Floor Statements

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

I rise today, of course, in support of House Concurrent Resolution 292, designating the third week of September as ``National Aerospace Week'' to recognize the contributions of the aerospace industry to the history, economy, security, and educational system of the United States.

This bill was introduced by my good friend, Representative Vern Ehlers, who, as I am sure many Members know, is retiring at the end of this Congress. I hate to lose this good man, and I will miss Vern very greatly. He has been a steady voice of reason in the House of Representatives and in the Science Committee. Dr. Ehlers has been a tireless and articulate advocate for policies and programs aimed at attracting the talents of our young people into the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. He will be greatly missed.

This Nation has always been preeminent in the international aerospace industry and continues to lead the way today through the support of the international space station by offering cutting-edge products and services throughout the world and by fostering the development and operation of the largest and safest aviation system in the world. The United States' aerospace industry serves as a powerful, reliable source of employment for 831,000 people and supports more than 2 million other jobs in related fields.

Among its many diverse innovations, the aerospace industry developed the Global Positioning System, sensors that give us the capability to make long-range, reliable meteorological forecasts; aircraft and other surveillance systems that help defend our shores; and tools to increase economic productivity, improve our quality of life, and save lives. The aerospace industry also assists and protects members of the Armed Forces with military communications systems, unmanned aerial systems, high-performance aircraft, and satellite-based precision surveillance and navigation systems.

Finally, let me add that high-technology goods and services produced by the aerospace industry help capture the interest of young people here at home and around the world. It gives them tremendous inspiration to tackle the more difficult class work that science and engineering professions demand and which, in turn, will ultimately lead these people to a much more enriching and rewarding life.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 292.

I yield such time as he may consume to Dr. Ehlers.

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

Madam Speaker, I remain very concerned about the direction of our Nation's space agency under the Obama plan. This Administration has made the surprisingly drastic decision to cancel NASA's follow-on to, the space shuttle, the Constellation program. Constellation would provide the means to service and use the International Space Station, and once again explore beyond low earth orbit.

Canceling the Constellation program threatens our country with the potential loss of tens of thousands of highly-skilled and well-paid jobs. As important as jobs are right now, by canceling Constellation we stand to lose more than just jobs. We are losing American know-how and expertise. The NASA contractor team is a national asset, one that would be difficult and costly to duplicate.

Next year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the U.S. will have no way to launch anyone into space. American astronauts and our international partners will have to hitch rides on Russian spacecraft, launched from a Russian base, to get into low earth orbit and visit the International Space Station. I do not think this is the best plan to maintain American preeminence in space.

I have fought hard here in Congress to defend NASA's budget so that they can perform meaningful work. Yet there seems to be a disturbing trend at NASA where priorities are shifted away from what I think should be their top goal--manned space exploration. Rather than focus on the vital elements necessary to maintain American leadership in space, the Obama administration and NASA are distracted with programs that seem to spend money on anything but human space flight.

Last week, the administration came forward with a request to transfer $100 million out of NASA's already limited human space flight budget and give it to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Labor to fund an Interagency task force to spur ``regional economic growth and job creation'' aimed at helping Florida and other states bracing for job losses associated with the end of the space shuttle program. Our nation's best and brightest engineers and technicians want to be engaged in building rockets and spacecraft. America's space program already generates substantial amounts of regional economic growth. It does not make sense to kill a program that delivered huge returns on investment to create a government program to retrain and retool workers for some possible, undefined jobs in the future.

The announcement the cancellation of the Constellation program in favor of a $100 million interagency task force, along with several other recently announced NASA initiatives, paints a broad picture of an agency without a clear mission.

NASA is a mission-driven organization that produces its best results with clearly defined goals and the resources to achieve them. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle and a plan to cancel the Constellation program, it is more important than ever that we work together to provide NASA with the legislative guidance it needs.

The men and women of our nation's human space flight program have given us so much to be proud of. Through their focus, sacrifice and dedication they have enabled the United States to be the global leader in human space flight. They have earned our respect and gratitude, and we should deliver a program that keeps them, and our nation, focused on leading the world in spaceflight.

I thank you, Judge, for this opportunity to discuss a stroke of the pen that affects all Americans, a stroke of the pen early in his administration, a stroke of the pen by the President of the United States that canceled out the Constellation, and that's what it's all about, and that's why we're here, and that's why we're fighting for NASA. That's why the great Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon, stepped out, didn't know he, with his other two compatriots, had no idea when they left here that they'd ever come back alive. They're great patriots. They're great, those among us, and we've lost some. We've had some tragedy in NASA, but we we've had great successes. Those men came here and testified that it'd be outrageous to cancel Constellation.

Now I want to talk about that just a little bit. It's been nearly 5 months since the administration proposed the very radical changes to NASA's human space flight and exploration programs by canceling the Constellation. Just took his pen and ran a line through it. Well, I don't understand that. And I don't understand the lack of sufficient details that Congress would need to determine if it was even close to a credible plan that he suggests. Yet, in spite of our very best efforts to obtain more information from NASA, the situation has not improved; indeed, the President's trip to Kennedy Space Center on April 15 only added to the confusion as he laid out more aspirational goals, but provided no clear idea of how they fit together or how we expect to pay for these new ventures. As such, I still have basic concerns about our ability to access and use the International Space Station after the shuttle is retired.

I remain concerned with the ``gap'' in U.S. access to space, and I want to ensure that we can effectively use the enormous research capabilities of the International Space Station. In examining the President's plan, I still don't see any viable way to minimize the gap and provide for exciting research on the International Space Station.

The President's most recent decision to send an unmanned ``lifeboat'' to the space station at a potential cost of $5 billion to $7 billion does absolutely nothing to solve this problem and largely duplicates existing services provided by the Russians. Although we've already spent nearly $10 billion on the Constellation system that has achieved significant milestones and is well on its way to providing continued U.S. access to space, the administration's decision to cancel Constellation has further stalled development and jeopardized our undisputed leadership in space, and that's what it's all about.

As I've said many times before, as a member of the Space Subcommittee, I am concerned with the proposed commercial crew direction of this administration. While we have long supported the development of commercial cargo operations, I believe it's prudent that we first test cargo capabilities before risking the lives of our astronauts on newly developed systems.

I have also not seen credible data to suggest that there is a viable market for commercial crew carriers, as they claim there is, with no backup, no information on it. In the absence of that data, I fear that we might be setting ourselves up for failure if or when the markets don't materialize.

Anyone can claim to be able to take over commercial crew or to take over the space program, to take over the

building of the next instruments of investigating space. Buzz Aldrin, who supports commercial crew--I've read his ideas, and I'm still looking for concrete data that they can finish what they started. It's easy to start these programs and take them over and then have the Federal Government have to step in at great loss of time, at great loss of international partners, at great loss of contractors, at great loss of employees, and great loss to the government for additional money to take over. I admire Mr. Aldrin and I will clearly inspect his suggestions.

Finally, in examining options beyond low Earth orbit, I'm unclear of when we might see the development of a heavy lift system, or whether NASA still considers the Moon as a logical destination. We've been told that a new ``game changing'' technology development program will provide capabilities for accessing the far reaches of space, but we have very few specifics on mission, goals, and direction.

In the absence of a defensible, credible plan, I and many of our Members continue to support the Constellation program as currently authorized and appropriated by successive Congresses. GAO will continue investigating whether NASA is improperly withholding funds and improperly applying the Anti-Deficiency Act as a means of slowing Constellation work. I believe that Congress--and when I say Congress, I mean both Democrats and Republicans--Congress has been clear that it supports the unhindered continuation of Constellation until it authorizes an alternative program.

We can no longer wait for NASA to provide justification for its radical changes. Time is running out. Our space station and those who man it--our many NASA employees, our international partners, our astronauts--await an answer that we can live with and that we can lead with. I yield back my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I demand that the amendment be further divided to put a question separately on adding section 702 relating to the disabled veterans and section 705 relating to military recruiters, right here on the eve of Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the request.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in honor of a dear woman of God, and my friend Sister Damian Murphy, Vice President of Mission Integration at Christus St. Michael Health System in Texarkana, Texas.

A native of County Cork, Ireland, Sister Damian joined the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word in 1950. She graduated from Sacred Heart Dominican College in Houston, TX, with a B.S. in Nursing and holds a Master of Science in Health Care Administration from the University of Houston, Clear Lake City. She also completed one year of intensive study in theology at the School of Applied Theology, Berkeley, CA; one year of study in pastoral ministry at St. Madeleine Sophie Center for the Mentally Underdeveloped in El Cajon, CA; and study in clinical pastoral education from St. John's Regional Medical Center, Oxnard, CA.

She joined the St. Michael Pastoral Ministry staff in July of 1991, and has since impacted the lives of many patients, their family members, physicians, associates, volunteers, board members, and area residents. Her role developed into that of Vice President of Mission Integration, where she daily reaffirms to staff and community the mission of Christus St. Michael which is extending the healing ministry of Jesus Christ.

Sister Damian's career has been expansive and varied to include areas of patient care, management, and education. Her professional experience prior to joining the Christus St. Michael team included Director of Critical Care Nursing at St. Joseph, Houston, and Administrator of St. Elizabeth Hospital in Houston.

Her ministerial and civic contributions in Texarkana and the surrounding area will forever be remembered.

Madam Speaker, I have been extremely blessed by knowing this wonderful lady and I ask that you and the rest of my colleagues join me in congratulating and honoring Sister Damian Murphy as she enters into retirement and new ministry opportunities.

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

I rise today to speak on H.R. 5325, a bill reauthorizing the America COMPETES Act. I believe long-term investment in science and technology, coupled with policies that reduce tax burdens, streamline Federal regulations, and balance the Federal budget are very vital for our Nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace. However, we must also put our fiscal house in order to ensure that we're not leveraging the future of our children and our grandchildren.

While I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act, the bill before us today continues to take us in a much more costly direction and authorizes a number of new programs which have little to do with prioritizing investments in basic science, technology, engineering, and math research and development.

On May 12 and 13, this bill was considered by the full House of Representatives. Republican attempts to offer amendments to reduce the spending level in the bill and reduce the length of the authorization from 5 years to 3 years were denied. Our attempt to ensure schools serving the disabled and disabled veterans was also denied.

Because Republicans were denied the opportunity to even offer these amendments on the House floor, have a meaningful dialogue about them, we sought to ensure that these ideas were considered by all of the Members of the House of Representatives through our motion to recommit. Our motion, as you well know, included the proposed compromise language to encourage education opportunities for the disabled and disabled veterans, language to reduce the authorization levels to fiscal year 2010 levels, and to authorize these programs for 3 years rather than 5.

The motion also included provisions to eliminate a number of new spending programs in favor of supporting the core COMPETES programs. Overall spending levels were reduced by around $47 billion in the motion to recommit, but still remained well above the $24 billion in the House-passed 2007 version of COMPETES. In addition to the reductions in spending, the motion addressed concerns about Federal employees' misuse of time and government property.

When given the opportunity to consider these issues, the House of Representatives supported them overwhelmingly by a vote of 292-126. While I would have preferred to use the regular amendment process, I believe these changes made the bill better. The spending levels supported by the motion showed that we could be fiscally responsible while still supporting important investments in science and technology. It was disappointing when the majority made the decision to pull this improved bill from consideration by the whole House of Representatives.

I'm pleased that the bill before us today includes a couple of provisions from the successful motion to recommit, such as the reduction in the authorized length from 5 years to 3 years,

as well as the prohibition on paying the salaries of workers who misuse government time and property. These are sensible, good government provisions.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today continues to contain new and duplicative programs, including some that were added during floor consideration last week. For example, the bill includes language establishing energy innovation hubs at DOE which are duplicative of a number of programs already in existence at DOE. There is also a new program to pursue commercialization of clean energy technology which is duplicative of the hubs program. Several of these programs fund activities beyond basic science research and development and will divert money away from priority basic research. At a time when the Federal Government spending is out of control, we need to be streamlining and prioritizing programs to protect taxpayers, not duplicating them.

I'm also opposed to a provision that was added on the floor last week that dictates that any public university receiving funds under this bill would be required to maintain an information policy wherein failure to respond within 15 days to any union request for information would result in the threat of losing Federal funding. This provision places Federal agencies awarding funding in the role of administering State labor laws. This is an inappropriate provision that will place added burdens on our university system and certainly does nothing to advance the main goals of the COMPETES legislation.

I also remain concerned with the overall funding levels in this bill. At almost $48 billion, the bill represents $9.5 billion above the fiscal year 2010 baseline extended out 3 years. It's also important to note that the core agencies in this bill received an additional $5 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act already. Given the current state of our national economy and the fact that our Nation's budget deficit has increased 50 percent since the last authorization 3 years ago, we must be mindful of our spending if America is to continue to compete globally.

Finally, I'm disappointed that the compromise language for disabled veterans that was included in the motion to recommit is not contained in this bill. This is the second time disabled veterans language has been overwhelmingly accepted by both sides of the aisle, and this is the second time that it has been stripped out of the bill. Every one of us will run into these fine young men and women back in our districts in about 10 days when we speak to them on Memorial Day. I think we ought to be telling these wounded warriors who are returning to civilian life after making life-altering sacrifices in defense of our freedom that we just ensured that the colleges and universities they attend will get the same special consideration as other schools afforded special consideration so that they, too, can take advantage of STEM opportunities and contribute to the competitiveness of this great Nation that they so ably defended.

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. In my opinion, this is really shameful if we were denied this small opportunity to show our appreciation not only to them but to the schools that are reaching out to them.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise today to urge us not to approve the present bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation until the language that they all agreed to and agreed to include by a vote of 292-126 is put back in this bill. The will of the House and its Members should be followed.

And I, as a veteran of World War II, would hate to go back 10 days from now and look into the faces of those that we're addressing on Memorial Day, at a time when we should be remembering them, that we do stop here and pray for them and drop our heads for a minute, and I think that's a wonderful thing for the Speaker to do. But I think today's the day for us to raise our head, lift up our thoughts, remember these men and include them. If we can spend this kind of money and ignore the needs of a very dedicated few, I think we'll be making a dreadful mistake.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I recognize that we all write language differently. However, once the House has voted on and passed that language, I think it ought to be included in the bill that the House is considering. And that's happened not once, but a couple of times. Regretfully, I disagree with the chairman. There is no assurance in the underlying bill that a single institution helping disabled veterans would benefit.

Further, let me say this. I don't say that the gentleman from Tennessee doesn't support disabled veterans, or anybody on this floor. I think we are all mindful of the debt we owe to those people. It's a matter of trying to get together on something that really gives them that that we are intending, that we indicate that we are giving them. And they just don't receive that under the language that's proposed in this bill, but it can be fixed.

I have worked with the chairman. He is an honorable, decent, very good chairman, a good friend, and has worked hard and has improved this bill. He knocked it down from 5 years to 3. And that knocked it down to almost $47 billion, the cost of this bill. Still, $11 billion at least too excessive, but he has made an effort.

And we are so close that the language that he just read to you, if we can change two words in it. Instead of on the sixth sentence of what the current bill is that we are looking at today, they put that they serve veterans, change that just ``available to veterans.'' We are that close to settling this, and probably at least giving the veterans something, not giving them everything they need.

I just think that while it gives some special consideration to schools that are chartered for disabled students and those serving disabled veterans, it's not a consideration that's consistent with other schools in the bill or in schools with unrepresented populations today. And I say based on that, creating yet another tier or class of institutions versus playing them on the same and putting them on the same equal playing field is just not quite enough.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.

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

I thank Professor Ehlers for his good explanation of his position on the bill. That's been his position from the word ``go.'' And there were others on the Republican side in committee who differed with those of us that were addressing the bill. And we all have a right to disagree. And I respect that.

This bill got better. It didn't get better out of Rules because it didn't give us a rule that gave us a shot at it. But it got better as they had the vote yesterday. It's a little bit better as the chairman has brought it to us today. And I must say this, that the chairman has improved the ability for the veterans to benefit. And we are very close.

And the chairman has said that he wants to continue to work on this. And when we are just along three or four paragraphs, we are just two words away from it, I certainly take Bart Gordon at his word and will work with him. I think that we should have the words ``available to'' instead of ``that serve'' those to veterans. What's available to them is very important. And we would like to have that in the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.

We are concerned with other parts of this program. We're concerned about the duplicative programs in the bill that are a waste of government resources and a waste of taxpayer dollars. In a time where we have scarce resources, we should be thinking about spending money on other things like research and not spending them on the same things that are in several different programs.

One example of this in H.R. 5325 is the energy innovation hubs program which duplicates a number of programs that are already available at the Department of Energy.

So let me say to the chairman and this Congress and anybody who would hear us, this bill has been improved; the chairman has been amenable to working together and making suggestions. He has listened to us. He hasn't always minded me, but he has listened; and I think that's unusual and kind of my friend from Tennessee.

He's changed this bill from an $86 billion bill to a $47 billion from 5 years to 3 years. So we feel like we've made considerable progress; and I think any bill, $86 billion to $47 billion, with that type of money, that ought to spawn money for the little disabled veterans that just want a small piece of it.

I think as we go along, and I hope that we can work this out, I hope that we will oppose this bill. We have a vote today. It's going to take two-thirds to pass it. Perhaps the chairman has the votes. But if not, I think in the next 48 hours we can improve it substantially, and once again be more proud of a bill that we've been for from the word ``go.'' We've been for the thrust of the bill. We just objected to the cost and to the failure to include little people and to duplicate so many of these processes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that Republican motion to recommit eliminated the new programs in the bill. New programs in the bill shift an emphasis away from basic research towards technology commercialization activities that could potentially divert money away from basic research and could lead to inappropriate market innovation.

Keeping the language in the bill would reduce authorization levels in the bill by $1.3 billion. The Republican motion to recommit kept all existing programs at fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels. Given that our Nation's debt is currently $13 trillion and our Nation's budget deficit has increased 50 percent in 3 years, it's prudent to put the brakes on significant increases in spending for years to come.

This bill is better than the bill was when it was introduced. It's not as good as the bill was when it left the committee that first considered it. It's not as good a bill as it was when they accepted and voted ``yes''--Republicans and Democrats alike--on the motion to recommit.

So we've made some improvements. I'm not discouraged. I still like the thrust of the bill, and I look forward to working with the chairman from this day forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the amount of time that I may consume subject to my limitations.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like a perfect bill. All of us would like a perfect bill, and I don't wish to pit the National Taxpayers Union who oppose this bill against the Chamber of Commerce who supports this bill. But I do seek perfection. I don't think we have a perfect bill. I doubt that we could ever get a perfect bill, but we can have a better bill. We've got a better bill than we had when it was introduced. We've got a better bill than we had when it came out of committee.

We can reach perfection if we work long enough. I don't seek perfection, but I would like as good a bill as we can get, treating veterans the way they ought to be treated and not spending money that is needed for other matters, certainly. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment, although I do not oppose it.

In fact, I'm in strong support of the amendment, as it reemphasizes language that I had accepted at the full committee markup and is now included in title VII. In my opinion, we can't do enough to assist our veterans who are returning to school after putting their lives on the line so that all of us can enjoy the freedoms that we have in this country. Likewise, I remain committed to helping those institutions of higher education that are also going above and beyond the norm in helping our veterans receive their education.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chair, I support this amendment and would hope if it is accepted, the chairman would continue to work with us to clarify the administrative language as we move to conference.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

In addition to being too narrowly focused, I do not believe this type of activity is in the spirit of what STEM programs really should do at the department. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Most of the 13 amendments rolled into this en bloc package are minor and noncontroversial, and we are generally supportive.

I do, however, want to make comments regarding potential issues with two of these amendments: Cardoza amendment No. 2 and Heinrich amendment No. 59. I note some concern regarding the Heinrich amendment included in this en bloc, which makes Federal laboratories eligible grant recipients under the regional innovation cluster programs.

While it would be appropriate for entities such as DOE national laboratories to compete for and receive the type of funding called for in the clusters program, the definition of ``Federal laboratories'' goes far beyond this. It could include almost any agency laboratory and essentially result in taxpayer funding from one Federal agency being redistributed to a different Federal agency. There are a host of problems with this, but first and foremost, it is clearly not an ideal way to fund innovation.

I want to note these concerns regarding the amendment for the record, although I do not plan to oppose the entire en bloc that includes this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, the Cardoza amendment directs NIST to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative. While I understand NIST already funds some research in this area, I do have a concern about the intent of some of the language in the amendment. Accordingly, I have asked that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) engage in a colloquy to clarify this for the record.

Paragraph 2 of this amendment directs NIST to advance the ``creation of an information infrastructure to communicate sustainability information about suppliers.'' It is accurate, I think, to say that this language does not mean that NIST should characterize specific suppliers' sustainability practices but, rather, will simply ``make information available to manufacturers so they can make informed and science-based decisions to assess their products and supply chain.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

The Cardoza amendment directs NIST to carry out a green manufacturing and construction initiative. While I understand NIST already funds some research in this area, I do not have a concern about the intent. I think the colloquy has been appropriate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would like simply to conclude by reiterating some key points about H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Act of 2010. I've said on numerous occasions that we should support strengthening investments in basic research and science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. National investments in basic R&D and STEM education, together with sound economic policies form the policy basis of what's necessary for the country to truly remain competitive in the future.

I can't support this bill, however, because it calls for excessive spending levels, numerous new and duplicative programs, ineffective oversight and positive shifts that could lead to the government picking ``winners and losers.''

It's for these reasons that the National Taxpayers Union and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste have come out against this bill. I would urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5116.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few points about the motion to recommit before I hand it over to the gentlewoman from Kansas.

The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the Members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by reducing the authorization to 3 years instead of 5, striking the new programs in the bill, and reducing the spending down to the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels. It also would prohibit Federal funds from being used by Federal employees to view, download, or exchange pornography, including child pornography. Additionally, it will ensure that the institutions that we're giving Federal funding to through this act will repay the Federal Government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment.

Finally, the motion to recommit will invest in an issue that's very dear to our hearts, our Nation's disabled veterans. This motion would ensure that our colleges and universities that make STEM programs available to our disabled veterans and those schools chartered to serve disabled veterans receive the same special consideration afforded to other schools serving the underrepresented populations.

A much broader version of this language was unanimously accepted at the

committee level. A very watered down version that does not stand the chance of helping a single veteran is included in the manager's amendment. And this compromise language filed at Rules was not made in order for consideration.

I cannot for the life of me understand why there's a resistance to assisting the Nation's disabled veterans. Of the 3.1 million disabled veterans in this country, over 50,000 are currently training to receive undergraduate degrees and an additional 2,800 participate in graduate school programs. The schools serving these men and women deserve the same consideration as those assisting other underrepresented populations. But there's not one school in the Nation that would meet the standards created by the language in the manager's amendment.

I don't buy the argument that this special consideration will open a floodgate of eligible schools, providing no guarantee that the disabled veterans will actually benefit from the funding. There are already several hundred well-known and -respected schools that qualify for special consideration under a variety of statutes for underrepresented populations with no guarantee that a particular grant would benefit a designated group. Why shouldn't those schools helping our disabled veterans have the same consideration?

Frankly, it should not matter how many disabled veterans a school enrolls. These fine young men and women, who every one of us will see over Memorial Day, have made tremendous personal sacrifices for us. The Speaker rightfully has us bow our heads in silence once a month to honor them. We should also be lifting our chins and our praise and our gratitude to those who cross foreign borders to ensure that everyone within our own are free. This is but a small way we can show our appreciation not only to them, but to the schools that are reaching out to them.

Now I yield to Ms. Jenkins.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chairwoman, I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

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

I thank the chairwoman.

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I have no opposition or objection to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in support and as an original cosponsor of H. Res. 1307, honoring the 60th anniversary of the National Science Foundation. We are proud of the work of this independent agency that focuses on basic research in the frontiers of knowledge and is a very vital asset to our Nation. It's the only Federal agency that supports all fields of fundamental science and engineering, and makes sure that research is integrated with education so that our next generation of scientists and engineers are also world class. According to NSF, basic research is, quote, ``where discoveries begin,'' and I could not agree more.

NSF funds more than 10,000 new awardees a year. From those awards have come discoveries that have revolutionized the way every American lives in one way or another. It was NSF-funded research that led us to the Internet and to the Web browsers that we use today. Fundamental research supported by NSF is responsible for what we now know as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology.

Bar codes appear on nearly everything we purchase today, from toys to shoes to boxes of cereal, helping industries with a range of activities from inventory to marketing to pricing. This is yet another technology where the National Science Foundation plays a crucial role. The American Sign Language Dictionary, speech recognition technology, fiber optics, Doppler radar--all end results of NSF-sponsored research.

NSF-funded researchers have won more than 180 Nobel Prizes in numerous disciplines, and the agency leads a robust international research program in the polar regions, including managing U.S. interests in Antarctica.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the role of the current director of the Foundation and its recent accomplishments. Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., has led the agency with distinction for the past 6 years. He will be returning to Purdue University in June. This Congress and Nation owe him a debt of gratitude for his service.

Likewise to those National Science Board members whose term is up next week, including President Steven G. Beering. We also appreciate his hard work and dedication in ensuring our scientific enterprise remains unsurpassed.

I encourage our colleagues to join Chairman Gordon and me in supporting this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Ms. Fudge for her good presentation, and I rise in support of H. Res. 1213, supporting the ideals of National Lab Day.

H. Res. 1213 recognizes the need to improve the participation and performance of America's students in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, or STEM fields. In order for America to continue its competitive edge in technology and innovation, a solid foundation in STEM education for our students is very vital. Without early exposure to science in the classroom, students will either lack the interest to pursue a career in STEM fields, or will lack the preparation and skills required to be successful.

H. Res. 1213 puts one step forward to ensuring that our children and grandchildren, the innovators of tomorrow, have the well-rounded education they need if they are to become the leading minds of America's future.

National Lab Day's purpose is to raise awareness of the importance of STEM education by creating a ``nationwide initiative to build local communities of support that will foster ongoing collaboration among volunteers, students and educators. Volunteers, university students, scientists, engineers, other STEM professionals and, more broadly, members of the community are working together with educators and students to bring discovery-based science experiences to students in grades K-12.''

I applaud those efforts that do not rely on the Federal Government but engage our communities to become more involved in improving lab experiences for students in kindergarten through high school, and hope my colleagues will join me today in recognizing the importance of what National Lab Day presents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1310 celebrates the 50th anniversary of the construction of the laser, marking a major milestone in scientific discovery.

In 1953, Charles Townes produced what would become a precursor to the laser--the first microwave amplifier. Townes and his colleagues teamed up with Bell Laboratories in 1957 to begin extensive research on the amplification devices. Their focus shifted only to those amplifiers which produced visible light. In 1958, Bell Laboratories submitted a patent for an optical laser. However, such a device had yet to be successfully created. It was not until Charles Townes and Gordon Gould met in 1958 that the fundamentals of the laser and of the open resonator design were first discussed. In 1960, Theodore Maiman constructed the first operational laser. He used theories and plans published by Bell Labs, Gould, and Townes to construct this remarkable device.

Charles Townes was later awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, along with scientists Nikolay Basov and Aleksandr Prokhorov, for their work in quantum electronics, which laid the groundwork for the construction of lasers.

We rely on lasers in our daily lives, and they are found in everyday products, such as laser printers, barcode scanners, and numerous medical devices. The world sales of lasers are estimated at well over $5 billion to date.

Today, in large part, we realize that great success stories, such as the construction of lasers, are due to American ingenuity, which stems directly from the investment in basic research and in our outstanding institutions of higher learning. The laser is a prime example of basic research that ended up having multiple applications well beyond what its creators could have ever conceived.

The construction of the laser is but one example that leaves me confident in America's place at the top of the scientific world. I applaud these great scientists for their contributions to our community, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1231, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United States Television Infrared Observation Satellite, which is the world's first meteorological satellite, launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on April 1, 1960.

The launching of Sputnik in 1957 signaled the Soviet Union's advances in the space race with the United States. This event caused the creation of NASA, and it precipitated the push by the U.S. to gain a technological advantage in space. It was during this time that NASA launched the Television Infrared Observation Satellite, or TIROS, to determine if satellites could be useful in the study of the Earth.

It was unknown whether or not satellite observations would be an effective means to determine the meteorological condition on the Earth's surface. Scientists postulated that space-based observations would be highly useful for weather forecasting.

TIROS was equipped with two television cameras, with a magnetic tape recorder and with antennas. This simple configuration relayed thousands of pictures of the Earth's cloud cover, giving scientists the first real insight into the complexity of the Earth's atmosphere. When the first accurate weather forecasts based on data collected from TIROS were completed, it became obvious that this technology would revolutionize meteorology and that it would have long-lasting impacts on society.

To demonstrate its usefulness to the world and to fulfill President Dwight

D. Eisenhower's pledge to promote the peaceful use of space for the benefit of all mankind, NASA and the U.S. Weather Bureau invited scientists from 21 different nations to participate in the analysis of weather data from successive satellites.

It was due to this information that the Weather Bureau issued its first advisories on air pollution potential over the eastern United States. Today, weather forecasting is used in every part of our society. It is used to help protect human welfare and to guard against property damage; it is used to enhance commerce, and it is used to inform officials of dangerous environmental conditions like hurricanes and blizzards.

The technological advances that we have made since then in satellite technology have been astronomical, and the commercialization of this technology has brought us even more clarity about the world we live in than has ever been known or appreciated before.

TIROS was only operational for 78 days, but those short weeks demonstrated the power and usefulness of space-based observations. It has been 50 years since the U.S. launched the first meteorological satellite into space, but as with other groundbreaking advances, it's appropriate to look back and appreciate the momentum that brought this Earth into the space age.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 1231.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1269, commemorating the 400th anniversary of the first use of the telescope by Galileo Galilei to peer into heavens.

Galileo's brilliant refinements of existing telescope designs allowed humans for the first time to discern the Earth's closest neighbors to a level of detail that was breathtaking, such as valleys of the Moon, fellow planets in our solar system, and the moons of Jupiter.

Most importantly, unlike his peers who trained their telescopes to look across the Earth's terrain, Galileo instead aimed his telescopes to look out into the heavens.

Four hundred years later, who could have imagined the transformations unleashed by Galileo and his search of the night skies, both in terms of designs and capabilities of follow-on telescopes, as well as informing Earth's inhabitants of their genesis and their place in the universe.

Today, ground-based telescopes sitting high atop mountain peaks are collecting immense amounts of data, enabling astronomers to discover new details about our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. Just as important, their findings raise new questions, leading to follow-on research campaigns all across the globe.

Space-based telescopes, which have only been launched in the last several decades, have been equally spectacular. Virtually every citizen on Earth has seen pictures produced by the Hubble, Chandra, Compton, and Spitzer space telescopes. And the future of space-based and ground- based astronomy promises to be just as exciting. To cite one example, NASA is hard at work completing construction of the James Webb space telescope, scheduled to be launched in 2014. It is designed to look at the infrared spectrum and will have a mirror that's 21 feet across, far larger than the mirror on Hubble. The potential discoveries that await are unknown.

For men and women all across the globe, probably no field of science is more captivating and more exciting than astronomy. Galileo and his early telescopes provided the foundation, and this resolution rightly acknowledges his genius.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the most important and eventful week of the thirty years I've been up here--I think of the consequences of the votes we will cast--both Republican and Democrat.

When we passed the health bill on this very floor--the Democrats-- with a 40 vote advantage on the House Floor--passed H.R. 3962 with a 5 vote advantage--which showed that the outrageous health bill had been lessened in severity in the Commerce Committee--and was softened up enough for the Senate to kill it. Then, a series of Senators negotiated gifts they were not entitled to--each receiving a different consideration--into being the coveted 60th vote. If we take the Floor back--I would favor subpoenaing those who may have made the overtures to compare it to the law of bribery or corrupt deals. I would send the results to the Federal and State Prosecutors. The bribery penalty as set out in 18 U.S. Code Section 203 ``is imprisonment for not more than a year and a civil fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation.'' I consider offering a bribe--for a personal benefit--as worse than accepting one; let's clean up the United States Congress--and listen to our people whose only request is to take back our country.

Webster's Dictionary defines ``bribe'' as money or favor given or promised to a person in a position of trust to influence their judgment or conduct.