is hard to match either his stamina or the quality of his work.

In 1990, Mike came to the Science Committee from a fellowship with the State Department. Educated in Chemical Engineering, Mike brought with him real-world experience from working in industry as well as exposure to the thinking of the State Department about how to use science and technology to build stronger diplomatic ties among nations. He worked directly for then-Chairman George E. Brown, Jr. Brown was a passionate advocate for using scientific cooperation to bridge differences between nations. Mike supported his efforts, acting as his advisor for international scientific cooperation matters. At Brown's direction, Mike played a key role in negotiating the establishment of the U.S.-Mexico Foundation for Science.

Beginning in 1995, Mike took the lead as the key Democratic staffer on technology issues and for reauthorization of programs at the National Institute of Technology and Standards. For the last 15 years, virtually every authorization or reauthorization of programs at NIST was the direct product of

Mike's work. Mike is well known to colleagues in the Senate and the House, among authorizers and appropriators, both on and off the Hill for his detailed knowledge of NIST, its programs and its problems. His work on NIST programs could be a perfect case study for any young Committee staffer trying to understand how to work with an agency.

Mike played a key role in crafting many pieces of legislation relating to standards, technology development, and competitiveness. I want to mention just two specifically. I am particularly indebted to Mike because he drafted the first bill I had signed into law as Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology: the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007. Secondly, Mike Quear was at the heart of the America COMPETES Act--taking the lead on all the technology provisions in that landmark legislation.

Mike has been a model staffer: creative, smart, hard-working, and loyal. While the Committee will miss his dedicated services, I am confident that he will retire to his farm in Pennsylvania and apply those same gifts to his passions of raising horses, driving buggies, and gardening. I want to thank him for his selfless professionalism and congratulate him on his hard earned retirement. We will miss you and cannot replace you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Brenda Marie Page, who is retiring after more than two decades of dedicated service as Clerk and Master of Tennesssee's 18th Judicial District.

A lifetime Middle Tennessean, Brenda attended Maplewood High School, then earned her degree at Middle Tennessee State University, my own alma mater. She began her career at Tennessee's Department of Education and went on to work as a secretary at Volunteer State Community College. Then-Dean of Students Tom E. Gray recognized her abilities and brought her in as secretary upon being elected judge, then Chancellor of Sumner County.

Brenda was appointed to the constitutional office of Clerk and Master of the 18th Judicial District in 1988. In her role as Clerk and Master, Brenda has worn many hats. In addition to overseeing the operations and budget of the Clerk's office, Brenda is appointed Special Master in cases involving the division of property. She has played critical roles in the execution of thousands of civil and domestic cases throughout her 22 years of service.

Outside of her contributions to the district, Brenda has served as a division president of the State Court Clerk's Association and an active member of the County Officials Association of Sumner County. She has also served as treasurer of the Sumner County Democratic Party and has been a valued organizer for many years.

Brenda, I hope you enjoy a long and happy retirement with your husband, Robert, and your children and grandchildren. I wish you all the best.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Amy Taylor and thank her for her tremendous service to Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District. After serving as my executive assistant for 4 years, Amy is leaving for a new position on Capitol Hill.

Amy first came to my office as a summer intern in 2005 when she was still an English major at Middle Tennessee State University, my alma mater. It was clear to me and to my staff that she was bright, capable and eager to learn more about the inner workings of Congress.

When her internship ended, we didn't forget her skill for the work of the congressional office and her loyalty to her Middle Tennessee roots. When a position became open in the office around the time Amy was graduating, I was happy she accepted and made the move to Washington. Throughout her time here, she has brought remarkable capability, talent and good humor to a challenging job.

Madam Speaker, I simply can't say enough about the outstanding job Amy has done while working in my office. Her knowledge of the district has been a great asset, and her positive attitude has enabled her to have a good and quick rapport with constituents, her coworkers and virtually anyone she meets.

It's been a pleasure having Amy on our staff. While my staff and I are sad to see her go, we're fortunate that she won't be going far. Amy will be moving on to the office of my colleague Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee's Fourth Congressional District, where she also has family roots. I hope Mr. Davis and his staff appreciate how lucky they are to have her.

Amy, I thank you for your hard work and good advice, and I wish you all the best in your continued service to the Volunteer State.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5116, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a division of the question on the adoption of the amendment to enable the separate votes on the portion of the amendment proposing to insert a new section 704 and on the portion of the amendment proposing to insert a new section 705.

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the question on adopting the amendment be divided among its nine separate parts.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5325) to invest in

innovation through research and development, to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5325, the bill now under consideration.

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

The bill before us today, H.R. 5325, is similar to the bill the House considered last week, H.R. 5116, including all 52 amendments adopted during floor consideration last week. However, the bill differs in two respects. One, it includes language from the motion to recommit barring money from going to agency employees who were disciplined for viewing pornography at work, and two, the authorization period for all programs in the bill has been changed from 5 years to 3 years.

I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues about the overall size of a 5-year authorization, and this reduction is my sincere attempt to compromise on an issue that is very important to me and our country. The bill before us today includes an overall funding reduction of 50 percent from H.R. 5116, as introduced.

I spoke at length about the background and need for this bill last week, so I'm only going to give the highlights today.

On October 12, 2005, in response to a bipartisan, bicameral request of the Science Committee and our colleagues in the Senate, the National Academies announced the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The distinguished panel, led by Norm Augustine, painted a very scary picture and told us that, without action, the future was bleak for our children and grandchildren. This report was, without question, a call to arms.

Congress responded by turning the Gathering Storm recommendation into legislative language. The final result was 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're back to work on reauthorizing COMPETES.

Since enactment of COMPETES, the Science and Technology Committee has held 48 hearings on areas addressed in the bill before us today. What we've heard from those hearings is that 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 necessary investments today.

The statistics speak for themselves. More than 50 percent of our economic growth since World War II can be directly attributed to investments in research. The path is simple. Research leads to innovation. Innovation leads to economic development and good paying jobs, and ultimately, creating good jobs is the goal of this bill.

During our committee's four markups, we accepted 25 amendments offered by the minority and, in addition, many additional changes have been made at the suggestion of the minority. I believe this is a good bill, both on substance and on inclusive procedure, and it is a better bill because of the contributions of our Members.

I specifically want to thank my friend Ralph Hall for the cooperation and the spirit with which this bill has been brought before us and the way it was handled within our committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will take time a little bit later to try to respond to some of Mr. Hall's concerns, but I want to get to the veterans right now. I want to assure Mr. Hall that when he goes home for Memorial Day, he can look at those veterans and say, I fought for you. I fought for you.

And I want to read the language so there'll be no misunderstanding about this issue. We don't need to have red herrings here. This is an important bill. So I'm going to read the language of the bill.

``For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the amendments made by this Act . . . institutions of higher education offering STEM research and education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration in the review of any proposals by these institutions for funding under research and education programs authorized in this Act . . . ''

So let's be sure that we know that has been addressed.

Now, let me also point out that there's 435 Members of Congress, and if we each wrote a bill, we would probably write it a little bit differently. This is a matter of trying to bring folks together, develop consensus, and that's what we did with 49 different hearings, a bipartisan vote through four different markups, so I think that we have addressed that.

I will address other issues later, but I would like to now yield 2 minutes to my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

We have all heard the story of two people seeing the same accident, and with their best intentions viewing it differently. You know, I think this is what we have here today. This really has become something of a red herring on a much bigger bill. But let me once again address this veterans issue.

Mr. Hall says he wants to make these programs available to the veterans. I want to require it. We require it. So let me read the language again. ``For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the amendments made by this Act . . . institutions of higher education offering STEM research and education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive''--not made available--``shall receive special consideration in the review of any proposals by these institutions for funding under the research and education programs authorized in this Act . . . '' Shall receive. Not made available; shall receive.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As my friend from Texas says, we have worked together long and hard on many issues. And certainly, again, we are going to continue to try to work to

get this language exactly where both parties that are seeing it in good faith can agree. To me it seems ``shall receive'' is better than ``make available,'' but we are going to work to get that together.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Lipinski.

I yield 30 additional seconds to Dr. Lipinski.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have left?

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

I would first say to my friend from Texas that I think I probably minded him more than his kids minded him, but probably less than his grandkids have minded him. We have tried to cooperate in a lot of ways.

Let me address a couple of things.

As I said earlier, Mr. Hall has said, and rightfully so, that everyone here is supportive of our veterans and our disabled veterans. So what I would suggest is that we use a suspenders and a belt. Let's make sure. And so, Mr. Hall, I want to assure you that we're going to include your language, but we can also keep our strong language as ``shall.''

So this is what we would have: institutions of higher education offering STEM research education activities and programs, rather than that ``serve,'' we'll use your language that are available to veterans with disabilities, and then we'll continue to say ``shall'' receive special consideration. So I think this can be a suspenders and belt to do what we all want, and that is to make sure that our disabled veterans are taken care of.

Let me also mention that there is a discussion about duplicate programs. I guess sometimes that could happen. In that last bill that 365 Members of the Congress voted for, we found that there were nine programs that didn't serve well and so those programs were taken out of this bill, and I think we can have disagreements as to whether a program is duplicative or not, but the funding

doesn't go up. And so that is the good news there.

Let me also point out that on page 195, section 502, ``Coordination and Nonduplication. To the maximum extent practicable, 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.'' So there is an effort to be sure that we do not have this kind of duplication.

Once again, this is a bill that authorization has been cut by 50 percent from what 365 Members of this House voted for just 3 years ago and that was unanimously approved by the other body.

And I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New Jersey, Dr. Rush Holt.

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

Let me make this suggestion: if you want to wait for the absolutely perfect bill that you agree with every word, then you shouldn't vote for this bill because this bill is a bipartisan compromise that was a result of 49 hearings, four bipartisan markups, and so we had to work together. So if you want the perfect bill that is just exactly what you want regardless of what anybody else might want, then this may not be your bill.

But if you want a bill that is going to take America forward, if you want a bill that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, by the National Association of Manufacturers, by the Information Technology Industry Association, by the Aerospace Industry Association, by the Business Roundtable, by the Council on Competitiveness, by the National Venture Capitalists Association, by TechAmerica, by TechNet, by Technological CEO Council, by the Telecommunication Industry Association, by the Energy Sciences Coalition, by the Biotech Industry Organization, by the American Council of Education, by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, by the Association of American Universities, by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and on, and on, and on, and on, then this is the bill for you.

Now, do they agree with every word in it? No, I'm sure they don't. But do they understand that 50 percent of the growth in our GDP in this country since World War II is a direct result of the R&D investment that we made and the benefit from that R&D investment? Yes, they understand that.

And so today we have a chance to cast a vote for our kids, for our grandkids. We have a chance to cast a vote for energy independence in this country. And when I say energy independence, I don't mean just independence from foreign oil; I mean energy independence from foreign technology, also.

This is a good bill. I request everyone to take a look at it, see it, and I think they'll see that on the merits that this a good bill that serves our country. I think they'll see that this is a good bill that helps our disabled veterans. It was very specific in that.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself that final minute.

Let me point out to my friend from Texas that the National Taxpayers Union did oppose the previous bill, but they have not taken a position on this bill. We just checked their Web site. If you have something different, we would be glad to see it, because this bill is different than the last bill. This bill cuts the authorization by 50 percent. So we have a different bill here today.

So again, as I have said before, Mr. Speaker, there are 6.5 billion people in the world. Half of those working make less than $2 a day. That is not the kind of way we want to compete in this country. We have to work at a higher technological level to be more productive. This bill will help us get there.

I thank, once again, the Republican and Democratic Members that have worked together to bring this bipartisan bill. I thank the staff of the minority and majority for working together to bring us this good bill, and I urge passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee for working cooperatively with the Science and Technology Committee on H.R. 5116, the America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2010. Chairman Miller has been a champion of STEM education in the House and his Committee has been very supportive in helping shape the STEM education provisions in the Competes Act. I insert into the Congressional Record an exchange of letters between the Committees on Science and Technology and Education and Labor.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Education and Labor,

Washington, DC, May 5, 2010.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Gordon: In recognition of the desire to

expedite consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES

Reauthorization Act of 2010, the Committee on Education and

Labor agrees to waive formal consideration of the bill as to

provisions that fall within its rule X jurisdiction.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 5116 at

this time, it does not waive any jurisdiction over subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and that our

Committee will be appropriately consulted and involved as the

bill or similar legislation moves forward, so that we may

address any remaining issues in our jurisdiction. The

Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment of an

appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate

conference involving this or similar legislation, and

requests your support for any such request.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for the

cooperative working relationship between our two committees.

Sincerely,

George Miller,

Chairman.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science and

Technology,

Washington, DC, May 6, 2010.

Hon. George Miller,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Miller: Thank you for your May 5, 2010 letter

regarding H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act

of 2010, Your support for this legislation and your

assistance in ensuring its timely consideration are greatly

appreciated.

I agree that provisions in the bill are within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor. I

acknowledge that by waiving rights to further consideration

of H.R. 5116, your Committee is not relinquishing its

jurisdiction and I will fully support your request to be

represented in a House-Senate conference on those provisions

over which the Committee on Education and Labor has

jurisdiction in H.R. 5116, or similar legislation. A copy of

our letters will be placed in the legislative report and the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor.

I value your cooperation and look forward to working with

you as we move ahead with this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Bart Gordon,

Chairman.

Let me just add that this is an excellent amendment that makes a good bill better; a good, bipartisan bill even better. And I thank the gentlelady for the content of this amendment.

I thank the gentlelady and I commend my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Hall, for his continued commitment to veterans from World War II, like himself, and beyond. I also want to thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her good work on the Veterans Affairs' Committee and for this amendment promoting the inclusion of veterans in our STEM workforce.

Many of our veterans have technical backgrounds already. With some additional training, they are well positioned to continue serving their country through research discoveries that will benefit society and improve our economic competitiveness.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Let me inquire, how much time is left?

First let me say, Madam Chair, to my friend and ranking member, I am not sure what the technical corrections are that he is concerned about, but I assure you that we will certainly start working on that to clean up any language that needs to be cleaned up.

Additionally, I rise to support this good amendment. Scientists and engineers at the Federal science agencies have the experience and expertise to contribute greatly to STEM education. Whether it is through helping a teacher with a hands-on activity in the classroom, assisting with a local robotics competition, or serving as a mentor to a student, there are a variety of ways in which Federal scientists and engineers can volunteer their time to help improve STEM education. This amendment would increase volunteerism by scientists and engineers working in Federal agencies and would encourage the agencies to provide administrative support for those scientists and engineers to volunteer their time. I urge my colleagues to support this good bipartisan amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this good bipartisan amendment by my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and Mr. Quigley from Illinois.

This amendment recognizes the importance of attracting and retaining the best and brightest young scientists from around the world here to the United States. The ability of our Nation to innovate and to compete in a global economy is built on a foundation of basic research. Our universities' postdoctoral fellows, master's and Ph.D. students serve as the engine that drives our research enterprise. It is essential that we retain these STEM workers in the U.S.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, which makes a bipartisan bill even better, and I think it's the reason, Madam Chair, that this bill has received so much support. Over 1,000 major organizations and companies have endorsed this bill. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Business Roundtable, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Venture Capital Association TechAmerica, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, Telecommunications Industry Association, Energy Sciences Coalition, the Biotechnology Industry Association, on and on and on. So this is a good amendment to a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, Mr. Salazar's amendment would provide DOE with the authority to conduct training for energy auditors, field technicians, and building contractors so they can understand and promote the use of renewable energy and energy-efficiency technology. Energy efficiency and conservation will have the greatest near-term impact of any approach to our energy security and global climate change concerns.

Today's buildings consume 40 percent of our country's energy, more than any other sector of the U.S. economy. A new study by scientists at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examined the workforce needs of the energy-efficiency service sector and found that there is a shortage of formal training programs in energy efficiency. This same study found that the building and construction trades and contractors have limited awareness of the energy-efficiency service sector. That is why this amendment adds technical training for energy professionals to the Department of Energy education programs authorized under this section, and it makes a good bipartisan bill even better.

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

I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for his outstanding amendment. It would instruct the Secretary of Commerce to give special consideration to innovation clusters that partner with local workforce investment boards. It makes a good bipartisan bill better.

I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois for his recent win in the 3-mile Capitol Challenge. I think after 20 years it is a good thing we have a new winner, and I wish him good luck for the next 18 years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, this is a very good en bloc set of amendments that again makes this bipartisan bill even better. I think one of the byproducts of having such a very good bill is we have so many organizations, over a thousand organizations and major companies that have endorsed the bill, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, Information Technology Industry Council, Business Roundtable, Council on Competitiveness, National Venture Capital Association, TechAmerica, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, the Telecommunication Industry Association, the Biotechnology Industry Association, the Aerospace Industries Association, the Computing Technology Industry Association, the Fabricators & Manufacturers Association, the National Defense Industrial Association, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. I can go on and on.

In the university area, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Association of American Public Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

This is a very important bill for our country and it is for our competitiveness and for our kids and grandkids, and it is going to create jobs in the short term, in the intermediate term, and in the long term.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a constructive player in this good bill.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards), a new member of our Science and Technology Committee, but one that has made a great contribution in a short time.

I yield the gentlelady 30 seconds more.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a cardinal on the very important Appropriations Committee.

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

Madam Chairman, we're coming to the end of the discussion on this bill, so let me just--again, I want to thank the staff, the minority and majority staff, the Members who have put so much time into this. This is not only a good substantive bill; it is a good bill by process. We had 46 hearings on this bill resulting in three different subcommittee bipartisan markups that went to a full committee bipartisan markup, which brought this bill to the floor today.

This is a good bill. In 2007, the original authorization received 367 Members that voted for it. I hope that we will be able to see that same type of vote again.

Then it went to the United States Senate because this is not only a bipartisan bill; it is a bicameral bill. In the United States Senate there were 69 cosponsors, and it received a unanimous vote on the Senate--on the other body's floor. Much of that credit goes to Lamar Alexander from Tennessee and Jeff Bingaman. And I told Lamar Alexander the other day that if he can get 69 cosponsors again and get a unanimous vote, that I will nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize and special envoy to the Mid East. He did yeoman's work, and I'm sure he will do it again. This is a good bipartisan bill and should get a good bipartisan vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, has my time expired?

Yes, Madam Chairman.

I will just reclaim a small part of it. I just want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Hall from Texas, for the gentlemanly way that he has conducted himself today and in all of our meetings. Maybe it is because I am from Tennessee and he is from Texas, but we share a lot of the same views. We have the same interest in seeing that our country move forward in this 21st century.

I don't have grandkids yet, but I know that for his kids and grandkids he wants to see us move forward. For my 9-year-old daughter I want to see us move forward. As I say, we agree most of the time. Every now and then we don't. But no one could have a better partner, and I thank him for his cooperation on this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I withdraw my point of order and rise in opposition to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, let me also take just a moment to thank the minority and majority members of the Science and Technology Committee for the many hours they've put in to making this bill a very good bipartisan bill. And also I want to thank the staff members who have put in even more hours to making this good bill.

Now let me take just a moment to tell you why this is an important and a good bipartisan bill. There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Half of those that are working make less than $2 a day. Now, if we try to compete in a global economy on that type of labor, then you're going to see your kids and grandkids wind up with a national standard of living less than their parents. So we can't win in terms of wages. We have to win by having a higher technological base here.

In the last few years, you've seen that the public sector dollars have been stagnant in terms of our investment in research and development. And on the private sector level, they've actually gone down. Why does this matter? Because the rest of the world is increasing their investments in research and development, and the importance to us here in this country is that 50 percent of the growth in the GDP in our Nation since World War II has been a result of research and development. But we have to have more than just R&D. We have to have a workforce that can work at that higher level, and that's what this bill does also. There's a great STEM educational piece that will help not just Ph.D.s, but it will help those high school graduates, junior college graduates, and college graduates to work that higher level.

So what does all this mean? There's a cycle. The cycle is that you invest in R&D. R&D gives you innovation. Innovation gives you jobs, which creates the type of standard of living and revenue that allows us to reduce the deficit as well as to continue the R&D again.

Another important part of this bill is the energy independence. Right now we have to reduce our dependence on our foreign oil for our economic as well as our national defense. And I don't want to trade our dependency on foreign oil to foreign technology.

Now let me get to some of the criticisms of this bill. We said, Well, it's a pretty good bill. As a matter of fact, it's a very good bill, except that it costs too much. Well, let me remind you that in 2007, 367 Members of this body voted for the original authorization. In the other body, there were 69 cosponsors of the original authorization, and it passed unanimously. But we recognize these are difficult economic times, and so we made some changes. This bill has been cut by 10.3 percent from the bill that you voted for in 2007. That is $9.6 billion. Now tell me, what authorization has been cut by over 10 percent? This is the only one.

Mr. Hall has very good concerns about our veterans, and every day when we see him, we see him as an example of those World War II veterans. So language was put in the bill both for scholarships for individual veterans and also for those institutions. Let me read this to you, For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the amendments made in this Act, institutions of higher education offering STEM research education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration and review. And on and on. So we have taken care of that.

Now let's get down to the heart of it. And quite frankly, it saddens me to have to go into this. I mean, it saddens me that when we look at our kids--I have a 9-year-old daughter, and what about her future? What about your family's future? Oh, we're going to hide behind this little bit. We're going to gut this bill for this little bit. A few days ago there were some NSF employees who were patching pornography. Of course that was bad, and they were disciplined. Throughout the whole executive offices, there is filtering on that now. Nobody seriously thinks that we don't want to deal with pornography here. For God's sake. And when it gets to the conference, we'll take care of that even more.

Everybody raise your hand that's for pornography. Come on, raise your hand. Nobody? Nobody is for pornography? Well, I'm shocked. So I guess we need this little bitty provision that means nothing; that's going to gut the entire bill. This is an embarrassment, and if you vote for this, you should be embarrassed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank my friend from Memphis for yielding, and I thank my friend Jim Cooper from Nashville for bringing forth this good resolution. And I join my friend from Knoxville and Franklin and from our Kentucky neighbors in rising to support H. Res. 1337.

My district in middle Tennessee was among those devastated by historic rainfall and subsequent flooding on May 1 and 2. Seeing this kind of devastation just breaks your heart. Many Tennesseans were displaced, including my mother. While it was just a temporary inconvenience for her, and I am grateful for that, for some it was an ongoing disruption, and for others it was a life-changing event.

Even as many people in Tennessee return to normal routines, those families who were most affected will still be working to rebuild their lives. Those families will continue to need our compassion and support through the coming months. Federal assistance is available and will make a difference for many families, and that is why I encourage everyone in the affected counties to document their damage and contact FEMA. Apply even if you have insurance. If you find out months from now that insurance won't cover any damages, or all your damages, it might be too late to apply for FEMA assistance at that time. My staff in Murfreesboro, Gallatin, and Cookeville are standing ready to help anyone who has questions about how to apply for assistance.

A lot of good-hearted people have been pitching in to lend a hand after they just dried themselves off. Their generosity of spirit is inspiring to see, but it is not surprising. Our communities have rebounded after tornados and storms. This time, we will work together to rise above the floodwaters.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to keep Tennessee in their thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization 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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 Speaker, today I rise to recognize the contributions Whitney Graves has made while working in my Washington, DC, office. Whitney has been a helpful addition to the office and a great servant to the residents of Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District.

On Friday, Whitney will depart my office to pursue her graduate studies full-time in business and international relations. My staff and I are sad to see her leave, but we are proud of her for continuing her education.

I've known Whitney and her family for many years and was glad she joined my staff last year. She brought valuable knowledge about the district to my Washington office as a resident of Gallatin, Tennessee, and through her experience working for the Tennessee state government. During her time in Washington, she has played an integral role in assisting me with constituent service.

As my staff assistant, she managed the front office responsibilities, scheduled Capitol tours and welcomed visitors to my Washington office. After a promotion to legislative correspondent, she managed thousands of constituent inquiries on legislative matters while supervising my office's congressional intern program.

Madam Speaker, my staff and I have enjoyed having Whitney in the office. I have no doubt Whitney can be successful at whatever she chooses to do, and I wish her all the best in the future.