[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4013-H4026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOWING THE SEEDS THROUGH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 318 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. 363.
{time} 1710
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. 363) to authorize appropriations for basic research and research
infrastructure in science and engineering, and for support of graduate
fellowships, and for other purposes, with Mr. Watt in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. GORDON of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, we spent quite a bit of time
on the last bill talking about ``Rising above the Gathering Storm,''
the report. It charts a course for continuing American prosperity in
the decades to
[[Page H4014]]
come. I recommend that my colleagues heed the warning of this report
and pursue policies to implement its four major policy recommendations.
One of those recommendations is to ``sustain and strengthen the
Nation's traditional commitment to long-term basic research that has
the potential to be transformational, to maintain the flow of new ideas
that fuel the economy and provide security and enhance the quality of
life.'' The Gathering Storm report goes on to propose specific high-
priority action items to realize this recommendation.
In this bill, H.R. 363, we have identified several of these action
items that have broad bipartisan support. We call the bill the Sowing
the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act.
I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Hall from Texas, ranking minority
member of the Committee on Science and Technology, who helped craft the
current version of this bill.
Six weeks ago, the committee voted unanimously to favorably report
this bill. We have heard from such groups as The Business Roundtable
and the Council of Competitiveness expressing their support for the
bill. These organizations represent a broad spectrum of business
interests, understand that new technology ideas are necessary for the
U.S. prosperity in a global 21st century economy. In fact, some
economists have estimated that half of the economic growth in the
United States since World War II can be attributed to technological
innovation. H.R. 363 is needed to prevent the United States from
falling behind other nations whose national commitments to research are
increasing, just as ours have been decreasing. The fear is not just
about falling behind scientifically, it's about falling behind
economically.
The first two provisions of H.R. 363 focus on support for early-
career scientists and engineers through grant programs at the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. These grants will
identify and support our best and brightest young researchers who are
engaged in high-risk, high-reward research that is transformational or
highly innovative. By focusing on young researchers, we promote new
ideas and research on the frontiers of knowledge.
The bill also supports graduate student training grants for
individuals interested in research areas relative to industry's
technological needs, establishes a Presidential Award for Innovation,
creates a planning mechanism for maintaining the Nation's major
research facilities, authorizes the National Science Foundation to
support research on innovation, directs reports on Federal efforts to
recruit new scientists and engineers, identifies NASA as a key player
in the national competitiveness policy.
This bill doesn't merely seek to fund all of science, it focuses on
fostering the most innovative elements of a scientific enterprise. It
is through research such as these that we lay a foundation for future
of global economic competitiveness. In the future, a healthy scientific
and technological enterprise spawns innovation, creating jobs that pay
good wages and produces products that make our lives better.
{time} 1715
We must pave the way to that future, and I urge my colleagues to
support this 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. Chairman, I rise today to support what is essentially the second
piece of the Science Committee's innovation and competitiveness agenda
package. I am pleased that this Congress continues to advance the
innovation agenda that the President laid out 2 years ago.
Primarily, this bill enhances the Faculty Early Career Development
Program at NSF to help researchers establish a lab and pursue risky
research in emerging fields. It establishes a similar program at the
Department of Energy. It also ensures that funding increases
proportionately to the overall NSF budget for the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship, which supports graduate students in
cutting-edge interdisciplinary fields.
Again, most of this bill was part of a Republican-led effort in the
last Congress to incorporate many of the suggestions and various
innovation and competitiveness reports without necessarily reinventing
the wheel to do so. While H.R. 363 is similar to what we did last year,
it does have some additions that were never vetted at the committee
level, and I have some concern with that process. I hope as we continue
the reauthorization process for NSF, the chairman will work with me, as
he always has and as he does, and we can thoughtfully pass good
legislation as we move forward.
With specific regard to H.R. 363, I do thank the chairman for working
with us to restore a few of the provisions that had been previously
accepted by the committee, particularly in NIST report language and a
sense of the Congress that NASA also has a role to play in United
States innovation and competitiveness.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, that our Nation continue to lead the
world in technological innovation. To that end, we should support
legislation that advances basic science research at the National
Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Research conducted by
these young scholars will yield countless advantages. Americans
understand that if we are to become energy independent, we will need
solutions that promote clean, affordable and reliable American energy
resources. That is why we introduced the competitiveness agenda last
year and that is why I continue to support this initiative. America's
solutions for the future begin today.
This is a good bill. I thank the chairman for helping make it a good
bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 363.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to
absolutely concur with Mr. Hall in that we will work as a partnership
as this bill works its way through. He has been a constructive partner,
and I want to continue that partnership.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms.
Giffords), a valued member of our committee.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking Member
Hall.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 363, the
Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Act. In 2005, a
bipartisan group of congressional legislators came together and asked
the National Academies for a list of the top 10 action items that
policymakers must take in order to assure that America stays globally
competitive.
Their report, which was reduced, called ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,'' found that the U.S. would stand to lose our global
competitiveness if we did not act immediately. One of their
recommendations was to invest in research in an effort to ``sustain and
strengthen the Nation's traditional commitment to long-term basic
research that has the potential to be transformational to maintain the
flow of new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance
the quality of life.'' This bill does exactly that.
This legislation provides early-career awards for scientists and
engineers at the National Science Foundation and at the Department of
Energy. Young researchers and scientists can shift paradigms, break out
of traditions, and think of new ideas within their field; and it is
this outside-of-the-box thinking that we must promote.
The early-career awards in this bill awards young scientists for
engaging in both high-risk, but also high-reward, research that is
transformational and innovative.
This bill does not fund all science. This bill focuses on fostering
the most innovative of elements in the scientific enterprise. With
countries such as India and China becoming more and more competitive,
we have to take every action possible to ensure that the United States
of America stays globally competitive.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill forward. I am honored
to be a sponsor.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
do rise today in strong support of
[[Page H4015]]
H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research
Act.
This legislation, just like H.R. 362 which we just passed, is a
fantastic opportunity for bipartisanship to support math and science
education in this country. Taken in combination with that bill, 10,000
Teachers, 10 Million Minds, we lay a crucial foundation in maintaining
America's competitiveness worldwide.
The National Academies released a report entitled ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm.'' It looked at ways in which the Federal Government
could enhance our country's science and technology enterprise so we can
continue to compete and prosper in this global marketplace. In addition
to its recommendations with respect to K-12 education, the commission
came to the conclusion that there is a general lack of research in
science and engineering in America.
Our country must face the reality that China and India are making
significant strides and pouring major resources into science and
engineering. Therefore, in order to stay competitive, we need to not
only encourage young students to get excited by the possibilities that
exist with technology advances, but we also need to support young
scientist research. Since younger scientists are more likely to do
innovative and transformative work, it is in our country's best
interest to ensure that these young scientists indeed have the support
that they need.
Mr. Chairman, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering
Act offers rewards for younger students in order to encourage them to
continue their work in the fields of science and engineering.
This legislation also strengthens Federal support for science and
engineering researchers at the early stages of their career by
expanding the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
program at NSF, establishing a Presidential Innovation Award, and
authorizing NSF to authorize research on innovation.
Again, I want to emphasize that I truly believe in order for our
great Nation to remain competitive in the ever-advancing global
marketplace, we need to sustain and strengthen our commitment to long-
term basic research. This is research that has the potential to be
transformational in maintaining the flow of new ideas that fuel our
economy, provide security and enhance the quality of life for all
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe this legislation is a great first step
to address this impending crisis, both in America's workforce and our
country's research institutions, and I am proud to support the bill,
and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude, and hopefully I will not run out of
time, but I did want to at this point say that as much as I am for this
bill, I have to oppose one of the amendments that is going to be
offered by the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, the
Gillibrand amendment. It is duplicative. We already do that under the
Department of Education in regard to providing scholarships, merit
scholarships for advanced students in our high schools. We already do
that through the Department of Education, and it is a very well-funded
program.
But more importantly, Mr. Chairman, the reason I am opposed to the
amendment, in a way it contradicts what we just did in H.R. 362, where
we said we will give these grants to these students to encourage them
to study and pursue math and science and engineering types of advanced
degrees in college with a payback, a two-for-one payback if they go
into the teaching profession in a community where we have that great
need for outstanding math and science teachers.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I support the bill. I am opposed to
the Gillibrand amendment for the reasons outlined.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my friend, Dr.
Gingrey, for his support for this good bipartisan bill, and I yield 2
minutes to another active member of our committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong bipartisan support
of H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research.
Before my election to Congress, I spent my entire academic and
professional career as a scientist, as a mathematician and an engineer.
I was particularly concerned when I read the sobering conclusions of
the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' about
America's declining competitiveness in a science and technology-based
global economy. The report calls for an immediate action to maintain
America's competitive advantage, and I agree with those
recommendations.
We are already moving forward to carry out some of the report's
recommendations in an effort to renew interest in scientific
development. H.R. 363 will provide grants to support young researchers
in the early stages of their careers to engage in the high-risk, high-
reward innovative research that challenges existing assumptions. The
bill also establishes a Presidential Innovation Award to stimulate
scientific and engineering advances in the public interest.
As a Nation, we face many daunting and almost overwhelming
challenges, the solutions to which will require serious and dedicated
scientific research. Conclusive research can take years, so we must
work now to inspire today's students and researchers to take up such
scientific pursuits. This bill provides just the right kind of specific
incentives to compel young researchers to do the kind of pioneering and
groundbreaking research that will yield dividends for the public
interest.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill
and thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, a fellow Texan, for
their hard work and leadership on this issue.
I think we can all agree on the importance of ensuring America is
competitive in science and engineering. As the National Academy of
Sciences report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' warned, this
country is in danger of losing its leadership role in these fields.
Last year I sponsored the Research For Competitiveness Act to address
this issue. Unfortunately, that legislation did not come to the floor
of the House after being passed by the Science Committee. However, I am
pleased in this Congress in a bipartisan fashion to note that H.R. 363
incorporates sections from last year's bill that establish early-career
grants for young scientists and engineers. These grants will encourage
scientists and engineers in the early stages of their academic careers
to establish innovative lines of research. This approach continues the
successful model of partnership between the Federal Government and
America's universities.
As you know, many of the technologies we enjoy today, such as
breakthroughs that enabled e-commerce to become a reality in the 1990s,
are based on research initially conducted at universities like the
University of Texas in my hometown of Austin.
When we fund programs such as these, we are investing in minds and
helping create the next generation of America's high-tech workforce.
Therefore, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. McCaul for his
support for this good bipartisan bill, and I yield 3 minutes to another
Texan (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), who is an active member of the
Science and Technology Committee.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for our
committee leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds
Through Science and Engineering Research Act. This legislation was
based on policy recommendations from the ``Rising Above the Gathering
Storm'' report to Congress by the National Academy of Sciences.
One of the greatest challenges new researchers face is getting grant
funding for their research. In Dallas, the University of Texas
Southwest Medical School has four Nobel laureates, where they earned
them right there, and UT-Dallas has at least one. Baylor University and
others are stellar research institutions, and they compete at the
national level for grants and perform award-winning scientific
research.
[[Page H4016]]
{time} 1730
These universities depend on Federal research funding.
When new faculty are hired at research universities in Texas and
elsewhere, they are expected to be able to write grant proposals and
successfully win funding from Federal agencies such as the National
Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of
Energy, and others.
According to NIH, the average age at which the investigator first
obtains RO1 major grant funding is age 42. If students are earning
Ph.D.s in their late twenties, that means there are many years of
struggle before they can establish themselves and eventually become
full professors at these universities.
As a result, many scientists have dropped out of science. It is too
hard to get funding. The stress level is too high.
Mr. Chairman, grant support targeted at new investigators is an
important step toward resolving this problem. If Congress would fund
Federal research as vigorously as our competitors overseas are doing,
we wouldn't have such a problem.
H.R. 363 targets young investigator grant support at the National
Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and other scientific research
agencies under the purview of the Committee on Science and technology.
This is a good bill and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise with pleasure to support this bill.
The National Science Foundation for years has been one of the primary
sources of research funding for outstanding research in this Nation. In
addition, the Department of Energy Office of Science has been a leader
in certain areas, particularly high energy or particle physics, but
also in a number of other physics areas, including the high energy
light sources such as we have at Berkeley and a few other labs.
I strongly support these programs, but a difficulty that has
developed over the past few years is that we have some early career
researchers, some young people just entering the field, and they really
have difficulty obtaining funding because the tendency of the reviewers
at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy Office
of Science is to say well, we have this group of very well-known good
researchers. We know their backgrounds and we know they can produce and
how well they can do; we should just give them the money because we
don't know for sure about the early researchers. Now, I don't think
they actually say that, but, unfortunately, I think it is in the back
of the minds of the peer review folks as they consider proposals.
I experienced this personally with my son, who as a young scientist
had trouble breaking into the field and had a number of proposals
denied before he finally received funding. Even though he had made some
national strides and was well-known in the field, yet it was difficult
to get the funding.
These programs will be very, very helpful to support the early career
researchers. But there is another aspect about which we need some new
thinking and some change, and that is the fact that more and more
science is becoming interdisciplinary, where you may have biology and
physics, or biophysics; and you have relationships between biology and
chemistry or chemistry and physics. You can go on and on. There are all
sorts of different variations. Sometimes you may need five or six
different disciplines represented in the research program to really
cover all of the aspects of the research. When you submit a proposal,
usually you are required to specify one field and if you specify
interdisciplinary, sometimes the other fields are not adequately
represented on the peer review panel.
I admit these are perhaps exceptions; but, nevertheless, we have to
make sure that all of these bright young scientists or those wishing to
branch out into another discipline, for example, having a very good
background in physics and deciding they can really do some good work in
biophysics. So we need to take account of that, and this bill will
provide that within both the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Energy.
I strongly support this bill. I believe both agencies, I know NSF
supports it, and I am sure that the Department of Energy Office of
Science also supports this bill because they have also noted the need
for these changes.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Ehlers for his
support for this bill, and his help in bringing it to the floor today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Baird), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Science.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and chairman.
This is a good day for science and research, and that means it is a
good day for the United States of America and for our economic
prosperity and for our children's future.
As Chair of the Research and Science Subcommittee, I rise today in
support of H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and
Engineering Act, and I want to commend Chairman Gordon for his strong
leadership on this bill that we are considering now, and on the one
that passed earlier today.
I share Chairman Gordon's absolute commitment and belief that we must
take bold steps now to ensure that American students and workers are
prepared for the careers of the future and so our Nation is equipped to
compete in the global economy.
To accomplish this, however, we must make sure our young scientists
receive the support they need. That is why, as many of our prior
speakers have pointed out, it is critically important to invest in the
minds of young researchers now, because not only are they highly
productive, but one day they will fill the ranks of our senior
established and groundbreaking scientists on which our country's
economy, competitiveness, and indeed our national security depend.
That is why I am so pleased we are considering H.R. 363 today. The
bill will ensure continued innovation by supporting outstanding
researchers in early career stages, and ensuring that graduate students
in research fields of particular importance to our future
competitiveness receive adequate funding. I also share Ranking Member
Ehlers' commitment to the importance of interdisciplinary scientific
studies which he so well articulated.
This bill and the one before it that we considered already and passed
today, are critically important to the future prosperity of our
country. I share Chairman Gordon's commitment to them, and I urge
passage.
I also would like to take this opportunity briefly to express support
for the amendment soon to be offered by Mrs. Gillibrand of New York.
Her amendment will require the National Science Foundation to institute
a program to award scholarships in science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics to undergraduate scholars. As a former teacher of
undergraduate scholars and researchers, I know how important this stage
is to career development and I support her commitment to it, applaud
her offering the amendment. I urge passage of that, as well as final
passage of the bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman of the Science Committee, as well as the ranking member. We
have had a long and I like to think of it as a productive relationship,
and it is an honor to come and acknowledge that we are finally
listening to the voices of the 21st century.
I want to hold up this document that claims the 110th Congress is a
Congress that will move the innovation agenda. As a former member of
the Science Committee I remember, as the century turned in 2000,
listening to CEOs who indicated the crisis in both teaching,
understanding and creative in math, science and technology.
Let me rise and belatedly say I have certainly supported the last
legislative initiative dealing with 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds
that we just passed, and I am delighted to be able to support the
Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act of 2007
and to say this: Science is in fact the work of the 21st century, but
we are falling behind.
[[Page H4017]]
We don't need to hear the statistics again of how many engineers
China graduates, for example, compared to the United States. This
workforce cannot be prepared for the 21st century without actual
investment by this country, and understanding that without researchers
and scientists and engineers, we do not create work.
Clearly, even though these might be considered passe and simple, but
the light bulb, the typewriter, the car, all innovative aspects of our
work, the airplane, created eons and years and decades of work.
This legislation in particular provides an opportunity for research,
and the amendment provides an opportunity for research for
undergraduate scholars.
At Texas Southern University, we have a transportation study program.
It has a pharmacy school, all small aspects of science. It has a solar
energy project that I was proud to take Members of Congress to in 2001.
There are budding opportunities all over America, but what must we do
to ensure that it works? We have to invest and provide the resources.
We have to encourage not only students, but teachers, and then
researchers that their work is valued. NASA and our move to the moon
all concentrate on having those who will be researchers, technologists,
readers of software, and yes, we hope, astronauts.
I applaud this legislation for what it does for engineers and
scientists and physicians who are pioneers of the work of the 20th
century and now can be pioneers of the work of the 21st century.
I believe that we have a step further to go. We need geologists. As
we look at global warming, we must find ways to be efficient in the
securing of energy, balancing what we call the resources of the ground
as well as nuclear as well as solar.
I think this is an outstanding bill, and I ask my colleagues to
support it. I thank the distinguished chairman.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 363, the ``Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Research Act,'' of which I am proud to be a
cosponsor. This bill is the second component of the new Democratic
majority's Innovation Agenda, which is designed to make our nation more
able to compete successfully in the global economy.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that we invest in a workforce ready for
global competition by creating a new generation of innovators and make
a sustained commitment to federal research and development. We need to
spur and expand affordable access to broadband, achieve energy
independence, and provide small business with tools to encourage
entrepreneurial innovation. H.R. 363 a critical first step.
Charles Drew, Benjamin Banneker, Clarence Elder, and David
Crosthwait, Jr. are only a few of the names associated with great
American scientific history. These engineers, scientist, and physicians
were pioneers in their respective fields, and have touched all our
lives in ways that we probably never consider. Whether it is enjoying
the comfortable atmosphere of Radio City Music hall, navigating the
streets of Washington, DC, or having a loved one receive a blood
transfusion these men have all made significant contributions to
America and the world. Yet, the beautiful thing about science is its'
evolutionary nature. Innovation never sleeps, and great minds are
always at work.
Therefore to continue the legacy of these great men, and to ensure
that America is at the forefront of new technological and scientific
discoveries, I rise in support of H.R. 363. Representing Houston, I
realize the importance of institutions like NASA and the sense of
national pride that NASA can produce when they are leading the global
effort in advancing science and technology.
Mr. Chairman, according to the National Academies, the most important
thing we can do for our future economic health is to increase the
nation's expertise in science, technology, math, and engineering. H.R.
363 represents a critical down-payment toward achieving this goal.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I just quickly yield myself
the balance of my time to say this truly has been a collaborative,
bipartisan effort. I thank Mr. Hall and his very able staff. We have
worked together. We have a good bill, and we need to pass this bill.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, tonight the House took a critical
step in the effort to ensure that America remains at the leading edge
of the global economy by passing H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Act. The provisions in the bill, including
expanded grants through the National Science Foundation and Department
of Energy for early career researchers, support for research in fields
of national importance, and government recruitment of young scientists
build on the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and
will help to rebuild our knowledge infrastructure. By doing so, the
legislation will help America maintain its leadership in scientific
research and allow American innovators to strengthen our economy by
finding solutions to achieve energy independence, greater environmental
protection, the development of new medical treatments, and a host of
other goals. It is for these reasons that I voted to support H.R. 363.
However, I am deeply opposed to language, added to the bill through a
motion to recommit, that prioritizes support for research into advanced
nuclear reprocessing. Although supporters of nuclear power have renewed
their efforts to increase America's reliance on nuclear power, the
reality is that there are significant safety and environmental concerns
associated with nuclear energy. The storage of spent nuclear fuel is a
growing problem facing individual power plants and communities
throughout the nation. At the Indian Point Energy Center, there is an
ongoing leak of radioactive material from spent fuel pools into the
Hudson River, and throughout the country communities that host nuclear
facilities are being forced to contemplate the cleanup and security
costs associated with the storage of nuclear waste.
We must also clearly understand that, at a time when nuclear
terrorism is one of the greatest threats facing our nation, the process
used to recycle spent fuel would create a significant proliferation
risk by resulting in the production of plutonium that can be used in
nuclear weapons. The language prioritizing support for a technology
that threatens to damage our environment and undermine our national
security is misguided, and tarnishes an otherwise laudable piece of
legislation. I am hopeful that this language will not be included in
the conference report.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Sowing the
Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act. Taking its name
from the sixth chapter of the National Academies Report ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm,'' H.R. 363 is part of an ambitious legislative
portfolio that is part of the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help
craft the Innovation Agenda, on which our nation is dependent for its
future prosperity.
Fifty thousand people hold postdoctoral appointments in the United
States. In 1999, postdocs were 43% of the first authors in articles in
the prestigious journal Science. Postdoctoral appointments are
temporary by design and are compensated poorly. Postdocs are generally
motivated by the idea of becoming professors, a goal to which three
quarters of postdocs aspire. However, only 20 percent will attain
faculty positions. This had led to an increasingly dramatic and
problematic holding pattern which could select more for flexibility and
perseverance than for talent and performance.
As science funding has become tighter, it's become more difficult for
postdocs to find permanent academic positions and to remain in science.
The availability of positions is entirely dependent on the likelihood
of a new professor finding funding. As of 2002, the median age at which
one receives a first NIH grant as a primary investigator is 42. In
1981, the median age was 35. In the biological sciences, in 1980,
researchers under 40 years old received more than half of all
competitive research grants. By 2003, this had fallen to less than 17
percent. At NSF, the funding rates for first-time grant recipients fell
from 25 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2004.
H.R. 363 addresses this problem by setting aside funds specifically
for early career researchers, which are defined as assistant professors
or the equivalent thereof. Assistant professor is the role to which
most postdocs aspire as their next step. It is one step short of having
a tenured, permanent position in a research institution. H.R 363 also
requires DOE and NIST to report on how they are doing with recruitment
and retention of early career engineers and scientists.
H.R. 363 supports the early career part of the science and technology
professional pipeline in other ways, as well. The act requires NSF to
set aside at least 1.5 percent of funds appropriated for research and
related activities to the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship (IGERT) program and permits the NSF to research the process
of innovation and the teaching of inventiveness.
At present, the United States research infrastructure is deficient.
In 2001, more than 60 percent of the Department of Energy Office of
Science lab space was over 30 years old. This requires $2 billion to
correct. In 1998, the NSF estimated that $11.4 billion were needed to
[[Page H4018]]
renovate U.S. academic research facilities. In 2001, the NIH estimated
$5.6 billion in health research infrastructure needs.
This problem is in part caused by a 26 percent cap on reimbursement
to universities from research grants for infrastructure costs. Since
this cap was created in 1991, universities have been unable to find
sufficient sources of funding to keep their scientific facilities
competitive or, in some cases, adequate. At the same time, they are
using these facilities to attempt to compete internationally for
scientists.
H.R. 363 addresses this problem by instructing the Office of Science
and Technology Policy to create a National Coordination Office for
Research Infrastructure. This office would prioritize deficiencies in
research facilities at universities and national labs and then work to
coordinate a response to these deficiencies.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. Without its
reforms to our research infrastructure and science talent pipeline we
will continue to deteriorate.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act.
I first want to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership on the
important issue of innovation, and commend our Committee's work towards
investing in our research communities.
This past August, I invited Chairman Gordon to join me in a panel to
discuss the subject of Innovation back in St. Louis. The Event was a
tremendous success and sparked a conversation about competitiveness,
STEM education and innovation that still continues with enthusiasm in
St. Louis.
While this is an issue that warrants much discussion, the time has
come for bold action.
Unfortunately, our nation's standing as the global leader in science
and technology has slipped in recent years.
H.R. 363 will counteract this worrying trend by investing in long-
term scientific research and encouraging young scientists and
researchers to pursue high-risk and high-reward research.
Specifically, the bill administers awards to outstanding early-career
researchers in academia and in nonprofit research organizations,
provides graduate research assistantships in areas of national need and
establishes a national coordination office to prioritize university and
national research infrastructure needs. By investing in our young
researchers, we invest in the ideas that will shape our country's
future.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to advance our nation's
status as a leader in the global economy.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 363, the
Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act.
The bill authorizes appropriations for basic research in science and
engineering, and provides support of graduate fellowships, as well as
research grants, to scientists and engineers in the early phases of
their careers.
As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I commend
Chairman Gordon for crafting this important legislation and bringing it
to the House floor today.
We must take bold steps now to insure that American students and
workers are prepared for the careers of the future and that our nation
is equipped to compete in the global economy.
The bill is based on the recommendations of the National Academies'
widely-acknowledged ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report, which
found that the U.S. stands to lose its competitive edge in the
international economy unless immediate action is taken.
Statistics show that U.S. 12th-grade students performed below the
international average of 21 countries on a test of general knowledge of
math and science.
In 2004, America graduated 70,000 engineers, while China turned out
10 times as many.
We know that American high-tech companies often look abroad for
workers who are willing to work for less pay.
I am very concerned about the issue of off-shoring and outsourcing,
and it troubles me when companies say they need to go overseas just to
find employees who are skilled in math and science.
I believe there is a clear link between off-shoring and outsourcing
and how these trends relate to future employment opportunities and
career choices of students in the science and engineering fields.
I believe we have to raise awareness of this issue and work together
in a bipartisan manner in order to keep high-wage science and
engineering jobs here in the U.S. and maintain our competitive edge.
H.R. 363 puts us on the right path and demonstrates our commitment to
strengthening our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
educational programs in order produce a skilled and knowledgeable
workforce here at home.
Maintaining U.S. innovation and leadership demands hard work and
investment. While there are no quick fixes, we can take steps, like
H.R. 363, now to accomplish these important goals.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering several bills to
implement the Innovation Agenda including H.R. 363, the Sowing the
Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act.
In February I was pleased to support this legislation in Committee.
H.R. 363 provides merit-based grants for researchers early in their
careers, establishes a Presidential innovation award, and creates a
national office to identify, prioritize, and coordinate research
infrastructure needs at universities and national laboratories.
America needs innovators and leaders if we want to remain competitive
in the global economy. This is especially true when it comes to science
and engineering.
Retaining scientists and engineers, however, is often difficult,
because they receive such low pay early-on in their careers.
If we don't invest early in our future innovators, we will fall
behind.
H.R. 363 supports an important goal and I look forward to its passage
today.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 363, a piece of
legislation that is desperately needed to enhance tomorrow's scientific
research.
We all know what it's like to start out on our own--the uncertainty
of your financial footing, but with great faith in yourself and your
ideas. Imagine that feeling on an exponential scale and that might be
how a young, talented researcher feels as they work on a cure for
autism, or traumatic brain injury for our troops, or a new source of
cleaner, renewable energy.
The field of research is high-risk and high-yield, and the federal
government is right to invest in research that benefits us all. H.R.
363 will help ``sustain and strengthen the nation's traditional
commitment to long-term basic research . . . to maintain the flow of
new ideas that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the
quality of life,'' as prescribed by the National Academies report,
Rising Above the Gathering Storm, that has been the focus of our work
in the Science and Technology Committee, and mentioned many times
today.
Young researchers are the key to innovation, as they are more likely
than established researchers to shift paradigms, break with tradition,
or bring new ideas to a discipline or to a combination of disciplines.
The early-career awards outlined in this bill reward young researchers
for engaging in high-risk/high-reward research that is likely to be
transformative or highly innovative. The establishment of a
presidential innovation award is designed to identify and recognize
people who develop the unique scientific and engineering innovations in
the national interest at the time they occur. This bill doesn't simply
seek to fund all science; it focuses on fostering the most innovative
elements of the scientific enterprise.
I would also like to thank Chairman Gordon, as well as Ranking Member
Hall, on their hard work on this legislation, and the bipartisan manner
in which the Science and Technology Committee is run to produce such
substantial legislation.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 363
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 ``Sowing the Seeds Through
Science and Engineering Research Act''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION EARLY CAREER AWARDS FOR
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall carry out a program to award grants to
scientists and engineers at the early stage of their careers
at institutions of higher education and organizations
described in subsection (c)(2) to conduct research in fields
relevant to the mission of the Foundation. The existing
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program may be
designated as the mechanism for awarding such grants.
(b) Size and Duration of Award.--The duration of awards
under this section shall be 5 years, and the amount per year
shall be at least $80,000.
(c) Eligibility.--Award recipients shall be individuals who
are employed in a tenure-track
[[Page H4019]]
position as an assistant professor or equivalent title, or
who hold an equivalent position, at--
(1) an institution of higher education in the United
States; or
(2) an organization in the United States that is a
nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organization such as a
museum, observatory, or research laboratory.
(d) Selection.--Award recipients shall be selected on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
(e) Selection Process and Criteria for Awards.--An
applicant seeking funding under this section shall submit a
proposal to the Director at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Director may require. In
evaluating the proposals submitted under this section, the
Director shall consider, at a minimum--
(1) the intellectual merit of the proposed work;
(2) the innovative or transformative nature of the proposed
research;
(3) the extent to which the proposal integrates research
and education, including undergraduate education in science
and engineering disciplines; and
(4) the potential of the applicant for leadership at the
frontiers of knowledge.
(f) Awards.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Director shall endeavor to ensure that the recipients are
from a variety of types of institutions of higher education
and nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organizations. In
support of this goal, the Director shall broadly disseminate
information about when and how to apply for grants under this
section, including by conducting outreach to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities that are part B institutions
as defined in section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)) and minority institutions (as
defined in section 365(3) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1067k(3))).
(g) Authorization of Appropriation.--For each of the fiscal
years 2008 through 2012, the Director shall allocate at least
3.5 percent of funds appropriated to the National Science
Foundation for Research and Related Activities to the grants
program under this section.
(h) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report describing the
distribution of the institutions from which individuals have
participated in the Faculty Early Career Development Program
since fiscal year 2001 among each of the categories of
institutions of higher education defined by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the
organizations in subsection (c)(2).
(i) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the
Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report evaluating the
impact of the program carried out under this section on the
ability of young faculty to compete for National Science
Foundation research grants.
SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EARLY CAREER AWARDS FOR SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS.
(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Science of
the Department of Energy shall carry out a program to award
grants to scientists and engineers at the early stage of
their careers at institutions of higher education and
organizations described in subsection (c)(2) to conduct
research in fields relevant to the mission of the Department.
(b) Size and Duration of Award.--The duration of awards
under this section shall be up to 5 years, and the amount per
year shall be at least $80,000.
(c) Eligibility.--Award recipients shall be individuals who
are employed in a tenure-track position as an assistant
professor or equivalent title, or who hold an equivalent
position, at--
(1) an institution of higher education in the United
States; or
(2) an organization in the United States that is a
nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organization such as a
museum, observatory, or research laboratory.
(d) Selection.-- Award recipients shall be selected on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
(e) Selection Process and Criteria for Awards.--An
applicant seeking funding under this section shall submit a
proposal to the Director of the Office of Science at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Director may require. In evaluating the proposals submitted
under this section, the Director shall consider, at a
minimum--
(1) the intellectual merit of the proposed work;
(2) the innovative or transformative nature of the proposed
research;
(3) the extent to which the proposal integrates research
and education, including undergraduate education in science
and engineering disciplines; and
(4) the potential of the applicant for leadership at the
frontiers of knowledge.
(f) Collaboration With National Laboratories.--In awarding
grants under this section, the Director shall give priority
to proposals in which the proposed work includes
collaboration with the Department of Energy National
Laboratories.
(g) Awards.--In awarding grants under this section, the
Director shall endeavor to ensure that the recipients are
from a variety of types of institutions of higher education
and nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organizations. In
support of this goal, the Director shall broadly disseminate
information about when and how to apply for grants under this
section, including by conducting outreach to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities that are part B institutions
as defined in section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)) and minority institutions (as
defined in section 365(3) of that Act (20 U.S.C. 1067k(3))).
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out
the Director's responsibilities under this section
$25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(i) Report on Recruiting and Retaining Early Career Science
and Engineering Researchers at the National Laboratories.--
Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the Office of Science shall transmit to
the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report on efforts to recruit and
retain young scientists and engineers at the early stages of
their careers at the Department of Energy National
Laboratories. The report shall include--
(1) a description of Department of Energy and National
Laboratory policies and procedures, including financial
incentives, awards, promotions, time set aside for
independent research, access to equipment or facilities, and
other forms of recognition, designed to attract and retain
young scientists and engineers;
(2) an evaluation of the impact of these incentives on the
careers of young scientists and engineers at Department of
Energy National Laboratories, and also on the quality of the
research at the National Laboratories and in Department of
Energy programs;
(3) a description of what barriers, if any, exist to
efforts to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers,
including limited availability of full time equivalent
positions, legal and procedural requirements, and pay grading
systems; and
(4) the amount of funding devoted to efforts to recruit and
retain young researchers and the source of such funds.
SEC. 4. INTEGRATIVE GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
TRAINEESHIP PROGRAM.
(a) Funding.--For each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall
allocate at least 1.5 percent of funds appropriated for
Research and Related Activities to the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program.
(b) Coordination.--The Director shall coordinate with
Federal departments and agencies, as appropriate, to expand
the interdisciplinary nature of the Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship program.
(c) Authority To Accept Funds From Other Agencies.--The
Director is authorized to accept funds from other Federal
departments and agencies to carry out the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program.
SEC. 5. PRESIDENTIAL INNOVATION AWARD.
(a) Establishment.--The President shall periodically
present the Presidential Innovation Award, on the basis of
recommendations received from the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy or on the basis of such other
information as the President considers appropriate, to
individuals who develop one or more unique scientific or
engineering ideas in the national interest at the time the
innovation occurs.
(b) Purpose.--The awards under this section shall be made
to--
(1) stimulate scientific and engineering advances in the
national interest;
(2) illustrate the linkage between science and engineering
and national needs; and
(3) provide an example to students of the contribution they
could make to society by entering the science and engineering
profession.
(c) Citizenship.--An individual is not eligible to receive
the award under this section unless at the time such award is
made the individual--
(1) is a citizen or other national of the United States; or
(2) is an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence who--
(A) has filed an application for naturalization in the
manner prescribed by section 334 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1445); and
(B) is not permanently ineligible to become a citizen of
the United States.
(d) Presentation.--The presentation of the award shall be
made by the President with such ceremonies as he may deem
proper, including attendance by appropriate Members of
Congress.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL COORDINATION OFFICE FOR RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURE.
(a) In General.--The Office of Science and Technology
Policy shall establish a National Coordination Office for
Research Infrastructure. Such Office shall--
(1) identify and prioritize the deficiencies in research
facilities and major instrumentation located at academic
institutions and at national laboratories that are available
for use by academic researchers; and
(2) institute and coordinate the planning by Federal
agencies for the acquisition, refurbishment, and maintenance
of research facilities and major instrumentation required to
address the deficiencies identified under paragraph (1).
In prioritizing the deficiencies identified under paragraph
(1), the Office shall consider research needs in areas
relevant to the Nation's economic competitiveness.
(b) Staffing.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy shall appoint individuals to serve in the
Office established under subsection (a) from among the
principal Federal agencies that support research in the
sciences, mathematics, and engineering, and shall at a
minimum include individuals from the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy.
[[Page H4020]]
(c) Report.--The Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy shall provide annually a report to Congress
at the time of the President's budget proposal--
(1) describing the research infrastructure needs identified
in accordance with subsection (a);
(2) listing research facilities projects and budget
proposals, by agency, for major instrumentation acquisitions
that are included in the President's budget proposal; and
(3) explaining how these facilities projects and
instrumentation acquisitions relate to the deficiencies and
priorities arrived at in accordance with subsection (a).
SEC. 7. RESEARCH ON INNOVATION AND INVENTIVENESS.
In carrying out its research programs on science policy and
on the science of learning, the National Science Foundation
may support research on the process of innovation and the
teaching of inventiveness.
SEC. 8. REPORT ON NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND
TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN EARLY
CAREER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS.
Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall transmit to the Committee on Science and
Technology of the House of Representatives and to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate a report on efforts to recruit and retain young
scientists and engineers at the early stages of their careers
at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
laboratories and joint institutes. The report shall include--
(1) a description of National Institute of Standards and
Technology policies and procedures, including financial
incentives, awards, promotions, time set aside for
independent research, access to equipment or facilities, and
other forms of recognition, designed to attract and retain
young scientists and engineers;
(2) an evaluation of the impact of these incentives on the
careers of young scientists and engineers at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, and also on the
quality of the research at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's laboratories and in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology's programs;
(3) a description of what barriers, if any, exist to
efforts to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers,
including limited availability of full time equivalent
positions, legal and procedural requirements, and pay grading
systems; and
(4) the amount of funding devoted to efforts to recruit and
retain young researchers and the source of such funds.
SEC. 9. NASA'S CONTRIBUTION TO INNOVATION.
(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) a balanced science program as authorized by section
101(d) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155) contributes
significantly to innovation in and the economic
competitiveness of the United States; and
(2) a robust National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
funded at the levels authorized under sections 202 and 203 of
that Act, would offer a balance among science, aeronautics,
exploration, and human space flight programs, all of which
can attract and employ scientists, engineers, and technicians
across a broad range of fields in science, technology,
mathematics, and engineering.
(b) Participation in Innovation and Competitiveness
Programs.--The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration shall fully participate in any
interagency efforts to promote innovation and economic
competitiveness through scientific research and development
within the spending levels cited in subsection (a).
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to authorize
programs for support of the early career development of
science and engineering researchers, and for support of
graduate fellowships, and for other purposes.''.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 110-99. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent of the amendment, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hall of Texas
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 110-99.
Mr. HALL of Texas. 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. Hall of Texas:
Page 4, line 15, insert ``, except to the extent that a
sufficient number of meritorious grant applications have not
been received for a fiscal year'' after ``under this
section''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 318, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each
will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to encourage my colleagues to support my amendment. One of the
key elements of this bill is a grant program at NSF designed to help
scientists and engineers at early stages of their careers at
institutions of higher learning.
Eligible applicants are tenure-track faculty, and allow the existing
faculty early career development program to be designed and designated
as the mechanism for awarding such grants that we are talking about
here.
We also require the director of the NSF to allocate at least 3.5
percent of funds appropriated to the NSF research and related
activities account for the purposes in the bill.
This amendment would modify the 3.5 percent allocation provision to
include the following clause: ``except to the extent that a sufficient
number of meritorious grant applications have not been received for a
fiscal year.''
I did this out of concern that the bill required the allocation of
3.5 percent of the funds appropriated to the earlier career awards for
science and engineering, without taking into account there may be years
in which there are not sufficient meritorious grant applications in
that area and NSF could use the funds more effectively maybe in another
area.
I hope my good friend, Chairman Gordon, and my colleagues will join
me in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and a
thoughtful amendment and I recommend its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman, and I thank the distinguished ranking member.
If I might inquire of Mr. Hall, your amendment does not cut funds, it
just refines the use? That is what I was trying to understand. Does
your amendment cut funds?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HALL of Texas. No, absolutely not.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It just sends it back if they are not
utilized?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Yes. It really provides a way for them to use the
funds in other areas if they are not used up.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reprogrammed?
Mr. HALL of Texas. Yes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank you. I know this is not in the
bill, but I just wanted to mention a school district I have been
working with where I tried to draw in private interests in helping with
math and science labs.
I know that as you look at the Innovation Agenda, I want to make sure
we do not frighten away the private financiers as well. This happens to
be a large energy company, and I am going to openly say to them, I hope
you have not abandoned the commitment to the North Forest Independent
School District where we were committed to science labs and math labs
and math scholar teachers. So it is tracking the same innovativeness of
this particular bill, and I think we can work together as a partner.
I want to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Jackson-Lee for
her addition to this informational session here; and once again, let me
say that I think Mr. Hall has a good amendment, and I support that
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Tauscher
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 110-99.
[[Page H4021]]
Mrs. TAUSCHER. 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 Mrs. Tauscher:
Page 4, line 10, insert ``In awarding grants under this
section, the Director shall give special consideration to
eligible early-career researchers who have followed
alternative career paths such as working part-time or in
nonacademic settings, or who have taken a significant career
break or other leave of absence.'' after ``(20 U.S.C.
1067k(3)).''.
Page 10, line 9, strike ``needs; and'' and insert
``needs;''.
Page 10, line 10, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph
(4).
Page 10, after line 9, insert the following new paragraph:
(3) show the potential of such innovation to substantively
enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States
through development of commercializable intellectual
property; and
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 318, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend Chairman Gordon for reporting
these two critical bills out of the Science Committee, one focused on
math and science education and the second on science and engineering.
Taken together, these two bills are a critical step toward restoring
our American technological base as well as giving students, engineers,
and researchers the tools they need to compete in a global economy.
And they are a great way to kick off the Innovation Agenda, an effort
that is vital to America's competitiveness, economy and security, and
an effort the New Democrat Coalition, which I chair, is proud to be
leading.
I am very proud to offer a bipartisan amendment with my good friend,
Congresswoman Judy Biggert of the Science Committee. Our amendment
would expand eligibility for National Science Foundation Early Career
Awards to thousands of scientists and engineers previously deemed
ineligible. These men and women have followed alternative career paths
such as working part-time or in non-academic settings, or have taken a
significant career break or other leave of absence.
In particular, our amendment would level the playing field for women
scientists who have taken maternity leaves, and for all scientists and
engineers who have taken internships, worked in industry, or who have
pursued entrepreneurial efforts.
The amendment would also expand the scope of the Presidential
Innovation Award to recognize and reward innovations that result in
intellectual property that significantly enhances the economic
competitiveness of the United States.
I strongly support Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Gordon's efforts to
promote a strong Innovation Agenda that grows our economy and creates
more jobs.
I appreciate working with Judy Biggert on this issue and ask my
colleagues to support our amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of the Tauscher-Biggert amendment to H.R.
363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineer Research Act.
While I am pleased to have worked with my colleague from California
(Mrs. Tauscher) in developing this amendment, she deserves the credit
for the substance of it. I just happen to think she had a great idea,
and I am honored to lend my support.
Mr. Chairman, we face a world in which our economic competitors in
Asia and Europe are making significant new investments in their own
research capabilities, in terms of both infrastructure and human
capital. These investments are beginning to pay off, as Asia and
European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences no matter
how it is measured, by number of patterns won, articles submitted to
scientific journals, Nobel Prizes won, the percentage of gross domestic
product dedicated to research and development, and even the number of
degrees awarded.
Report after report from the National Academies to the Task Force on
the Future of American Innovation has concluded that we need more
people with scientific expertise and engineering talent if we are to
counter this threat. Only our national security and our economic
competitiveness are at stake.
Unfortunately, the number of undergraduate degrees and Ph.D.s awarded
in the U.S. in science and engineering has been flat or stagnant for
over a decade; and of those undergraduates who have obtained a degree
in science or engineering, only 28 percent actually go on to get their
graduate degree or pursue a career in science and engineering.
That is why this amendment is so important. It expands eligibility
for the NSF Early Career Awards to the thousands of scientists and
engineers who have followed alternative career paths, such as working
part-time or in non-academic settings, or who have taken a significant
career break but want to get back into the lab.
For instance, over 12,000 men and women with doctorates in science or
engineering currently are not working because of family
responsibilities, according to the most recent statistics compiled by
NSF. Of those, over 11,000 are women who may be raising children or
caring for a sick parent. Imagine the countless benefits of just
getting these 11,000 women back into the lab.
But this amendment has the potential to do so much more than that. It
provides an opportunity for thousands of other people with scientific
expertise and training, men and women, to get the support they need to
reenter the scientific and engineering workforce and get back to doing
the scientific work that is so important to the competitiveness of our
Nation.
This amendment also recognizes and rewards those scientist and
engineers whose innovative ideas enhance the economic competitiveness
of the United States. It does so by making them eligible for the
Presidential Innovation Award created by this bill.
Mr. Chairman, by creating additional opportunities to expand the
ranks of scientists and engineers and rewarding them for innovative
ideas that make the Nation more economically competitive, this
amendment strengthens our ability to innovate.
It is our ability to innovate that has made and will make America the
envy of the world in terms of our freedoms, our security and our
culture, health and prosperity.
I thank the ranking member, Mr. Hall, for his support for this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the chairman of the Committee on
Science and a great leader on innovation.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for
yielding, but more importantly, I thank her for bringing this amendment
before us.
It really is an example of why diversity of collaboration helps you
make better decisions. This was a niche that we simply overlooked; and
with her help, as well as our fellow member of the Science Committee,
Mrs. Biggert, we have a better bill.
We thank you for the amendment. We thank you for another example of,
again, why diversity helps us make better decisions. This is a good
amendment. I support it.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of
the bill. I appreciate the ranking member's support of the bill. I
really want to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her
friendship and her support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).
[[Page H4022]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Gillibrand
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 110-99.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Gillibrand:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 10. UNDERGRADUATE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS.
(a) Establishment.--The National Science Foundation shall
establish a program, to be known as the Undergraduate
Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics, or US-STEM, program, for awarding scholarships
to undergraduate scholars in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.
(b) Eligibility.--A student is eligible for a scholarship
under this section only if the student--
(1) is enrolled at a public, 4-year college or university;
(2) will have completed at least one-half of the credit
requirements for an undergraduate degree before beginning
studies to be funded by the scholarship;
(3) has maintained a grade point average in undergraduate
studies of at least 3.0 on a scale of 4.0, or an equivalent
level as calculated by the National Science Foundation,
except that if the student's institution appeals this
criterion on the basis of undue hardship on the student, the
National Science Foundation may waive this paragraph;
(4) has a total family income of less than $75,000 per
year, with such amount to be adjusted annually by the
National Science Foundation for inflation;
(5) has not been convicted of a felony; and
(6) is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United
States.
(c) Selection Criteria.--Scholarship recipients shall be
selected on the basis of merit and such other criteria as the
National Science Foundation shall establish.
(d) Awards.--The National Science Foundation shall announce
awards before April 1 for each upcoming academic year, and
may make up to 2,500 awards per year. Awards may be made for
a maximum of 2 academic years for each student, and
scholarship amounts shall be paid to the institution.
(e) Advisory Board.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall establish an advisory board, which shall
make recommendations to the Director for selection criteria
for scholarship recipients, and provide guidance and
oversight for the program.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for
carrying out this section--
(1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(2) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(3) $61,800,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(4) $63,600,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
(5) $65,500,000 for fiscal year 2013.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 318, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on
Science and Technology, Mr. Gordon, for putting forward H.R. 363, which
will increase America's competitiveness in the world by strengthening
our science and research base.
I offer this bipartisan amendment to build the pipeline for our
country's future teachers, scientists, engineers and researchers by
proposing 2,500 scholarships each year of full tuition to any State
university or college.
My amendment is based on the National Academies' strong
recommendation for the Federal Government to develop an undergraduate
scholarship program for students studying science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. This amendment will create the
recommended scholarship program through the National Science
Foundation.
Under the amendment, an undergraduate student who comes from a family
with an income of less than $75,000, maintains at least a 3.0 grade
point average and is studying science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics may receive up to 2 years of paid tuition at that State
university.
Since the year 2001, tuition at State universities has risen by 41
percent, making the task of paying for college much more difficult.
Scholarships for bright students will increase the number of students
who will have the resources to go into the STEM field and achieve their
God-given potential.
Having a home-grown, educated workforce will be crucially important
to the future strength of America's economy, not only by allowing
families and students who are financially stretched to continue their
education at high-quality programs such as the nanotechnology program
in SUNY Albany, SUNY-Delhi's College of Technology, or the
Cytotechnology program at SUNY Plattsburgh, all colleges that are very
important to my district in upstate New York, but because by educating
America's students in these fields, we will ensure that America retains
our competitive advantage in the science field around the world.
My upstate New York district is beginning an exciting new economic
revival based on the high-tech sector, and we need to maintain a local
workforce that is skilled in engineering and mathematics.
Investments in higher education and science are some of the most
important investments our government can make, and I urge everyone to
vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The amendment would create a new merit scholarship program at NSF for
undergraduate scholars pursuing science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics degrees, the STEM degrees. To receive a scholarship, a
student has to be a junior or a senior at a 4-year public institution,
have at least a 3.0 grade point average, come from a family with an
income of $75,000 or less, and be a citizen or a permanent resident
alien with no felony conviction.
Generally, I am supportive of merit scholarships, and while this
particular concept sounds good, it is duplicative. An almost identical
program already exists at the Department of Education. It is called the
Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant and is part of
the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.
{time} 1800
Therefore, our 2008 budget request for this scholarship program is
$1.2 billion. We don't need to add another $281 million scholarship
program at another agency that achieves essentially the exact same
thing.
The other main reason I oppose this amendment is its effect on the
bill we just debated, H.R. 362. The driving force between H.R. 362 is
to expand the Noyce Scholarship Program for undergraduates to entice
them to enter the STEM K-12 teaching profession. A requirement for this
scholarship is that they give back to society by obligating to teach 2
years for every year of scholarship money they receive. This amendment
includes no commitment of any kind from these proposed awardees.
What kind of a message are we sending if we require Noyce scholarship
recipients to give back to society with a teacher service obligation,
when the recipients of scholarships under this amendment have nothing
to repay?
In addition to the two bills before us today, the Science Committee
is also working on NSF's reauthorization, which also includes quite a
bit of undergraduate STEM education improvements. I just think the
amendment currently before us is not only recreating a scholarship
program that is already in existence, but it's entirely inappropriate
for this legislation we are considering today. I encourage my
colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mrs.
Gillibrand's amendment to H.R. 363.
Our universities and research institutes lead the world in
innovation. Today we stand at the cusp of new breakthroughs in fields
ranging from medicine, to computer technology and renewable energy.
Unfortunately, too few of our undergraduates are choosing to enter
[[Page H4023]]
science-related fields. In order to continue our remarkable record of
achievement, we must do a better job of encouraging students to pursue
careers in science, mathematics and engineering. This amendment will
provide scholarships for science students from low- and moderate-income
families, and will help young Americans realize their potential.
We have a chance today to open new doors for our children, and we
should seize this opportunity. This amendment will benefit students and
our Nation. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in support of
this amendment.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
Dr. Ehlers, the gentleman from Michigan.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to this amendment, although I
would say I would be delighted to support it if we could also be
guaranteed that the budget of the National Science Foundation would be
increased by another $1 billion.
I say that because the National Science Foundation has not been
treated well in its budgets over the last 12 or 13 years. It has
increased very slowly. We even had a decrease 2 years ago for the first
time in many, many years. It's a shame that we have not treated the
National Science Foundation adequately. It has hurt our Nation, it has
hurt our economy, and we certainly have to improve that situation.
We are in a catchup mode. I am reminded of former Speaker Newt
Gingrich, who was instrumental in getting the doubling of the National
Institutes of Health, who today has told me, and I have heard him tell
audiences in speeches a number of times, that he regards one of his
great mistakes, perhaps the greatest, the failure to double the
National Science Foundation at the same time that we doubled the NIH.
Nevertheless, that didn't happen, so we are in a period of poverty
for the National Science Foundation. Therefore, I oppose adding a new
program. Even though at this point it's only $281 million, I am sure it
will be a popular program and end up costing well over $1 billion. We
simply cannot afford it at this time. I would be happy to consider this
proposal at some time in the future if we, in fact, do double the NSF
as we hope. But even that will leave us with a skimpy budget there.
The other factor is that this program does already exist in the
Department of Education. It's a very good program. It has been in
operation for several years.
I hope that we will keep that in mind, that we will turn down this
amendment at this point, and perhaps consider it sometime in the future
when we are bound to have an abundance of money at the National Science
Foundation.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, let me say I can understand
the concerns of the opponent of this amendment. There are programs that
are similar in the Department of Education.
Let me point out only 15 percent of the graduates in the United
States receive a degree in engineering, where in China it's 50 percent;
in Singapore it's 67 percent. It would seem there is still room to
improve this statistic in the United States.
I support the gentlelady's amendment.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly respond to my
colleague's arguments.
I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
I thought they were very thoughtful, and I appreciate your long-term
vision for the growth of science and technology deficit in the Nation.
I disagree with the analysis of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Primarily his argument seemed to say that this program is too
expensive. But this is about our national security, it's about our
economic security, and what is so necessary right now in our vision for
America's future is the investment in the next generation. What we need
to be is producing graduates who have science, math and technology
expertise so that we can be competitive with both China and India in
the generations and decades to come. We need to begin to fund the
pipeline. I think the argument of being too expensive is misplaced.
Second, I would like to say this is a priority for our Nation, and I
think we can all agree to strengthen our economy, and our national
security has to be number one.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research
and Science Education, I rise in support of Ms. Gillibrand's amendment.
This amendment will require the National Science Foundation to
institute a program to award scholarships in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics to undergraduate scholars.
Congresswoman Gillibrand and I share a commitment to recruiting and
educating our young people to meet the growing need for a larger
science and engineering workforce. I commend Congresswoman Gillibrand
for her leadership on this issue and, as Chairman, look forward to
continuing to work with her to strengthen math and science education in
this country and ensure our future competitiveness.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Gillibrand).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254,
noes 165, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
AYES--254
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--165
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
[[Page H4024]]
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Bilbray
Boehner
Brady (PA)
Buyer
Christensen
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Fattah
Fossella
Hunter
Jones (NC)
King (NY)
Lampson
Latham
Sutton
Westmoreland
{time} 1832
Mr. FORBES, Mr. COBLE and Mrs. MILLER of Michigan changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. ROTHMAN and Ms. PRYCE of
Ohio changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. 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. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Snyder) having assumed the chair, Mr. Watt, Chairman 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. 363) to
authorize appropriations for basic research and research infrastructure
in science and engineering, and for support of graduate fellowships,
and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 318, 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 any amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that under the rules
of the House adopted in this 110th Congress, the five Delegate Members
are allowed to vote in the Committee of the Whole, but not in the whole
House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Isn't it true that the number of eligible Members to vote in the
whole House is 435 when all seats are filled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the
number of eligible votes in the Committee of the Whole is 440?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Currently it is 438 because of absences due
to two deaths. But normally it is 440, that is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Four hundred forty if all seats were filled.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Isn't it further true, Mr. Speaker, that the
vote in the Committee of the Whole on the Gillibrand amendment was
adopted by a vote of 254-165?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment 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.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Sullivan
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SULLIVAN. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma moves to recommit the bill H.R.
363 to the Committee on Science and Technology, with
instructions to report back the same forthwith with an
amendment. The amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 19, insert ``, giving priority to grants to
expand domestic energy production and use through coal-to-
liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing'' after
``mission of the Department''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, today I stand before Congress to offer
this motion to recommit because we must encourage new innovations in
domestic energy supply. This motion to recommit gives priority to
grants to expand domestic energy production through the use of coal-to-
liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing.
H.R. 363 already emphasizes the need for increased science and
engineer research grants, especially with regard to our Nation's young
people. What it does not emphasize is the need for further
diversification of our energy sources that will help achieve American
energy independence and energy security. World energy demand is
expected to increase by over 50 percent by the year 2030, a startling
statistic, for sure. In America alone, energy demand is expected to
increase by one-third.
There is no one simple solution to arrive at energy independence and
energy security. There are, in fact, several pieces to the energy
puzzle. It is vital that we wean America off unstable foreign sources
of energy.
Congress must urge researchers to invest time and money into the rich
technology of coal-to-liquid and nuclear reprocessing. We must commit
to support coal-to-liquid technologies for the total life cycle, from
coal extraction, through benefaction, processing, refining, packaging,
distribution and end product consumption.
It has been said that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal.
If we can economically produce liquid transportation fuel from coal, we
could displace barrels of unstable foreign oil with barrels of
domestically produced fuel. As America's most abundant domestic energy
source, coal is an obvious choice to diversify our transportation fuels
mix and to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. If we
invest in coal-to-liquid fuels technology in the early stages, we can
take one more step towards energy independence.
Several countries, including France and Japan, are already
reprocessing their spent nuclear fuel. It is important for our young
scientists and engineers to learn how to develop this progression of
reprocessing nuclear fuel.
In 20 years, the number of university nuclear engineering programs
has declined from 65 to 29. These young engineers should be encouraged
to reuse nuclear fuel in an efficient and cost-effective way. This
motion to recommit will promote our colleges to train our future
scientists and engineers. In an aging nuclear workforce it is important
that these young people are properly trained.
It is time to encourage American energy supply through the
development
[[Page H4025]]
of coal-to-liquid and advanced nuclear technologies. With these
technologies we can achieve this energy independence we so desperately
need.
This motion to recommit will allow us to meet this energy demand on
our own terms by giving priority to grants to expand domestic energy
production through the use of coal-to-liquids technology and advanced
nuclear reprocessing.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from
Illinois, Congressman Shimkus.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma
for bringing forth this motion to recommit.
I have been down here a couple of times on other motions to recommit,
and they are very similar to what we are addressing now. This is a call
to my fossil fuel Democrats, my coal Democrats, to address the need of
our energy security issues and help us with this motion to recommit to
say that what we need to do is address, in this bill, and prioritize
coal-to-liquid research and development. And just as important, the
global security needs and the global warming with carbon sequestration.
This motion to recommit will help prioritize these educational funds to
do that.
Likewise, for those who support nuclear power, especially those who
feel that there is a concern of high-level nuclear waste, that we learn
how to properly reprocess that fuel so we can use that to help our
energy independence.
I appreciate my colleague from Oklahoma, and I hope I have my friends
on the other side support this motion to recommit.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we were not
given the courtesy of seeing this motion to recommit until a matter of
seconds before it was introduced.
But, with that said, we will accept this motion, and we will consider
it in conference where it can be considered under the light of more
scrutiny.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 264,
noes 154, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 256]
AYES--264
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--154
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reichert
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--14
Bilbray
Brady (PA)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Fossella
Hastert
King (NY)
Lampson
Miller (NC)
Sutton
Westmoreland
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1903
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. HARMAN and
Messrs. BACA, PRICE of North Carolina, WALSH of New York, REICHERT,
MITCHELL, GILCHREST, MEEHAN, HOYER and EMANUEL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, GONZALEZ, CUMMINGS and BUYER changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to instructions of the
House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 363, back to
the House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment:
Page 5, line 19, insert ``, giving priority to grants to
expand domestic energy production and use through coal-to-
liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing'' after
``mission of the Department''.
[[Page H4026]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment 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. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397,
nays 20, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 257]
YEAS--397
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--20
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Campbell (CA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Hensarling
Johnson, Sam
Lamborn
Manzullo
Paul
Pence
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sali
Shadegg
Tancredo
NOT VOTING--15
Bilbray
Brady (PA)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Fossella
Gilchrest
Hastert
King (NY)
Lampson
Sullivan
Sutton
Westmoreland
Wynn
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1912
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to authorize programs
for support of the early career development of science and engineering
researchers, and for support of graduate fellowships, and for other
purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________