[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3714-H3735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2003

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 219 ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 219

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 766) to provide for a National Nanotechnology 
     Research and Development Program, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Science. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 provides for the consideration of H.R. 766, 
the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. H. Res. 219 provides 
for one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and 
makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment. It further provides that the bill shall 
be considered for amendment section by section and that each section 
shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 is an open rule giving all Members of the 
House the opportunity to offer any germane amendments to H.R. 766. This 
rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record. This is to simply 
encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to 
facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform 
Members of the details of any pending amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 766 is an important, bipartisan bill that will 
encourage further nanotechnology research. A recent National Academy of 
Sciences review described nanotechnology as the ``relatively new 
ability to manipulate and characterize matter at the level of single 
atoms and small groups of atoms. This capability has led to the 
astonishing discovery that clusters of small numbers of atoms or 
molecules often have properties, such as strength, electrical 
resistivity, electrical conductivity, and optical absorption, that are 
significantly different from the properties of the same matter at 
either the single molecule scale or the bulk scale.''
  Beyond this technical description, nanotechnology has the potential 
to have a significant impact on our lives in the coming years. 
Testimony before the Committee on Science, chaired by the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Boehlert), indicated that in the future the 
American people could see great advances in medicine, manufacturing, 
materials, construction, computing and telecommunications as a result 
of this research. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall) identified potential homeland security advantages 
as well, including information technology and sensor advances to assist 
us in our efforts to identify threats.
  President Bush has recognized the benefits of these innovations in 
terms of practical applications to the American people and also to our 
Nation's economic growth. The National Science Foundation has predicted 
that the nanotechnology market could reach $1 trillion by the year 
2015. But we should recognize that there will be competitors in this 
arena from abroad.
  In an effort to ensure the benefits of this research for our citizens 
and for future job growth, President Bush has asked Congress to expand 
the nanotechnology initiative and increase funding for this emerging 
technology, providing grants to researchers and establishing research 
centers and advanced technology user facilities.
  The Associate Director for Technology in the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy stated that the administration's commitment to 
furthering nanotechnology research and development has never been 
stronger.
  I applaud the President for focusing on this potential link to future 
economic growth. I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the Committee 
on Science for forwarding a bill that will result in better planning 
and coordination in this area of research.
  This is a very fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so 
we may begin on any amendments that Members may have to offer before 
the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the time, and I 
would also alert my friend from Georgia, as I understand it now, we 
have but one speaker, so we are prepared to move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill and the open rule 
under which it is being considered.

[[Page H3715]]

                              {time}  1245

  When I think back to all of the times my friends on the other side of 
the aisle allowed an open rule this year, I do not have to think far, 
since it has only occurred once before during the 108th Congress. 
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this full and open debate; 
and hopefully, this is a sign of what is to come.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I rise today in support of the rule and H.R. 
766, a bill to provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and 
Development program.
  As my colleagues may know, nanotechnology is an emerging science that 
involves the engineering of extremely small materials, devices, and 
systems at the atomic, molecular, and macromolecular level. The science 
and technology of precisely controlling the structure of matter at the 
molecular level is widely viewed as the most significant technological 
frontier currently being explored.
  This legislation is significant because it ensures continued U.S. 
leadership in nanotechnology research and coordination of 
nanotechnology research across Federal agencies and the private sector. 
This measure will provide grants to investigators, establish 
interdisciplinary research centers and advanced technology user 
facilities. It shall expand education and training of undergraduate and 
graduate students and establish a research program to identify societal 
and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology.
  Additionally, this bill assembles a team of advisory and governing 
committees to work cooperatively with each of the national Federal 
science offices to achieve the goals and priorities set forth by this 
legislation and the Federal Government. Through the national 
nanotechnology research and development program, our Nation can and 
will continue to make advancements in virtually every industry and 
public endeavor, including health, electronics, transportation, the 
environment, and national security.
  Moreover, this bill supports the National Nanotechnology Initiative 
outlined in 1999 by allowing us to reach beyond our natural size 
limitation and work directly with the building blocks of matter. It 
holds the promise for a new renaissance in our understanding of nature. 
It holds the promise, in addition, for means for improving human 
performance and a new industrial revolution in coming decades.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 766 and this second open rule of the 
year. Perhaps that came about because of nanoseconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
219 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 766.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole and requests the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1250


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 766) to provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and 
Development Program, and for other purposes, with Mr. Culberson 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 766.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the 
National Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As is the 
practice of the Committee on Science, this is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation that reflects the important contributions of both majority 
and minority members of the committee.
  I am going to keep my remarks brief today because nanotechnology is a 
subject on which there is already broad agreement on both sides of the 
aisle, in the administration and, indeed, in the country at large.
  Nanotechnology can be a key to future economic prosperity and might 
improve our lives, and the Federal Government has an important role to 
play in supporting the basic research that will make this possible.
  Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating and characterizing 
matter at the atomic and molecular level. It is one of the most 
promising and exciting fields of science today, involving a multitude 
of science and engineering disciplines with widespread applications in 
electronics, advanced materials, medicine, and information technology. 
Nanotechnology represents the future of information processing and 
storage. Other future applications include new sensors to detect 
biological agents, stronger and lighter building materials, new cancer 
treatments, and more environmentally friendly chemical processes. Some 
have estimated that a $1 trillion global market for nanotechnology will 
develop in little over a decade.
  With this in mind, I introduced H.R. 766 with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) and with senior members of the Committee on 
Science on both sides of the aisle as cosponsors. The committee held 
two hearings on the bill, one on nanotechnology research programs and 
commercialization efforts, and one on societal and ethical concerns 
related to nanotechnology. The academic and industrial research 
communities were articulate in their support of this legislation and on 
the need to consider the societal, environmental, ethical, and economic 
questions that will arise as new nanotechnology applications are 
developed and enter the marketplace.
  H.R. 766 authorizes the President's National Nanotechnology 
Initiative and supports and improves the Federal Government's 
nanotechnology efforts in a number of ways. It emphasizes 
interdisciplinary research, it strengthens interagency coordination, it 
supports increased research on societal consequences of nanotechnology, 
it encourages commercialization of nanotechnology applications, it 
requires outside reviews of the program, and it provides incentives for 
Americans to pursue degrees in science and engineering.
  H.R. 766 builds on the excellent budgets that have been put forward 
by the administration for nanotechnology. It has been endorsed by 
leading industry groups, and that is very important. A companion bill, 
S. 189 sponsored by Senators Wyden and Allen, is moving forward in the 
Senate; and I am optimistic that this bill will be sent to the 
President's desk in the near future.
  In closing, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for their able leadership on 
this important piece of legislation. It has been a pleasure working 
with them, and their contributions have made this bill a better bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, of course I rise in support of this act. It authorizes 
an interagency research program that will

[[Page H3716]]

have enormous consequences for the future of our Nation. It is 
bipartisan legislation introduced in the Committee on Science by the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda), who took the lead on it. It is cosponsored, of 
course, by Members from both sides of the aisle. This bill, which was 
ordered reported by a unanimous vote of the committee, will authorize 
the National Nanotechnology Initiative that is part of the President's 
budget request.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Boehlert), and I thank him for his leadership, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) in developing this legislation. I 
want to thank Chairman Boehlert for working very cooperatively with 
Democratic leaders and Members and moving the bill through the 
committee. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda) for his hard work on the bill. His efforts have led to a 
strengthening of the outside advisory mechanism for the research 
program and to a process to help facilitate the transfer of research 
innovations to commercial applications.
  Mr. Chairman, the advancement of civilization has been tied to human 
capabilities to manipulate and fashion materials. For example, the 
Stone Age gave way to the Bronze Age, which, in turn, gave way to the 
Iron Age. The trend has been a better understanding of material 
properties at a smaller and more detailed level.
  We know now that we stand at the threshold of an age in which 
materials can be fashioned atom by atom. As a result, new materials can 
be designed with specified characteristics to satisfy any of those 
specific purposes.
  The word ``revolutionary'' has become a cliche, but nanotechnology 
truly is revolutionary. In the words of a report from the National 
Research Council: ``The ability to control and manipulate atoms, to 
observe and simulate collective phenomena, to treat complex materials 
systems, and to span length scales from atoms to everyday experience, 
provides opportunities that were not even imagined a decade ago.''
  Nanotechnology will have enormous consequences for the information 
industry, for manufacturing, for medicine, and for health. Indeed, the 
scope of this technology is so broad as to leave virtually no product 
untouched.
  The potential reach and impact of nanotechnology argues for careful 
attention to how it may affect society and, in particular, attention to 
particular downsides of the technology. While some concerns have 
already been raised that seem more in the realm of science fiction, 
there are also very real issues with the potential health and 
environmental effect of nanosized particles.
  I believe it is important for the successful development of 
nanotechnology that potential problems be addressed from the very 
beginning in a straightforward and in an open manner. We know too well 
that negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology can 
have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. This has been the 
case with such technologies as nuclear power, genetically modified 
foods, and stem cell therapies.
  Research is needed to provide understanding of potential problems 
arising from nanotechnology applications in order to allow informed 
judgments to be made by risks and cost-benefit trade-offs for specific 
implementations of the technology. Efforts must be made by the research 
community to open lines of communication with the public to make clear 
potential safety risks are being explored and not ignored.
  We cannot once again go down the path where the research community 
simply issues a statement to the public: ``Trust us, it is safe.'' I am 
confident that this bill will help accomplish this goal.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), 
will offer an amendment at the appropriate point to further strengthen 
this aspect of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 766 authorizes $2.4 billion over 3 years for 
nanotechnology research and development at five agencies: the National 
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, and EPA. In addition to setting 
funding goals, this bill puts in place mechanisms for planning and 
coordinating and implementation of interagency research programs.
  The bill also includes provisions for outside expert advice to help 
guide the research program and ensure its relevance to emerging 
technological opportunities and to industry. The advisory committee 
required by the bill is charged to review the goals, the content, the 
implementation, and administration of the nanotechnology initiative. 
The bill provides the administration with the flexibility either to 
designate an existing advisory panel or to establish a new panel to 
carry out its role. It is important, I think, whatever approach is 
used, that the advisory committee encompass a range of expertise needed 
to assess the technological content of the initiative as well as the 
education, technology transfer, commercial application, and societal 
and ethical research aspects of this program.

                              {time}  1300

  Equally important, the advisory committee must focus sustained 
attention on the Nanotechnology Initiative over its lifetime in order 
to meet the comprehensive assessments required and the requirements 
specified by this legislation.
  So I am pleased that H.R. 766 has identified the need for research to 
provide understanding of potential problems arising from nanotechnology 
applications. Annual reporting requirements, added by an amendment in 
committee by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), will allow Congress to track the 
agencies' activities that are related to societal and ethical concerns.
  A problem that was identified in the Committee on Science's hearings 
on the bill is the difficulty that can arise in transitioning results 
from nanotechnology research into actual products and commercial 
applications. The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) successfully 
proposed an amendment in committee that will help address the problem 
through greater use of the Small Business Innovation Research Program 
and the Small Business Technology Transfer Research Program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, as is clear from the hearing record for H.R. 
766, this bill enjoys widespread support from the research community 
and from industry. This is an important bill. It will help ensure the 
Nation maintains a vigorous research effort in a technology area that 
is emerging as increasingly important for the economy and for national 
security.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support its final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Research.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, what is nanotechnology? I think 
it is amazing. The chairman did not use a hair off of his head as an 
example, but nanotechnology is 1/100,000th the size of a normal human 
hair.
  What we are talking about has a tremendous potential for industry, 
for science, for the health of this Nation. So it is the beginning, if 
you will, of a new revolution. It involves 13 Federal agencies in this 
new National Nanotechnology Initiative. This technology is still very 
much in its early stages.
  Only a handful of nanotechnology products and applications have been 
commercialized today. Most Americans have probably yet to even hear 
about this exciting new era of science. So what exactly is this 
technology that will likely make such a profound impact on our lives 
and the lives of our kids and our grandkids?
  The bill before us today defines nanotechnology as science and 
engineering at the atomic and molecular level. More specifically, it is 
the manipulation, if you will, of materials with structural features 
that are so tiny that it involves chemistry to develop some of the 
machines that we saw in our Subcommittee on Research that can even 
manipulate and transport a dust mite. In our hearings on the

[[Page H3717]]

future of medical technology, they estimate that within 30 years the 
life span of the average American could be 120 years old, partially 
because of the potential of nanotechnology, putting small rockets in 
one's bloodstream to hunt out certain discrepancies in the human body.
  The National Science Foundation has estimated that nanotechnology has 
the potential to be a $1 trillion industry within just the next 10 
years. This will take shape in the form of revolutionary new 
applications in materials, in science, in manufacturing, energy 
production, information technology, medicine, defense, homeland 
security. Imagine the benefits of just one example of a future 
nanoscale tool, tiny machines that can detect cancer clusters.
  But like biotechnology or information technology 10 to 15 years ago, 
nanotechnology has reached a critical growth stage. For these emerging 
innovations to come to fruition, it is important for us in Congress to 
work, proactively to provide support and guide the industry, and that 
is what this bill does.
  We found that we will need to intensify our support for research and 
experimentation in the nanosciences, specifically fundamental, novel 
research.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
  If the information technology revolution is any guide, the coming 
nanotechnolgy revolution will not only improve our lives through the 
development of many exciting new products, but its contribution to 
productivity gains will also help brighten future economic situations. 
As the Semiconductor Industry Association has pointed out, the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimation of the $1.3 trillion 
projected deficit for fiscal years 2004-2013 would actually be $247 
billion higher if it were not for CBO's assumption of continued 
improvements in productivity due to computers. If we succeed in our 
effort to harness the potential of nanotechnology, we will see 
productivity and revenue gains of a similar magnitude.
  I am proud that my home State of Michigan is poised to one of the 
leaders in this effort. As the state struggles to cope with job losses 
in manufacturing industries, we have been working to establish a high-
tech corridor to attract companies in emerging industries such as 
nanotechnology. In fact, Small Times magazines recently ranked Michigan 
as one of the top ten states for nanotechnology businesses in the 
country. This is the kind of foresight that will help our State recover 
from the dramatic losses in the manufacturing sector.
  I also want to mention that, as Chairman of the Research 
Subcommittee, which maintains oversight of the National Science 
Foundation, I am particularly excited about NSF's contribution to the 
nanotech initiative. NSF is the largest federal supporter of non-
medical basic research conducted at universities, and has a long 
history of supporting research that has led to a myriad of discoveries 
now part of our everyday lives. At a support level of $221 million for 
FY 2003, NSF is funding the cutting-edge, fundamental research at our 
nation's universities that will help to accelerate application and 
commercialization of nanotechnology products by the private sector. The 
goals and priorities for the NNI established in H.R. 766 will be an 
important aspect of this process.
  To conclude, that is a strong, well-thought out piece of legislation. 
It received unanimous bi-partisan support from the Science Committee, 
is supported by the pertinent industry organization that have an 
interest in nanotechnology, and finally, is the top science and 
technology priority of the President. I commend Chairman Boehlert for 
his leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill, and urge all members 
to support the legislation.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from the Silicon Valley of California (Mr. Honda). I have already 
explained his importance to this legislation, his background and his 
ability to lead the development of nanotechnology. I am glad to 
recognize him as one of authors of this bill.
  (Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. I would like to 
thank very, very much the distinguished leaders of the Committee on 
Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for working with me on 
this bipartisan bill which was approved unanimously by our committee.
  Most people have probably never heard of the term nanotechnology but 
they will surely see its impact in the future. Nanotechnology refers to 
the ability of scientists and engineers to manipulate matter at the 
level of single atoms and molecules.
  It has been said just previously that the size is 1/100,000th of the 
width of a hair or, if you can imagine, one-billionth of a meter. 
Nanotechnology has the potential to be the making of a revolution 
because it can be an enabling technology, fundamentally changing the 
way many items are designed and manufactured. This may lead to advances 
in almost every conceivable technological discipline, including 
medicine, energy supplies, the food we eat, and the power of our 
computers.
  The National Science Foundation predicts the worldwide market for 
nanotechnology products and services to be somewhere in the 
neighborhoods of $1 trillion by the year 2015. In today's business 
climate, the demand for short-term returns prevents companies from 
investing in long-term, high-risk work, which advancing nanotechnology 
will require.
  Therefore, the Federal Government is one of the few investors that 
can take a long-term view and make the sustained investments that are 
required to bring the field to maturity.
  Our bill continues to follow the positive trend of Federal investment 
in nanotechnology R&D begun by President Clinton, who created the 
National Nanotechnology Initiative, and President Bush, who has 
continued to support the program.
  Under the NNI, 13 Federal agencies work together on nanotechnology, 
but each continues to run its own research program. A National Research 
Council study found that this approach leads to problems with 
coordination between agencies. Our bill addresses this concern by 
establishing an interagency committee on nanotechnology R&D and 
establishing a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
  The study also found that the current structure of NNI provides 
little chance for voices outside the Federal agencies to be heard in 
the agenda setting process. Our bill addresses this by establishing an 
advisory committee that will draw upon members of the academic and 
industrial communities.
  I am confident that the qualifications established in the bill and 
accompanying report will ensure that the advisers have the technical 
expertise in nanotechnology necessary to perform this job.
  Nanotechnology's interdisciplinary nature presents another challenge, 
since the field transcends traditional areas of expertise. Our bill 
supports the establishment of interdisciplinary research centers, 
ensures that grant programs encourage interdisciplinary research and 
will expand education and training in interdisciplinary nanoscience and 
engineering.
  In addition, nanotechnology will likely give rise to a host of novel 
social, ethical, philosophical and legal issues. We have a unique 
opportunity to think about those possible issues that might arise 
before they become problems, and I feel it is our duty to do so.
  Similar opportunities were missed in the fields of molecular genetics 
and the development of the Internet, and now we wrestle with issues 
such as genetic screening, privacy and intellectual property.
  Our bill addresses this duty in two ways: First, it establishes a 
research program to identify societal and ethical concerns and ensures 
that the results of this research are widely disseminated.
  Second, it charges the nanotechnology advisory committee with the 
responsibilities of assessing whether this program is adequately 
addressing the issues and providing advice on these issues.
  One of our hearing witnesses reminded us that it is not enough to 
focus only on basic research, but also that the Federal Government 
should take steps to promote the commercialization of nanotechnology.
  I am pleased that at the markup the committee adopted my amendment to 
develop a plan for commercializing nanotechnology using the Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology 
Transfer Research Program. These programs represent significant Federal 
investment in technology development and commercialization by small 
firms, exactly the type of entrepreneurial firms

[[Page H3718]]

where most nanotechnology is occurring.
  This is an excellent bill. I am proud to have had the chance to work 
on it. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I want to 
thank the leadership again, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), on this 
wonderful bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have additional requests for time, but 
those requesting the time are not yet here.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Sherman), a very valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I will try to drag out my speech as long as necessary so that the 
chairman's speakers will have time to arrive on this floor.
  Mr. Chairman, small is big. Nanotechnology is very small, roughly the 
size of a molecule, and very small is going to be very big. 
Nanotechnology really encompasses virtually all of the cutting edge 
science that will pretty much determine our future this century, 
because it includes what is being done in genetic engineering, what is 
likely to be done in computer engineering, and it includes the 
molecular manufacturing dealing with a host of new products created 
molecule by molecule.
  Nanotechnology offers the possibility, I think the probability, of 
solving most of the problems that we wrestle with here on the floor 
such as energy and health care. But if it is able to do that, it will 
also create even more challenging problems.
  Nanotechnology will operate below the surface for quite some time 
until the basic technological and scientific challenges are met. But 
once we are able to manipulate matter at the molecular level, there 
will be an explosive impact on our society.
  The last such explosion was the development of nuclear power and 
nuclear weapons. Einstein and others wrote to President Roosevelt in 
1939, describing the possibility of nuclear fission, and in less than a 
decade we as a species had to deal with the realities of nuclear 
weapons not only in the hands of America but other countries as well. 
That is why it is so important that this bill includes not only 
scientific research, but also every possible effort to deal with the 
societal implications that arise from this technology.
  I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for the bipartisan 
approach and the very reasoned approach taken during the markup of this 
bill to make sure the bill includes mechanisms to examine the societal 
impacts.
  I bring just one of those impacts to your attention, and that is the 
creation of new levels of intelligence, whether that is done through 
what is sometimes referred to as wet nanotechnology, that is to say, 
genetic engineering; or whether it is done through what is sometimes 
called dry nanotechnology, computer engineering. Either of those two 
approaches may well create levels of intelligence that may be our 
protector, may be our competitor, or may simply regarded us as pets, or 
it may change our definition of what it is to be a human being.

                              {time}  1315

  Before we confront questions of that type, it is important that this 
bill, as it does, provides mechanisms for us to get input from a wide 
range of society because while these issues will not confront us this 
decade, it will take us more than a decade to see how we can deal with 
them.
  I see that other speakers have arrived so my effort to stall has been 
successful, and I want to yield back my time just after I make one 
comment, and that is I understand that there are four amendments that 
will be offered today. I do not know if they will all be offered, but 
each of them is designed to enhance the bill further by having us take 
a look at the societal implications of nanotechnology, and I would hope 
that each such amendment would be perhaps accepted without a rollcall 
vote so that this bill can move over to the other body in the best 
possible form.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Dallas County, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my neighbor.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of this bill and feel that it is really our next step for scientific 
discovery, and I want to thank our chairman and ranking member for the 
open and bipartisan manner in which this committee operates.
  We do have potential for enormous consequences, and most of the real 
breakthrough research has come under the leadership of this committee 
throughout the last 2 or 3 decades. This bill could cause a great deal 
of brightness for the future in terms of studying the small particles 
and determining how it might lead us to another breakthrough.
  I do value the public input, and I will be offering an amendment 
later, but I feel that the public should have some way to have some 
involvement. More and more we have more people getting involved in the 
public debate, asking questions and attempting to clarify what is going 
on, and often good scientific procedures interrupt it because we have 
an uninformed public and people who feel they have been left out; and 
because of that, I feel very strongly that we should have some type of 
offering for the general public to have input, to listen to the 
witnesses when there is a hearing, so that they can feel a part of 
this.
  This is going to be publicly financed, and we are hoping that this 
would eliminate some of the suspicion and paranoia that often comes 
from very honest and interested people simply because they do not know 
what is going on.
  I think that it would add a valuable asset to this legislation. I am 
going to support it whether or not the amendment is adopted, but I do 
feel that that is the one thing we have left out, that it can be of 
great value to this legislation and, more importantly, to the process 
of this research.
  The area from which I have come will be a leader in some of this 
research, and I am from a pretty highly educated, involved community 
that will be asking these questions, and we have a lot of demonstrators 
that will be marching to find out what is going on. I think we can 
eliminate much of this with a simple amendment that allows for some 
type of public input as we move along into this new area of broadening 
of the activity in this new area of nanotechnology.
  I thank the leadership of the committee and the Members for working 
so closely together.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the distinguished Chair of 
the Subcommittee on Energy.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as on original cosponsor of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, I rise today to express my 
strong support for this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science; and my 
committee colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), for 
developing such a comprehensive and forward-looking piece of 
legislation.
  Unlike so many other complex scientific concepts, nanotechnology is 
actually something we all should be able to grasp. Most Americans learn 
in grade school and high school that atoms are the building blocks of 
nature. In the years since I was in school, incredible machines have 
allowed us even to see every one of those items. The challenge now is 
to develop the tools, the equipment and expertise to manipulate those 
atoms and build new materials and new machines one molecule at a time.
  This bill takes up that challenge, ensuring coordination and 
collaboration among the many Federal agencies engaged in nanotech 
research. Unlike other research efforts, some of which are undertaken 
for the sake of science and our understanding of it, the broad and 
practical application of nanotechnology and its benefits can be 
described in laymen's terms. Here are just a few benefits:
  Sensing the presence of unwanted pathogens in blood; improving the 
efficiency of electricity distribution; dispensing medication; cleaning 
polluted soil and water; or building the next

[[Page H3719]]

generation of spacecraft one molecule at a time.
  I do not think I am being overly optimistic. Just consider how far we 
have come since the creation of the first microchip. Sixty percent of 
Americans now own a personal computer or a laptop, and 90 percent of 
them use the Internet. The public, private and nonprofit sectors 
invested in research that reduces the size of the microchip while 
increasing its speed exponentially. This investment was made because 
the applications were many and the possibilities endless. After all, 
microchips are now found in cars, pacemakers, watches, sewing machines, 
and just about every household appliance.
  With all its potential applications, nanotechnology could have an 
equal, if not greater, impact than the microchip on our lives, our 
wealth, our health and safety, our environment and our security at home 
and abroad. All levels of government, academia, and industry recognize 
the potential of nanotechnology, as well as the benefits of 
collaborating to realize that potential. Nanotechnology could very well 
be the catalyst for national competitiveness for the next 50 years. In 
countless ways, our lives will be better as a result of coordinated 
investment in nanoscience research and development.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 766, the Nano- 
technology Research and Development Act.
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. This bill, which 
passed by voice vote out of the full committee, would authorize a 
national nanotechnology research initiative that coordinates research 
across agencies and emphasizes interdisciplinary research between 
academic institutions and national laboratories or other partners, 
which may include States and industry. The bill also authorizes $2.36 
billion over 3 years for nanotechnology research and development 
programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, 
the Department of Commerce, NASA, and the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  Western Pennsylvania is blessed with two major universities, 
University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, which are 
doing great work in the field of nanotechnology. The University of 
Pittsburgh has established the Institute of NanoScience and 
Engineering, which is a multidisciplinary organization that brings 
coherence to the University's research efforts and resources in the 
fields of nanoscale science and engineering. At the institute work is 
ongoing in the areas of: nanotube and nanorod self-assembly; hydrogen 
storage in carbon nanotubes; semiconductor nanostructures; and many 
other interesting areas.
  Carnegie Mellon University also has a nanotechnology center, the 
Center for Interdisciplinary Nanotechnology Research. This center was 
established because various types of research were ongoing throughout 
the university, and could be a focal point and gateway for the 
distribution of nantechnology information. Their efforts include: 
nanowires; magnetic nanocrystals and noncomposites; and nonporous 
materials.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide Federal dollars to 
continue this necessary research and development into this expanding 
area of science, and provide the necessary coordination to ensure that 
this information is brought to the market.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 766, which 
authorizes a national nanotechnology research initiative. This bill 
funds more research into this ``small science'' that does big things.
  As a science, nanotechnology is crucial to the future of information 
technology. As a benefit for the average person, nanotechnology has 
already led to applications that can be used on a daily basis, such as 
hard transparent coating for eyewear, nano-enhanced computer chips, and 
drugs more easily absorbed by the human body. Each innovation serves as 
a building block for new directions and applications. The possibilities 
are as endless as the human imagination.
  Continued research plays an important role in the further development 
of nanotechnology. This science is still in its infancy and it will 
take many years of sustained investment and investigation for this 
field to achieve maturity.
  Nanotechnology has evolved from advances in chemical, physical, 
biological, engineering, medical, and materials research. It will 
continue to contribute to the science and technology workforce for 
years to come.
  The National Science Foundation predicts nanotechnology will 
represent $1 trillion in global goods and services in little over a 
decade. According to a study of international nanotechnology research 
efforts sponsored by the National Science and Technology Council, the 
United States is at risk of falling behind its international 
competitors, including Japan, South Korea, and Europe, if it fails to 
sustain broad based interests in nanotechnology.
  H.R. 766 authorizes $2.36 billion in research and development 
funding. This legislation establishes new technology goals and research 
directions, coordinates nanotechnology programs through federal 
agencies, universities across the country, and high-tech companies, to 
assure America's continued ability to lead the global exploration of 
nanotechnology.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pride that I rise today to 
support H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 
2003, and to express my excitement for the groundbreaking research that 
is taking place at the University of Delaware. In October of 2002, the 
National Science Foundation awarded the University a $2.5 million grant 
to study manmade microscopic particles and structures and their 
possible uses.
  Widely acclaimed as the wave of the future, nanotechnology is the 
ability to manipulate and control materials at the atomic and molecular 
levels to design new applications that create and use structures, 
devices, and systems which posses novel properties and functions due to 
their small and/or intermediate size. This technology will allow us to 
create a device that carries medicine to exactly where it is needed in 
the body, methods to detect cancerous tumors only a few cells in size, 
or satellites so light, costs are drastically reduced for NASA. This is 
truly the technology of tomorrow.
  The State of Delaware has the opportunity to play a pivotal role in 
the exciting development of this cutting-edge research. This 
legislation and federal funding award will allow the university to 
continue to be in the forefront of this field, and will assure that 
Delaware is actively involved in the advancement of tomorrow's 
technology.
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Chairman, I thank and compliment my friend and 
neighbor from New York, Mr. Boehlert, on his leadership and foresight 
in shepherding this landmark legislation to the floor today.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and 
Development Act of 2003. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
  The science of nanotechnology--the study of materials at the scale of 
a single molecule--is still in its earliest stages, but its promise and 
potential are already well known and well documented.
  I am confident that further research and development in the science 
of nanotechnology will continue to bring about new products and 
processes that will benefit our lives and society for generations to 
come.
  I am also confident that passing H.R. 766 and reaffirming our 
commitment to nanotechnology will create jobs and help stimulate the 
economy. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about an industry that could reach 
$1 trillion annually in market size by the year 2015.
  I am pleased to report that the State of New York has become a hub of 
hi-tech industry, particularly nanotechnology. I am proud of the 
commitment we've put forth--and the results that have been achieved--in 
the 17-county region in the eastern third of New York State known as, 
``Tech Valley.''
  In 2001, as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the 
National Science Foundation established six nanoscale science and 
engineering centers at research and learning institutions of the 
highest caliber. Mr. Speaker, three of these centers are located in New 
York State--at Columbia University, Cornell University, and at the 
Nation's oldest engineering university, Rensselaer Polytechnic 
Institute, located in Troy, and in New York's Tech Valley.
  In fact, New York's Capital Region is home to not one, but two state-
of-the-art nanotechnology research and development facilities.
  On the opposite side of the Hudson River from PRI's Nanotechnology 
Center sits Albany NanoTech, on the campus of the University at Albany, 
part of the State University of New York.
  Like the RPI facility, Albany NanoTech is a global research, 
development, technology and education resource supporting commercial 
applications in advanced nanotechnology.
  Together, Albany NanoTech and the Rensselaer Nanotech Center at RPI 
have Federal, State and private investments totaling nearly $1 billion. 
They have established relationships with hundreds of industrial 
partners from all around the world. They will play integral roles in 
major Tech Valley initiatives such as Sematech North, the IBM 
Partnership and the Tokyo Electron Partnership.
  I'm most pleased to report that both of these stellar facilities are 
located in my congressional district.
  Mr. Chairman, the work being undertaken at these two world-class 
facilities is nothing short of amazing. I'd like to offer the following 
sample of cutting-edge nanotechnology research projects underway at the 
Rensselaer Nanotechnology Center and at Albany NanoTech.

[[Page H3720]]

  Researchers are adding ceramic nanoparticles--particles 100 times 
smaller than a human hair--to existing plastic materials, modifying 
their chemical and physical properties in an effort to make them 
exponentially stronger, and make them insulators, rather than 
conductors, of electricity. These adaptations dramatically increase the 
commercial value and viability of the resulting nanocomposite 
materials, which will be used to develop products such as scratch-
resistant medical imaging film coatings and energy-efficient insulation 
for electrical power distribution cables.
  Scientists at the Rensselaer Center have used nanotechnology to 
incorporate enzymes into surfaces to produce coatings that protect 
things such as the hulls of ships, implanted medical devices, even 
personal protection equipment--helping to safeguard individuals against 
chemical and biological agents.
  Research in nanotechnology is also leading to significant 
breakthroughs in biomedicine. For example, nanostructured materials 
have been found to mimic natural bone, causing a specific response in 
living cells to enhance bone growth and regeneration in humans.
  The final project I will mention developed a relatively simple 
assembly of carbon nanotubes--which are basically rolled up layers of 
carbon that can be used like chopsticks or placed in a row--to discover 
methods of filtration that can efficiently purify water in a manner 
that could help solve many of the world's potable water problems.
  And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
  Mr. Chairman, we are entering an exciting new era of technology. H.R. 
766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, is essential to 
provide further momentum to the breakthroughs brought about in the past 
4 years by the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
  I am truly excited that New York's 21st Congressional District, the 
heart of New York's Tech Valley, is already one of the world's primary 
centers for nanotechnology and other hi-tech industry. These industries 
will continue to spur economic growth and development not only in New 
York's Capital Region, but also all across the United States in the 
years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, let us continue to lead the world in this important 
endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 766.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I believe this piece of 
legislation is extremely important to our Nation's future scientific 
research efforts and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 766.
  For the past decade, Oregon has been growing as a progressive and 
growing area for technological research. In the Portland metropolitan 
area, we have two major research universities and a large number of 
high technology companies. As their representative in Congress, I 
believe H.R. 766 would strengthen our Nation's nanotechnology research 
efforts and help translate today's research efforts into future 
technology that will benefit all Americans.
  This piece of legislation establishes grants for a national 
nanotechnology research and development effort. The interdisciplinary 
research centers authorized by H.R. 766 will serve as major centers of 
excellence and innovation. As an example, I would like to mention one 
of the public institutions in my district, the Portland State 
University's Center for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. The center 
conducts particularly interesting nanotechnology research and will help 
transition today's research efforts into real benefits for future 
American consumers.
  During Science Committee consideration of H.R. 766, one of the 
amendments I jointly offered with Mr. Smith of Michigan, Ms. Hart of 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Matheson of Utah, would facilitate public and 
private partnership on research efforts and help utilize regional 
assets in the development of technology. I strongly hope that future 
research efforts will be collaborative in nature and take into 
consideration the many regional scientific and research expertise we 
have throughout the country.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.
  The promise of nanotechnology is great. As research in nanotechnology 
continues, we will seek breakthrough advances affecting a broad field 
of scientific and commercial endeavor.
  In my own State of Missouri, several academic institutions are 
engaged in nanotechnology research. At the University of Missouri-
Rolla, a large group of faculty members from diverse fields are 
actively researching several aspects of nanoscience and engineering 
that primarily focus on micropower, nanostructured materials and 
nanosensors. Since the early 90s, the chemistry and physics departments 
at Washington University in St. Louis have collaborated in making 
various nanowires and nanotubes that might ultimately be incorporated 
into nanoelectronic devices.
  Nanotechnology research has the potential to create revolutionary 
products in the field of electronics, pharmaceuticals and military 
defense. It is an important investment in the future of America's 
economy, and I applaud Chairman Boehlert and the professional staff of 
the Science Committee for bringing this important legislation to the 
floor today.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, we stand at the dawn of a new era, one 
that holds the promise to revolutionize life as we know it by 
developing new cures for diseases as debilitating as cancer and 
creating powerful new computers the size of a wristwatch. It is 
critically important for this country to seize this opportunity and 
harness this potential. That is why our efforts here today, while only 
the first step, are so important to ensure our country serves as the 
world's proving ground for this revolutionary advance in science.
  H.R. 766 serves as a bridge to this bright future. This legislation 
meets the promise of broadening our economic future. The President's 
commitment to nanotechnology mirrors the commitment President Kennedy 
made to the space program, and I believe the research we support today 
will reap benefits to mankind beyond any of our wildest dreams.
  Nanotechnology is the next scientific frontier, the future of 
computer science and medicine and yet, nanotechnology is rooted in 
today--the here and now.
  In Murray Hill, New Jersey, in my district, Lucent Technologies, Bell 
Laboratories serves as the hub for the New Jersey Nanotechnology 
Consortium, which will manage the New Jersey Nanotechnology Laboratory. 
Our State, like many others, is ready to partner with the Federal 
Government to make these research initiatives a reality.
  Here in the Congress we have a responsibility and obligation to 
support ways to stimulate economic growth. The promise of 
nanotechnology is also about job creation and the National Science 
Foundation has predicted that the worldwide nanotechnology market could 
reach $1 trillion in approximately 12 years, which could translate into 
as many as 7 million new jobs.
  What we do today and in the future in this House, in regards to 
nanotechnology, may stand as the legacy to the 108th Congress.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology presents incredible 
opportunities, not just for pure science, but for a host of 
interdisciplinary areas. The wide range of potential applications of 
this research is one of the best reasons why we, as a nation, should 
commit to long-term support of nanotechnology. Many of the most 
exciting ideas are still years from completion and even the current 
success stories are products of long-term research, study, and 
dedication.
  It is also important to realize that, due to the expense of 
establishing top-level research infrastructure, facility sharing must 
also be a priority. We have an opportunity to promote relevant, needed 
research and every effort should be made to best utilize limited 
resources. I look to the national laboratories at Sandia National 
Laboratories, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and at other sites to 
avail themselves of the scientific talent within this nation.
  Finally, there exists a tremendous opportunity for today's research 
commitment to become tomorrow's commercial success. We need partnership 
between federally funded research facilities and private industry in 
order to generate the ideas that will drive business in the future. I 
thank the Committee for its interest in this area of science and look 
forward to contributing to the national discourse on nanotechnology.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766, the 
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. H.R. 766 
authorizes $2.36 billion over three years for nanotechnology research 
and development programs at the National Science Foundation, the 
Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, NASA, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, this legislation 
establishes a research program to address societal and ethical 
concerns.
  Nanotechnology can best be considered as a ``catch-all'' description 
of activities at the level of atoms and molecules that have application 
in the real world. A variety of nanotechnology products are already in 
development or on the market, including stain-resistant, wrinkle free 
pants and ultraviolet-light blocking sunscreens.
  A unique feature of nanotechnology is that it is the one area of 
research and development that is truly multidisciplinary. Research is 
unified by the need to share knowledge on tools and techniques, as well 
as information on the physics affecting atomic and molecular 
interactions in this new realm. Materials scientists, mechanical and 
electronic engineers and medical researches are now forming teams with 
biologists, physicists and chemists.
  Illinois is among the leaders in nanotechnology. During the last few 
years, success in the areas of nanotechnology at Southern Illinois 
University-Carbondale (SIUC) has included patented technology for 
conversion of

[[Page H3721]]

carbon dioxide into methanol and sensors to detect corrosion and stress 
in highway bridges. SIUC has also developed industrial partnerships and 
collaborations with IBM, Proctor & Gamble, and Argonne National labs to 
further research and development at the atomic and molecular scale.
  Increased understanding of nanotechnology promises to underlie 
revolutionary advances that will contribute to improvements in 
medicine, manufacturing, high-performance materials, information 
technology, and environmental technologies. I strongly support this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. ESHOO. Ms. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 766 and I 
thank the Chairman of the Science Committee Mr. Boehlert and my Silicon 
Valley colleagues Reps. Honda and Lofgren for their work in bringing 
this important bill to the floor of the House.
  Recent history indicates that the investments in research and 
development made by the federal government have benefited our nation 
considerably. The federal government provided seed money for the 
research that led to the development of the Internet, the web browser, 
and cracking the genetic code, these investments have spawned a decade 
of economic prosperity and promise, increased productivity, and 
hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
  In fact the federal government has served as a venture capitalist by 
making investments in nascent technologies that have generated 
companies who maintain our national technological and scientific 
predominance.
  This legislation builds on that tradition by authorizing over $2.3 
billion dollars in federal funding for nanotechnology, the science of 
creating and manipulating objects at molecular levels.
  In Silicon Valley nanotechnology is already being used to develop new 
types of semiconductors, medical devices, and sensors that detect 
environmental and other types of hazards.
  Progress in this field has been hampered by a lack of trained 
scientists which is why this bill and the investment we make today is 
absolutely essential. This funding will help to produce the next 
generation of great American scientists.
  The NSF has estimated that the market in products that carry 
nanocomponents could reach $1 trillion by the next decade.
  The seed money we provide today will go a long way to ensuring that 
the nanotechnology market, which is poised to be the next big thing in 
the technology industry, will also be the next big AMERICAN thing.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would first just like to 
thank you and Ranking Member Hall for bringing this excellent bill to 
us today. I would also like to comment our colleague from California, 
Mr. Honda for his great leadership on the issue of nanotechnology. I 
was pleased to be a co-sponsor of his bill HR 5669 to make a 
Nanoscience advisory board in the last Congress, and this one today.
  Nanotechnology holds great promise for bringing about substantive 
improvements in quality of life for people in America and around the 
world. It is critical that as this field emerges, that American 
research and America industry remain at the cutting edge and in prime 
position to take advantage of market opportunities. We also must ensure 
that as new technologies and products--in healthcare, in 
communications, in energy--come about that they impact on all of the 
American population.
  In Science Committee markup last week, I offered two amendments that 
I believe will help make that happen. One amendment will capitalize on 
the great expertise and skills of our nation's Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, and Universities serving large numbers of 
Hispanics, Asian-Pacific Islanders and other under-represented 
minorities. It is critical that the research initiative we are 
designing takes advantage of schools like Texas Southern University, in 
my District in Houston, and their excellent College of Science and 
Technology. We must also harness the productivity of collaborative 
efforts like that in South Carolina, where seventeen teams of 
scientists and engineers from around the state are working together on 
research projects including treatments to cancer and materials for 
solar-powered space exploration. That Collaborative Research Program 
provides an opportunity for research faculty at Clemson and USC to 
collaborate with faculty from the state's four-year and Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) to take nanotechnology to the 
next level.
  This amendment will also help make sure the next generation of 
leaders in this important field, in academics and industry, will 
reflect the diversity of America.
  My other amendment from Science Committee will help ensure that 
nanotechnology advances bring about real improvements in quality of 
life for all the American people, not just the select few. It was a 
small wording change that makes a profound statement of commitment to 
the well-being of all Americans.
  As we go forward today, I hope we make this bill all it can be: 
maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of federal investments, 
spurring on this exciting field, and ensuring the promise that it will 
produce good for all people. There are excellent amendments to be 
considered from some of my Democratic Colleagues on the Science 
Committee, especially those from my fellow Texans.
  One of the Bell amendments will make this federal program much more 
proactive by addressing the potential toxicity of nanoparticles, to 
protect the health of Americans. The other will make it more likely 
that advances in nanotechnology improve our nation's energy security.
  The Johnson amendment will create citizen panels to discuss societal/
ethical implications of nanotechnology and to inform the research 
agenda, so that research reflects the concerns of the American people--
not only academics and scientists.
  I will offer an amendment that creates a Center for Societal, 
Ethical, Educational, Workforce, Environmental, and Legal Issues 
Related to Nanotechnology. That will give that important research a 
home at the NSF, so that integrated research in the field will be 
better disseminated and accessible to all interested people.
  I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
  Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the University of Oregon has a well-
established nanotechnology program that along with its partners at 
Oregon State University occupies a special niche in the field of 
nanoscience research.
  The University of Oregon is working closely with Oregon State 
University to put nanotechnology to work in real micro systems with 
applications in sensors for human safety, reactors for reduced 
environmental impact, more efficient energy sources, life saving 
medical devices, and integrated circuits for the next generation of 
computers and communications systems. The legislation speaks to the 
need to apply nanoscale research to microscale devices and will 
strengthen national research policy in support of such work.
  Beyond that, the University of Oregon is pioneering research into 
inherently safer materials and manufacturing or ``green nanoscience''. 
Through deliberate design at the moelcular or nanoscale level, 
University of Oregon researchers aim to produce products and processes 
that pose dramatically less risk to human health than traditional 
manufacturing methods. The potential impact of nanotechnology derives 
from the fact that unprecedented material properties are being 
discovered in nanoscale materials. These properties can be harnessed to 
invent entirely new products and processes. UO researchers have already 
discovered new phenomena in nanoscience such as thermoelectric 
materials that present energy efficient, refrigerant-free cooling 
solutions and biomolecular lithography, a possible candidate for the 
ultimate minuritzation of electronic circuits and computers.
  If nanotechnology is the both a path to the next industrial 
revolution and a source of concern about societal and ethical issues 
involving nanoscale research, then federal agencies should be proactive 
in funding research that seeks ways to develop materials and 
manufacturing methods that are inherently safer--less wasteful in their 
use of materials and energy, less harmful to human health and safety, 
and just as economical to produce.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nanotechnology 
Research and Development Act of 2003. Science has revealed the far-
reaching benefits of nanotechnology in recent years and I recognize the 
need for a more cooperative and focused approach.
  I thank Science Committee Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Honda 
for their efforts to advance nanotechnology applications and to call 
for today's authorization of important nanotechnology research and 
development, ethical oversight, and expert advisory.
  In my northern Michigan district, we have been proud witness to 
nanosystems research at internationally renowned Michigan Technological 
University. Located in Houghton, Michigan, Michigan Tech hosts one of 
the nation's foremost nanotechnology research centers, the Center for 
Mico- and Nanosystems Technology.
  Michigan Tech has long distinguished itself as a leader in science 
and engineering projects and now steams ahead in the development of 
nanostructure and lightweight materials. They have shown particular 
success with metal hydrides, to provide safer and more efficient 
storage of hydrogen for clean-burning hydrogen-powered vehicles--both 
civilian and military. These lightweight, durable nanotech materials 
could prove additionally valuable to NASA spacecraft construction.
  Michigan tech has also engaged in research to enable miniature 
medical implant devices and other nano-sized health care products which 
will improve the quality and reduce the

[[Page H3722]]

cost of health care and lead to overall economic growth as additional 
breakthroughs are made in this vital area.
  With continued funding and bolstered federal resources, Michigan Tech 
has all the tools in place for promising technological advances in a 
diversity of nanotechnology applications.
  I will continue to urge Congressional appropriators to remember 
smaller universities when it comes to doling out the federal funds and 
research contracts we provide in this authorization today and in the 
future. Michigan Tech, while only enrolling a total student body of 
6300, is consistently ranked second in the nation--to only Georgia 
Tech--as the premier public technological university.
  I pleased with the opportunity to recognize Michigan Tech for their 
contribution to our national research efforts and to support this 
important science legislation.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, we yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for speakers, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed 
in the bill shall be considered by section as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is 
considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nanotechnology Research and 
     Development Act of 2003''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in 
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``advanced technology user facility'' means a 
     nanotechnology research and development facility supported, 
     in whole or in part, by Federal funds that is open to all 
     United States researchers on a competitive, merit-reviewed 
     basis;
       (2) the term ``Advisory Committee'' means the advisory 
     committee established or designated under section 5;
       (3) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office 
     of Science and Technology Policy;
       (4) the term ``Interagency Committee'' means the 
     interagency committee established under section 3(c);
       (5) the term ``nanotechnology'' means science and 
     engineering aimed at creating materials, devices, and systems 
     at the atomic and molecular level;
       (6) the term ``Program'' means the National Nanotechnology 
     Research and Development Program described in section 3; and
       (7) the term ``program component area'' means a major 
     subject area established under section 3(c)(2) under which is 
     grouped related individual projects and activities carried 
     out under the Program.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The President shall implement a National 
     Nanotechnology Research and Development Program to promote 
     Federal nanotechnology research, development, demonstration, 
     education, technology transfer, and commercial application 
     activities as necessary to ensure continued United States 
     leadership in nanotechnology research and development and to 
     ensure effective coordination of nanotechnology research and 
     development across Federal agencies.
       (b) Program Activities.--The activities of the Program 
     shall be designed to--
       (1) provide sustained support for nanotechnology research 
     and development through--
       (A) grants to individual investigators and 
     interdisciplinary teams of investigators;
       (B) establishment of advanced technology user facilities; 
     and
       (C) establishment of interdisciplinary research centers, 
     which shall--
       (i) network with each other to foster the exchange of 
     technical information and best practices;
       (ii) involve academic institutions or national laboratories 
     and other partners, which may include States and industry;
       (iii) make use of existing expertise in nanotechnology in 
     their regions and nationally;
       (iv) make use of ongoing research and development at the 
     micrometer scale to support their work in nanotechnology; and
       (v) be capable of accelerating the commercial application 
     of nanotechnology innovations in the private sector;
       (2) ensure that solicitation and evaluation of proposals 
     under the Program encourage interdisciplinary research;
       (3) expand education and training of undergraduate and 
     graduate students in interdisciplinary nanotechnology science 
     and engineering;
       (4) accelerate the commercial application of nanotechnology 
     innovations in the private sector;
       (5) ensure that societal and ethical concerns, including 
     environmental concerns and the potential implications of 
     human performance enhancement and the possible development of 
     nonhuman intelligence, will be addressed as the technology is 
     developed by--
       (A) establishing a research program to identify societal 
     and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology, and ensuring 
     that the results of such research are widely disseminated;
       (B) insofar as possible, integrating research on societal 
     and ethical concerns with nanotechnology research and 
     development, and ensuring that advances in nanotechnology 
     bring about improvements in quality of life for all 
     Americans; and
       (C) requiring that interdisciplinary research centers under 
     paragraph (1)(C) include activities that address societal and 
     ethical concerns; and
       (6) include to the maximum extent practicable diverse 
     institutions, including Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities and those serving large proportions of 
     Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, or 
     other underrepresented populations.
       (c) Interagency Committee.--The President shall establish 
     or designate an interagency committee on nanotechnology 
     research and development, which shall include representatives 
     from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the 
     National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, and any other agency that the President 
     may designate. The Director shall select a chairperson from 
     among the members of the Interagency Committee. The 
     Interagency Committee, which shall also include a 
     representative from the Office of Management and Budget, 
     shall oversee the planning, management, and coordination of 
     the Program. The Interagency Committee shall--
       (1) establish goals and priorities for the Program;
       (2) establish program component areas, with specific 
     priorities and technical goals, that reflect the goals and 
     priorities established for the Program;
       (3) develop, within 6 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and update annually, a strategic plan to meet the 
     goals and priorities established under paragraph (1) and to 
     guide the activities of the program component areas 
     established under paragraph (2);
       (4) propose a coordinated interagency budget for the 
     Program that will ensure the maintenance of a balanced 
     nanotechnology research portfolio and ensure that each agency 
     and each program component area is allocated the level of 
     funding required to meet the goals and priorities established 
     for the Program;
       (5) develop a plan to utilize Federal programs, such as the 
     Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small 
     Business Technology Transfer Research Program, in support of 
     the goal stated in subsection (b)(4); and
       (6) in carrying out its responsibilities under paragraphs 
     (1) through (5), take into consideration the recommendations 
     of the Advisory Committee and the views of academic, State, 
     industry, and other appropriate groups conducting research on 
     and using nanotechnology.

     SEC. 4. ANNUAL REPORT.

       The chairperson of the Interagency Committee shall prepare 
     an annual report, to be submitted to the Committee on Science 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate at the 
     time of the President's budget request to Congress, that 
     includes--
       (1) the Program budget, for the current fiscal year, for 
     each agency that participates in the Program, including a 
     breakout of spending for the development and acquisition of 
     research facilities and instrumentation, for each program 
     component area, and for all activities pursuant to section 
     3(b)(5);
       (2) the proposed Program budget, for the next fiscal year, 
     for each agency that participates in the Program, including a 
     breakout of spending for the development and acquisition of 
     research facilities and instrumentation, for each program 
     component area, and for all activities pursuant to section 
     3(b)(5);
       (3) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the 
     goals and priorities established for the Program;
       (4) an analysis of the extent to which the Program has 
     incorporated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee; 
     and
       (5) an assessment of how Federal agencies are implementing 
     the plan described in section 3(c)(5), and a description of 
     the amount of Small Business Innovative Research and Small 
     Business Technology Transfer Research funds supporting the 
     plan.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--The President shall establish or designate 
     an advisory committee on nanotechnology consisting of non-
     Federal members, including representatives of research and

[[Page H3723]]

     academic institutions and industry, who are qualified to 
     provide advice and information on nanotechnology research, 
     development, demonstration, education, technology 
     transfer, commercial application, and societal and ethical 
     concerns. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee 
     shall be considered by Federal agencies in implementing 
     the Program.
       (b) Assessment.--The Advisory Committee shall assess--
       (1) trends and developments in nanotechnology science and 
     engineering;
       (2) progress made in implementing the Program;
       (3) the need to revise the Program;
       (4) the balance among the components of the Program, 
     including funding levels for the program component areas;
       (5) whether the program component areas, priorities, and 
     technical goals developed by the Interagency Committee are 
     helping to maintain United States leadership in 
     nanotechnology;
       (6) the management, coordination, implementation, and 
     activities of the Program; and
       (7) whether societal and ethical concerns are adequately 
     addressed by the Program.
       (c) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall report not less 
     frequently than once every 2 fiscal years to the President on 
     its findings of the assessment carried out under subsection 
     (b), its recommendations for ways to improve the Program, and 
     the concerns assessed under subsection (b)(7). The first 
     report shall be due within 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (d) Federal Advisory Committee Act Application.--Section 14 
     of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the 
     Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 6. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY COORDINATION OFFICE.

       The President shall establish a National Nanotechnology 
     Coordination Office, with full-time staff, which shall--
       (1) provide technical and administrative support to the 
     Interagency Committee and the Advisory Committee;
       (2) serve as a point of contact on Federal nanotechnology 
     activities for government organizations, academia, industry, 
     professional societies, and others to exchange technical and 
     programmatic information; and
       (3) conduct public outreach, including dissemination of 
     findings and recommendations of the Interagency Committee and 
     the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) National Science Foundation.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for 
     carrying out this Act--
       (1) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) $424,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (b) Department of Energy.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for carrying out this 
     Act--
       (1) $265,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $292,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) $322,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (c) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration for carrying out this Act--
       (1) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (d) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--There 
     are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology for carrying out this Act--
       (1) $62,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $68,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
       (e) Environmental Protection Agency.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for 
     carrying out this Act--
       (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
       (3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

     SEC. 8. EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY 
                   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall enter into an 
     agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 
     periodic reviews of the Program. The reviews shall be 
     conducted once every 3 years during the 10-year period 
     following the enactment of this Act. The reviews shall 
     include--
       (1) an evaluation of the technical achievements of the 
     Program;
       (2) recommendations for changes in the Program;
       (3) an evaluation of the relative position of the United 
     States with respect to other nations in nanotechnology 
     research and development;
       (4) an evaluation of the Program's success in transferring 
     technology to the private sector;
       (5) an evaluation of whether the Program has been 
     successful in fostering interdisciplinary research and 
     development; and
       (6) an evaluation of the extent to which the Program has 
     adequately considered societal and ethical concerns.
       (b) Study on Molecular Manufacturing.--Not later than 3 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act a review shall 
     be conducted in accordance with subsection (a) that includes 
     a study to determine the technical feasibility of the 
     manufacture of materials and devices at the molecular scale. 
     The study shall--
       (1) examine the current state of the technology for 
     enabling molecular manufacturing;
       (2) determine the key scientific and technical barriers to 
     achieving molecular manufacturing;
       (3) review current and planned research activities that are 
     relevant to advancing the prospects for molecular 
     manufacturing; and
       (4) develop, insofar as possible, a consensus on whether 
     molecular manufacturing is technically feasible, and if found 
     to be feasible--
       (A) the estimated timeframe in which molecular 
     manufacturing may be possible on a commercial scale; and
       (B) recommendations for a research agenda necessary to 
     achieve this result.
       (c) Study on Safe Nanotechnology.--Not later than 6 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act a review shall be 
     conducted in accordance with subsection (a) that includes a 
     study to assess the need for standards, guidelines, or 
     strategies for ensuring the development of safe 
     nanotechnology, including those applicable to--
       (1) self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices;
       (2) the release of such machines or devices in natural 
     environments;
       (3) distribution of molecular manufacturing development;
       (4) encryption;
       (5) the development of defensive technologies;
       (6) the use of nanotechnology as human brain extenders; and
       (7) the use of nanotechnology in developing artificial 
     intelligence.

     SEC. 9. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GRADUATE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMS.

       (a) Establishment of Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The agency heads shall each establish 
     within their respective departments and agencies a Science 
     and Technology Graduate Scholarship Program to award 
     scholarships to individuals that is designed to recruit and 
     prepare students for careers in the Federal Government that 
     require engineering, scientific, and technical training.
       (2) Competitive process.--Individuals shall be selected to 
     receive scholarships under this section through a competitive 
     process primarily on the basis of academic merit, with 
     consideration given to financial need and the goal of 
     promoting the participation of individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       (3) Service agreements.--To carry out the Programs the 
     agency heads shall enter into contractual agreements with 
     individuals selected under paragraph (2) under which the 
     individuals agree to serve as full-time employees of the 
     Federal Government, for the period described in subsection 
     (f)(1), in positions needed by the Federal Government and for 
     which the individuals are qualified, in exchange for 
     receiving a scholarship.
       (b) Scholarship Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to 
     participate in a Program, an individual must--
       (1) be enrolled or accepted for enrollment as a full-time 
     student at an institution of higher education in an academic 
     field or discipline described in a list made available under 
     subsection (d);
       (2) be a United States citizen or permanent resident; and
       (3) at the time of the initial scholarship award, not be a 
     Federal employee as defined in section 2105 of title 5 of the 
     United States Code.
       (c) Application Required.--An individual seeking a 
     scholarship under this section shall submit an application to 
     an agency head at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information, agreements, or assurances as the agency 
     head may require.
       (d) Eligible Academic Programs.--The agency heads shall 
     each make publicly available a list of academic programs and 
     fields of study for which scholarships under their 
     department's or agency's Program may be utilized, and shall 
     update the list as necessary.
       (e) Scholarship Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Agency heads may provide scholarships 
     under their department's or agency's Program for an academic 
     year if the individual applying for the scholarship has 
     submitted to the agency head, as part of the application 
     required under subsection (c), a proposed academic program 
     leading to a degree in a program or field of study on a list 
     made available under subsection (d).
       (2) Duration of eligibility.--An individual may not receive 
     a scholarship under this section for more than 4 academic 
     years, unless an agency head grants a waiver.
       (3) Scholarship amount.--The dollar amount of a scholarship 
     under this section for an academic year shall be determined 
     under regulations issued by the agency heads, but shall in no 
     case exceed the cost of attendance.
       (4) Authorized uses.--A scholarship provided under this 
     section may be expended for tuition, fees, and other 
     authorized expenses as established by the agency heads by 
     regulation.
       (5) Contracts regarding direct payments to institutions.--
     Each agency head may enter into a contractual agreement with 
     an institution of higher education under which the amounts 
     provided for a scholarship under this section for tuition, 
     fees, and other authorized expenses are paid directly to the 
     institution with respect to which the scholarship is 
     provided.
       (f) Period of Obligated Service.--
       (1) Duration of service.--The period of service for which 
     an individual shall be obligated to serve as an employee of 
     the Federal Government is, except as provided in subsection 
     (h)(2), 24 months for each academic year for which a 
     scholarship under this section is provided.
       (2) Schedule for service.--(A) Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), obligated service under paragraph (1) shall 
     begin not later than 60 days after the individual obtains the 
     educational degree for which the scholarship was provided.
       (B) An agency head may defer the obligation of an 
     individual to provide a period of service under paragraph (1) 
     if the agency head determines that such a deferral is 
     appropriate. The agency head shall prescribe the terms and 
     conditions under which a service obligation may be deferred 
     through regulation.

[[Page H3724]]

       (g) Penalties for Breach of Scholarship Agreement.--
       (1) Failure to complete academic training.--Scholarship 
     recipients who fail to maintain a high level of academic 
     standing, as defined by the appropriate agency head by 
     regulation, who are dismissed from their educational 
     institutions for disciplinary reasons, or who voluntarily 
     terminate academic training before graduation from the 
     educational program for which the scholarship was awarded, 
     shall be in breach of their contractual agreement and, in 
     lieu of any service obligation arising under such agreement, 
     shall be liable to the United States for repayment within 1 
     year after the date of default of all scholarship funds paid 
     to them and to the institution of higher education on their 
     behalf under the agreement, except as provided in subsection 
     (h)(2). The repayment period may be extended by the agency 
     head when determined to be necessary, as established by 
     regulation.
       (2) Failure to begin or complete the service obligation or 
     meet the terms and conditions of deferment.--Scholarship 
     recipients who, for any reason, fail to begin or complete 
     their service obligation after completion of academic 
     training, or fail to comply with the terms and conditions of 
     deferment established by the appropriate agency head pursuant 
     to subsection (f)(2)(B), shall be in breach of their 
     contractual agreement. When recipients breach their 
     agreements for the reasons stated in the preceding sentence, 
     the recipient shall be liable to the United States for an 
     amount equal to--
       (A) the total amount of scholarships received by such 
     individual under this section; plus
       (B) the interest on the amounts of such awards which would 
     be payable if at the time the awards were received they were 
     loans bearing interest at the maximum legal prevailing rate, 
     as determined by the Treasurer of the United States,
     multiplied by 3.
       (h) Waiver or Suspension of Obligation.--
       (1) Death of individual.--Any obligation of an individual 
     incurred under a Program (or a contractual agreement 
     thereunder) for service or payment shall be canceled upon the 
     death of the individual.
       (2) Impossibility or extreme hardship.--The agency heads 
     shall by regulation provide for the partial or total waiver 
     or suspension of any obligation of service or payment 
     incurred by an individual under their department's or 
     agency's Program (or a contractual agreement thereunder) 
     whenever compliance by the individual is impossible or would 
     involve extreme hardship to the individual, or if enforcement 
     of such obligation with respect to the individual would be 
     contrary to the best interests of the Government.
       (i) Definitions.--In this section the following definitions 
     apply:
       (1) Agency head.--The term ``agency head'' means the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of 
     Energy, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, the Director of the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology, or the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Cost of attendance.--The term ``cost of attendance'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 472 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll).
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (4) Program.--The term ``Program'' means a Science and 
     Technology Graduate Scholarship Program established under 
     this section.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bell

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment:
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bell:
       In section 3(b)(5), strike ``environmental concerns'' and 
     insert ``toxicological studies, environmental impact 
     studies,''.

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the traditional approach on environmental and 
health concerns for new technologies is to simply wait until there is a 
problem.
  Instead of reacting down the line in response to environmental or 
health problems that may arise in the development of nanotechnology, we 
have the opportunity through this amendment to understand the risk 
involved as we move forward in our research now.
  One common, often fair, criticism of government is that we are slow 
and reactive. Here is a chance for all of us to be proactive.
  This amendment will ensure that the environmental and toxicological 
impacts of nanotech applications are studied during the developmental 
process so that problems can be spotted early on and fixed before any 
damage is done. Prevention is better and cheaper than cleanup. I think 
everybody would agree with that.
  History has many examples of promising technologies whose hidden 
costs and risks were only determined after widespread adoption. These 
include nuclear power, which continues to generate an enormous amount 
of toxic waste; DDT, which wiped out malarial mosquitoes in the U.S. 
but was harmful to animal life; semiconductor manufacturing, which 
ushered in the computer revolution but resulted in environmental 
contamination.
  There are other examples of science moving forward but then looking 
at the implications after the fact. Probably the best most recent 
example is stem cell research; and regardless of where one lines up in 
that debate, I think everyone can agree that it would have been smarter 
for us to look at some of the societal concerns while the research was 
being developed instead of after the fact.
  We have a responsibility to quantify the risks ahead of time. We have 
a responsibility to minimize the unintended consequences. Currently, 
the toxicological impacts of nanotechnology are not being studied 
because no funding has been allocated to make it happen. Ultrafine 
particles, particles larger than nanoparticles, such as asbestos and 
ultrafine quartz particles, have been known to cause damage to the 
lungs.
  We would like to know the toxic effects of nanoparticles. To date, 
only one comprehensive study has been performed to examine the possible 
toxicity of nanoparticles. A group of researchers recently discovered 
that mice and rats develop scar tissue in their lungs after exposure to 
carbon nanotubes. This was the first preliminary study that examines 
the possible toxicological risks of nanotechnology. I would submit that 
these studies must continue.
  What is the impact on the human body? The answer is that we do not 
know, but that is a question that we must be able to answer. These very 
preliminary studies show us that further research is needed. There are 
issues of risks associated with every new technology. Concerns about 
nanoparticles' toxicity must be addressed while the field is still 
young and exposure is limited.
  We in this body have the responsibility to ensure that the necessary 
research is being performed to ensure the continued safety of our 
communities in the face of this exciting new technology.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) because I think it overspecifies the 
issues that should be addressed by research directed towards societal 
and ethical concerns. I also want to point out that the administration, 
which is championing this initiative and who were of the same mind, 
opposes this amendment.
  H.R. 766 already makes it clear both in the bill and in the 
accompanying report language that societal and ethical concerns include 
concerns related to potential societal and environmental consequences 
associated with nanotechnology development. The language is general in 
order to permit the broadest range of research on the societal and 
environmental implications of nanotechnology.
  We spent a great deal of time on this very issue during our 
committee's markup of the bill last week. The committee took particular 
care as to how societal and ethical concerns were described in the bill 
and how the national nanotechnology research and development program is 
required to address them.
  We need to have broad authority to ensure that this research can 
focus on questions that may not seem important to us today but emerge 
as the science matures. This amendment takes us in the wrong direction 
by limiting the research on environmental concerns authorized in the 
bipartisan committee bill to toxicological and environmental impact 
statements.
  The administration opposes the amendment. I do, too. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of this amendment. It is my understanding that the 
amendment does not limit the societal impact that is going to be 
evaluated, but simply specifies that among the things to be looked at 
are the toxicological and the environmental.
  I do not know whether the gentleman from Texas would want me to yield 
to him so that he could further explain whether his amendment would 
limit or perhaps just identify certain areas for such review.

[[Page H3725]]

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  In no way would it limit, and that is why we specifically used 
language that said ``including toxicological and environmental 
concerns.'' Researchers in this area would still be free to study a 
wide range of societal and ethical concerns associated with 
nanotechnology. We just want to make sure that included in that 
research will be research going toward toxicological and environmental 
concerns as well.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Science and 
I happen to disagree on what could possibly lead to arbitrariness as 
this research concerning nanotechnology goes forward. It is my fear if 
we do not set forth some of the areas in particular that we would like 
to see studied, they could be overlooked. But it is in no way limiting 
the scope of the research that will be conducted regarding societal and 
ethical concerns associated with nanotechnology.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the bill does 
a good job of dealing with the societal impacts. This amendment would 
make it better.
  I just returned from spending 2 days at the conference of the 
Foresight Institute in Palo Alto devoted exclusively to looking at the 
societal impacts of nanotechnology. There I had extensive discussions 
with Eric Drexler who coined the term ``nano- 
technology,'' and got to meet the people from the Singularity Institute 
who are focusing on the implications of artificial intelligence.
  One good aspect of this bill that I should point out is Michael 
Creighton's book ``Prey'' is identified with nanotechnology; and, in 
fact, whether or not what he describes in that book is possible, the 
bill already identifies six standards to be included in the safety 
standards for the research done in this technology. Following even some 
of those standards would be enough to put ``Prey'' to rest.
  So the bill does have some excellent aspects to it. I think it could 
be enhanced by the amendment from the gentleman from Texas. I would 
also point out that the bill calls for societal impacts to be reviewed 
as part and parcel of scientific research so that when it is practical 
to fund scientific research, that the societal impacts are reviewed.
  The bill also, and I think this is important, would allow us to look 
at the societal impact separately and prior to the time when it is 
appropriate to fund practical scientific studies. So it may be that we 
are not funding a particular type of technology because it is not ripe, 
but we do need to look at the societal impacts of that technology even 
before it is ripe to develop it.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to being part of the process as this 
bill moves to the other body. I think it is a bill that covers the 
societal impacts, and the amendment would only make it better.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a great bill. We think that this amendment 
would help it. I support the bill whether we put the amendment on or 
not; but it seems to me that this just adds toxicological studies, 
which simply means in plain American language is we want to add health 
effects to it. In subsection 5, page 4, line 23, they point and ensure 
that societal and ethical concerns, including environmental concerns 
and potential implications of human performance enhancement and the 
possible development of nonhuman intelligence will be addressed. This 
simply adds health to it.
  I think it aids the bill substantially. It brings some common sense 
to it, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the Bell amendment. The 
potential benefit of nanotechnology is truly astounding, but there are 
also potential harmful consequences.
  I come from a part of the country where a century ago we imported an 
ornamental Japanese groundcover, kudzu. It was thought to help prevent 
soil erosion. Now 7 million acres of the South is covered with kudzu. 
It covers crops, forests, houses, barns. Many of us suspect that we 
have lost slow-moving relatives to the kudzu.
  We are now talking about manipulating matter at the atomic and 
molecular level. I want to make sure we are not turning loose upon the 
world a molecular, atomic kudzu. We do not know how manipulated 
particles, atoms and molecules, will interact with the environment, 
particularly human tissue. And we do not know if self-replicating 
molecules and atoms will know when to stop replicating.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that all of these concerns will prove to be 
overblown, and we will look back in 30 years and think of this the way 
we now think about the concerns about the astronauts bringing back Moon 
germs from the Moon.
  But we certainly have plenty of examples of things that we should 
have worried about and we did not worry about. It includes concerns 
about toxicity, the toxicity of manipulated molecules and atoms, and 
the effects on the environment. I want to make sure that our societal 
and ethical concerns about nanotechnology is not limited to 
philosophers and theologians wondering if we are playing God, but 
rather if we are creating matter that is going to be harmful to human 
tissue and will harm the environment. I support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bell

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bell:

       In section 3(b)(1), insert ``, including research on the 
     potential of nanotechnology to produce or facilitate the 
     production of clean, inexpensive energy,'' after 
     ``nanotechnology research and development''.

  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, just after being sworn in as a Member of 
Congress, I had the privilege of listening to Dr. Richard Smalley, who 
is a Nobel Laureate who now teaches at Rice University and is 
recognized as a leader in the area of nanotechnology.
  During the course of his speech, many of his remarks were directed 
towards the impact that photoresearch and the area of nanotechnology 
could have in the area of energy. He pointed out to the crowd assembled 
that evening how in this particular area regarding energy, 
nanotechnology could very much change the world in which we live. I am 
not a scientist, but when people start talking about how something 
could change the world in a very beneficial manner, those words get my 
attention.
  The purpose of the amendment that we present here today is to single 
out energy, along with the other important areas for research that are 
already set forth within the bill.
  Nanotechnology holds the promise to make energy production cheap and 
relatively pollution-free by reducing the cost of solar and fuel cell 
technology anywhere from 10 to 100 fold. Nanotech lighting technology 
could replace incandescent and fluorescent lights with enormous energy 
cost savings across every sector of the economy.
  If we look at what is going on in the United States today regarding 
the cost of energy, the price of gasoline skyrocketing all across the 
country, the cost of natural gas rising so high that plants are 
threatening to close and move overseas on an almost daily basis, I 
think all of us can understand the need for looking for low-cost 
alternative energy sources, especially when it could be a clean source 
of energy.
  Mr. Chairman, nanotechnology holds the promise of tomorrow because it

[[Page H3726]]

truly is the technology of the future. Its application will be felt 
across the spectrum of scientific research. I hope my colleagues will 
join me in supporting the development of this exciting field and 
pinpoint energy as an area that is very much deserving of further 
study.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Bell amendment to 
H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. As the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science and 
someone who is very passionate about energy research, I certainly am 
one who would be inclined to elevate energy applications above all 
other applications in just about any research area, including 
nanotechnology research.
  However, the purpose of this bill is to ensure coordination and 
collaboration of nanotechnology research by all Federal science 
agencies, including the Department of Energy. I believe that this bill 
in its current form already includes the kind of research the Bell 
amendment is attempting to advocate or emphasize. It does so by 
authorizing a significant amount of funding for research at the 
Department of Energy, the Federal agency with the central mission and 
responsibility to encourage the development of clean, inexpensive 
energy.
  As a result, the bill will revolutionize energy production and use. 
Key enabling technologies such as catalysts, membranes, and filters all 
operate at the nanoscale. A better understanding of the nanoscale and 
the development of nanotechnologies will enable dramatic cost 
reductions in hydrogen production, carbon sequestration, and a host of 
other energy applications.
  I do not think that specifying research development in the statute 
adds anything new and will only tie the administration's hands and the 
Federal agencies' hands. I urge my colleagues to support the bill as 
reported by the committee and oppose the Bell amendment.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it makes sense, and the gentleman who offers 
the amendment is from Houston, Texas, which is a salient part of the 
energy thrust. And Texas being one of the 10 States that produces 
energy for the other 40 States thinks this is important. I think it is 
important to add it. It is simple. It simply adds including research on 
the potential of nanotechnology to produce or facilitate the production 
of clean, inexpensive energy. I think it helps, and I think it is 
consistent with the rest of the bill.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out if we can get a group 
of Texans excited about looking for a clean, inexpensive form of 
energy, the House of Representatives should not balk at that 
opportunity.
  This is an extraordinary opportunity in many respects. We are not 
trying to limit the research, just as I pointed out previously in 
regard to the earlier amendment.
  This is simply to include a provision in the bill that will lead 
researchers to look at energy technology and provide funding for energy 
technology down the line so we can study this. This is not an area that 
is widely discussed when people talk about nanotechnology. But given 
what some of the leaders in this area of research have pointed out, 
there is tremendous optimism that it could lead to a sustainable, 
clean-burning, inexpensive source of energy; and we should not miss the 
opportunity to look at that as we are studying nanotechnology.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, Texans cannot only think big, we can think 
little, too; and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, who can be against clean, inexpensive energy? I am not, 
but does it make sense to pick out this one laudable goal and hold it 
up above all others, including medical advances, homeland security, 
technology that can drive faster economic growth? Yes, energy is 
important and this bill recognizes it.

                              {time}  1345

  It is an important part of H.R. 766 and it is demonstrated by the 
portion of the bill that authorizes $265 million for nanotechnology 
research at the Department of Energy next year alone. That is 
significant. But energy is not more important than many of the other 
things that nanotechnology will do. Would you say it is more important 
than finding a cure for cancer? Or more important than protecting our 
borders in our fight for homeland security? These are all important, 
laudable goals, and the bill covers them all.
  Once again, we are not just throwing petty cash at this subject. We 
are devoting $265 million to it. The administration opposes this 
amendment, and so do I because it is too prescriptive. Therefore, I 
would urge a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I 
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


        Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
       In section 5(b), after paragraph (7), insert the following:
     In carrying out the assessment required under paragraph (7), 
     the Advisory Committee shall consider the findings and 
     recommendations from citizen panels described in section 
     6(b).
       In section 6, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     President shall''.
       In section 6, insert the following new subsection at the 
     end:
       (b) Citizen Panels.--(1) The National Nanotechnology 
     Coordination Office shall convene citizen panels, with 
     membership composed of nonscientific and nontechnical 
     experts, in different geographic regions of the Nation, to 
     consider societal and ethical concerns arising from the 
     development and application of nanotechnology. The 
     Coordination Office shall develop guidelines and procedures 
     governing the functioning of the citizen panels under this 
     subsection in consultation with the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation.
       (2) The first citizen panel shall meet within 18 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, and subsequent 
     panels shall meet on a schedule established by the 
     Coordination Office, but not less frequently than at 18-month 
     intervals.
       (3) Citizen panels shall prepare reports containing the 
     panels' findings and recommendations, and the Coordination 
     Office shall ensure the wide dissemination of the reports.
       (4) Of the amounts authorized under section 7(a), such sums 
     as may be necessary shall be made available to carry out this 
     subsection.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. 
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the amendment that I have for H.R. 766. It has to do with adding 
under the auspices of the National Science Foundation a citizens 
advisory committee. There is nothing sinister about my desire to do 
this. I want to do this because I feel that more and more citizen input 
is demanded by citizens. This research will be paid for by citizens. 
And to have someone to sit and listen and get an understanding simply 
creates a more positive attitude throughout society, I feel, with the 
research.
  This is going to be research that people do not understand very well. 
Even the researchers will not understand it too well until they start 
to do the research. It could provide revolutionary advances in health 
care and dramatically increase our life-span. But people need to know 
this. They need to know that this is not going to be perhaps research 
on stem cells or whatever, so

[[Page H3727]]

that the fears can be allayed, the anxieties can be eliminated because 
of this. This powerful and pervasive technology, while promising great 
benefits, has its downsides.
  While I support the bill, I do have that one concern, that the views 
of the general public who will bear the brunt of the consequences, both 
good and bad, have no input in the planning and execution of the 
research program and no input as to asking questions and getting 
answers as the research goes on. As I indicated, taxpayers are paying 
for the development of this technology and they have a right to have a 
voice in this research agenda.
  My amendment goes to the heart of this problem. It provides for small 
panels of ordinary citizens to be assembled to examine important 
societal issues about nanotechnology. Panelists would be selected 
across the socioeconomic spectrum, ordinary, practical Americans. These 
citizen panels would hear expert testimony from those doing the 
research, listen to arguments about the applications and consequences 
presented by all sides and develop an agenda of major public issues to 
address. These John Q. Public panels will provide agencies carrying out 
the nanotechnology R&D program and the broader public of the common 
ground among the cross-section of Americans on the goals and directions 
of this R&D program.
  The bill does provide support for experts to address the societal and 
ethical concerns of nanotechnology. However, that is the problem when 
only the experts are involved. These are the same type of experts that 
did not provide effective guidance on how to address societal and 
ethical concerns on genetically modified foods, and now we still have a 
question about whether or not they are safe to eat, human stem cell 
research and cloning. As a witness pointed out during a hearing on 
nanotechnology, social and ethical expert panels frequently become 
captive to the technology they are supposed to be providing oversight 
on. I believe that there is evidence that expert panels are not by 
themselves sufficient to address broad public concerns. That is why my 
amendment explicitly calls for citizen panels.
  Members may ask, why is this important? Just think about the public 
backlash and debate on genetically modified organisms, think 
Frankenfoods, human stem cell research, and cloning to name a few. When 
the public was asked to accept the results of these technologies and 
asked simple, commonsensical questions, the research community said 
trust us, the fatalists said the world would come to an end, and no one 
really required the science community to sit down with the public and 
discuss the benefits and possible costs of these technologies. As a 
result, the full potential of these technologies have not been 
realized. Citizen panels promise to avoid this logjam by allowing the 
public's voice to be heard during the development period of the 
technology, not after it is introduced.
  Today I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to put in place a 
proven approach to help increase public understanding of nanotechnology 
and provide an avenue for ordinary Americans to influence the direction 
of this R&D initiative.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Johnson amendment. First off, 
the administration opposes this amendment. The bill that is under 
consideration already provides a forum for citizen involvement. By 
statute, the meetings and proceedings of the Advisory Committee on 
Nanotechnology must be open to the public. Weighing down the National 
Coordination Office for Nanotechnology with citizens' panels would be 
unnecessarily costly as well as prescriptive. The Danish model embodied 
in the Johnson amendment has not worked well here. A scholarly review 
of the Danish-type citizens' panel process convened to study 
telecommunications and democracy judged the process to be ineffective.
  I would, however, add my support to H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology 
Research and Development Act of 2003. I want to commend Chairman 
Boehlert for his firm leadership on this issue and I am pleased that I 
had the opportunity to work in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues 
on the Committee on Science. Nanotechnology is an exciting new field of 
scientific study and promises to provide humankind with unimaginable 
advances in manufacturing, materials, medicine, construction, computing 
and telecommunications.
  As we have learned in committee from the testimony of Dr. James 
Roberto, we are truly moving from atomic scale characterization to 
atomic scale control, from miniaturization to self-assembly. As a 
physician I am especially excited about nanotechnology applications in 
medicine. Most diseases and illnesses occur at the cellular level and 
the surgical tools of tomorrow will have a level of precision that is 
unimagined today. Nanotechnology advancements in medicine will soon be 
able to inexpensively fabricate essentially any structure that is 
consistent with chemical and physical laws and specified in molecular 
detail.
  As we also learned in committee, recently the University of Michigan 
used nanoprobes to image chemical activity inside cells. Today this 
provides information about metabolic processes inside cells, but 
tomorrow we may be able to modify these processes. We will truly move 
from an era of nanodiagnostics to nanotherapy. The ramifications that 
this technology could have on cancer treatment, trauma surgery or organ 
transplantation would be literally life-changing. In order to improve 
the health of Americans, a coordinated approach to nanotechnology 
research and development will be necessary in order to reorient how we 
practice medicine. H.R. 766 will do that and much more.
  The National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program 
established under this bill would promote research and development into 
this promising new science as well as facilitate commercial 
applications for new developments. H.R. 766 will also establish formal 
interagency cooperation, reducing government waste and duplication on 
nanotechnology projects. By streamlining national efforts in regard to 
nanotechnology, commercial applications of the technology will come 
sooner rather than later. And perhaps one of the greatest impacts this 
bill will have will be the impact on our economy. This new technology 
will be an engine of growth for our economy and has the potential to 
create millions of new jobs in several sectors of the United States and 
the global economies. Nanotechnology will change the way our lives are 
lived by improving our health, our environment and the ways in which we 
live and work.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 
766.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the 
gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a 
couple of times that the amendment was opposed because the 
administration did not want it. Could you tell me the objection of the 
administration? How did they find little old me with this little old 
amendment to object to it?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me state at the outset that I support and the 
administration supports broader public participation. We have been 
assured by the administration that every meeting will have a set-aside 
period for public participation, the type of participation that the 
gentlewoman wants and is a cherished part of our system. So I applaud 
the gentlewoman's objective but the fact of the matter is we do not 
need a whole bunch of new panels.
  Let me point out, if you want me to use some additional time, this is 
modeled after the Danish system. I was told that research puts that 
into question, that sort of formalized structure. A scholarly study on 
the impact of just such a citizens panel in the United States, not in 
Denmark, here, concluded that not even those engaged in organizing the 
U.S. citizens panel thought it had any actual impact. Let me quote from 
their report: ``The single greatest area of consensus among the 
respondents was that the Citizens Panel on Telecommunications and the

[[Page H3728]]

Future of Democracy had no actual impact. No respondent, not even those 
government members of the steering committee or expert cohort, 
identified any actual impact.''
  Having said that, does that mean that I agree that we do not need any 
citizen input? Not at all. I agree with the gentlewoman that we do need 
citizen input. I applaud her effort, but I have to oppose this 
particular amendment to be so prescriptive and just to set in motion 
just who has to do what and when.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. If the gentlewoman will continue 
to yield, there was other language that had been attempted as 
substitute language. Would the gentleman accept that as an amendment? I 
have it prepared to submit it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. My staff tells me we tried very hard, because we talked 
in committee about this and I offered to work with the gentlewoman to 
strengthen the requirements for public participation in the underlying 
legislation. The staff have had conversations back and forth and 
apparently we could not bridge the differences. But let me assure the 
gentlewoman that she is absolutely right in calling for public 
participation. I want public participation. So does the administration. 
I just do not think we have to be so prescriptive in this bill as to 
set the parameters for that public participation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment 
which calls for citizen panels to examine the societal issues and 
effects that could emerge from nanotechnology, effects and issues that 
may not be able to be detected and imagined with this imaginable 
science but for the untrained eye, the naive person that may not know 
what this is supposed to do may actually see what could come up and 
could get in the way of this being a straightforward technology. But 
this is a straightforward amendment. It adds more common sense to an 
already good underlying bill.
  The Johnson amendment taps into the unscientific expertise that our 
neighbors, our colleagues, our family members, our friends could offer 
to the exciting development of nanotech- 
nology.

                              {time}  1400

  As with any new technology, Mr. Chairman, any new technological 
endeavor, some of the issues and consequences we might be able to 
anticipate from the very beginning; but others may not emerge for a 
time to come. More effort is needed. More effort is needed to increase 
public understandings of nanotechnology in the first place in order to 
avoid the backlash that has plagued other new technologies such as 
genetically modified foods, corn and the Monarch butterfly, for 
example.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson amendment to H.R. 766, 
the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act.
  The Johnson amendment, calls for citizen panels to examine the 
societal issues and effects that could emerge from nanotechnology, that 
may be imaginable to the scientist, but not the untrained eye. It is a 
straight forward amendment that adds more common sense to a good 
underlying bill.
  We all know that local citizens often have the best insight for what 
is coming straight at us. The Johnson amendment taps into the 
unscientific expertise that our neighbors, colleagues, family members 
or friends could offer to the exciting development of nanotechnology.
  During committee consideration of H.R. 766 we had a spirited debate 
about the potential societal and ethical issues that nanotechnology 
could mean for us down the road. As with any new technological 
endeavor, some of the issues and consequences we might be able to 
anticipate from the beginning . . . but others may not emerge for a 
time to come.
  At our committee's nanotechnology hearings, we also had several 
witnesses who indicated that more effort is needed to increase public 
understanding of nanotechnology in order to avoid the backlash that has 
plagued other new technologies, such as genetically modified foods, 
corn and the Monarch Butterfly, for example.
  In the past, too often the scientific or technological experts have 
told the public ``trust us''--this won't have any adverse consequences.
  But we know that's not always the case, no matter how much the 
experts tell us otherwise.
  Whether we're talking about the early questions that surrounded 
biotechnology, corn and the Monarch Butterfly or what nanotechnology 
might mean for increasing the human lifespan, there's certainly a 
demonstrated usefulness to having a commonsense voice be part of the 
research agenda.
  Now is the time to incorporate those common sense voices into the 
research agenda. Now, while we're at the starting gate, not when we 
might already be involved in public controversy.
  The Johnson amendment is the answer to this need for public 
involvement by calling on ordinary Americans to be a stakeholder in the 
nanotechnology research agenda. Ordinary Americans certainly have a 
stake in what nanotechnology can deliver, so we should make sure they 
have a voice in how nanotechnology may deliver it.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a question 
to ask the chairman of the committee. Since there is objection to the 
details of this citizens panel, there was a suggestion after much 
dialogue with the chairman and staff to recommend a more watered-down 
version of it. I would rather have the watered-down version than to not 
have a citizens panel because I think it is just going to prevent a 
great deal of turmoil later. I do not know how long it will take us to 
convince people that genetically modified foods are safe; but I think 
that if the education had started right along with the research, we 
would not be dealing with that problem.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the staff is busy discussing, as we 
always do as a committee on bipartisan basis, a way to accommodate our 
mutual interest.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw the amendment and wait for the details to be worked 
out.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply hope that we can 
work out this concept of citizen panels because I do believe there is a 
mutual benefit to having the citizenry having their input into very 
fine technical and very precise technology that really is going to be a 
job generator. It is going to be an enhancement for a better quality of 
life, and I would hope that in the course of deliberating that we would 
find an opportunity to support just a simple concept, Mr. Chairman, 
having citizen panels to address the question of the quality of this 
kind of technology.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend Chairman Boehlert and 
Ranking Member Hall on the Science Committee for their hard work and 
bipartisan spirit in crafting this bill. We and our staffs have been 
working very closely together to ensure that this Bill ensures a 
bright, productive, and lucrative future for the field of 
nanotechnology in the United States. I would also like to commend my 
colleague from California, Mr. Honda for his leadership in the exciting 
field of nanotechnology. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill 
and look forward to seeing it signed into law.
  My amendment today will create a Center for exploration of ethical/
societal/environmental and education issues related to Nanotechnology. 
It represents a compromise between those in the Science Committee who 
wanted to elevate this kind of research, and those who were reluctant 
to micromanage the administration by assigning dollar values to such 
programs. If we disagree on some of the fine details here today, it 
should not detract from the excellent collaboration we have engaged in 
so far.
  Nanotechnology is one of the most exciting fields of science today, 
involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines, with 
widespread applications in electronics, advanced

[[Page H3729]]

materials, medicine, and information technology. The promise of 
nanotechnology to accelerate technological change has prompted some to 
advise caution about pursuing such rapid innovation without first 
developing a deep understanding of where it might lead us.
  Advances in stem cell research, cloning, and genetically modified 
organisms, have left us scrambling to make smart decisions that will 
harness the great potential of these fields, but also avoid potential 
pitfalls or ethical disasters. As nanotechnology emerges, I hope we can 
be more proactive in guiding smart policies and appropriate research.
  Nano-machined particles or biotech products could have potentially 
devastating health or geopolitical consequences if released into the 
atmosphere either unintentionally, or as a new class of weapons. 
Manipulations of biological systems could produce germs or species that 
could jeopardize our ecosystem.
  Furthermore, there are even risks to society that may stem from the 
good outcomes of nanotechnology research. Over the past decades we have 
seen a troubling development, with the ``have-nots'' in our society 
finding themselves on the wrong end of a ``technological divide.'' As 
the internet, and other technologies, are making many of our lives so 
much easier and more productive, change has not reached all of our 
communities.
  Too many are missing out on the tech revolution. These people are 
already fighting to keep up and compete in school, or in the workforce, 
and the technological divide makes that fight even harder. I do not 
want H.R. 766 to lead to a nanotechnology divide that will further 
handicap hard-working, tax-paying Americans.
  Numerous experts from academics, think tanks, industry, as well as 
the NSF and the National Academy of Sciences, have come to the Science 
Committee strongly encouraging us to incorporate research on societal 
and ethical implications of nanotechnology, into any nanotech research 
initiative. They have also spoken of the importance of ensuring that 
nanotechnology research is guided by an understanding of health and 
environmental sciences.

  We must ensure that as new technologies and products come about--in 
healthcare, in communications, in energy--that they have a positive 
impact on all of the American people, and on our planet.
  I am pleased that the underlying bill includes provisions to provide 
for research into the societal and ethical concerns related to 
nanotechnology. The authors of the bill have recognized the importance 
of having that research integrated into the bench science research 
programs, so that there will be a constant dialogue between nanotech 
scientists, ethicists, and social scientists. I agree that such 
integration is necessary. My amendment preserves all of the language in 
the existing bill relating to that critical integrated research.
  However, I am concerned that as this field progresses--as results 
start to translate into lucrative products, it becomes more competitive 
to get the hottest cutting edge research into journals, as researchers 
find it necessary to ``push the envelope'' in labs in order to get 
tenure--that the ethical/societal issues could become lost.
  That is why, in addition to the integrated research program, my 
amendment adds a provision requiring the National Science Foundation to 
establish a Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, Environmental, 
Legal, and Workforce Issues Related to Nanotechnology.
  It will thus elevate and draw focus to the important research in 
these areas, without ``prescribing'' an exact dollar value for the 
program. The center will compile and enhance research from the 
integrated programs on societal and ethical implications. In addition, 
it will also add studies on environmental, legal, educational, and 
workforce issues.
  Nanotechnology lies at the intersection of several scientific 
disciplines including biology, chemistry, physics, and materials 
science--and will thus demand a diverse and properly educated 
workforce. Proper workforce training needs to occur at all levels, from 
K-12 through university, to ensure that all are able to enjoy the 
social, economic and technical benefits that nanotechnology promises. 
This Center will help make that happen.
  The center will serve as a conduit for transfer of papers and data 
and information, between researchers in the field, social scientists 
and outside special interest groups. It will communicate findings and 
recommendations to the National Academy of Science and to the 
Interagency Committee on Nanotechnology, to help them with their annual 
reports.
  This amendment does NOT replace the integrated societal/ethical 
research programs, as some have suggested. Instead, it protects that 
research by giving it a home at NSF. It demonstrates to concerned 
citizens, that these issues are being addressed. And, it ensures that 
results from ``embedded'' social scientists, integrated into research 
centers, are widely disseminated and discussed.
  A similar provision was widely accepted in the Senate and included in 
their bill. It has been supported by many of my colleagues in the 
Science Committee.
  I believe this amendment will complement the underlying bill well, 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) was correct when he pointed 
out that the amendment directs NSF to provide assistance to the 
National Nanotechnology Initiative in setting up and running the 
citizens panels, and I think that has to be in there because otherwise 
how would they know how to run the citizens panels if they do not hear 
from the citizens?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York. And I think the 
gentleman is being cooperative in trying to help. I recognize that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, we are working this out. So the 
gentlewoman has kindly withdrawn her amendment from consideration; and 
during this interim period, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be up next with her staff. Staffs are trying to work out 
language that assures both sides that we get what we want, active 
citizen participation.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I will wait to see the fruits of the 
gentleman's labors, and I thank the chairman for this extra work he is 
going into.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I wish to speak on the general merits of the bill. Nanotechnology is 
an extremely important scientific development, one in which we are just 
beginning to scratch the surface. Few people in this country realize 
the tremendous potential that this has. At the same time, as a 
scientist, I have to say if someone asked me what are we going to get 
out of this, I have to simply say I am not sure. And that is the nature 
of basic research. In 1931 when theorists first started investigating 
stimulated emission of radiation, if one asked the question what is 
this going to come to, they would have said I do not know. And when 
Charles Townes first developed the hydrogen MASAR, microwave 
amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, and someone asked 
what is this going to come to, he probably said it would be a time 
standard, but was not certain of any development beyond that. And yet 
that research led to the development of the laser, and the development 
of the laser led to a multitude of applications in business, commerce, 
medicine and the military. The laser today is ubiquitous. Back then it 
was a precious, expensive discovery, but today we use tiny, inexpensive 
lasers just to point at slides on a screen. It has been amazing 
progress. And we will find the same thing with nanotechnology. It is a 
very promising field, but we do not know where it is going to lead.
  Some of the promise of nanotechnology could be incredibly strong, 
light materials which could create a revolution in space travel and in 
ordinary airplane travel. Other uses for it could be in the medical 
arena, being able to entrap health-enhancing molecules within a 
nanoscale shell so that the medicine can be directly applied to the 
site we are trying to reach. For example, we might treat cancer in a 
very direct way by having a mechanism of transporting the chemotherapy 
molecules directly to the cancer cells and not to other cells. That 
would also be a marvelous development, but we really do not know if it 
will work out.
  The point is simply that this is a very new technology, and already 
we know enough about it to know that it is a major breakthrough. It is 
absolutely essential that we pursue this research in a thoughtful 
manner and that we, as a Nation, commit ourselves to development of 
nanotechnology and research in nanoscience.
  I am very much a supporter of the bill, and I appreciate the chairman 
of the Committee on Science and the ranking member for bringing this 
bill forward. It is a good step forward for our country. Frankly, we 
are going to need much more in the future in terms of guidance for how 
this new discovery is supposed to be used, including some of the 
ethical and societal concerns; but the first thing to do is to promote 
research on nanotechnology, find out exactly what promise it has, what 
may become of it, and then pursue those avenues of research.

[[Page H3730]]

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I think getting all of the 
citizen input possible is called for. I know that it has been discussed 
that perhaps the citizen panels on telecommunications did not create 
sufficient community interest. I for one found Tauzin-Dingell to be 
boring. I am not sure that my constituents found telecommunications to 
be a reason to drive long distances to participate in citizen panels. I 
think the issues that nanotechnology brings before us are simply going 
to create more citizen involvement and that the citizen panels here 
will be quite important.
  Among the questions that this technology will raise, when I took the 
CPA test, they would not let me bring a calculator. A decade from now, 
chips will be implanted in people's brains. Can they take the CPA test? 
Do we have to disable the chip? I do not know. Today Shaquille O'Neil 
is the most dominating force on the basketball court, but what if 
parents decide that they want genes moved this way and that way so that 
their son or daughter could be even taller, even bigger? Will this 
person be eligible to participate in the NBA, and if so, will the 
Lakers get to draft that person? I do not know, but it strikes me as 
more interesting than much of telecommunications, and I know there are 
Members of this body very interested in telecommunications, and I 
praise them for that involvement.
  The entire issue of artificial intelligence and what happens when a 
computer first asks us for the minimum wage, I do not know how we are 
going to react; but I think that these are questions we are going to 
confront in the next few decades. They are questions that should 
involve all of society. They involve the very issue of what it means to 
be a human being. They will arouse a level of theological debate that 
we did not face in telecommunications; and for those reasons I think 
that even if panels were not successful on that issue, they will be 
quite interesting on it. Before we change what it is to be human, we 
ought to ask humans what they think about.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, during the time that the gentleman has 
been speaking so eloquently, the majority and minority have reached an 
agreement on the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) 
amendment which has been withdrawn, and now she is willing to offer a 
compromise amendment that we are prepared to accept. So I thank the 
gentleman for his input, and I anxiously await the words of the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this shows the kind of 
bipartisanship and camaraderie that has been achieved under the 
chairman and ranking member on the Committee on Science, and I salute 
it.


        Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
       In section 3(b)(5)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B); and
       (2) after subparagraph (C), insert the following new 
     subparagraph:
       (D) ensure, through the National Nanotechnology 
     Coordination Office established under section 6 and through 
     the agencies and departments that participate in the Program 
     that public input and outreach to the public are both 
     integrated into Nanotechnology research and Development and 
     research on societal and ethical conerns by the convening of 
     regular and ongoing public discussion, through mechanisms 
     such as citizen panels, consensus conferences, and 
     educational events, as appropriate; and
       In section 3(c)(6), insert ``, suggestions or 
     recommendations developed pursuant to section 3(b)(5)(D),'' 
     after ``Advisory Committee''.
       In section 5(b)(7), insert ``, including concerns 
     identified pursuant to section 3(b)(5)(D),'' after ``societal 
     and ethical concerns''.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr. 
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as 
read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this substitute 
amendment which I am offering now does essentially the same thing 
except that it is very voluntary; and if that is acceptable to the 
Chair and to the majority, then I will accept this amendment. So I 
would move its adoption.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think we worked out a very fine 
compromise that ensures the citizen input, and the majority is pleased 
to accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       In section 3, add at the end the following new subsection:
       (d) Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, 
     Environmental, Legal, and Workforce Issues Related to 
     Nanotechnology.--The National Science Foundation shall 
     establish a Center for Societal, Ethical, Educational, 
     Environmental, Legal, and Workforce Issues Related to 
     Nanotechnology to encourage, conduct, coordinate, commission, 
     collect, and disseminate research on the societal, ethical, 
     educational, environmental, legal, and workforce issues 
     related to nanotechnology, including research under 
     subsection (b)(5)(A). The Center shall also conduct studies 
     and provide input and assistance to the chairperson of the 
     Interagency Committee in completing the annual report 
     required under section 4 and to the National Academy of 
     Sciences for conducting reviews under section 8.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the word is very large, but 
it is an extremely humbling science and approach that we are attempting 
to take with respect to nanotechnology. As I listened to the previous 
debate and my good friend from California who acknowledged that 
previously in other instances citizen panels may not have drawn the 
great enthusiasm that we would have liked them to draw, I am hoping 
that as we resolve the matter on a very good amendment by my colleague 
that I could work with the ranking member and the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Boehlert) to work on what I think is a very important 
amendment as well.

                              {time}  1415

  I would like to thank both of the gentlemen for the work on this 
particular legislation. As I said, the word is large, but the science 
and the concept is humbling. It deals with enhanced quality of life by 
the particular type of science and dealing with cutting edge technology 
to help improve our life and our lifestyle in America and around the 
world.
  We have worked with our staffs very closely to ensure that this bill 
ensures a bright, productive and lucrative future for the field of 
nanotechnology in the United States.
  I would also like to commend my colleague from California (Mr. Honda) 
for his leadership in the exciting field of nanotechnology, and I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to seeing it 
being signed into law.
  My amendment today will create a Center for Exploration of Ethical, 
Societal, Environmental and Educational Issues Relating to 
Nanotechnology. And forgive me as I speak directly to the chairman. 
With that simple sentence, I believe we can find a wonderful way to 
project that and allow for this bill to make its way through this body 
and finally to passage.
  The amendment represents a compromise between those in the Committee 
on Science who want to elevate this kind of research and those who are 
reluctant to micro-manage the administration by assigning dollar values 
to such programs.

[[Page H3731]]

  If we disagree on some of the fine details here today, it should not 
detract from the excellent collaboration we have engaged in. 
Nanotechnology is one of the most exciting fields of science today, 
involving a multitude of science and engineering disciplines with 
widespread applications in electronics, advanced materials, medicine 
and information technology.
  I am waiting for the ranking member to speak only because I know that 
he knows how to bring just the right humor along with the right type of 
technology and science. The ranking member, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall), has been a vital resource for helping us forge these 
bipartisan efforts, but, more importantly, get good bills to the floor 
and get them passed.
  I realize that this center has that capability of drawing a 
compromise. The promise of nanotechnology to accelerate technological 
change has prompted some to advise caution while pursuing such rapid 
innovation without first developing deep understanding of where it 
might lead us. Advances in stem cell research, cloning and genetically-
modified organisms have left us scrambling to make smart decisions that 
will harness the great potential of these fields, but also avoid 
potential pitfalls or ethical disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, we have discussed these issues in the Committee on 
Science. I can assure you there is unanimity on the issue of cloning 
amongst the Committee on Science and I know amongst this body. We do 
not want human cloning, but there are ethical questions being raised. 
This is what I speak of, the need to have a body that deals with these 
ethical considerations in an important, smart, effective and far-
reaching way.
  As nanotechnology emerges, I hope we can be more proactive in guiding 
smart policies and appropriate research. Nanomachine particles or 
biotech products can have potentially devastating health or 
geopolitical consequences if released into the atmosphere, either 
unintentionally or as a new class of weapons. Manipulations of 
biological systems can produce germs or species that could jeopardize 
our ecosystem.
  Furthermore, there are even risks to society that may stem from the 
good outcomes of nanotechnology research. Over the past decades we have 
seen a troubling development with the have-nots in our society finding 
themselves on the wrong end of a technological divide. As the Internet 
and other technologies are making many of our lives so much easier and 
more productive, change has not reached all of our communities. There 
lies the need for such a center.
  Too many are missing out on the tech revolution. These people are 
already fighting to keep up and compete in school or in the workforce, 
and the technological divide makes that fight even harder. I do not 
want this next step, nanotechnology, to divide us even further and to 
disadvantage hard-working, taxpaying Americans.
  So there are numerous experts, think tanks, the National Science 
Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, that have all come 
together, the Committee on Science, to ensure we are moving forward.
  I think it is important to have such a center, Mr. Chairman, and I 
believe that my colleagues, we can work together to move this concept 
of my amendment along, a center that will bring all these forces 
together and ensure that nanotechnology works for all of America.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the commitment of the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) to ensuring that research is conducted on the social 
and ethical issues relating to nanotechnology, but believe that this 
amendment does not take the preferred approach.
  Our committee has given this issue a great deal of consideration, and 
we decided rather than going to just one center, but to fully integrate 
research on the social, environmental and ethical issues into the 
research being conducted under the entire National Nanotechnology 
Initiative. This ensures that social, ethical and environmental 
implications research will be fully grounded in the science of 
nanotechnology and that scientists conducting nanotechnology research 
will be aware of and be active participants in research on the social 
and societal implications of their work.
  The provisions were further strengthened in committee by amendments 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell).
  The Jackson-Lee amendment is derived from a provision contained in 
the Senate bill that takes us in the opposite direction. It creates a 
stand-alone research center financed by the National Science 
Foundation. Based on our experience with the Human Genome Program, this 
will undermine our effort to ensure that social, ethical and 
environmental issues are part of the fabric of each nanotechnology 
center grant, and nearly guarantees that research on important societal 
and ethical concerns will not be relevant to or influence the research 
actually being conducted.
  So rather than just focusing on one center, we wanted to build it, 
weave it, into the entire fabric.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's 
concern about the amendment, but let me make it perfectly clear that 
the amendment does not replace the integrated social-ethical research 
programs, as some have suggested. Instead, it protects that research by 
giving it a home at NSF and demonstrates to concerned citizens that 
these issues are being addressed. So it compliments what the gentleman 
is trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's perspective of 
micromanaging. The amendment ensures that results from embedded social 
sciences integrated into research centers are widely disseminated and 
discussed.
  While the gentleman was engaged in the very collaborative effort on 
the previous amendment, I too ask can we draw some language that would 
at least give us a place setting that talks about, encourages, the need 
for such a center, and then we can proceed with the collaborative work 
of the agencies as it proceeds through these bodies to know that there 
is a place for such a vehicle.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, I am not prepared 
to go that far, and I usually go very far in trying to accommodate the 
wishes of all the members of my committee, regardless of affiliation or 
position on the dais.
  But the fact of the matter is we have made a conscious determination 
that rather than focusing on one center we are going to weave this into 
the entire fabric of the whole nanotechnology initiative. For that 
reason, I think we better address the issue.
  Therefore, while I am reluctant to oppose, I do oppose the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will paraphrase Will Rogers, who said he never met a 
man he didn't like. I think it is pretty obvious that Ms. Jackson-Lee, 
who is one of the hardest workers that I know in this Congress, never 
met an amendment or a bill she could not upgrade and she could not talk 
about and could not suggest on. I think she stresses the protection of 
societal and ethical issues.
  As I said in my opening statement, I think it is important for the 
successful development of nanotechnology that potential problems be 
addressed from the beginning in a straightforward and open manner, and 
I think that is exactly what the gentlewoman has done. This is the 
amendment she requested, and this is the time I think to look at this 
amendment.
  We are not going to burn the barn down and run the cattle off if we 
do not get every amendment we want. The chairman has worked with us and 
tried to help us. If there is any way to work this out to something 
less than the request she made, this is the time to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the chairman to get his 
feelings about whether or not that can be done or whether or not we 
have to simply put it to a vote of the Congress.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H3732]]

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Was it Will Rogers that said I do not belong to an 
organization? No, never mind, I will not go into that one.
  The fact of the matter is we are in general agreement on societal and 
ethical concerns and we have to pay a lot of attention to it, as we 
should. But I am unwilling to say that we have to devote an entire 
center to that one subject area, when in fact we are addressing that 
need by asking all of the centers or all of the research engaged under 
the National Nanotechnology Initiative to take into consideration 
societal and ethical concerns.
  So I think we are actually broadening it in a way, without being so 
prescriptive that says we have to have brick and mortar in one location 
in America, and that is the solution to the problem.
  I do not think that is the solution to the problem. I think it is to 
energize every single person who is operating under a research grant 
under this National Nanotechnology Initiative to be ever-mindful of the 
societal and ethical concerns.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for 
that, and I yield back to the author to make an answer.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. 
If I could, I would like to engage the ranking member.
  First of all, I think it is important that we have had good debate. 
As I said, the word is a big word, nanotechnology, so some of our 
constituents' eyes may be glazed over. But it truly is the kind of 
science that will impact their day-to-day life.
  This center deals with the questions of workplace environment and 
educational issues, and so it is not narrowly focused. As we start 
moving quickly toward this whole idea of nanotechnology taking wings, 
and we begin to translate these into lucrative products and it becomes 
more competitive to get the hottest, cutting-edge research into 
journals as researchers find it necessary to push the envelope in labs 
in order to get tenure, the ethical-societal issues could become lost.
  We know the thing, I think it is called the thing, but the new 
roller, the ``it'' that has been discovered, where you can move 
yourself around, these are the kinds of technology I am talking about.
  If I might say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), we will go to 
conference, and I would like to entertain the idea of the gentleman's 
support for this amendment and working with this idea in conference, 
and I believe that we can be successful.
  So I see the other gentleman is looking to strike the last word. What 
I am going to do is engage with him in a moment, but if I could discuss 
that a little bit more after the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) 
speaks, then I will come to the floor if the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Honda) would yield me some time after he speaks.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this process of policy making is very interesting. My 
background is teaching, and listening to the rationale and arguments 
back and forth has been very enlightening for me. I think this is 
probably the best way to create policy, having this kind of an open 
debate. Quite frankly, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for this opportunity in this very, very important policy that we 
are establishing here that the President wants. I think that is what is 
exciting about this whole thing.
  In the development of this vast arena of nanoscale technology, we 
know that its pervasiveness and ubiquitousness, its impact, is going to 
be greater than the debate over Y2K, because we know it will even 
create a greater umbrella because of this kind of technology.
  It seems to be very, very logical at this point that we have one 
place where people who are involved in all aspects of nanoscale 
technology, from medicine to the hard sciences, gather together and 
gather information, think about this, so that they can provide 
information, educate the public, utilizing the current structure that 
is being developed right now through this bill.
  So I would like to respectfully add my voice in support for this 
amendment in that we are expanding actually the whole world in this 
very important bill, and that we do this carefully and cautiously, but 
with some forethought that this debate is creating.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me observe here that I am not 
unwilling to spend the taxpayers' money for a good reason, to support a 
wide range of programs that provide for a better lifestyle and 
improvement in our society.

                              {time}  1430

  But one of the reasons why our government is so big and so all-
pervasive is that we have a bill like this and we say, now, we want 
everybody involved in a national nanotechnology initiative to be 
concerned about societal and ethical concerns; and we want all of these 
grants, and we want the grantees to pay attention to that. Then we say, 
in addition to that, we are going to build this new center over here, 
and I do not think we need the new center.
  If we were silent on this very important subject area in the rest of 
the bill, then I would probably be jumping up and down in support of 
the Jackson-Lee amendment, but we are not silent. We have had the whole 
history of our committee deliberations, the whole history of this floor 
debate, and congressional intent is very important and it is clear in 
our intent: we want to address societal and ethical concerns. But there 
are going to be a whole bunch of people financed by the Federal 
Government saying that we do not need a brand-new center to do it.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I have 
assured the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) that we will give 
her representation at conference, and I have the greatest belief that 
the chairman will give us his ear during that time and as much support 
as he feels is justified at the time and under the circumstances. I am 
happy to do that for the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the ranking 
member who indicated that he would address this question on behalf of 
this amendment in conference. It is an important concept. So I would 
like to, at this time, Mr. Chairman, emphasize that ethics must be part 
of science and technology; and to ensure that happens, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment at this time so that we can pursue 
this in conference and have the opportunity to do this on behalf of the 
American people in the right way so that science comes out the right 
way and that we protect this kind of science with the ethical and 
societal and educational concerns.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Otter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Nanotechnology Research and Development 
Act and applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hall), and the committee for bringing this up.
  This bill goes a long way with its scholarship programs, with its 
multidepartmental authorization, with an increase in the authorized 
amount to promote this really very important area of research and 
development.
  Now, it is curious that the floor schedule here has tomorrow and 
Friday reserved for discussion of the economic stimulus plan. Let me 
suggest that they are off by at least a day. The real piece of economic 
stimulus legislation that will be considered this week, that will 
really stimulate the economy, is right here before us today.
  Now, make no mistake, that investment in research and development is 
the single most effective way to provide for economic growth. Now, 
economists will argue about the amount of return on investment in 
research and development. They will say maybe it is 40 percent; maybe 
it is 60 percent. Whatever it is, it is very good. We have

[[Page H3733]]

all heard the figures, that half of the U.S. economic growth over the 
past 5 decades has been due to advances in technology. Nearly two-
thirds of the papers cited in recent patents were published by 
researchers at organizations supported by Federal funds, and that makes 
the point that there really is a Federal role here; and that is why we 
should be doing legislation such as the nanotechnology act.
  Investment in R&D has proved to be one of the very best returns that 
we can get on taxpayers' money. And although it is difficult to 
quantify the returns, we know it is good. A small investment, in this 
case in small technology, will lead to very big payoffs.
  And nanotechnology cuts across traditional academic disciplines. That 
is one of the great appeals of this kind of research. Providing for a 
next generation of imaging devices, for sensors, for biological and 
chemical work, including biological and chemicals weapons work, to 
detect pathogens, to detect weapons that might be used against us; and 
smart materials that will be used in everything from the Space Shuttle 
to the bicycle.
  In New Jersey we have recognized this, and the State and industry are 
making a significant investment in our nanotechnology centers which 
have been associated with Lucent and Bell Labs. And this bill before us 
today in Congress will help train the next generation of skilled 
workers to keep the U.S. in the forefront of technology and help stem 
the flow of research and development centers to overseas locations.
  So as we debate this week the best way to have a strong economy, let 
me say this will go a lot farther than any of the tax cuts that have 
been proposed. This will provide real growth, growth in productivity, 
growth in education. This is where we should be putting our money, and 
I am pleased to see the committee give its support to this important 
technology. I think the nanotechnology bill will lead to innovation, to 
education, and to economic growth. We should all get behind it.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell) and amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell.)
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bell

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 214, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--214

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carson (IN)
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Issa
     Miller, Gary
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Tauzin
     Young (FL)


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

  the CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Otter)(during the vote). The Chair will 
announce there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1458

  Messrs. MURPHY, EVERETT, TANCREDO, QUINN, WHITFIELD, BAKER, BONILLA, 
GARRETT, BALLENGER and THOMAS and Mrs. CUBIN and Mrs. KELLY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JOHN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bell

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas

[[Page H3734]]

(Mr. Bell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 217, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--207

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson (IN)
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Miller, Gary
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Tauzin
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Otter) (during the vote). The Chair 
would advise there are 2 minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1505

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any other amendments? If not, the 
question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Quinn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Otter, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 766) to 
provide for a National Nanotechnology Research and Development Program, 
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 219, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote will be followed by a series of two 5-minute votes on 
motions to suspend the rules postponed earlier this afternoon.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, 
nays 19, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 167]

                               YEAS--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann

[[Page H3735]]


     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--19

     Cannon
     Coble
     Collins
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Petri
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson (IN)
     DeLay
     Dingell
     Gephardt
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Reynolds
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1523

  Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________