[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.
____________________