[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3800-H3802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H3800]]
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 363, SOWING THE SEEDS THROUGH 
                  SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH ACT

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 318 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 318

       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. 363) to authorize appropriations for basic 
     research and research infrastructure in science and 
     engineering, and for support of graduate fellowships, 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 except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. 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 and Technology. 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 and Technology now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 
     of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. 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.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 363 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 318 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds through Science and 
Engineering Research Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Science and Technology.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except for clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered 
as read.
  The rule makes in order and provides appropriate waivers for all 
three amendments that were submitted for consideration. The first 
amendment to be debated on the floor will be that of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the Science and Technology 
Committee.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, the talent, intellect and entrepreneurial spirit of 
the American people have made this Nation the leader in economic and 
technological advancements. In fact, high-tech industries drive 
economic growth around the world.
  Every day, however, my constituents tell me the United States has 
fallen further and further behind our competitors in Europe and Asia. 
The United States continues to lead the world in many statistical 
categories such as R&D spending and the number of scientists and 
engineers; however, the rest of the world is increasing its capacity, 
its R&D investments, and its will to catch up with us.
  Other countries such as China and India are pouring resources into 
their scientific and technological infrastructure at staggering rates, 
which is increasing their ability to compete with us in the global 
economy.
  For example, in South Korea, 38 percent of undergraduates received 
their degrees in science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47 
percent. In China, it is 50 percent, and in Singapore, it is 67 
percent. In the United States, only 15 percent of undergraduates 
receive a degree in science or engineering. More telling is the fact 
that approximately one-third of U.S. students intending to major in 
engineering switch majors to something else before graduating.
  Madam Speaker, the warning signs could not be any clearer. Our 
leadership in the race to discovery is being challenged at unparalleled 
levels around the world. We cannot ignore this challenge, and we cannot 
afford to ignore this challenge.
  Our society has always depended on innovation and discovery. It has 
depended on pioneers who push themselves to their intellectual and 
physical limits to find the hidden paths that lead to that discovery. 
Over 125 years ago, Thomas Edison who famously quipped that he had not 
failed but instead had found 10,000 different ways that would not work 
invented the light bulb, and it was Albert Einstein who once said, ``I 
never came upon any of my discoveries through the process of rational 
thinking.''
  My point, Madam Speaker, is that our advancement as a society depends 
on leading the search for the unknown. Americans must continue to 
research, we must continue to develop, and we must continue to innovate 
in order to create new and thriving industries that will produce 
millions of good jobs and a better future for our children. To do that, 
however, we must continue to reinvigorate America's commitment to this 
discovery process.
  The National Academy of Sciences recently released a report, ``Rising 
Above the Gathering Storm.'' The report outlines specific 
recommendations to enhance the scientific building blocks in the United 
States. The bill we have today before us, H.R. 363, the Sowing the 
Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act, draws directly from 
several of those recommendations.
  To paraphrase the report, the report recommends that we strengthen 
our Nation's commitment to research to maintain the flow of new ideas 
that fuel the economy, provide security and enhance our quality of 
life. In that regard, H.R. 363 seeks to improve Federal support for 
scientific research and education in order to maintain our position as 
the unequivocal global leader in innovation.
  H.R. 363 creates a program at the National Science Foundation to 
award grants to scientists and engineers at the early stage of their 
careers at colleges, universities and research institutions across the 
country. Young researchers are eligible to receive up to $80,000 per 
year for 5 years.
  The awards are granted on a competitive basis and are based on 
intellectual merit of their work, the innovative or transformative 
nature of the proposed research, and the researcher's potential for 
leadership at the frontiers of knowledge.
  The bill requires that the National Science Foundation director 
allocate at least 3.5 percent of its research funding for this grant 
program. The bill also creates a similar program in the Department of 
Energy for which $25 million is authorized.
  H.R. 363 directs NSF to allocate at least 1.5 percent of its research 
funds

[[Page H3801]]

to an integrated graduate education and research training program. This 
program provides support to those scientists and engineers who will 
pursue careers in research and education.
  Just this week, Madam Speaker, the president of my alma mater from 
the University of Maryland, Dr. Mote, came by to describe some of the 
challenges for young researchers in just this area. It is so 
appropriate that Congress is taking this action at this time.
  This bill establishes the Presidential Innovation Award, an award 
which will recognize scientists and engineers who develop unique 
innovations in the national interests. The bill creates a national 
coordination office within the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
to better coordinate research efforts, and, finally, H.R. 363 directs 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide a report 
to Congress on the efforts to attract and retain young researchers.
  But this bill goes far beyond the long-lasting impacts of development 
and innovation. It goes far beyond our ability to create jobs and 
compete in a global economy. It will plant the seeds of hope for a 
better tomorrow in communities across this country.
  I know firsthand what research funding will be able to do. The 
University of California in Merced, my hometown in my district, is on 
the cutting edge of several research projects where additional funding 
could spur the next big breakthrough. UC Merced is a leader in solar 
concentration technologies, just one of the many of our ongoing 
projects. To date, this research has largely been supported through 
public and private partnerships. However, increased research funding 
could potentially improve the efficiencies of solar power and solar 
thermal technologies; and if efficiency and affordability are within 
our grasp, we can decrease the carbon emissions and reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, certainly worthy goals for this Congress. 
This is but one example of many research efforts across our country 
that has the potential to define and shape tomorrow.
  It is this type of project that would benefit from the funding of 
this bill, but how many more ideas could become reality if our 
researchers only had the tools that they sorely need? How many more 
concepts, how many more ideas are out there on the horizon waiting to 
be discovered?
  Madam Speaker, it is our duty and our responsibility as legislators 
to help make those dreams and ideas become a reality.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, it is vital that the United States continue to grow 
more globally competitive in the areas of scientific research and 
technology. Federal and private investment in supporting research and 
development is essential to the health of our economy and our 
competitiveness as a Nation. We must plan for the future by investing 
in areas of basic research and science today.
  The underlying bill, H.R. 363, reaffirms our Federal commitment to 
increase America's global competitiveness in the areas of science, 
technology, research and innovation by supporting America's future 
scientific leaders.
  The central Washington area that I represent is home to the Pacific 
Northwest National Lab in Richland, a state-of-the-art research 
facility. The PNNL hosts a diverse staff of outstanding scientists, 
engineers and support professionals. Many of these individuals in the 
past have received the highest levels of recognition for outstanding 
achievements and discoveries in their field.
  At this lab, researchers use their expertise in the fields of 
environmental, radiological, biological and computational sciences to 
make important contributions to the scientific advancement of our 
Nation. The development of fuel cell technologies, biomass systems and 
radiation portal monitors are just a few of the areas where lab 
researchers are leading efforts to solve our national security and 
energy security challenges.
  I am pleased that this legislation includes efforts to help encourage 
collaborations between scientists and national labs. Specifically, this 
legislation allows the National Science Foundation grants to be used in 
collaboration with our national labs, which means more researchers at 
our labs will be eligible for Federal support.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation enjoys strong bipartisan 
support, and this rule makes in order all amendments that were 
submitted to the Committee on Rules. However, Madam Speaker, I question 
the need once again for a structured rule when an open rule could have 
been granted for consideration of this bill.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, before I turn it over and yield to my 
colleague from Texas, I just want to respond to the gentleman and say, 
on an ongoing basis, we have heard the same drumbeat that we are 
somehow trampling on the rights of the minority. It is true that this 
is a structured rule, but it is also true, as it was with the last 
bill, that every amendment that has been offered has been granted. 
Certainly that is in the spirit of collegiality and cooperation that 
this House deserves. We have gone far beyond what is required. This is 
not an open rule, but certainly we have done more open rules in this 
committee than was done in the past Congress already in the first few 
months. We are doing everything we can to accommodate the minority in 
both spirit and practice.
  So I say to my colleague, my good friend from the State of 
Washington, that he has had the opportunity, every Member, I have heard 
no one who is clamoring for an amendment to this bill. In fact, all 
three amendments that were offered to the committee were, in fact, 
granted, and it seems to me that we are offering cooperation on a 
silver platter. We just need our colleagues to say ``yes'' and agree 
that we have done that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that this is a structured 
rule and, therefore, Members cannot come down to the floor and ask for 
amendments to be made in order.
  But I just want to make this point, and we talk about it a lot in the 
Rules Committee. A lot of these bills have strong bipartisan support, 
and, yes, there may or may not be Members that are clamoring for 
amendments. But it would just seem to me to keep the process in a way 
where all Members, if they desire, should have an opportunity to come 
down because maybe something was said in debate, maybe a point that was 
made that was overlooked, to at least have the opportunity to change. 
When bills have strong bipartisan support, that is probably the best 
time to have an open rule.
  I respectfully tell my friend that there has been a change in 
definition of what open rules are. We could probably discuss that 
further because you have not had the open rules that we have had based 
on everybody having an opportunity.
  I would just simply say that bills like this, if you are going to 
have them on the floor under the regular order of a rule, then it 
should be an open rule. Otherwise, it seems to me that it should be on 
a Suspension Calendar, like we pass so many pieces of our legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  That is just simply the point I am making. I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Reclaiming my time, I acknowledge this is not an open 
rule, this is a structured rule. That is what we put forward. In the 12 
or 14 years that the current minority was in power, we saw a declining, 
ever-declining number of what he considers an open rule.
  As I said before, we granted every amendment that came forward in the

[[Page H3802]]

last two bills. Certainly that is in the spirit of cooperation that we 
bring this legislation to the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), a member of the Science Committee.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me proceed to thank my 
colleagues for bringing this rule to the House so that we can rise 
above the gathering storm.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not to insult anyone. I know what it feels like 
not to be given the opportunity to offer an amendment, I truly do.
  But this is a well-substantiated reason because we are in a crisis in 
this Nation, and we must rise to the occasion. We are moving backwards 
right now, or standing still. The measure is an investment in America's 
future, and we must move it.
  We must support our American scholars so that we can get the 
leadership and the thoughts we need to convey to other young people. 
Our young scholars are not getting the support they need now. They 
really need more, because they are the future.
  The alternative to this bill is to become a Third World nation with 
all the low-paying jobs, because all of the other ones will leave this 
country to go where the talent is. We must move fast.
  We are in a crisis, and I would hope that we would accept this rule 
as it is.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, not to quibble over a rule, but to get to the heart of 
this very important legislation, in 1957 the American people were 
terrorized when Sputnik orbited the Earth, and it looked like the 
Soviet Union had beat us into outer space. What we did then, in the 
face of that very grave threat to our national security, was to launch 
a new generation of engineers and scientists.
  What we did then was went into our classrooms and nurtured a new 
generation of people who could engineer, research, develop, manufacture 
and mobilize. That generation of engineers landed us on the Moon.
  People say that NASA landed man on the Moon. I have a very high 
regard for NASA, but NASA didn't land us on the Moon. The Grumman 
Corporation landed us on the Moon. NASA provided the incentives and the 
support and acted as a catalyst to help mobilize that generation of 
engineers that figured out how to get us to the Moon. We won the Cold 
War with that generation.
  I believe that today our dependence on foreign oil is just as grave a 
threat as Sputnik was; just as grave a threat to our security, and my 
children's security, as the Cold War was. We need to engineer again, to 
research and develop, to mobilize and motivate and inspire a new 
generation of engineers who can develop plug-in hybrids and fuel cells, 
hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and cellulosic ethanol.
  I was in China just 2 months ago on an energy security congressional 
delegation. The seventh wealthiest person in China is manufacturing 
solar panels in China and selling them to Germany; not here, but 
selling them to Germany.
  In Brazil, seven out of every 10 cars is running on flex fuel. We 
beat Germany and Japan in World War II. They are now ahead of us in 
solar energy.
  If we could win the Cold War and World War II, if we could defeat 
Germany and Japan in World War II, we should be able to get ahead of 
them in solar energy. If Brazil can do it, we can do it. It starts in 
the classroom. It starts with our schools. It starts with that 
generation.
  We can no longer afford to turn our backs on the future. It is time 
to harness that energy so that generation can provide us with the 
energy and security we need. It is time to stop borrowing money from 
China in order to fund our military, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf 
to fuel our weapons to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf.
  This is a national security issue, and it's time for us to treat it 
as that and invest in that next generation of engineers and scientists. 
That is what this bill does, and that is why I am so proud to support 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend from 
California if he has any more requests for time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. We have no more requests for time and are prepared to 
close.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say this is 
a very good bill. It's a bill that has been worked on in the past 
Congress, and, obviously, in this Congress. It has strong bipartisan 
support, and all of the points that my friend from New York made in his 
previous remarks, I would like to associate myself with them. We need 
that.
  It just seems to me that during their whole process, when you have 
strong bipartisan support, under the rules of the House, all Members 
ought to have an opportunity to have some say in legislation as 
important as this that comes to the floor of the House, and not just 
those members within the committee of jurisdiction.
  I am simply pointing that out. It is a promise that was made by the 
new majority in the last election. I will withhold judgment, obviously, 
until after this first session is over to see if, in fact, those 
promises were kept. But as we go along here, seeing structured rules on 
bills that could very well be on a Suspension Calendar, I just think 
it's another opportunity missed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the fantastic 
remarks of my colleague, Mr. Israel, from the great State of New York.
  I also want to respond to my colleague in closing, that while we hear 
continued complaints about the rule process this session, we have 
granted the vast majority of amendments that have been offered on these 
last two bills. In fact, I think every amendment that was offered was 
granted to the minority. There is certainly no shortage of allowing the 
minority to have input, both in the committee and here on the floor.
  I just get to the heart of the topic at hand today, and that is, 
quite simply, we must, we must reinvigorate America's commitment to 
discovery. Where there is research to be done, we must undertake it. 
There is opportunity to be pursued. This country has always pursued the 
opportunities presented. We have been an innovator in the last 225 
years that we have been in existence, and we must continue to pursue 
it.
  When a technological breakthrough lies far away on the horizon, we 
must seek it and discover it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on 
the previous question.
  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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARDOZA. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________