[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 71 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4380-H4411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 349 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. 1867.
{time} 1920
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. 1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009,
and 2010 for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Altmire 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 Washington (Mr. Baird) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support today of H.R. 1867, the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007.
H.R. 1867 was introduced by myself, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), and several other members of the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education. It was ordered reported by the unanimous vote of the
Committee on Science and Technology, and is widely supported by
industry and academia.
The National Science Foundation was last authorized by Congress in
2002 for 5 years, so we are right on track to ensure the continued
growth and relevance of this very important agency.
The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency whose
mission is to support science and engineering research across all
disciplines. Currently NSF funds 20 percent of all basic research
conducted at American colleges and universities. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer sciences and social science, NSF is the major
source of Federal backing.
In its 57-year history, NSF has helped cultivate a scientific
research enterprise in which the capacity for creativity and innovation
is unrivaled in the world. Some economists estimate that half of the
U.S. economic growth since World War II has been the result of
technological innovation stemming from basic research and development.
NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science,
technology, engineering and mathematics education at all levels and in
all settings from kindergarten through postdoctoral training.
I don't think we can stress enough the critical leadership role that
NSF has in improving STEM education, and I want to especially thank
Science and Technology Chairman Gordon for tireless efforts on these
issues.
In addition to supporting research and education grants at colleges
and universities across the country, NSF also helps to support the
construction of world-class research facilities and equipment that help
to attract the top scientists and engineers from around the world to
U.S. universities.
As we have seen high-paying jobs outsourced, our children graduating
high school well behind their international peers in understanding
basic science, other nations surging ahead in export of high-tech
products, it has finally sunk in, funding basic research and teaching
our kids math and science has a huge impact on our economy, our
competitiveness, our national security, and our population's well-
being.
H.R. 1867, like H.R. 362 and H.R. 363, two other Science and
Technology Committee bills that passed the House just last week, is one
more important piece of the House leadership's innovation agenda. It is
also consistent with the administration's own American Competitiveness
Initiative, which called for a 10-year doubling for three science
agencies, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy's Office of
Science.
H.R. 1867 was developed with input received during two subcommittee
legislative hearings, a number of other NSF policy hearings held over
the last many months, and countless informal conversations with NSF
stakeholders both inside and outside of government.
Dr. Ehlers and I personally traveled over to NSF last month to meet
with the Director and all of the Assistant Directors to receive their
personal input.
In drafting H.R. 1867, we tried to limit it to policy, administrative
and budget issues that have arisen since the last authorization in
2002, while leaving the Foundation with maximum flexibility in
translating our guidance into practice.
Likewise, we minimized the specific carve-outs, especially in the
research account, where all of the grants are awarded through a
competitive, merit-reviewed process, and where the Foundation often
needs to respond quickly to new fields of science and new ways of doing
science.
I want to especially thank all my colleagues on the committee,
especially Dr. Ehlers, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Hooley, Mr. Gingrey, Chairman
Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, for helping to improve this bill and
move it expeditiously through the committee process. This was a
bipartisan effort from beginning to end.
Mr. Chair, this bill is critical to American innovation and
competitiveness. I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 1867.
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, of course, in support of H.R. 1867, which
authorizes funding for the National Science Foundation for the next 3
years. As most of us know, NSF is one of three agencies targeted by the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative. The ACI aims to double
the Federal investment in physical science research over the next 10
years. Appropriate investment in research development technology and
math and science education will ensure that our country remains the
world leader in competitiveness and innovation.
The National Science Foundation is the primary source of Federal
funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and
universities and serves as a catalyst for science, for technology, for
engineering, and mathematics education reform at all levels. The return
that we receive from our NSF investments far exceeds the cost. In
addition, the NSF peer review process for receiving Federal funding is
to be an example for all Federal agencies and one in which I hope all
of my colleagues more fully recognize as an appropriate means of
investment.
As reported, this is a good bill. I thank Chairman Gordon and Dr.
Baird for working with Dr. Ehlers and with me to make improvements in
the measure. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been a tireless member of this
subcommittee and has championed the issue of undergraduate research,
which is critical in preparing our students for the future.
Ms. HOOLEY. I would like to thank Chairman Baird for yielding me time
to speak on this important piece of legislation and your incredible
leadership on this issue.
The bill we have before us today will strengthen the National Science
Foundation and allow it to better serve the needs of this country both
today and well into the future.
The Foundation is unique among the Federal Government's scientific
research agencies in that it supports science and engineering across
all disciplines. Each year the National Science Foundation supports an
average of 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at
universities,
[[Page H4381]]
laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout
the world.
The NSF plays a critical role in helping the United States maintain
its position at the forefront of global innovation and technology. The
NSF provides funding and support for research at the Nation's leading
universities and laboratories to develop products and materials to
further our economy.
Examples of recent discoveries by NSF-funded research include new
materials to make solar panels more effective, technologies to make
airport screening more efficient, and the world's strongest superglue
based on water-loving bacteria.
By supporting students at each phase in the educational system, the
NSF helps our future scientists and engineers turn ideas into
innovation.
I am particularly pleased that the committee has agreed to include
language in the reauthorization that directly ties funding for the
Research Experience for Undergraduates Program to funding levels at the
NSF. One of the few NSF programs devoted specifically to
undergraduates, this program has suffered from a declining budget for
the past 3 years. By tying the funding for the program to the overall
funding of NSF, we will allow students access to the resources they
need to further their research at their own schools and at institutions
across the country.
This legislation is not only good for students, teachers, scientists
and engineers, but it is good for the United States in our leading the
world on our innovation which drives our economy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. And again, I
thank my colleague Representative Baird for all of his hard work on
this piece of legislation.
{time} (1930)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to join the speakers in rousing approval of this bill,
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. As a
scientist, I have been familiar with the National Science Foundation
almost since its inception. It is an outstanding American institution.
It is the best science research institution in the world in terms of
their strong peer review and the good results.
Just a few weeks ago, we had the announcement of the latest round of
Nobel Prize winners. All of the Nobel Prize winners this year in the
sciences were from the United States, and one of them was formerly
funded by the National Science Foundation.
The National Science Foundation has now provided funding for 170
individuals who have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. By far, we are the
leader among all the Nations, and it is not just our population. It is
our ability to engage in meaningful and good research, research that
results in earth-changing results, and that is extremely important to
the foundations of science.
The National Science Foundation has done so many good things since
its inception, and as I said, it is one of the leaders in the world.
It also has received awards from the Office of Management and Budget
just within the past few years as the most efficiently run government
agency. Now, that is indeed an important prize. I understand we are
going to have a few amendments to try to reduce the budget of the
National Science Foundation, and I think it is absurd to punish the
best-operated government agency while we are continuing to fund other
agencies which do not do as well, and we are not reducing their budget.
Another factor is we often talk in the Congress about investments.
Sometimes I think we never spend a penny of our money; we invest it all
because everyone talks about their particular project as a good
investment. Well, let me tell you, if we are investing money here we
will get a higher rate of return on the money that we invest in the
National Science Foundation than in any other government agency, except
perhaps NIH, simply because the results are so astounding and so ripe
for development by the manufacturing sector.
I could give many, many examples, but let me just mention one. A
friend of mine, Charlie Townes, a number of years ago, decided that he
could develop a laser. Now, LASER stands for lamp amplification by
stimulated emission of radiation. The initiative for that discovery
came originally from Einstein in the early 1900s. In the 1930s, a
theoretical physicist predicted that stimulated emission would result
from a photon hitting an excited atom, yielding two photons of the same
wavelength and the same phase traveling in the same direction. Mr.
Townes decided he could build a laser out of this, and in fact, he did.
I do not know what types of grants he had, but I think the total was
probably less than $10 million. Today, the laser industry is a multi,
multi, multibillion dollar industry.
Every sewer that has been laid in this Nation and most parts of the
world for the last 30 years has been leveled with a beam of laser
light. Every suit, every piece of clothing that the people in this room
are wearing has been cut out by a laser light, not scissors, but lasers
guided around, cutting out the patterns before they are sewn together.
I could go on and on with many other examples, including medical
examples, by the way.
So that small investment of about $10 million resulted in thousands
and thousands of billions of dollars in our economy. That is why it is
totally absurd for anyone to think about reducing the budget of the
NSF. If anything, we should increase it because the payback on our
investment there is so good, so strong, that we should be increasing
NSF funding, not decreasing it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say how much I appreciate Dr.
Ehlers for his wisdom, his knowledge, his friendship and his leadership
on this. There are few Members of Congress, or even, I think, few other
people in the country who know these issues as well as Dr. Ehlers. He
has been a teacher to students for many years and a teacher to those of
us on the committee as well.
I thank Dr. Ehlers for his fine comments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Carnahan), a valued member of the committee who has led critical
efforts on this legislation.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867,
the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2007.
I really want to thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman Baird and Ranking
Member Ehlers for their work on this bill. Under their leadership, our
committee has produced a remarkable amount of quality legislation,
including this bill before the House tonight.
Our country's global competitiveness is directly linked to the
ability of our math, science and engineering professionals to develop
innovative technologies, policies and scientific breakthroughs.
Yet while it is important to support these professionals and their
industries today, it is perhaps of even greater importance to support
their professions and industries of tomorrow.
In order for our Nation to compete with countries around the world,
we must ensure that we increase the educational opportunities for our
youth to study and pursue careers in math, science and engineering,
while also investing in programs to enrich the quality of these
opportunities.
Making both research and the education of our children a national
priority is not simply an investment in these fields. Our global
competitiveness is directly tied to our Nation's economy and national
security.
NSF plays a critical role in influencing our global competitiveness
as it supports science and engineering across all disciplines.
Each year NSF supports an average of about 200,000 scientists,
engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and
field sites all over the U.S., including many great institutions in my
home State of Missouri.
H.R. 1867 authorizes the necessary funds for NSF which will allow the
agency to foster relationships between academia and industry in order
to spawn U.S. competitiveness and further the Agency's traditions of
education in science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM,
fields.
I urge my colleagues to invest in the future of our children, in our
country's global competitiveness and support this bill.
[[Page H4382]]
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, as a past NSF grant recipient, I rise
today in strong support of H.R. 1867, the National Science Foundation
Reauthorization Act of 2007. I want to thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman
Baird and Dr. Ehlers for their work in bringing this strong bill to the
floor today.
Today, we stand at the cusp of numerous technological breakthroughs
that will completely revolutionize our way of life; from hydrogen and
other advanced fuels technologies that will free us from our addiction
to oil, to nanotechnology that has the potential to impact virtually
every sector of our economy.
Much of this research has been made possible by grants from NSF, and
by passing this bill we are continuing our support of American
researchers, scientists, engineers, educators and students who will
ensure that these breakthroughs continue and that America continues to
lead the world technologically and economically.
I would like to point out that consideration of this legislation
comes on the heels of last week's passage of the 10,000 Teachers, 10
Million Minds and Sowing the Seeds legislation. Both of these bills
were introduced in response to the recommendations of the Rising Above
the Gathering Storm report, which was commissioned by Congress to help
the U.S. compete, prosper and be secure in the global community of the
21st century.
This legislation we are considering today, which puts us on a path to
double NSF funding over 10 years, will further build our commitment to
competitiveness, being led in the House by Chairman Gordon.
The NSF has a broad mission of supporting science and engineering and
funding basic research across many disciplines. Basic research is very
necessary, yet oftentimes, because it does not directly, only
indirectly lead to advances, does not receive private funding. The NSF
does this.
This legislation also specifically calls on the director of NSF to
give special consideration to research proposals having high importance
for future national economic competitiveness. This is critically
needed.
One example is nanotechnology, a very promising field of research
that has the potential to revolutionize our society from defense to
health care to energy to environmental cleanup. This will help.
The bill also gives special consideration to partnerships between
academics, industrial scientists and businesses. I have spoken to a lot
of professors and administrators at universities who say this is a
major problem in our country of taking research and getting it to the
market, and this will help to do this.
Mr. Chairman, earlier today I had the opportunity to meet with five
American scientists who each just recently won a Nobel Prize. They all
emphasize that continued support of the NSF is crucial to America's
future success, just as it is critical to their successes.
So, as a proud cosponsor of this bill, I urge the House to heed the
advice of those on the cutting edge of science and take another step in
bolstering American competitiveness by passing H.R. 1867.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, it is a real privilege and honor to yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Gordon), Chair of the committee. Before he speaks, I just want to say
what a privilege it is to serve with him and to offer that years from
now, there will be Americans benefiting from technological and
scientific innovations and in particular young people, scholars,
benefiting from the education initiatives championed by Mr. Gordon.
They may not know of the work done. He has done a great job, a
bipartisanship approach to this committee. It is a privilege to serve
with him.
Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I thank Dr. Baird.
Let me just say that I have a 6-year-old daughter at home, and I am
very concerned that she could be a part of the first generation of
Americans to inherit a national standard of living less than their
parents, a complete reversal of the American Dream. And if we are going
to avoid this, it is very, very important that we follow through on the
recommendations of the report on Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
Now, last week we did. We got a good start. Last week, we passed the
K-12 improvements in math and science education, as well as investments
in our education system in other regards. This week, we are going to
take another step forward, and that is follow the recommendations of
increasing our commitment to basic research.
Tonight, we are going to pass the National Science Foundation
authorization which will double the National Science Foundation.
Tomorrow, we are going to double the NEST budget.
Let me on behalf of my daughter, I want to thank Dr. Baird, I want to
thank Dr. Ehlers and our excellent staff for working together in a
bipartisan way. I want to remind everyone that this is a bill that came
out of the Science and Technology Committee unanimously because it is a
good bill, it was worked on together in a bipartisan, Democrats,
Republicans, with a very good staff. Again, I thank you for the great
work you did, and my daughter thanks you even more.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. I appreciate the kind words
offered by Mr. Baird and Mr. Gordon, and frankly, producing this bill
was a lovefest. I am very impressed with the work they did on it. I am
very appreciative of the very hard work that they did in putting
together a bill, including direct interaction with members of NSF,
talking to scientists who were familiar with the NSF, scientists who
had received funds from NSF, and out of all that, we have written a
bill that I think is a very good one.
{time} 1945
My colleagues and I on the Science and Technology Committee have
introduced a strong reauthorization bill for the National Science
Foundation. It is a straightforward 3-year bill which provides
authorization for the various research and education activities of the
National Science Foundation.
I am pleased that this bill establishes a pathway to double the total
budget of the Foundation. In 2002, Congress wholeheartedly supported a
5-year doubling path for the Foundation, and I strongly supported that
and was very pleased to vote for it.
Unfortunately, appropriations have fallen far short of that target.
Last year I had consultations with the President, and partly as a
result of those consultations, the President introduced a plan known as
the American Competitiveness Initiative that sought to double the
research budgets of the National Science Foundation, National Institute
of Standards and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of
Science over the next 10 years. In other words, twice as slow as the
previous decision of the Congress.
I would prefer the faster increase, but I recognize realities and the
tough financial conditions we have. So I am pleased to sign on with
doubling over 10 years.
The National Science Foundation was included in the ACI because it
conducts world-class research in areas that support new, innovative
technologies, which, in turn, lead to advances in telecommunications,
homeland security, alternative energy and other areas of great
importance to our Nation.
I have the utmost confidence that the National Science Foundation
will use the authorized funds in the most prudent manner, as NSF
consistently earns the highest possible score in the annual Office of
Management and Budget ratings of financial and budget performance.
The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007 will
support the education and training of more than 225,000 scientists,
engineers, teachers and students. In addition to discipline-specific
research, NSF activities include cross-cutting initiatives on
nanotechnology, networking and information technology, climate science
change and the International Polar Year.
It also supports the construction of major research facilities that
are shared within and across many disciplines of the scientific
community.
[[Page H4383]]
NSF research and activities touch every State of this Nation and
provide tremendous support at all levels of education.
NSF is a unique agency because it is the only agency with a primary
mission of supporting fundamental scientific research, as well as
engineering research. Unlike some of our other science agencies, NSF is
not a mission agency in the sense that it has an established program to
target. In fact, it solves many problems through the process of
fundamental research, often in a serendipitous manner.
As Nobel Prize winner Theodore Svedberg remarked, as he accepted his
reward in 1926, ``A glance at the history of science and technics shows
that it is precisely the search for truth without any preconceived
ideas, research for the sake of knowledge alone, that in the long run
has most benefited humanity. The investigations which have seemingly
been the most purely abstract have often formed the foundation of the
most important changes or improvements in the conditions of human
life.''
It is challenging in this day and age to support this type of
research. The U.S. has many pressing needs that require solutions on
very short time lines, particularly related to national security and
the health of our aging population. For this reason and others, we have
seen companies decrease their investments in long-term research
projects. Nevertheless, economists have confirmed the accuracy of Dr.
Svedberg's statement that fundamental research has, indeed, paid the
highest dividends to humanity over the years.
Estimated return on investment in research and development is
difficult to calculate, but generally ranges from 20 to 400 percent.
That is an incredible payback. Furthermore, past investments in NSF
have contributed greatly to major technological advances in areas and
industries that are critical for U.S. economic growth such as
biomedical applications.
The former Director of the National Institutes of Health, Harold
Varmus, is well-known for his following statement: ``Medical advances
may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the
lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an
engineer.''
Continued support for fundamental research lays the groundwork for
innovations in other disciplines that directly impact the lives of
every American. We are here today to authorize a continued investment
in this type of NSF groundbreaking work.
I thank Chairman Baird and his dedicated staff for their work on
preparing this bill in a bipartisan manner, and encourage my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. At this point I understand Mr. Kirk would like to engage
in a colloquy. Would Mr. Ehlers care to yield some time to him for
that?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to Mr. Kirk for a colloquy.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman, one of the only working scientists
serving in the Congress.
I had intended to offer an amendment to this legislation with regard
to the mercury issue, but working with the committee, I understand the
better place I am talking about is in the EPA Office of Science.
So I would like to say that I strongly support investment in
scientific and mathematical research, but I would like to engage in a
colloquy with the chairman, especially to emphasize how essential it is
for comprehensive and frequent research on mercury levels in one of our
Nation's most treasured ecosystems, the Great Lakes.
Mercury pollution is now a serious problem for my district in
northern Illinois, as well as across the Nation. The Great Lakes are
particularly vulnerable to exposure, as 36 percent of mercury emissions
are generated in the Great Lakes region.
In fact, there are currently 18 fish advisories for mercury
contamination in the region, yet the Great Lakes are a source of food
and especially drinking water for over 40 million Americans. This
undoubtedly contributes to the recent estimate that the U.S. Government
has seen more than 300,000 American babies born each year with a risk
of mercury poisoning.
It's critical that we begin to take an annual inventory of mercury
levels in the Great Lakes to understand the sources of this pollution
and especially the trend to see whether this danger is growing. With
this information the Congress would be able to provide more effective
and comprehensive regulation of mercury pollution and mitigation of its
harmful effects.
I would like to thank Chairman Baird for agreeing to engage in this
colloquy on this important matter, and I appreciate all his support in
working to ensure that we have the most comprehensive, scientific,
accurate and timely information on mercury contamination. I look
forward to working with the chairman on this issue.
Mr. BAIRD. I very much thank the gentleman for working so closely
with us and with Ranking Member Ehlers on this. I absolutely agree with
the gentleman from Illinois on the importance of mercury in the Great
Lakes, and I applaud him for raising this issue. It is crucial that we
continue to gather the necessary data in order to protect current and
future generations in the environment from dangerous mercury exposure.
I am aware and appreciate the gentleman understands that the National
Science Foundation does not generally engage in this type of research,
and, as indicated, it is really more the appropriate domain of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Accordingly, I will be happy to work with the gentleman from
Illinois, and I look forward to the committee providing direction to
the U.S. EPA in a letter to that effect.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman for that. I look forward to seeing the
committee's letter, because I think it will move the ball significantly
to help this Congress redress a growing danger.
To the gentleman from Michigan, a leader on Great Lakes protection,
and removing environmental contamination, I thank him for working on
this issue.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for those comments. We will be
happy to continue working with him.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in
order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from California (Ms.
Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity
to talk about the importance of research into the environmental,
cultural and health impacts of introducing new genetically modified
plants and animals into our agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture
systems.
The National Science Foundation, which supports a broad range of
basic research in the biological sciences, is well equipped to perform
this basic research that will help us develop more sustainable
approaches to pest management, understand and manage unique
environmental and health risks, and even discover ways in which
modified plants could provide environmental benefits.
Mr. Chairman, this is critical research that the National Academy of
Sciences has called for in a recent report. While I am not offering an
amendment to this bill before us today, I do ask for your help in
raising the profile of this very important issue as you proceed with
the bill.
Mr. BAIRD. I would like to thank the gentlelady for bringing this
issue to our attention. It is indeed an important area of research for
our Federal Government, and for NSF in particular. I appreciate and
respect very much your continued interest and leadership on this. We
would be happy to work with you as we proceed towards conference about
raising the profile of this issue and the importance of this research.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with
you.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, to close, let me just once again express my
deep gratitude and tremendous respect to Dr. Ehlers for his leadership,
not only now as ranking member, but over the years he has served on
this committee. Quite literally there has been no more tireless and
effective advocate for this legislation and for science in general than
Dr. Ehlers. We all respect and admire that and appreciate that greatly.
[[Page H4384]]
I also want to express my appreciation to Chairman Gordon, whom I
acknowledged earlier and thanked for his leadership, Ranking Member
Hall. I want to express a special gratitude to my own staff member,
Hilary Cain, for her leadership on this and great counsel; as well as
the committee staff, Jim Wilson and Dahlia Sokolov for their tireless
efforts. They have spent hours and hours on this. We are grateful.
With that, as Dr. Ehlers and others have so eloquently said, this is
a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill. It has the endorsement of a long
list of sponsors, who I did not enumerate here in the interests of
time, but virtually every major scientific organization as well as
leaders in industry and in academia have endorsed this bill strongly.
It is a bill that this committee and this body should pass. I urge its
passage.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
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.
No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed
in the designated place in the Congressional Record and pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee
and shall be considered read.
Without objection, each section of the amendment shall be considered
as read.
There was no objection.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
H.R. 1867
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 ``National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2007''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science
Board established under section 2 of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Foundation.
(3) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has
the meaning given that term by section 9101(18) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801(18)).
(4) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National
Science Foundation.
(5) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given
such term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(6) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has
the meaning given that term by section 9101(38) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801(38)).
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
The Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Fiscal Year 2008.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Foundation $6,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $5,080,000,000 shall be made available for research and
related activities, of which $115,000,000 shall be made
available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
(B) $873,000,000 shall be made available for education and
human resources, of which--
(i) $94,000,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science
Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 1862n);
(ii) $70,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program established under section 10 of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
(iii) $44,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program
established under section 8(7) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
and
(iv) $51,620,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological
Education program established by section 3(a) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-476);
(C) $245,000,000 shall be made available for major research
equipment and facilities construction;
(D) $285,600,000 shall be made available for agency
operations and award management;
(E) $4,050,000 shall be made available for the Office of
the National Science Board; and
(F) $12,350,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
(b) Fiscal Year 2009.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Foundation $6,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $5,457,400,000 shall be made available for research and
related activities, of which $123,100,000 shall be made
available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
(B) $934,000,000 shall be made available for education and
human resources, of which--
(i) $100,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science
Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 1862n);
(ii) $101,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program established under section 10 of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
(iii) $55,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program
established under section 8(7) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
and
(iv) $55,200,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological
Education program as established by section 3(a) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-476);
(C) $262,000,000 shall be made available for major research
equipment and facilities construction;
(D) $309,760,000 shall be made available for agency
operations and award management;
(E) $4,120,000 shall be made available for the Office of
the National Science Board; and
(F) $12,720,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
(c) Fiscal Year 2010.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Foundation $7,493,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under
paragraph (1)--
(A) $5,863,200,000 shall be made available for research and
related activities, of which $131,700,000 shall be made
available for the Major Research Instrumentation program;
(B) $1,003,000,000 shall be made available for education
and human resources, of which--
(i) $107,600,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science
Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 1862n);
(ii) $133,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship
Program established under section 10 of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
(iii) $60,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program
established under section 8(7) of the National Science
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
and
(iv) $59,100,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological
Education program as established by section 3(a) of the
Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-476);
(C) $280,000,000 shall be made available for major research
equipment and facilities construction;
(D) $329,450,000 shall be made available for agency
operations and award management;
(E) $4,250,000 shall be made available for the Office of
the National Science Board; and
(F) $13,100,000 shall be made available for the Office of
Inspector General.
(d) Major Research Instrumentation.--
(1) Award amount.--The minimum amount of an award under the
Major Research Instrumentation program shall be $100,000. The
maximum amount of an award under the program shall be
$4,000,000, except if the total amount appropriated for the
program for a fiscal year exceeds $125,000,000, in which case
the maximum amount of an award shall be $6,000,000.
(2) Use of funds.--In addition to the acquisition of
instrumentation and equipment, funds made available by awards
under the Major Research Instrumentation program may be used
to support the operations and maintenance of such
instrumentation and equipment.
(3) Cost sharing.--
(A) In general.--An institution of higher education
receiving an award shall provide at least 30 percent of the
cost from private or non-Federal sources.
(B) Exceptions.--Institutions of higher education that are
not Ph.D.-granting institutions are exempt from the cost
sharing requirement in subparagraph (A), and the Director may
reduce or waive the cost sharing requirement for--
(i) institutions--
(I) which are not ranked among the top 100 institutions
receiving Federal research and development funding, as
documented by the statistical data published by the
Foundation; and
(II) for which the proposed project will make a substantial
improvement in the institution's capabilities to conduct
leading edge research, to provide research experiences for
undergraduate students using leading edge facilities, and to
broaden the participation in science and engineering research
by individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science
and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or
1885b); and
(ii) consortia of institutions of higher education that
include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D-granting
institution.
(e) Undergraduate Education Programs.--The Director shall
continue to carry out programs in support of undergraduate
education, including those authorized in section 17 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 1862n-6). Funding for these programs shall increase in
proportion to the increase in the total amount appropriated
to the Foundation in any year for which appropriations are
authorized by this Act.
(f) Limit on Proposals.--
(1) Policy.--For programs that require as part of the
selection process for awards the submission of preproposals
and that also limit the
[[Page H4385]]
number of preproposals that may be submitted by an
institution, the Director shall allow the subsequent
submission of a full proposal based on each preproposal that
is determined to have merit following the Foundation's merit
review process.
(2) Review and assessment of policies.--The Board shall
review and assess the effects on institutions of higher
education of the policies of the Foundation regarding the
imposition of limitations on the number of proposals that may
be submitted by a single institution for programs supported
by the Foundation. The Board shall determine whether current
policies are well justified and appropriate for the types of
programs that limit the number of proposal submissions. Not
later that 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Board shall summarize its findings and any
recommendations regarding changes to the current policy on
the restriction of proposal submissions in a report to the
Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
(g) Research Experiences for Undergraduates.--The Director
shall increase funding for the Research Experiences for
Undergraduates program in proportion to the increase in the
total amount appropriated to the Foundation for research and
related activities in any year for which appropriations are
authorized by this Act.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Honda
Mr. HONDA. 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. Honda:
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(h) Global Warming Education.--
(1) Informal education.--As part of Informal Science
Education activities, the Director shall support activities
to create informal educational materials, exhibits, and
multimedia presentations relevant to global warming, climate
science, and greenhouse gas reduction strategies.
(2) K-12 instructional materials.--As part of Discovery
Research K-12 activities, the Director shall support the
development of K-12 educational materials relevant to global
warming, climate science, and greenhouse gas reduction
strategies.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Gordon and
Chairman Baird for the support of my amendment, and the Science
Committee staff for their assistance in putting this amendment
together.
I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their
excellent work on the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2007. I strongly support the work of the National Science Foundation,
and as a cosponsor of this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support
this passage.
Some years ago, I was a high school science teacher, and I clearly
remember my students stopping me during one of my favorite lessons to
ask the timeless question, why do I need to know this? Science is
difficult. Global warming is hard to understand also. Some people are
asking, why do I need to know this? Hundreds of years ago, Galileo and
Sir Isaac Newton made remarkable discoveries about gravity and the
behavior of falling objects, but to this day, most people couldn't
explain the law of gravity or what determines the speed of a falling
object if they had to. Most of the time people can go on with their
lives, their everyday lives, without understanding scientific concepts,
suffering no ill effects. You don't need to understand gravity to keep
from falling. You don't need to understand your lungs in order to
breathe. But global warming presents a new kind of a problem.
{time} 2000
The understanding of global warming will play a significant role in
our ability to actually address the problem. And, we don't have much
time. Global warming will cause significant impacts, including shifting
weather patterns, drought, rising sea levels, and disrupted wildlife
migration patterns.
Nearly every point on the globe is getting warmer, and the debate is
no longer if, but when, these changes will occur.
These threats are the most natural consequences of a worldwide
overreliance on fossil fuels and destructive, wasteful use of
resources. We have lived on the earth, but we have not yet learned to
live with the earth.
But we can't just give in to the fear and the sense of helplessness.
We can turn the tide of global warming if we have the knowledge. That
is why we need to know this.
My amendment will allow the National Science Foundation to support
the creation of K-12 science curriculum, informal education materials,
exhibits, and multi-media relevant to global warming, climate science,
and greenhouse reduction strategies.
The education provided by this amendment will help people of all ages
and backgrounds to make choices in their daily lives and in their
communities to stop global warming. They will learn about the complex
interrelationships between natural cycles and human activity. They will
understand how their own actions and their own informed choices can
heal the earth. This amendment by itself is, however, not the answer. A
comprehensive and sustainable energy and environmental policy will
require the expanded use of green energy such as solar, wind, and
geothermal. We will also need to continue to find ways to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions from transportation, from industry, and energy
production. We need to increase the efficiency of energy use and
transmissions, especially in buildings. We need to change much more
than just our light bulbs. But people need to know why we need these
things, and this amendment provides for that.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr.
Honda
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sullivan to the amendment offered
by Mr. Honda:
At the end of paragraph (1), insert the following: ``Such
materials, exhibits, and multimedia presentations shall
reflect the diversity of scientific opinion, including the
diversity of opinion regarding the impact of human activities
on climate change, and shall also reflect the impact of
greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing nations,
United States energy security, United States energy costs,
the global and United States economy, low income and middle
class individuals, and those on fixed incomes.''.
At the end of paragraph (2), insert the following: ``Such
materials, exhibits, and multimedia presentations shall
reflect the diversity of scientific opinion, including the
diversity of opinion regarding the impact of human activities
on climate change, and shall also reflect the impact of
greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing nations,
United States energy security, United States energy costs,
the global and United States economy, low income and middle
class individuals, and those on fixed incomes.''.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this
particular amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Honda is right on track
with this amendment. However, I believe my amendment will strengthen
his amendment.
Simply, my amendment ensures that children are educated on all
aspects of global climate change, from global warming, climate science,
and greenhouse gas reduction, to human activities on climate change,
and the impact of greenhouse gas reduction strategies on developing
nations, U.S. energy security, U.S. energy costs, and the global and
U.S. economies.
The decisions we make today in this Congress will not only affect our
children but will affect many generations to come. As the father of
four children, I feel it is imperative that they know all the
viewpoints on an issue so that they can make an educated decision. It
is important that they obtain knowledge through schools and their
parents to make informed decisions, especially when those decisions
will affect the environment and the economy.
Our children are our country's future. What a bright future they have
ahead of them. Every time I look at my four children, I think of the
tough choices they will have to make on the road ahead, and hope that
my wife and I have taught them to make the best decisions possible. I
know that, between the education they receive at home and the education
they receive at school, they will be well equipped to face the
important choices later on in life.
It is important to me that the science education they receive in
school reflect the diversity of scientific viewpoints on this very
important issue. This is something my friends on the other side of the
aisle have long advocated for and something my amendment achieves.
[[Page H4386]]
With 36.4 million elementary school-aged children and 16.8 million
high school-aged children in our country, it is obvious that the
science education they get today will dramatically affect their future
tomorrow.
Thanks to advanced technologies, today's science classes are much
more advanced than the ones I took when I was in school. Yet there are
so many viewpoints out there on scientific subjects, especially climate
change, it is sometimes difficult to present all views fairly to them.
However, I feel that this is important, especially on an issue as
sensitive and politically charged as global climate change.
Our children are our future, and we owe it to them to provide them
with the best most balanced education possible. My amendment will help
achieve that by presenting all viewpoints to students in kindergarten
through 12th grade. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
long called for all scientific positions to be heard, and my amendment
achieves this. I encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment
and ensure that all students receive fair and balanced scientific
education.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. BAIRD. I continue to reserve.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sense of what the gentleman
is raising with his second order amendment. Having taught science
myself, I believe it is absolutely important to share different sides
of it. My concern is I think you are sort of micromanaging the
education process, however, positive your intent may be. And the
gentleman himself just acknowledged that students from K-12 need to
have balanced information.
I question whether we really want to mandate that a kindergarten
teacher educate her or his students on the impact of greenhouse gases
on U.S. energy security, global developing nations, et cetera.
I think it is a fair point and absolutely an important point that we
present different sides of this issue, and I applaud the gentleman for
raising that.
I would, however, note that the International Panel on Climate
Change, which we have had two hearings of in this committee, has
clearly unanimously agreed on some general principles: That the climate
temperature is increasing; that humans are significantly responsible
for at least a substantial portion of that increase; and, that it will
have very important consequences for the well-being of the world.
So one of the problems I have is the gentleman's amendment would seem
to suggest that there is an equal weight of evidence against that
perspective as there is in favor of it. And I don't recall if the
gentleman attended those two hearings, but if he did, I think it was
pretty clear that scientists from around the world do not consider that
there is an equal weight among those who might refute the evidence of
global warming and the human causes thereof.
It is absolutely legitimate that we look at the pros and cons of the
various strategies to remedy that; but to micromanage it in this way,
which is not what the gentleman from California's initial amendment
did, I think is a mistake. I certainly wouldn't want a kindergarten
teacher who is trying to educate his or her students about the
potential problems of global warming to say, ``Oh, my goodness. I don't
have in my curriculum for these 5-year-olds a lesson on the impact of
greenhouse gas on developing nations or United States energy
security.'' I think a kindergarten teacher might be much more likely to
say, ``Hey, kids the world is getting hotter. You and I and your folks
can have a role in trying to reduce that problem, and it is in all of
our best interests to do so.''
I would hate to see a kindergarten teacher micromanaged like this,
however well-intentioned the gentleman's amendment is. And I still
reserve the point of order, but if we don't succeed in that, I
certainly urge opposition to this at this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, at this point I will withdraw the point of
order, but I would urge opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be postponed.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
In section 3(a)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as
provided in paragraph (3), there''.
At the end of section 3(a), insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this
subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated
for the Foundation for fiscal year 2007 if--
(A) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2008 is
less than $17,309,400,000;
(B) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for
fiscal year 2008 is less than $3,923,800,000; or
(C) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for
fiscal year 2008 is less than $6,791,700,000.
In section 3(b)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as
provided in paragraph (3), there''.
At the end of section 3(b), insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this
subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated
for the Foundation for fiscal year 2008 if--
(A) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009 is
less than $17,614,200,000;
(B) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for
fiscal year 2009 is less than $4,312,800,000; or
(C) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for
fiscal year 2009 is less than $6,710,300,000.
In section 3(c)(1), strike ``There'' and insert ``Except as
provided in paragraph (3), there''.
At the end of section 3(c), insert the following new
paragraph:
(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
the total amount authorized to be appropriated under this
subsection shall not exceed the amount actually appropriated
for the Foundation for fiscal year 2009 if--
(A) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2010 is
less than $18,026,300,000;
(B) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration Systems for
fiscal year 2010 is less than $4,757,800,000; or
(C) the total amount appropriated for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Operations for
fiscal year 2010 is less than $6,625,700,000.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of
this piece of legislation, and make very clear that I am a strong
supporter of the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I have an
undergraduate degree in a science field, biochemistry. I did basic
science research as an undergraduate, and I fully recognize the need
for this country to make a significant increase in our investment in
basic science research as the kind of research that comes through the
National Science Foundation.
My concern before the committee today is that the National Science
Foundation is in the same budget category as NASA; and already, the new
majority this year has chosen to significantly cut funding to NASA.
[[Page H4387]]
Specifically, over one-half billion dollars was reduced out of the
NASA budget to fund the replacement for the space shuttle. The
replacement for the space shuttle is badly needed. Our shuttle fleet is
aging, and indeed we are looking at a scenario in the early part of the
next decade where we will not have the capability of putting men and
women into space. And we, the United States of America, the greatest
country in the world, will be relying on the Russians to put our
astronauts into space for many, many years. And, that the further
reductions in NASA that will put forward by the new majority have the
potential to lengthen that period even further, and possibly perhaps
permanently cripple our manned space flight program.
So my amendment is very simple and very straightforward. Basically
what it says is that we are not going to cut NASA for the purpose of
plussing up the National Science Foundation. I believe we need to fund
both of these programs, and that is my goal and that is the purpose of
my amendment.
I think one of the things that the authors of this bill keep talking
about, which is very revealing and I think very important to the debate
we are having right now, they talk about the importance of training
kids in math and science, and that we are falling behind in our
international competitiveness. But I can tell you, when I talk to
teachers all across the country about what motivates our young people
to study math and science, it is not the level of grants that are
coming out of the National Science Foundation, it is actually our space
program and an enthusiasm for the possibility or the chance that they
might some day be able to participate in the space program, the manned
space flight program in particular that motivates our kids.
So I think these two programs are really linked at the hip, and I
think it is important that we do not fund one at the expense of the
other. The current language in this bill has the potential to create
that climate, and so I think it is critically important that the point
of order be waived and that my amendment move forward and be approved
by this body.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order,
but I would like to move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). The point of order is reserved.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate and admire and
respect the gentleman from Florida, and I understand full well where he
is coming from. He has been a passionate supporter of our manned space
program, and I share some of his concerns about the impact on that
budget. I do think, however, that his offsets are wrong, and that is
why I reserved the point of order which in just a moment I will press.
{time} 2015
There are many, many places in the Federal budget where we could find
possible money to support the gentleman's aims, many within, for
example, the Commerce appropriations bill.
It is possible for the gentleman to adjust revenue impacts of tax
cuts. It would be possible for the gentleman to seek offsets or matches
through funding for the war in Iraq, which is burning about $2.5
billion per week from our economy.
So if the gentleman is interested, as I know he is, in supporting
space flight and continued investment in that, I would suggest that
more appropriate offsets are available elsewhere in the Federal budget.
And I would also say it would be just terribly unfortunate to hold
the Science Foundation budget, which this bill authorizes, hostage.
You've got the wrong hostage. There are other places where lots more
money is being reduced from the revenue stream or being expended on
things that may not be in the best long-term national interest of this
country. And for that reason, and for the fact that I actually consider
the amendment nongermane, I will have to oppose it.
Point of Order
Mr. BAIRD. At this point, if it's appropriate to do so, I would wish
to press the point of order with the Chair, if that's appropriate
procedure at this point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). Will the gentleman state his point
of order?
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chair, I have reserved a point of order. The amendment
offered by the gentleman is not germane to the bill it is amending and,
therefore, violates clause 7 of rule XVI.
The underlying section of the bill being amended is specific to the
National Science Foundation, while the amendment introduces another
unrelated agency, NASA, so the subject matter of the amendment is
different than the underlying bill.
In addition, the amendment places an unrelated contingency on the
authorization of NSF funds. On this point I would cite Deschler's
Precedents, Chapter 28, 31.22.
Lastly, the purpose of the underlying section of the bill is to
authorize appropriations for NSF, while the amendment seeks to affect
the appropriations for NASA, so the fundamental purpose of the
amendment is different from the underlying provision, and the scope of
the underlying provision is significantly enlarged, and, therefore, I
would urge that the amendment be ruled out of order.
The Acting Chairman. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just simply point out to my friends on the
other side that this amendment was duly and appropriately presented to
the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has all of the availability of
the parliamentarians and the appropriate expertise to be able to
determine whether or not the amendment should be made in order. They
determined, in their wisdom, that it should be made in order. And
therefore, I would hope that the Chair would rule that, in fact, this
amendment is appropriate, and that it addresses an issue that is of
importance to the gentleman from Florida and importance to this Nation;
and I would hope that we'd move forward with the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member who wishes to be
recognized on the point of order?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is inappropriate to exercise a point
of order on this amendment. It's quite clear that the NASA budget and
the National Science Foundation are within the same budget category,
function 250, and that there's a strong relationship between increasing
the National Science Foundation that it can have a negative impact on
NASA.
Furthermore, as my friend from Georgia just indicated, we have moved
several bills through this body. Just today we did one where multiple
points of order were waived. And the bottom line here, in my opinion,
is NASA a priority for the new majority in this Congress. I don't
believe it is. I don't believe it's a sufficient enough priority, and I
ask that the point of order not be sustained.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order, seeing no other Members who wish to be recognized.
The gentleman from Washington makes a point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is not germane. The
test of germaneness is the relationship of the amendment to the pending
portion of the bill, section 3.
Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall
be admitted under color of amendment. One of the central tenets of the
germaneness rule is that an amendment may not condition the
effectiveness of legislation pending an unrelated condition. Examples
of this principle may be found in the Deschler-Brown Precedents,
chapter 28, section 30.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida proposes a
condition on the level of authorizations contained in section 3. The
condition relates to funding levels for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The activities of that separate entity are not
related to an authorization for the National Science Foundation. As
such, the amendment proposes an unrelated condition.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida is, therefore,
not germane. The point of order is sustained.
[[Page H4388]]
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Would it have been possible for the Rules
Committee to propose a rule to the House to waive the rule under which
the Chair has just ruled this amendment out of order?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary
inquiry. The gentleman's question is hypothetical.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the Rules
Committee has the authority to waive the rules under which this House
operates so that certain amendments may be brought to the floor?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole can
only comment on the rule in operation for this bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
At the end of section 3, insert the following new
subsection:
(h) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under this
section may be used for research related to--
(1) archives of Andean Knotted-String Records;
(2) the accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of
others' emotions;
(3) bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains;
(4) team versus individual play;
(5) sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal;
(6) social relationships and reproductive strategies of
Phayre's Leaf Monkeys; and
(7) cognitive model of superstitious belief.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, we have a budget problem
here in Washington, the Federal Government. The budget that was
recently passed off of this floor has a deficit in it, continues that
deficit for the next 4 years. It has a tax increase in it, the largest
tax increase in American history, going forward. And it also continues
to raid the Social Security funds, take the Social Security surplus
that we have and spend it on things that are unrelated to Social
Security. So we have a budget crisis going on.
What this amendment does is it says that there are certain things
upon which we should not be spending money through this bill during
this time of budget deficits, stealing Social Security funds, and
increasing taxes.
What this amendment does, it says there's just a couple of things
that we should not be increasing the deficit by spending money on, and
I quote, ``The Archives of Andean Knotted-String Records,'' or to study
``The Accuracy in Cross-Cultural Understanding of Others' Emotions.''
This amendment also says that we don't want to increase spending and,
therefore, increase taxes in order to pay for a study of ``Bison
Hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains'' or ``Team Versus
Individual Play'' or ``The Sexual Politics of Waste in Dakar.''
And it also says that we don't want to increase spending and spend
any of this money in this authorization and, thereby, be continuing to
raid the Social Security Trust Funds in order to study ``The Social
Relationships and Reproductive Strategies of Phayre's Leaf Monkeys'' or
``The Cognitive Model of Superstitious Belief.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a process of peer
review from which these studies come in the National Science
Foundation, and that's all well and good. But our job here is we are
the elected representatives and stewards of the taxpayers' money, not
the academics in the National Science Foundation, and it is our
decision whether or not we wish to spend taxpayers' funds on studies of
the social relationships and reproductive strategies of Phayre's leaf
monkeys or on bison hunting on the late prehistoric Great Plains. I
think we should not do that.
I am sure that some believe that these are very fine academic
studies. That's excellent. Within the realms of academic halls, they
may think a number of things are fine academic studies. That's not the
question.
The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of
requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits,
proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds? I think the
answer is a resounding no. I think the answer should be a resounding
no, which means that I would hope that the vote on this amendment would
be an equally resounding yes.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the gentleman's comments about the budget deficit, and I
would first suggest that the deficit rose to historic levels under the
leadership of the former majority party, largest deficits in the
history of this country, indeed, were accrued with President Bush and
the former majority.
Looking to these studies, some of which are $10,000, now absolutely
we must make sure that we spend all the taxpayer dollars wisely. But
let me just share with you what the American Association for
Advancement of Science, probably the most prestigious scientific body
in this country, has said. Prohibiting specific grants sets a dangerous
precedent for scientific research that has progressed and advanced for
decades through freedom of inquiry into a broad spectrum of subjects.
While congressional oversight of Federal programs is, of course,
important, second-guessing peer review in this way could compromise the
fabric of our public research enterprise one thread at a time.
Therefore, we urge you to oppose such amendments.
Similar sentiments have been voiced by the Association of American
Universities.
And I would be tempted to ask the gentleman from California, except
he's already stated his piece, why he would be opposing research that
has been supported by the United States Army Research Institute; that
is seen as critical to the security of our troops serving in Iraq.
Now, my wager is the gentleman's saying to himself right now, I have
no idea what the chairman is speaking about here. And that's the
problem. When you look at a cursory examination of the title, or an
abstract, you don't have an idea. That's why we have peer review.
Which particular study am I talking about? I'm talking about the
Study of the Accuracy of Cross Cultural Understanding of Others'
Emotions. What we are talking about here is if you're going to be
dealing with people from another culture, and you misread their
expression of emotions, it can cost you your life, your buddies their
life, or the innocent civilians their lives. The U.S. Army Research
Institute believes this is important, and they support the basic
elements of this kind of study.
I also am not sure, the gentleman seems to suggest, it seems, that we
here in the Congress, with a cursory evaluation of the abstracts from
studies, should insert ourselves in the peer-review process. I wonder
if the gentleman had looked at chemistry research or physics research
in the same way, and do we really want to spend this body's time, and
do you, sir, or you, sir, have the expertise to evaluate these studies?
That's why we have a peer-review process. That's why we have a National
Science Foundation. It is why we have a Science Foundation Board to
direct us.
I absolutely agree that if taxpayer dollars are going to be spent on
research, it is incumbent upon the scientist to do the research well,
ethically, responsibly, and that it be relevant. But I do not believe
it is the place of either side of this aisle to single out particular
studies, as has been done in this case, and presume that with a 5-
minute examination we know better than peer reviewers who have the
degrees in the relevant fields and have spent years studying them and
have evaluated them. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and I would
urge strongly opposition to this amendment and a similar one which will
emerge shortly for the sake of our soldiers.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H4389]]
These are always very difficult questions, and I have learned long
ago never to judge the research by the title of the proposal. These are
complex issues, and I don't know if the gentleman was here earlier when
I spoke about the rate of return on research at the National Science
Foundation. The best estimate is that the rate of return is a minimum
of 20 percent and a maximum 400 percent on individual research
projects.
{time} 2030
Now, I challenge anyone in this Chamber to find investments that will
year after year give you that rate of return on the investment.
Another point I would like to make is, as I said, you can't always
judge the full proposal by the title. This was evident a few years ago
when we went through exactly the same charade when discussing the
National Science Foundation budget. Some of my colleagues came down to
the floor to amend the NSF appropriations bill, and one offered an
amendment to remove grants for the study of ATM. This person gave a
magnificent speech why we should not spend money at the National
Science Foundation or the Department of Energy to study ATM. His
argument was, let the banking industry do the research on ATMs. What he
didn't know is that the proposal was not on automatic teller machines
but the proposal was on studying asynchronous transfer modes, which
involves the way computers talk to each other. This research led to a
substantial change in the speed at which computers were able to talk to
each other. This is a good example of why it is dangerous to just look
at titles and make a judgment.
I would also pick up on the comment of Mr. Baird about cultural
studies. I think one of the basic problems in Iraq, and I have told
this to people in the White House, is that there were not enough people
in the White House, perhaps even in the State Department, who
understood the culture of the countries we were dealing with, and we
failed to realize what would happen once we moved into that country. A
good NSF-funded study beforehand would have been invaluable in
determining what would happen.
Another example: a few years ago there was a grant on game theory.
Once again, one of our colleagues rushed to the floor and said we have
to eliminate funding for that. In fact, game theory is extremely useful
in calculating the operation of nuclear reactors.
So I urge defeat of this amendment. It is very easy to sit on the
House floor and pontificate about these issues. But if we are going to
cut the budget, there are much more fertile fields in which to cut. Why
would we cut the one agency that gives us a guaranteed rate of return
on our investment when there are many other areas we can cut where we
are getting little or no payback at all?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Michigan, and I
appreciate the comments of my fellow colleague from Washington. And I
have been, as a physician, a strong supporter of the National Science
Foundation. I believe strongly that, in fact, they need more money, not
less. I would argue that we need to prioritize appropriately in our
Federal budget and provide much greater resources in the National
Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health and the CDC
and others that ultimately work and derive huge benefit to our entire
society and, in fact, to the world.
But I commend my good friend from California for bringing this
amendment forward because, although I may not have pulled out a couple
of the items that he notes, for the life of me, I have a difficult time
understanding and appreciating why on earth it would make any sense,
and I would ask my good friend from Washington can you fathom how
studying bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains might have
some effect on contemporary society that would make a difference with
the compelling argument that you made regarding the study of cross-
cultural emotions?
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank very much the gentleman for
yielding. And I would just caution I wouldn't state ``for the life of
me'' on something that I hadn't studied very well no matter how obvious
it may look.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would be happy to reclaim my time or I would
be happy to have you answer the question, one or the other.
Mr. BAIRD. I could answer the question. I am just giving you the
caveat about staking your life on things.
Here is the issue: I don't think we want to say that we should never
study the history of things. It is the perspective of this gentleman
that we should not study history. And particularly, when you look at
bison, I am not an expert in this, but to pretend to be so would be a
mistake. To pretend to be so on your side or on my side would be a
mistake. The authors of this study have contended that biologists and
social scientists have tried to look at how humans make decisions to
maximize and minimize risks in different environmental conditions. As
you face different food supply systems, how do you deal with that? And
that is part of the point here. How did people who live on the plains
look at where they were going to harvest bison?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest candidly that it was a valiant attempt. It was truly a valiant
attempt, and I appreciate the attempt, to make a justification for
bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains. I would also
suggest that the sexual politics of waste in Dakar, Senegal is a
questionable study.
So I commend my good friend from California, and I would be happy to
yield to him.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia for yielding.
I appreciate the academic arguments, and I understand them. I am a
history buff myself. I love this stuff. I might actually love this
report, might enjoy reading it, might find it fascinating. That's not
the point. The point is do we want to spend taxpayer funds on this?
The United States taxpayer cannot fund every bit of academic research
for every university, for everything that every professor wants to do
across this country. We can't do that. The question before us is, are
these the sorts of things we do want to spend taxpayer money on? I
would suggest that they are not, and that is why I would suggest that
to vote against this amendment is to say that you believe that taxpayer
money should be spent on these specific items. That is the question
before us. Not whether it is interesting. I am a Civil War buff. I love
all kinds of interesting stuff about that, but I don't think the
taxpayer ought to pay for research into it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his comments, and I would concur. I think that there are
many things that are exciting and interesting to study, whether or not
they ought to be priorities at this point, and again, I would point to
the bison hunting on the Late Prehistoric Great Plains.
And if my good friend from Michigan would care to make a comment, I
would be pleased to yield.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to respond to the statement that we can't fund every
proposal that comes along, and that is absolutely true. The National
Science Foundation funds a small fraction of the proposals that come
through, and that is why we are beginning to slip as a Nation compared
to other nations, because we are simply not, as a Congress, providing
sufficient funds for the National Science Foundation. And I forget the
current figure, but I think it is in the neighborhood of 20 percent of
the grant applications are being funded; 80 percent are not being
funded. It's a tough business, and these are all peer-reviewed grants.
I cannot defend them individually without looking at them. As I say,
you can't judge a proposal or a grant by its cover.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman
from Washington.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding.
The challenge here, my friends, is you asked, I think, a question
that is
[[Page H4390]]
just improperly placed. Neither of us is trained in these areas. You
are challenging a fundamental tenet of how we do National Science
Foundation research. If you truly believe that the most cost-effective
use of this body's time, and that we are qualified to use our time in
that fashion, is to, one by one by one, review National Science
Foundation grants for our considered and qualified judgment of the
appropriateness of those grants, it seems to me that that is a bit of a
stretch. It seems to me that you are really making a political
statement.
If the political statement you want to make is we should spend the
taxpayers' dollars wisely, I, 100 percent, agree. You may not know it,
and probably don't, that we are working with the National Science
Foundation to establish a letter actually that scientists that receive
public grants would have to sign saying they understand the money came
from the taxpayers, they are committed to doing research that is well
designed and ethically high quality and that is relevant.
The problem for us, in this brief time we have here and lacking
expertise in the field, is it is really presumptuous of us on either
side to say I can either attack or defend. I would yield time to either
of you if you want to tell us what your personal qualifications are in
the area of expertise of any of these studies, and I will hold you to
it. What personal qualifications do you have in the broad area of this
study to speak to that study?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. We are qualified by virtue of the fact
that we have been elected by people in our districts to be stewards of
their money. As I said, this is not a question of whether or not these
things have academic merit within a field of academics. It is a
question of whether they are worthy of spending taxpayer money in that
area. I think they are not.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to
the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. BAIRD. Let me just share with the gentleman the dangerous path
you are on. There was a study some time back dealing with the sex life
of the screw worm, perhaps aptly noted. The sex life of the screw worm,
that would be pretty tempting to come to the floor and say, by God, why
are we spending taxpayer dollars studying the sex life of screw worms?
The reason being that that research saved the cattle industry millions
of dollars by eliminating a parasite that deposited eggs in the
placenta of newborn cows.
We don't have the knowledge. We are indeed stewards of the taxpayers'
money, which is why we created the National Science Foundation, why we
are very careful about designating how the peer-review process works,
and, quite frankly, why we shouldn't mess with that peer-review
process. If we truly want to be stewards of the taxpayers' money, which
I believe all of us want to be, then our best approach is to delegate
some of the decision making about where some of that money is spent to
those who best know the realm in which the research is spent. It is
precisely because I believe in the task of being a steward of the
taxpayer dollars that I oppose the general purpose of the amendment.
I understand you are trying to save money. I just don't think our
best way to do so is by micromanaging either this or most of the other
foundations.
And I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Just a couple of points and then I will yield.
I agree with the gentleman that in some respects, perhaps, this body
should not be engaged in micromanaging various aspects of the Federal
Government where we do not have expertise.
Earlier today, and in just the past week, we had a complete debate on
that subject of whether this body, all 535 Members, were in appropriate
position to micromanage the war, and I think some of us thought that we
were not in the best position but that we should have, just as you are
suggesting here, the trained professionals, the experts, the people on
the field who are engaged in this activity on a daily basis make those
decisions.
So I would agree with the gentleman there. And if we were to have
consistency, then we should not be engaged in that matter and we should
not be engaged in this case.
Let me make my second point and that is this: It is not incumbent
upon the gentleman from California to be the expert in these areas that
he is raising questions about. The underlying bill is not the gentleman
from California's bill. It is the majority party's bill. It is your
bill. You are coming to the floor making the case, or I should say the
other side of the aisle, as I am speaking to the Chair, making the case
that we should be spending all this money on these programs. So it is
incumbent upon the offerer of the underlying legislation to make the
case why we should be doing it and have the information why each one of
these is justified so that when either the gentleman from California or
Georgia raises the legitimate question, the same question that we are
going to get when we go back to our constituents and are asked why did
we vote on it, he should be making the justification for that.
With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his comments. And he is making a very apt point.
And I appreciate the comments of my good friend from Washington, who
said, and I think it got down correctly, ``We are neither trained nor
have expertise in this area.'' And you are absolutely right. But
consistency is a wonderful thing and inconsistency is a challenge.
{time} 2045
I would suggest that none of us are pure in this area, but my good
friend talks about we ought to delegate decisionmaking to authorities
who have expertise, and we should. As a physician, I am compelled and
have strong affinity for all of the advocacy groups that come to my
office, as I know they come to yours, and advocate on behalf of
specific diseases. Most recently this week, the folks who have suffered
under the scourge of breast cancer have come, and they are asking for
more resources. And I always suggest to them that it is appropriate for
those decisions to be made by individuals at the National Science
Foundation, at the CDC, at the National Institutes of Health. But, in
fact, what my good friend from Washington does all the time, in his
capacity in Congress, is to determine exactly what that line item ought
to be from an appropriations standpoint.
As a physician, the medical profession has suffered under the
decisions that have been made in this Chamber and in the Chamber on the
other side of this building because individuals thought they had
greater expertise in the area of health care. And as my good friend
from New Jersey clearly stated, and appropriately stated, that just
this week we've been dealing with folks who believe they have greater
expertise in the area of military competence and battles than our
generals on the ground.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend from Washington
is absolutely correct, that we ought to delegate in certain instances,
but we ought to also utilize the prerogative that we have and the
responsibility that we have as representatives in this body,
representatives of our districts, and make certain that we are good
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, I'll make a deal with you; I won't make any judgments
about medical research if you don't make judgments about NSF research.
The point of this really is that you cannot predict what will result
from the research; that is the idea behind basic research.
Years ago when I was a graduate student at Berkeley, we were spending
tremendous amounts of money to examine the behavior of elementary
particles, protons, neutrons, mesons, and so on. And no one, even in
the scientific community, could ever imagine any practical use for
that. But later on the results from doing that research led to the
development of a CAT scanner and
[[Page H4391]]
the MRI. Now, who would ever have thought that elementary particle
physics would lead to major findings in medicine which every doctor
relies upon today?
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to my good friend and colleague from Washington State (Mr.
Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. I thank the gentleman from California. Just a couple of
brief comments, and it's getting late, so we don't want to carry this
forever.
I would suggest that we all agree that consistency is a very
dangerous thing. If the gentleman talks about being consistent, I would
ask the gentleman why they chose not to micromanage the vast
expenditures of dollars, not even to have oversight hearings of the
vast expenditure of dollars on the war.
If you really want to save the taxpayer dollars, we are burning $2.5
billion a week in Iraq. This entire bill is $21 billion over 3 years.
We're talking about 3 full years to fund the basic scientific research
of this entire Nation, from mathematics to physics to chemistry to
social sciences. That's about 6 or 7 weeks or so of what you spend in
Iraq. And yet when it came to oversight of the expenditures in Iraq,
the majority, then-majority party was then just virtually silent. If
you really want to save the taxpayers' money, and I do, you could have
looked at that.
But let me suggest what the gentleman from New Jersey misrepresents.
And I asked earlier if any folks on the other side were qualified to
study this. The gentleman from New Jersey just doesn't seem to
understand how this legislation works. He completely misrepresented
when he said that it is incumbent upon the majority and the chairman
who is bringing this forward to defend these studies. Sir, this bill
does not authorize specific studies. That is not how the authorizing
language for the National Science Foundation works. It would be
ludicrous, and you should know that; and if you don't know it, you are
not qualified to speak to this. But it would be ludicrous to suggest
that when you authorize a foundation, that you are authorizing every
single specific study or that you know what all those specific studies
are. That's not how the National Science Foundation works. That's not
how we authorize it. That's not how this bill functions. And it's
indeed not how many, many of the authorizing bills function here. So to
suggest that, to bring forward a broad authorization bill that gives
responsibility to a foundation, one has to justify every single study
is to misrepresent how this legislation works. And that's the problem.
I think the gentleman either misunderstands or misrepresents how the
legislation works.
I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Andrews). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(h) Reduction.--Each of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated or made available under this section shall be
reduced by 1 percent.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from
Washington mentioned that he didn't think this last amendment that I
proposed was the correct way to save money, so perhaps this is the more
correct way; maybe this is something that he would find more to his
liking.
H.R. 1867, this bill before us, would increase spending for the
National Science Foundation by 9.9 percent in the first year, 7.4
percent in the second year and 7.3 percent in the third year, for an
increase of over 25 percent over a 3-year period. Now, Mr. Chairman,
that is an amount, and I, too, am someone who has sympathy for some of
the things that the National Science Foundation does. However, even
over the last few years where we have had very large percentage
increases in our revenues to the Federal Government, they haven't been
as large as this over the last 3-year period. In fact, in the next 3-
year period, any of the prognosticators, whether it be the Office of
Management and Budget or any of the other prognosticators, are not
estimating that we will have a 25 percent increase in revenue over the
next 3 years. So therefore, this proposes to increase spending at a
rate greater than revenue is projected to increase over the next 3
years.
This amendment would simply reduce the amount of this increase by 1
percent per year. So instead of increasing by 10 percent the first
year, it would increase by only 9; instead of increasing by 7.4
percent, the second year would increase by 6.4 percent; and 7.3
percent, it would increase by 6.3 percent in the third year. These are
still large annual increases, larger than most taxpayers at home are
likely to see the increases in their incomes, in their salaries, in
their wages.
So this is just a small reduction. It does not deal with, as the
gentleman from Washington mentioned, it does not specifically say what,
it leaves that issue open. So, therefore, it does not interfere with
the selection of these various proposals and research things that the
gentleman from Washington just supported in the last amendment.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, here's the problem with what the gentleman is
proposing, however well-intentioned it may be. And I am deeply
concerned; as the gentlemen know, I serve on the Budget Committee with
some of the gentlemen who are speaking, and we are all concerned about
the long-term deficit picture for this country. However, if you cut
investments in scientific research and scientific education, in the
long run you will increase the deficit of this country, and you will
decrease our national security, our national health care and our
national and international competitiveness. That is why this is a
mistake.
And don't just take my word for it. The National Academies of
Science, in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, a 2005 publication,
called for more than a 10 percent increase; the U.S. Commission on
National Security, the Hart-Rudman report, a similar level of increase;
the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, in their
publication, Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment in 2003; a coalition of
15 industry associations, in the publication Tapping America's
Potential, in 2005; the Council on Competitiveness in their
publication, Innovate America.
This is not just a Democratic proposal or Republican proposal. I
would remind the gentleman that this bill passed unanimously out of
committee with bipartisan support.
I would also encourage you to ask your faculty administrators, ask
your high technology industries, do you think this country is spending
sufficient quantities on fundamental basic research and investment such
as that funded by National Science Foundation? And do you think we are
doing enough to keep our young people educated in science and math in
ways such as supported by this legislation? I guarantee you most of
them would say no. You would, I think, by this cutting, with due
respect, significantly be impairing, and it sounds like a small
measure, but remember, we are already falling behind in a number of
areas in science and math, not only in the education, but in the
applied fields.
This is consistent with President Bush's own administration request
of a 7 percent per year increase. Again, this is a bipartisan approach,
not a Democratic or Republican approach. The President has called for
this. And again, as Dr. Ehlers said so eloquently earlier, our return
on investment from research is profound. And when you cut that
investment, I think you're cutting that return on investment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H4392]]
I will try to be brief. We have beat this subject to death, but I
find it ironic that we talk about cutting the funding of the one agency
that returns more on its money than any other agency does.
If we're talking about cutting the NSF by 1 percent, we should cut
everything in the budget by 1 percent. And I might even vote for that
if you are willing to cut defense by 1 percent; Cut every department,
cut Social Security by 1 percent, and so on down the line. Then you
might have something that would be worth doing. But to attack something
that actually benefits this Nation, increases our health and wealth,
and is allowing us to at least try to keep up with what other nations
are doing, is utterly unrealistic.
I would point out, and I can show you graphs indicating that we are
falling far behind other nations. We occupied the premier spot in
research for a number of years. But now South Korea, as an example, is
very rapidly getting very close to what we are spending on research as
a percentage of GDP. I expect them to pass us in a few years.
It is incredible to me that we are supposed to be the brightest, most
powerful Nation in the world, and yet we are losing ground compared to
nations such as South Korea. If we are serious about competing with
other countries, we absolutely have to keep investing our money in
research, whether it's the National Science Foundation or whether it is
the Department of Energy or the National Institutes of Health.
In addition to that, I would mention that the National Science
Foundation is just about the lowest-cost research institution. We spend
a lot less money in the National Science Foundation than we do in the
Department of Energy, than we do in National Institutes of Health or
that we do on NASA. One of the lowest costs with the highest rate of
return, I don't see any reason in the world to cut the NSF.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Just a short clarification, that this
amendment does not propose a cut in the funding, it proposes to very
slightly reduce the rate of growth from what was proposed. That is my
only clarification.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank you for the clarification.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to my good friend from Washington State (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to echo what
the distinguished ranking member said.
The following countries are increasing their investment in basic
research faster than this legislation would authorize, and they've
already put the money up front. Listen to these countries and see if
you think it is wise for our Nation to reduce its investment even
further, and further fall behind: China, Taiwan, European Union, South
Korea, Singapore and others. Do we seriously want to further reduce our
investment in basic research if we want to keep our Nation competitive?
I submit we don't, and I would urge defeat of this amendment.
I thank the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
{time} 2100
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(h) Reduction.--Each of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated or made available under this section shall be
reduced by 0.5 percent.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I, too, echo the words of my
colleagues who are in support of the overall funding of the National
Science Foundation, and I offer this amendment to H.R. 1867, which I
hope will provide incentives for the NSF to identify waste and any
abuse within the Agency, but also, very importantly, to help identify
those programs which are either underperforming or simply just not
working.
I believe this legislation will help be a model of fiscal
responsibility. It is similar to the legislation we just heard from in
two respects. H.R. 1867 authorizes the National Science Foundation to
increase their spending, which goes to the point of the gentleman from
Michigan was saying before, by 7 percent, and again in 2009 and 2010.
The point we must make here, though, is inflation has remained
constant during this same time period at around 3 percent. So when we
purport to be so concerned about the taxpayers' dollars and the debt we
are leaving our children, which I just heard from the gentleman from
the other side of the aisle previously, how can we justify programmic
increases for research that are actually more than twice the rate of
inflation?
As I referenced before, when I go back to my constituents back at
home in town hall meetings and the like, they are not seeing 7 percent
increases in their wages and salaries. They are not seeing a doubling
of their incomes and their family household incomes. They may be seeing
that as far as their expenses are concerned. They are seeing all other
sorts of increases in spending, such as gasoline prices and the like
that they have to put up with, but they are not seeing the increases in
income and expenditures that we are seeing in this bill.
I will comment on one comment that the gentleman from the other side
of the aisle made before as far as being consistent. I think we heard
the American public on this past election day. The American public is
concerned about overspending by Congress. They want us to prioritize
where our dollars go. They want to make sure that we are spending every
dime efficiently and appropriately.
I have yet, however, to hear one suggestion from the other side of
the aisle, either here on the floor or on the Budget Committee, on
which I serve with some of the gentleman on the other side of the
aisle, as to where we with can make some of those cuts. Instead, what
we are seeing is a continual increase in spending.
Another point to make as well: Time after time our constituents come
to our office quoting the discrepancy between authorization levels and
appropriation levels. It is my hope that instead of having to
disappoint them once again, that we set realistic authorization levels
that may actually be realistic to the appropriation levels that come
down the line. Let's be realistic, both on what we can do for our
constituents and also what the appropriators may be doing with this
bill later on.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is
our duty simply as stewards of our constituents' money, the taxpayers'
dollars, as we step forward to make an honest assessment of what we can
afford and should afford the American taxpayer.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have been over the basics. Let me just reiterate,
this proposal for the increase in the National Science Foundation is
thoroughly consistent with President Bush's own agenda. The
competitiveness initiative calls for these kinds of increases. That is
point one.
Point two: If we hope to maintain our competitiveness, if you look at
the proportion of our economy today that is the direct result, and Dr.
Ehlers illustrated a number of examples, but the direct result of
research and inventions that have come out of funding by the National
Science Foundation, a tremendous amount of our economic prosperity
today came from those investigations.
As Dr. Ehlers so eloquently said, we don't know, ``we'' generally,
not just we in the Congress, but especially we in the Congress, don't
necessarily know which particular investigation, which particular
study, is going to yield those profound results. But some will.
I will tell you, I just spoke to a scientist in my district last week
and he
[[Page H4393]]
said to me, Congressman, the pipeline of U.S. scientists is drying up.
You just really have to understand this. The pipeline of U.S.-based
scientists is drying up, because the research funding is not adequate
to meet the demand.
What is happening is many, many young researchers are either not
entering the field or are dropping out of the field or abandoning
potentially promising careers, promising not just for them, but for our
society.
The hit rate, if you are a young researcher applying for a grant
through NSF, your hit rate is low. You are going to spend a tremendous
amount of effort applying for a grant, trying to further your research
agenda, and your hit rate is going to be significantly low. That is
demoralizing. It blocks important avenues of research that might yield
promising results.
And when we make these cuts, it is easy for us. I agree that we have
got a huge fiscal problem. But, again, I will tell you that if you look
at the long-term drivers of the fiscal problems this country faces,
nobody says it is that vast waste at the National Science Foundation
that is driving this country into debt. That is not what they say. They
say it is a combination of revenue, it is a combination of entitlement
programs, it is a combination of defense. I agree we ought to debate
those, but not on the back of the National Science Foundation, for
goodness sake.
So I would urge defeat of this amendment for the same reasons I urged
defeat previously.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the underlying bill, H.R. 1867, and
rise to express my appreciation and thank the Science Committee for the
bipartisan effort that they have always engaged in, and frankly, want,
to thank them for the opportunity that I have had to serve on that
committee for a number of years.
Usually we rise and say with great reluctance, I rise to oppose the
amendment. I might say with great vigor I rise to oppose the amendment.
Because as I served on the Science Committee for a number of years, I
used to always start the hearings with the idea that science is the
work of the 21st century, and certainly the National Science Foundation
sets the framework for encouraging research and innovativeness.
I can't imagine that the distinguished gentleman who has offered this
amendment would venture to argue with me, and I cite just a few
examples that I think most of my colleagues and most of America frankly
understand how our lives have been changed by simply these innovations.
Of course, some of them were by private ingenuity and private concepts
and funding possibly, but that was an America of yesteryear.
But where would we be without the Wright Brothers and the airplane?
Where would we be without Thomas Edison and electricity and the light
bulb? Even though as we move into the 21st century, we want to be
protectors of the environment and certainly want to be
conservationists, look how that has changed our lives. And what about
the Internet, interestingly enough, one of the success stories of DOD
research.
The most important part of it is the work that was created, the work
that was created by these inventions and by the opportunities to allow
our imagination to generate a better quality of life for Americans.
This bill, H.R. 1867, which, as I said, I enthusiastically support,
creates work for the 21st century. It emphasizes the underserved. It
encourages research to be done by Historically Black Colleges and
Historically Hispanic Serving Institutions, and as well, to encourage
diversity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
There is an important provision that mentions, of course, the intent
of this particular legislation to determine how different minority
groups are impacted by this funding, which is whether or not we can
increase the number of underrepresented minorities in the science,
technology, engineering and mathematics fields, and how we can increase
women in these fields. For the time I have worked on the Science
Committee as a former member of the committee, these were issues that
we worked on together.
What the gentleman is trying to achieve with this across-the-board
cut is amazing to me, because what he is actually saying to the world
and to America is we are second rate. We don't believe in investing in
the next generation of research. We don't believe in uplifting those
who are interested in these disciplines to give them merit and worth.
I would ask the gentleman, though I am sure his rebuttal will be that
we don't pay those dollars. I don't know if we do. What is a high
school football or basketball coach worth? What is a college football,
basketball or any other sport's coach worth? Can we not, as a Nation,
make a commitment to the research community by affirming their
importance?
Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Baird have worked together affirming the
importance of research, and not closing the door of this important
responsibility that we have.
I am fearful, Mr. Chairman, of where this Nation is headed when we
pull back on the ability of our Nation to invest in the 21st century
technology. NASA represents that, the NASA Space Station represents
that, the centers represent that, the laboratories represent that.
We want to encourage this funneling, this pathway, if you will, this
farm team of researchers, and this particular legislation does that by
increased funding, by highlighting the underserved, and I believe doing
a lot more.
Let me conclude by saying I had intended to offer amendment to ensure
that Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving Institutions
would be a viable part of the legislation. As I have reviewed it, I
know that the intent is there, and that we will look forward to working
with the members of the committee and working with this Congress to
make sure that the United States is creating work for the 21st century.
Oppose the amendment and support the bill for the betterment of
America.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2007. This bill is another
important 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, to ensure that the United States will continue to have
a workforce ready for global competition, it is essential that we make
a sustained commitment to federal research and development. The
National Science Foundation is crucial to these goals, providing vital
support to our Nation's science and engineering projects and
researchers.
Created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, the National
Science Foundation, or NSF, is tasked with the broad mission of
supporting science and engineering. This agency provides funding for
basic research across many disciplines, and offers support for merit
awards, state-of-the-art tools, and instrumentation and facilities. The
majority of the research supported by the NSF is conducted at U.S.
colleges and universities.
This bill reaffirms our commitment to scientific excellence by
reauthorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) for three years and
providing nearly $21 billion in funding for fiscal years 2008-2010.
This legislation appropriates specific funding for each of the NSF's
major accounts: research and related activities, education and human
resources, major research equipment and facilities construction, agency
operations and award management, the National Science Board, and the
Office of the Inspector General. A number of specific programs within
the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educational
categories are singled out as the recipients of funding. Additionally,
specific funding is designated for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)
awards. By raising the cap for these awards, this bill allows the NSF
to support a wider range of state-of-the-art research tools.
This bill contains many other important provisions. It requires an
evaluation of NSF's role in supporting interdisciplinary research, and
encourages university and industry partnerships. It encourages young
investigators through a new grant program, and it requires a National
Academy of Sciences report on barriers to and strategies for increasing
the participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields.
The NSF ensures a continued national supply of scientific and
engineering personnel, while promoting basic research and education
across a wide array of scientific and technological disciplines. In the
interest of both economic prosperity and military capability, the
United States must continue producing a workforce knowledgeable to
maintain technological competitiveness. If we are to do this,
[[Page H4394]]
this Congress must continue funding and strengthening science and
mathematics education. Supporting this bill is an important step, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend from Texas did not intend to, but
I would respectfully request the Chair make certain that he calls into
order individuals who impugn the motive of other Members of this body.
I think it is important that we not do that in this Chamber.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Let me be the first, because I believe we are all distinguished
gentlepersons, gentleladies and gentlemen, say that my remarks were to
the value of this bill and to my philosophical disagreement with the
author of this amendment, and certainly recognize that he is proud of
America and all of the inventiveness that she has, and therefore any
intent that might have been perceived by my words were only to glorify
this bill and to celebrate our researchers and our science in this
country.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate
the gentlelady's comments, and I would just respectfully suggest it
might be appropriate to review the words that were spoken and reflect
upon them.
Mr. Chairman, I would also suggest candidly that my recollection, I
am not absolutely certain, but my recollection is that the Wright
Brothers and Thomas Edison had no government subsidy, and the
remarkable inventions that they came up with were without the benefit
of government subsidy. That is not to say that government subsidy isn't
appropriate for certain occasions, but I would suggest that those
individuals had remarkable accomplishments without the kind of support
that we are discussing today.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my good friend from New
Jersey, the sponsor of the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the other side of the aisle has
mischaracterized what this amendment does when they speak of cuts and
pullbacks from science and the Foundation. Nothing of the kind is in
this amendment. Instead, we will still be increasing spending this year
and next year and next year and next year up to $20.87 billion for
these appropriated expenditures on the National Science Foundation,
instead of $20.97 billion.
I am very much concerned about education and science and our
research. Let me just add, I am also concerned about the education of
our youth. My constituents are just as concerned about educating their
kids and being able to afford to send their kids to college and how do
they pay for that? My constituents are concerned about the health care
and the medical expenditures for their families and how do they pay for
that? My constituents are concerned about the housing for their family
and loved ones, and how do they pay for that?
They are not seeing a 7 percent increase in their wages and salaries,
even though each and every one of those things are just as vitally
important to them as it is that we spend money on overall Science
Foundation research in the United States of America.
{time} 2115
This amendment would not cut spending by a dime. This amendment would
simply limit the growth rate from 7 percent down to 6.5 percent. The
last amendment was seeing it go down from 7 percent to 6 percent. This
would be even less, from 7 to 6.5 percent. You would still be seeing a
growth year after year after year. The NSF would still be allowed to
expend their dollars on those critical areas that my friend from
Georgia and the Members on the other side of the aisle are so concerned
about for the betterment of this country.
I would implore the Members on the other side of the aisle that if we
are to be consistent when we talk about the overall spending and
revenue side for this Congress, that we stop doing what the other side
of the aisle has done. They have only looked at the revenue side of the
equation so far in the last 3 or 4 months, giving us the largest tax
increase in America's history on the other hand, but have done
absolutely nothing for the American public when it says how are we
going to set priorities for the American public and what we spend money
on, and how are we going to try to rein in spending for the American
public as well. I think we need to do it on both sides.
Finally, regarding what the gentleman from Michigan said, I agree
with him. If we can do it across the board for all of the other
programs, I am right in line with him, and I support him on that
endeavor as well. Let's start here, and I will be the first one to
cosponsor any of his amendments to do likewise, decreasing the overall
increases of spending that this government has.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just briefly, I want to comment on a comment made by my friend from
New Jersey about health care, a very, very important issue. But the
only way we are going to be able to offer better health care to
everyone is by reducing the cost.
One huge element of cost in health care is cancer treatment. Today at
lunch I met with the latest seven Nobel Prize winners all of whom
happen to be from America because we support this research.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just to continue, today the Science Committee had lunch with the
latest Nobel Prize winners, all of whom are from America because we try
very hard to provide funding for the research. They, I might point out,
did the research a number of years ago. I hope we can continue to
provide Nobel Prize winners by adequately funding the National Science
Foundation and others.
But in speaking to the gentleman who got the award in physiology and
medicine, he talked about his discovery and the impact it is going to
have on cancer treatment. That is very likely to cause a substantial
reduction in the cost of the treatment of cancer using his approach.
What does his approach depend on? That is the Human Genome Project
which we started a number of years ago in NIH and were the first Nation
to do that.
It is always amazing to me how discoveries that we find in one area
can have application, and no one, I think, dreamed that when we did the
Human Genome Project that we might find the cure of cancer there rather
than in medicine. So it is very important that we continue funding the
fundamental basic research so we can continue to enjoy the fruits of
their research.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I thank Mr.
Ehlers for his comments.
Very briefly, in 2002, 397 Members of this Congress, including 194
Members of the then-majority party Republicans, voted to double,
double, the National Science Foundation.
For those members of your party who plan to vote against this bill or
who plan to vote for this reduction in the authorized levels for this
committee, I would just suggest you well may be voting against
something that you voted for just a few years ago at much higher levels
and that the President signed into law. The then-majority voted to
double the budget. The President signed it into law at much higher
levels than what we are talking about today.
In the last Presidential election, somebody ran around with a flip-
flop guy chasing Mr. Kerry. If you do this, the flip-flop guy might be
outside your door.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
[[Page H4395]]
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of section 3, add the following new subsection:
(h) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized under this
section may be used for research related to--
(1) the reproductive aging and symptom experience at
midlife among Bangladeshi Immigrants, Sedentees, and White
London Neighbors; and
(2) the diet and social stratification in ancient Puerto
Rico.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, just beginning where the
last comment on the last bill ended up, I appreciate the gentleman
pointing out that this side did support a doubling of the NSF, and I
was probably one of those who was there to support the increase; so no
one, I think, can take the position that we are not uniformly as a body
or as a party opposed to the general notion of increasing, making
significant increases to applied research or general research, I should
say, by the NSF.
What we can ask, though, is after the last election, has the American
voter spoken with regard to the overall growth in Federal spending in
all areas, whether it is in science and health care, whether it is in
the war, for veterans or other areas; should we not look at each one
individually and decide some should go up, some should remain the same,
and some should go up at a slightly different way? That is what we are
suggesting in the last amendment, simply that they should go up at a
slightly different arc than they are in the underlying bill, 6.5
percent instead of 7 percent.
In the amendment before us right now, we look to see what is the
underlying mission of the NSF. If we look at their mission statement,
we see it is: ``To promote the progress of science, advance the
national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national
defense.''
But during these tough fiscal times, both at the Federal level and at
the family level, as I pointed out before, Congress must exercise good
stewardship over every penny of taxpayers' dollars. This includes
helping the NSF to focus on its priority projects.
Just as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, he has been visited by
a number of people from various groups dealing with health issues, so
have I; people with serious health issues like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's
and diabetes. They come and ask what are we doing and how are we
prioritizing for their concerns within the NSF.
The amendment before you simply says can we find more than a quarter
million dollars to fund research on such programs as reproductive aging
symptoms of midlife Bangladeshi immigrants, but not more funding for
research projects which might bring progress and eventually cures for
some of the serious illnesses we have already heard about on the floor?
In addition, how can we justify research like the diet and social
stratification of ancient cultures when here at home current medical
research is so desperately needed?
Now, I understand that the point has been already made that we do not
specifically itemize in the authorization bills each one of these
specific programs, but these are, as the gentleman knows, programs
which have already been authorized in the past and are continuing under
the law right now into 2007 and 2008.
So doesn't it behoove us here in Congress to make a statement, to
make a stand and say that at least in several of these areas we can
make a position that our limited dollars should not be going to those
areas, but instead we would make the position that they should be going
for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and cancer research and some
other areas that we have previously spoken about?
So I encourage my colleagues, do not only exercise good stewardship
over the taxpayers' dollars, but in essence to also ensure that worthy
projects receive the funding they deserve within that noble mission
that I set forth at the beginning, ``To promote the progress of
science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure
the national defense.''
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for making
precisely the case I have tried to make myself. The case I have tried
to make myself is that it is not in the best purview of this body to
intervene and micromanage specific studies.
The reason I point that out is because the gentleman spoke about
important health issues. One of the studies he seeks to eliminate
funding for addresses an important health issue. Menopause is
tremendously important to the women of this society. It is fine for two
men to get up here and decide whether we want to fund menopause
research; but I will tell you, every woman in this country is going to
go through it, and they think menopause matters.
One of the studies that the gentleman wants to reduce funding for is
very important in terms of addressing the factors that influence how
menopause develops. I would share with the gentleman, although my
knowledge is somewhat limited, I believe there are correlations between
menopause and a number of the issues the gentleman mentioned like
cancer and other factors.
So if we believe we want to address those important matters, one of
the very studies this gentleman is suggesting we eliminate funding for
could very well address those very important issues. I would just urge
you go back to your women constituents and suggest to them that you
decided, based on your vast medical and anthropological expertise, and
your vast understanding of women's health, that menopause did not merit
research funding from the National Science Foundation.
And you may try to pick the title and say what does that have to do
with Bangladeshi immigrants, et cetera. It may have a lot to do because
natural experiments in which one population and another population may
be of the same age, different, but subject to different cultural or
dietary or other factors, and thereby have different variations in how
they manifest certain biological processes can often give us profound
insights into disease processes and the development of natural rhythms.
And for you or I to presume that we have the expertise to say that we
don't think this study will do that because we know so much about
menopause, sir, and I count myself among those ``sirs,'' I think is
vastly presumptuous. Menopause is profoundly important to the women of
this country. This study deals with menopause, and I am tremendously
grateful to the gentleman for picking this study because in so doing,
you have made the best possible case for not micromanaging this fine
agency.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All Members are reminded to address their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the angst most recently demonstrated is curious in
light of the events of recent history regarding what this House has
dealt with over the past week or two or three, and a little longer
history in light of what this House and what this Congress deals with
over and over and over again; and that is not the kind of appropriate
kind of decisionmaking that my good friend from Washington so
passionately advocates here in this bill, which is to delegate
appropriate decisionmaking to people who have the expertise and have
the knowledge to determine where those resources ought be spent and
where those decisions ought be made.
Would that we as a Congress and we as a House use that same
brilliance in our decisionmaking when we make decisions regarding
health care. Again, as a physician, this Chamber makes incredible
decisions that affect the very personal health care of individuals
about which it has no knowledge whatsoever, and takes the
decisionmaking authority from physicians and patients in an
inappropriate way, I believe.
[[Page H4396]]
We also this past week determined as a Chamber, the majority party
has determined that they have greater knowledge about the specific
military activities that ought to occur on the ground as it relates to
our brave men and women who are fighting to defend our liberty and our
freedom. However, the majority party apparently believes that it is
appropriate for them to make specific decisions what our commanders
ought to be doing on a day-to-day basis.
So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it would be appropriate to
have some consistency in the arguments that are being brought to the
floor here this evening regarding delegation of appropriate
decisionmaking to those who have the expertise.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
{time} 2130
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman
for yielding. The gentleman is a doctor and I am not going to ask him
for his medical expertise because, as you say, that is not our role
here to delve into these things but to simply raise the questions.
I will tell you this, that when I come back to my constituents and
they tell me about their health concerns, whether it is menopause or
cancer or otherwise, their first concern is how are they going to
address their own health needs, how are they going to address their
health care costs and what are we doing here about it. Their second
question is what research are we doing here at home for these areas.
The study that you reference, reproductive aging and symptoms
experienced at midlife among Bangladeshi immigrants, sedentees, and
white London neighbors does not, of course, as the gentleman knows,
look to those issues here at home, but rather elsewhere.
My constituents will raise the question, is that the first priority
or should that be the first priority of the NSF. I am not an expert, I
am not a doctor like the gentleman, so I cannot suggest that that is
the most important one, but my constituents will certainly raise that
question for me, and my constituents will certainly be consistent, as
the gentleman from Georgia says, and that we should make sure that
those dollars are spent here on their own health concerns first.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:
SEC. 4. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION
IMPROVEMENT.
(a) Funding for Centers.--The Director shall continue to
carry out the program of Centers for Research on Learning and
Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42
U.S.C. 1862n-2).
(b) Eligibility for Centers.--Section 11 of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C.
1862n-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or eligible
nonprofit organizations'' after ``institutions of higher
education'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting ``or an eligible
nonprofit organization'' after ``institution of higher
education''; and
(3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``of such
institutions'' and inserting ``thereof''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4?
The Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:
SEC. 5. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH.
(a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the role of the
Foundation in supporting interdisciplinary research,
including through the Major Research Instrumentation program,
the effectiveness of the Foundation's efforts in providing
information to the scientific community about opportunities
for funding of interdisciplinary research proposals, and the
process through which interdisciplinary proposals are
selected for support. The Board shall also evaluate the
effectiveness of the Foundation's efforts to engage
undergraduate students in research experiences in
interdisciplinary settings, including through the Research in
Undergraduate Institutions program and the Research
Experiences for Undergraduates program.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Board shall provide the results of
its evaluation under subsection (a), including a
recommendation for the proportion of the Foundation's
research and related activities funding that should be
allocated for interdisciplinary research, to the Committee on
Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of
the Senate.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5?
The Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6 is as follows:
SEC. 6. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS.
(a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a pilot
program to award one-year grants to individuals to assist
them in improving research proposals that were previously
submitted to the Foundation but not selected for funding.
(b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall
be used to enable an individual to resubmit an updated
research proposal for review by the Foundation through the
agency's competitive merit review process. Uses of funds made
available under this section may include the generation of
new data and the performance of additional analysis.
(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, an individual shall--
(1) not have previously received funding as the principal
investigator of a research grant from the Foundation; and
(2) have submitted a proposal to the Foundation, which may
include a proposal submitted to the Research in Undergraduate
Institutions program, that was rated very good or excellent
under the Foundation's competitive merit review process.
(d) Selection Process.--The Director shall make awards
under this section based on the advice of the program
officers of the Foundation.
(e) Program Administration.--The Director may carry out
this section through the Small Grants for Exploratory
Research program.
(f) National Science Board Review.--The Board shall conduct
a review and assessment of the pilot program under this
section, including the number of new investigators funded,
the distribution of awards by type of institution of higher
education, and the success rate upon resubmittal of proposals
by new investigators funded through this pilot program. Not
later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Board shall summarize its findings and any
recommendations regarding changes to or the continuation of
the pilot program in a report to the Committee on Science and
Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Flake:
Strike section 6.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say from the outset that I
have been amazed, like the gentleman from Georgia who mentioned a while
ago, you would think if you were listening to this debate at home that
the only research, the only science research going on in this country
is funded by government, and it is simply not the case, gratefully. In
fact, just a fraction of the research going on in the scientific field
is funded by government. The private sector funds it gratefully.
And unfortunately, one can make the case and the case is often made
persuasively that as we increase government funding in this area, it
displaces private sector funding because companies can then rely on
government rather than their own R&D budgets.
There is also something called opportunity cost. Whenever you hear
the word ``investment'' in terms of government funding, you have to be
a little skeptical. You have to say what is the opportunity cost? If
you had left this money in the private sector, would it have produced
more? You will never know that. But we do know the private sector tends
to do things a lot more efficiently than government does.
Let me speak to this amendment. This amendment would strike a new
pilot project created in this bill. Keep in mind, people will say we
cannot cut this bill or whatever else. This is a new program that I am
seeking to strike here.
This pilot project would award one-year grants to individuals to
assist them in improving research proposals that were previously
submitted to the National Science Foundation but were not selected for
funding. In other words, if you submit an application, it is not
approved for funding, the government will give you money to improve the
application so it might be approved next year.
The man that comes on television, running around in this crazy suit,
Matthew Lesko I think is his name, comes to mind here. Are we going to
fund like Matthew Lesko? Are we simply saying, all right, here is more
money to help you get government money? Are there not sufficient
programs within the National Science Foundation that we
[[Page H4397]]
should be funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who
did not get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they
might get a grant next year?
I understand the defense will say, or those defending these grants
that this pilot project is intended to help younger scientists who may
be losing out on NSF grants because they do not know how to prepare
proposals compared to more seasoned researchers or scientists. The
answer does not lie in more Federal dollars to help them prepare grant
proposals. If there are problems in terms of more tenured scientists
getting these proposals, then perhaps we ought to look at the
application process and procedures and tweak those or change those
rather than say let us spend money and take money out of the National
Science Foundation budget and give it to people who were rejected in
their funding.
This is a tight budget environment. I need not remind the majority
that we are in a deficit situation. I would support across-the-board
cuts everywhere in government, but boy, to say that we have got to
increase the budget here 25 percent over 3 years is a bit steep, and
then to create a new program like this one and to say we are going to
give money to those who are not getting the programs, and one more
thing before I yield back.
I have heard from the other side, those defending the current budget
and arguing against proposals to actually cut specific programs, that
we have a peer review process and that research grants should only be
given out that way. I am glad to hear that because my guess is when we
come 3 months from now or 2 months from now to the appropriations
process, in the SSJC budget, there will be earmarks from that side of
the aisle, from this side of the aisle, to fund specific research
grants, some of whom were turned down during the peer review process.
So this notion that you have got to have peer review and that we do not
have the knowledge, I will confess that, but then why in the world are
we earmarking like we are?
The earmarks are specifically to say I know better than the folks at
NSF or folks over here because I am going to give it to my university
or somebody who may have lost out on a grant, and so the notion that,
hey, you know, you guys do not know what you are talking about when you
are trying to cut spending, leave it to the experts, we do not leave it
to the experts. The Congress does not leave it to the experts. If we
trusted the experts, we would not be earmarking like we are.
But, again, back to the specific amendment, this is a new program, a
new program to take money from the existing budget of NSF that we have
all heard is so important that we have to have for research, and giving
it to people who did not get their projects approved, did not get a
contract, did not get research dollars to help them prepare research
dollars.
This reminds me actually of many of the earmarks that you will see in
the given months. Many of those are given to people to prepare grants
to receive more money.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 1867, legislation to reauthorize the
National Science Foundation, and of this amendment that will give
Hispanic-serving institutions, what we refer to as HSIs, the support
they need to prepare our next generation of scientists, engineers and
mathematicians.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Congressman Jerry McNerney of
California, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and
Congressman Joe Crowley of New York for bringing this amendment
forward. It will make a great difference.
The McNerney-Giffords-Crowley amendment allows the National Science
Foundation to establish a competitive, merit-based program to award
grants to HSIs for science, technology, engineering and mathematics
education. This program seeks to enhance the quality of undergraduate
science, mathematics and engineering education and increase the
retention and graduation rates for undergraduate students pursuing STEM
degrees at 2-year and 4-year HSIs. The initiative will support
curriculum and faculty development in STEM areas; stipends for
undergraduate students participating in research; and funding for
instrumentation purposes.
HSIs are the gateways for post-secondary education for most Hispanic
students. Despite having fewer resources than other institutions, HSIs
are among the top producers of our new Hispanic STEM professionals.
Yet, these vital institutions are often overlooked, or at best, seen as
junior partners in our national research and education enterprise. This
amendment helps give HSIs the attention they deserve.
I applaud the leadership of Chairman Gordon, of Chairman Baird,
Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Ehlers for their bipartisan
commitment to ensuring the United States remains competitive in
science, technology engineering and mathematics, better known as the
STEM fields.
The Science and Technology Committee has acted with the sense of
urgency that we should all share in order to put our Nation back on
track to lead the world in the STEM fields. The National Science
Foundation is central to developing our national capacity for research
and innovation.
I am particularly pleased that this bill emphasizes our need to
develop our human capital in the STEM fields. I would also like to
thank my colleague and friend Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for
her work in including an amendment to require strategic planning for
the education and human resources mission of the foundation so that we
fully develop our STEM talent across all fields and all communities,
especially those that have been historically underrepresented.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment for HSIs strengthens that education and
human resources mission.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the
underlying bill, H.R. 1867.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Who seeks recognition on the Flake amendment?
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I greatly respect and admire the gentleman from Arizona, who I know
is committed to trying to reduce the deficit, as am I, and we have
worked on other areas on that, but let me just share a couple of things
about this.
First of all, the gentleman talked about private industry research,
and he is right about that. There is a lot of private industry
research. Let me share with the gentleman some of the private industry
bodies that endorse this bill, and the list is very impressive. I have
got it. I would be happy to share it. If it is such a bad bill or needs
to be dramatically modified, these are the organizations that support
it:
Computing Research Association, National Defense Industrial
Association, American Chemical Society, Business Roundtable,
Information Technology Association of America, National Venture Capital
Association, Semiconductor Industry Association, Software & Information
Industry Association, TechNet, Technology CEO Council, Accenture,
Advanced Micro Devices, Agilent, Apple, Applied Materials.
I have only it four or five. I am just on the A's. I could go on.
The point being, yes, private industry does fund a great deal of
research. They recognize government has a very important role, and far
from being deeply suspicious of that role, they profoundly endorse it.
As for the gentleman's amendment per se, I share with the gentleman
that much of this legislation develops from research conducted by the
National Academy of Science presented in Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, which the gentleman may or may not have read.
One of the key challenges we face in our research enterprise is
keeping young investigators in the pipeline. If you look at the data on
when people are most productive, it does not correlate particularly
well with when they get the most funding. There are a host of reasons
for that.
Part of the reason is it takes some time to learn how to do the
grants, and what we are trying to do here is to say to people, just
remember that only about 25 percent of grants are funded. So the mere
fact you did not get funding the first time does not mean your
application is a bad application at all. It does not mean we have said
it is not worthy of funding. Quite the contrary.
What it may well have said is it is a very good application, but
given the competition and the constrained funding, in its current
state, we will not choose it.
[[Page H4398]]
What this bill does is basically say to the young investigator, we
will give you some help in advancing your career so you can make a
second run at this. This is supported by the National Science
Foundation. Folks who have done this research, and I have written
applications for grants, I am sure Dr. Ehlers has, it takes you a while
to learn how to do it.
Sometimes the young professors who are the very people who are
teaching the undergraduate classes, trying to get their labs put up,
they lack the resources. And on top of that, you need to understand the
dynamics of the peer review process.
Sometimes the more senior members, the people with the long
established research credentials and careers are just going to have
more access to research because the peer reviewers are going to say,
look, it is a safe bet to bet on this guy or this woman, they have been
around a long time. The unknown person, the new person who may hold the
promise of tomorrow, has a comparative disadvantage.
{time} 2145
So what we are trying to do is in a small way, a relatively small way
with this program, redress the difference between the new
investigators. We know what that's like. We have been relatively young
Members, not so anymore here in the Congress. We have had the senior
Members tell us where the bathroom was, to quit voting with our meal
cards and stuff like that. Nobody threw us out. They get a second
chance. But what I am saying, that's what this is about.
I profoundly respect the gentleman. I hope he knows that. He is
committed to try to reduce the deficit. This is not the way to do it.
This program is actually a good program. It's by a host of scientists,
a host of scientific bodies. I think we ought to defeat the gentleman's
amendment, with respect, because I know his intent. In this case I
think he would have an adverse effect on what we are trying to do with
this legislation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the valiant effort on behalf of my friend from
Washington in attempting to dissuade Members from voting against this
amendment, which I think is well founded. I appreciate the gentleman
from Arizona for offering it.
I would remind the gentleman from Washington that one of the roles of
our office, one of the roles of our office is to assist individuals
with grant applications. So there are other resources which the Federal
Government supplies for individuals who are searching to try to fill
out their grant applications. We are happy to help.
I would also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman makes the
point, appropriately, that only 25 percent of the grants are accepted.
So why should we waste Federal dollars on teaching individuals who have
other avenues to be able to determine how to fill out their grant
application appropriately?
Why should we waste precious Federal dollars that could go to, in
fact, the kinds of cures that he is endeavoring to fund with the moneys
that he is promoting? Why should we waste those Federal dollars in this
kind of endeavor, which, I think, is frankly ill-founded and not
needed.
I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, let me point out I have the utmost respect for my friend from
Washington. We have worked together on many issues. First, he mentioned
that the private sector groups are in support of this legislation and
the National Science Foundation. I have no doubt. It doesn't surprise
me at all. But I would submit that that's akin to the government saying
we are in a position now to fund free lunches for everyone out there,
and you can do it on the government's dime.
I would say that virtually every company in America would say that's
a great idea. Now we don't have to fund that. We don't have to
subsidize it for our employees. We can keep the profits, invest them
elsewhere. If private companies don't have to expend that money in
their R&D budgets, they would like not to. But that was a point I made,
that this often supplants money that would be invested in the private
sector, probably more efficiently if overall government spending is any
guide.
To the amendment in specific, the gentleman from Georgia said it
well. With all the high-priority items in the National Science
Foundation budget, to take money out of that and to give it to those
who didn't present a successful proposal would seem to me not the
highest-priority use of money.
Remember, this is a new program. I am not cutting a program that
exists. This is a new pilot project. I just don't think this is a road
that we want to go down. I started to mention, before my time ran out
before, we have seen this in other fields, in other earmark fields,
where people are funding business consortiums. Many of the earmarks in
this body go to business consortiums to help them draft grant proposals
to get other earmarks or to get grants from government or to lobby to
get earmarks. It's simply not a road that we want to go down as a
Congress, I would submit.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman, and I commend him for
his amendment.
I am pleased to yield to my good friend from Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First, to the gentleman from Arizona, I totally agree with your
comments about earmarks. I have fought hard here to keep this body and
the other body from providing earmarks for scientific research, because
all grants should go through the peer review process.
I might also add parenthetically that when the gentleman from Arizona
was on the antiearmark bandwagon a few years ago, I believe I voted
with him more than most Members of the House, because I oppose earmarks
in general, but particularly in scientific research.
I would also comment that the fact that industry supports us is not
indicative of the National Science Foundation doing industry's
research. National Science Foundation does the basic research, the
fundamental research, which has no apparent immediate use. Industry
picks up on that and says, okay, let's see whether we can develop
something out of that. In other words, industry does not do very much
research, they do a lot of development. NSF does almost totally
research and essentially no development. So it's a very good symbiotic
relationship.
As I mentioned earlier, before most of the people here were on the
floor, the rate of return on our research money in the National Science
Foundation has been incredible. Any accountant looking at this would
say this is the best investment that the United States Government makes
because it has great results in our economy.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, as it is getting
rather late, I would ask unanimous consent that we limit debate on
subsequent amendments to 10 minutes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will designate section 7.
The text of section 7 is as follows:
SEC. 7. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION.
(a) In General.--In evaluating research proposals under the
Foundation's broader impacts criterion, the Director shall
give special consideration to proposals that involve
partnerships between academic researchers and industrial
scientists and engineers that address research areas that
have been identified as having high importance for future
national economic competitiveness, such as nanotechnology.
(b) Partnerships With Industry.--The Director shall
encourage research proposals from institutions of higher
education that involve partnerships with businesses and
organizations representing businesses in fields that have
been identified as having high importance for future national
economic competitiveness and that include input on the
research agenda from and cost-sharing by the industry
partners.
[[Page H4399]]
(c) Report on Broader Impacts Criterion.--Not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director
shall transmit to Congress a report on the impact of the
broader impacts grant criterion used by the Foundation. The
report shall--
(1) identify the criteria that each division and
directorate of the Foundation uses to evaluate the broader
impacts aspects of research proposals;
(2) provide a breakdown of the types of activities by
division that awardees have proposed to carry out to meet the
broader impacts criterion;
(3) provide any evaluations performed by the Foundation to
assess the degree to which the broader impacts aspects of
research proposals were carried out and how effective they
have been at meeting the goals described in the research
proposals;
(4) describe what national goals, such as improving
undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering
education, improving K-12 science and mathematics education,
promoting university-industry collaboration and technology
transfer, and broadening participation of underrepresented
groups, the broader impacts criterion is best suited to
promote; and
(5) describe what steps the Foundation is taking and should
take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve
undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering
education.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?
The Clerk will designate section 8.
The text of section 8 is as follows:
SEC. 8. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS.
(a) Mentoring.--The Director shall require that all grant
applications that include funding to support postdoctoral
researchers include a description of the mentoring activities
that will be provided for such individuals, and shall ensure
that this part of the application is evaluated under the
Foundation's broader impacts merit review criterion.
Mentoring activities may include career counseling, training
in preparing grant applications, guidance on ways to improve
teaching skills, and training in research ethics.
(b) Reports.--The Director shall require that annual
reports and the final report for research grants that include
funding to support postdoctoral researchers include a
description of the mentoring activities provided to such
researchers.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 8?
The Clerk will designate section 9.
The text of section 9 is as follows:
SEC. 9. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH.
The Director shall require that each institution that
applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for
science and engineering research or education describe in its
grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and
oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research
to undergraduate students, graduate students, and
postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed
research project.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 9?
The Clerk will designate section 10.
The text of section 10 is as follows:
SEC. 10. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS.
The Director shall ensure that all final project reports
and citations of published research documents resulting from
research funded, in whole or in part, by the Foundation, are
made available to the public in a timely manner and in
electronic form through the Foundation's Web site.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 10?
The Clerk will designate section 11.
The text of section 11 is as follows:
SEC. 11. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS.
An investigator supported under a Foundation award, whom
the Director determines has failed to comply with the
provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy
Manual, shall be ineligible for a future award under any
Foundation supported program or activity. The Director may
restore the eligibility of such an investigator on the basis
of the investigator's subsequent compliance with the
provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy
Manual and with such other terms and conditions as the
Director may impose.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 12?
The Clerk will designate section 12.
The text of section 12 is as follows:
SEC. 12. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Evaluation of Programs.--The Director shall, on an
annual basis, evaluate all of the Foundation's grants that
are scheduled to expire within one year and--
(1) that have the primary purpose of meeting the objectives
of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42
U.S.C. 1885 et seq.); or
(2) that have the primary purpose of providing teacher
professional development.
(b) Continuation of Funding.--For grants that are
identified under subsection (a) and that are deemed by the
Director to be successful in meeting the objectives of the
initial grant solicitation, the Director may extend the
duration of those grants for up to 3 additional years beyond
their scheduled expiration without the requirement for a
recompetition. The Director may extend such grants for an
additional 3 years following a second review within 1 year
before the extended completion date, in accordance with
subsection (a), and the determination by the Director that
the objectives of the grant are being achieved.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit a
report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the
House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate that--
(1) lists the grants which have been extended in duration
by the authority provided under this section; and
(2) provides any recommendations the Director may have
regarding the extension of the authority provided under this
section to programs other than those specified in subsection
(a).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 12?
The Clerk will designate section 13.
The text of section 13 is as follows:
SEC. 13. COST SHARING.
(a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the impact of its
policy to eliminate cost sharing for research grants and
cooperative agreements for existing programs that were
developed around industry partnerships and historically
required industry cost sharing, such as the Engineering
Research Centers and Industry/University Cooperative Research
Centers. The Board shall also consider the impact that the
cost sharing policy has on initiating new programs for which
industry interest and participation are sought.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Board shall report to the
Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, on the results of
the evaluation under subsection (a).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 13?
The Clerk will designate section 14.
The text of section 14 is as follows:
SEC. 14. DONATIONS.
Section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)) is amended by inserting at the end
before the semicolon ``, except that funds may be donated for
specific prize competitions''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 14?
The Clerk will designate section 15.
The text of section 15 is as follows:
SEC. 15. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
(a) Report on Funding for Major Facilities.--
(1) Preconstruction funding.--The Board shall evaluate the
appropriateness of the requirement that funding for detailed
design work and other preconstruction activities for major
research equipment and facilities come exclusively from the
sponsoring research division rather than being available, at
least in part, from the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction account.
(2) Maintenance and operation costs.--The Board shall
evaluate the appropriateness of the Foundation's policies for
allocation of costs for, and oversight of, maintenance and
operation of major research equipment and facilities.
(3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Board shall report on the results
of the evaluations under paragraphs (1) and (2) and on any
recommendations for modifying the current policies related to
allocation of funding for major research equipment and
facilities to the Committee on Science and Technology and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives,
and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate.
(b) Inclusion of Polar Facilities Upgrades in Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Plan.--Section
201(a)(2)(D) of the National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862l(a)(2)(D)) is amended by
inserting ``and for major upgrades of facilities in support
of Antarctic research programs'' after ``facilities
construction account''.
(c) Report on Education Programs Within the Research
Directorates.--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 the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate a report cataloging all elementary
and secondary school, informal, and undergraduate educational
programs and activities supported through appropriations for
Research and Related Activities. The report shall display the
programs and activities by directorate, along with estimated
funding levels for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and
shall provide a description of the goals of each program and
activity. The report shall also describe how the programs and
activities relate to or are coordinated with the programs
supported by the Education and Human Resources Directorate.
(d) Report on Research in Undergraduate Institutions
Program.--The Director shall transmit to Congress along with
the fiscal year 2011 budget request a report listing the
funding success rates and distribution of awards for the
Research in Undergraduate Institutions program, by type of
institution based on the highest academic degree conferred by
the institution, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.
(e) Annual Plan for Allocation of Education and Human
Resources Funding.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of legislation providing for the annual
appropriation of funds for the Foundation, the Director shall
submit to the
[[Page H4400]]
Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a plan for the
allocation of education and human resources funds authorized
by this Act for the corresponding fiscal year, including any
funds from within the research and related activities account
used to support activities that have the primary purpose of
improving education or broadening participation.
(2) Specific requirements.--The plan shall include a
description of how the allocation of funding--
(A) will affect the average size and duration of education
and human resources grants supported by the Foundation;
(B) will affect trends in research support for the
effective instruction of mathematics, science, engineering,
and technology;
(C) will affect the K-20 pipeline for the study of
mathematics, science, engineering, and technology; and
(D) will encourage the interest of individuals identified
in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in mathematics,
science, engineering, and technology, and help prepare such
individuals to pursue postsecondary studies in these fields.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 16?
The Clerk will designate section 16.
The text of section 16 is as follows:
SEC. 16. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.
(a) Triannual Audit of the Office of the National Science
Board.--Section 15(a) of the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 4862n-5) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an annual audit'' and
inserting ``an audit every three years'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``each year'' and
inserting ``every third year''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) Materials relating to closed portions of meetings.--
To facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of this
subsection, the Office of the National Science Board shall
maintain the General Counsel's certificate, the presiding
officer's statement, and a transcript or recording of any
closed meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting.''.
(b) Limited Term Personnel for the National Science
Board.--Subsection (g) of section 4 of the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of
its members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of
not more than 5 professional staff members, technical and
professional personnel on leave of absence from academic,
industrial, or research institutions for a limited term and
such operations and support staff members as may be
necessary. Such staff shall be appointed by the Chairman and
assigned at the direction of the Board. The professional
members and limited term technical and professional personnel
of such staff may be appointed without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions
of chapter 51 of such title relating to classification, and
shall be compensated at a rate not exceeding the maximum rate
payable under section 5376 of such title, as may be necessary
to provide for the performance of such duties as may be
prescribed by the Board in connection with the exercise of
its powers and functions under this Act. Section 14(a)(3)
shall apply to each limited term appointment of technical and
professional personnel under this subsection. Each
appointment under this subsection shall be subject to the
same security requirements as those required for personnel of
the Foundation appointed under section 14(a).''.
(c) Increase in Number of Waterman Awards to Three.--
Section 6(c) of the National Science Foundation Authorization
Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 1881a) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Up to three awards may be made under this section in
any one fiscal year.''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 16?
The Clerk will designate section 17.
The text of section 17 is as follows:
SEC. 17. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS.
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 4(j) of the National
Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(1) and (2))
are amended by striking ``, for submission to'' and ``for
submission to'', respectively, and inserting ``and''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 17?
The Clerk will designate section 18.
The text of section 18 is as follows:
SEC. 18. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE REPORT ON DIVERSITY IN
STEM FIELDS.
(a) In General.--The Foundation shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a
report, to be transmitted to the Congress not later than 1
year after the date of enactment of this Act, about barriers
to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and
to identify strategies for bringing more underrepresented
minorities into the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics workforce.
(b) Specific Requirements.--The Director shall ensure that
the study described in subsection (a) addresses--
(1) social and institutional factors that shape the
decisions of minority students to commit to education and
careers in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics fields;
(2) specific barriers preventing greater minority student
participation in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics fields;
(3) primary focus points for policy intervention to
increase the recruitment and retention of underrepresented
minorities in America's future workforce;
(4) programs already underway to increase diversity in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and
their level of effectiveness;
(5) factors that make such programs effective, and how to
expand and improve upon existing programs;
(6) the role of minority-serving institutions in the
diversification of America's workforce in these fields and
how that role can be supported and strengthened; and
(7) how the public and private sectors can better assist
minority students in their efforts to join America's
workforce in these fields.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Matsui
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Matsui:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
SEC. 19. COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING FOR SCIENTISTS.
(a) Grant Supplements for Communications Training.--The
Director shall provide grant supplements, on a competitive,
merit-reviewed basis, to institutions receiving awards under
the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
program. The grant supplements shall be used to train
graduate students in the communication of the substance and
importance of their research to nonscientist audiences,
including policymakers.
(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit a
report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, describing how
the activities required under subsection (a) have been
implemented. The report shall include data on the number of
graduate students trained and the number and size of grant
supplements awarded, and a description of the types of
activities funded through the grant supplements.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to the NSF reauthorization
is designed to improve the ability of scientists to communicate with
nonscientific audiences such as businesses, the media, the general
public and, of course, Members of Congress. Specifically, my amendment
would add a provision to H.R. 1667 that authorizes a science
communications initiative at the National Science Foundation.
I believe this proposal will ensure that we are getting as much
return on the Federal Government's investment in the National Science
Foundation as possible. By implementing this program, it would
diversify the education of our scientists and would ensure that
policymakers and other nonscientists have better access to the
technical expertise fostered by NSF and the Nation's broader research
enterprise, because if scientists can't tell the rest of us what they
have discovered, we are not fully recognizing the benefits of our
investment in scientific research. Unfortunately, the ability to
articulate the content and significance of scientific information is
often overlooked by graduate training programs.
My amendment directly addresses this unmet need and would create a
pipeline of scientists who are increasingly engaged with nonscientists,
including policymakers, business leaders and others. Providing
communications training to our scientists will ensure that we, the
policymakers, can make the most informed decisions possible as we
debate technical issues and craft policy.
This amendment creates a competitively reviewed supplement within the
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship, or IGERT
program. Investigators at IGERT-awardee institutions will compete for
resources to develop and implement communications training. The IGERT
program will administer the competitive review process for this
communications training initiative.
I have received strong support for this program from stakeholders in
my district of Sacramento and from across the country. Policymakers,
scientists, educators, business leaders and science writers all agree
we need to better integrate scientific expertise into the public
debate.
This amendment represents an important step toward that goal. That is
[[Page H4401]]
why this amendment has received the endorsement of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and The Council of Graduate
Schools.
This amendment is based on the Scientific Communication Act of 2007,
H.R. 1453, that I introduced with Chairman Gordon as an original
cosponsor. I would like to thank Chairman Gordon, Mr. Hope, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Inslee and Mr. Higgins for their cosponsorship of that legislation.
Before I close, I would like to address a few misconceptions about
this amendment. I want to be clear, this amendment contains no new
authorization levels. For those who said that this program would take
away from other NSF grants, I want to make a few points. The NSF
Director would determine the level of resources to devote to this
program. If the NSF Director does not deem this program worthy of
funding, it won't get any.
However, I think scientists, teachers, reporters, business owners,
Members of Congress and all our constituents should support this
program. This bill authorized $21 billion for the National Science
Foundation.
What good is that level of investment if we don't maximize the
benefits? You should not need a Ph.D. to utilize the ideas and
breakthroughs that NSF-supported research produces. That's why I am
proposing this amendment. It will help to bridge the communication gap
between scientists and the rest of us.
I hope all my colleagues here in the House will support this
amendment. As policymakers, I promise you, you will personally benefit
from this program when you hear expert testimony on technical topics.
But, more importantly, you should support it because it will enable all
your constituents to share in the excellent research supported by NSF.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise with some reluctance to speak against this amendment, because
I like the idea of what the gentlewoman from California is trying to
do. But my concern is twofold. First of all, this will cut into the
funding that the NSF already has. It's an added requirement for them.
But my major objection is, I have taught at the university level and
have taught at the college level. I have always felt this is the
responsibility of the colleges and universities to do, and they
shouldn't need an NSF grant to do this.
The job of the colleges and universities is to teach. What this is
proposing is that the NSF will be responsible for teaching these
students how to communicate their research.
I always tried to do that with my students when I had graduate
students. I think that's an integral part of the education program. So
I reluctantly urge defeat of this amendment, simply because I think we
ought to make it clear to the universities and the colleges that this
is part of their responsibility.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Matsui amendment. As Members
of Congress, we all understand just how critical communications skills
are, whether we are trying to influence our colleagues during debate
such as tonight, or trying to explain a vote to our constituents.
{time} 2200
If you cannot communicate effectively, the value of ideas can be lost
and all of your work may be lost. The same is true for our Nation's
scientists as they attempt to convey their work to colleagues and
especially to nonscientific audience.
This afternoon, when I had the opportunity to speak with five recent
American Nobel laureate scientists, I was very impressed by their
ability to explain their work. I may even say I was surprised. Why?
Because, unfortunately, scientists are not always the most gifted
speakers, and this is not a skill that we regularly find taught in
graduate schools. Dr. Ehlers was obviously doing a much better job when
he was a professor, but this is not something that I have found as a
professor that is taught very often. And I speak from experience both
as a professor and as an engineer, and perhaps some may say I
personally provide evidence supporting this generalization.
So the Matsui amendment addresses this problem by helping to provide
communication training to our Nation's young scientists. If scientists
can help better explain their research, it will help us as policymakers
as they come to explain and we could choose the best path to move
forward, especially in the Science Committee. And perhaps business
leaders will be better able to turn some academic research into a good
marketable product if they can understand what this research can do.
Finally, I believe that the ability of our scientists to more
effectively communicate scientific information will inspire more
children to pursue a career in science. No one is inspired by something
that they don't know because they are unable to understand it.
I thank Congresswoman Matsui for offering this amendment, and I urge
my colleagues for joining me in supporting it.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady from
California's amendment, and let me share with you why.
I think most Members of this body have had people from the scientific
community come and talk to us about why their research matters or how
it is going to help society, and we have said to ourselves or to them,
``Could you please put that in English so I know what you are talking
about?''
The challenge is that the esoteric realm that some of the scientists
work in is really beyond some of our ken. And I think that is fine. But
if we are going to make informed policy decisions, it is essential that
we understand the research that we are making decisions about that may
have been illustrated earlier tonight in some of the discussion.
Let me share with you, and I respect Dr. Ehlers immensely, as
everyone knows. But the very researchers who, if there is concern that
this proposal by the gentlelady from California would reduce funding
for other research, let me point out that many of the associations
whose members depend on the core research funding nevertheless believe
there is merit to this amendment. And let me share with you, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, I will read in a
moment what they have to say, the Federation of American Society for
Experimental Biology, the Council of Graduate Schools, the Society for
Neuroscience. I absolutely believe as a former teacher of science, I
believe it is our obligation as teachers to help our young charges
learn how to communicate what they do. But it is not being done well
enough, that has been recognized, and the gentlelady is to be commended
for it.
Let me share with you that the American Association for the
Advancement of Science says the following, which I will submit for
printing in the Record. ``While Federal support of scientific research
is of critical importance to innovation,'' and let me underscore this,
``it is also very important that we find ways to make sure that science
is effectively used to advance the human condition. Scientists and
engineers must have the tools needed to communicate the work they do.
The ability to more effectively communicate scientific information may
inspire more children to pursue a career in science, and certainly will
help a higher quality dialogue among the research community and the
citizens whose investment it relies on.''
So I commend the gentlelady. This is something that we don't talk
about a lot; but when people have to communicate information to the
policymakers or to the public or to the consumers of their research, it
is important they do so in a way that is intelligible. This amendment
moves an important step in that direction. I applaud her and urge its
passage.
American Association
for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2007.
Hon. Doris Matsui,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Matsui: Thank you for your support in the recent
passage of the reauthorization for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) by the House Science and Technology
Committee.
As you prepare to debate the NSF reauthorization bill (H.R.
1867) on the floor, I would like to express our support for
your efforts to improve scientific communication with the
public. For over 50 years, the NSF
[[Page H4402]]
has had a unique role in supporting basic research across the
spectrum of scientific disciplines. This support has led to
remarkable advances in fields as disparate as nanotechnology
and economic theory.
While federal support of scientific research is of critical
importance to innovation, it is also very important that we
find ways to make sure that science is effectively used to
advance the human condition. Scientists and engineers must
have the tools needed to communicate the work that they do.
The ability to more effectively communicate scientific
information may inspire more children to pursue a career in
science. It certainly will help create a higher quality
dialogue among the research community, the citizens whose
investment it relies upon, and the broad society it
ultimately serves.
Sincerely,
Alan L. Leshner,
Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am confused. The gentleman from Washington has been
stating about micromanaging the NSF; and now that I see what this
amendment does is not only try to micromanage what they do with their
grants and their money, but it is also saying to me that these
institutions that get these awards grants for the research from the NSF
do not have a complete teaching ability to teach these graduate
students how to put their thoughts to a nonscientist audience.
Now, to me, we are not only micromanaging the NSF, but now we are
getting into some of these schools that receive these grants and
saying: You are not doing a full curriculum enough that you can educate
these young scientists and these young researchers into how to explain
themselves to nonscientist audiences.
So I think you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either we don't
want to micromanage, and if we are going to micromanage, who is the
ultimate decider of that? And also, are we going to start micromanaging
what the curriculum is for these higher institutes of learning that are
turning out these scientists?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Lynch). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 19. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION AND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION.
It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) although the mathematics and science education
partnership program at the National Science Foundation and
the mathematics and science partnership program at the
Department of Education practically share the same name, the
2 programs are intended to be complementary, not duplicative;
(2) the National Science Foundation partnership programs
are innovative, model reform initiatives that move promising
ideas in education from research into practice to improve
teacher quality, develop challenging curricula, and increase
student achievement in mathematics and science, and Congress
intends that the National Science Foundation peer-reviewed
partnership programs found to be effective should be put into
wider practice by dissemination through the Department of
Education partnership programs; and
(3) the Director of the National Science Foundation and the
Secretary of Education should have ongoing collaboration to
ensure that the 2 components of this priority effort for
mathematics and science education continue to work in concert
for the benefit of States and local practitioners nationwide.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address a particular problem with
this amendment. We have, for some time, had activities within the
National Science Foundation aimed at teaching future teachers, teaching
them how to teach math and science, and this generally fell into the
rubric of a math-science partnership, because the Foundation itself did
not teach the teachers but rather responded to grants submitted by
professors at various institutions who were pleased to set up programs
to teach these future teachers or existing teachers how better to teach
math and science. These have been very successful programs and are
commonly referred to as the math-science partnership.
Recently, the Department of Education has developed programs
involving professional development for teachers in elementary and
secondary schools to try to bring them up to speed on the latest
developments in math and science and how to teach them. They ended up
calling it the math-science partnership.
This has resulted in a problem because some in the administration
decided to cut the budget of the National Science Foundation because
they felt this was a duplication of programs. It is not.
The National Science Foundation concentrates on doing research. The
Foundation's model is designed for competitive grants to spur
innovative programs that will be peer reviewed and evaluated to enhance
research on effective math and science education, whereas the
Department of Education ensures that this knowledge is disseminated to
as many school districts as possible. Knowledge gained from the
competitive foundation scholarships, in other words the National
Science Foundation math-science partnerships, can be used and is used
to prove and enhance State investments in programs developed by the
Department of Education.
In other words, these are two programs that happen to have the same
names. They are very symbiotic. The discoveries out of the research at
the National Science Foundation transfers directly over to the
Department of Education, and is there applied to instructions in the
classrooms and for teacher training programs.
{time} 2210
Another reason I come to offer this amendment is because the other
body, the Senate, is working on this same issue, this same bill, and
they have added an amendment which clarifies the difference between the
National Science Foundation programs and the Department of Education
programs. I am offering essentially the same amendment so that when we
go to conference with the Senate, this will be preagreed to. It's a
necessary and important clarification of the functions of the two, and
I urge the adoption of my amendment.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The superb gentleman from Michigan is absolutely right. It's a superb
amendment. We're happy to accept it, and I commend him for offering it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. McNerney
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. McNerney:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 19. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Director is authorized to establish a
new program to award grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed
basis to Hispanic-serving institutions to enhance the quality
of undergraduate science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology education at such institutions and to increase the
retention and graduation rates of students pursuing
associate's or baccalaureate degrees in science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology.
(b) Program Components.--Grants awarded under this section
shall support--
(1) activities to improve courses and curriculum in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology;
(2) faculty development;
(3) stipends for undergraduate students participating in
research; and
(4) other activities consistent with subsection (a), as
determined by the Director.
(c) Instrumentation.--Funding for instrumentation is an
allowed use of grants awarded under this section.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Gordon,
[[Page H4403]]
Ranking Member Hall, and my good friend Dr. Baird for bringing H.R.
1867, the National Science Foundation Reauthorization Act, to the
floor. This is a very important bill that will benefit our young
scientists for generations to come.
I would also like to thank some of my colleagues, Ms. Giffords and
Mr. Crowley, for their support.
My amendment makes a needed change to H.R. 1867 by allowing the
Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a competitive,
merit-based program to award grants to Hispanic-serving institutions
for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM
education.
The U.S. is in danger of falling behind the rest of our competitors
in the world in STEM education, and it is imperative that we improve
academics in this country. We need initiatives that increase
educational opportunities for all young adults in order to expand the
number of students who pursue careers in science and math-related
fields.
The National Academy of Science's study, Rising Above the Gathering
Storm, paints a very sobering picture of our future if we continue to
see declines in both the quality and the quantity of science and math
students. However, we can alter this current trend by expanding options
for our children.
The House has passed numerous bills in recent weeks to create new
opportunities in STEM education. These are excellent first steps.
Likewise, today's legislation, and my amendment, provide us with the
building blocks for academic progress. We should continue working hard
to improve access to education and offer better services for our
students and families.
This amendment does that by allowing Hispanic-serving institutions
throughout the country to participate in NSF programs. As the largest
minority group in the United States, Hispanic populations should be
encouraged to access the educational fields where we need the most
talent, in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
At San Joaquin Delta College in my district, and at hundreds of
similar 2- and 4-year institutions, students benefit from existing
funds and programs that will be enhanced by the adoption of this
amendment.
We should give the NSF the ability to support improvement of
curriculum and courses at Hispanic-serving institutions, while also
providing for faculty development initiatives that will lead to better-
educated students.
In addition to the benefits of these changes, my amendment is
fiscally responsible. It authorizes no new funding. It simply provides
the opportunity for Hispanic-serving institutions to compete for NSF
funds in the same way as other institutions.
The NSF already supports similar programs for Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges, and this amendment will
allow Hispanic-serving institutions to better serve our future leaders
and scientists.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the McNerney-
Giffords-Crowley amendment to the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2007.
I want to thank Congressman McNerney and Congressman Crowley for
their help in crafting this amendment. It has been a pleasure to work
with both of them.
A Hispanic-serving institution is defined as an institution of higher
education that has at least 25 percent Hispanic full-time enrollment,
and at least 50 percent of the school's student population must be
eligible for need-based financial aid.
This amendment will establish a new program in the National Science
Foundation to award grants to Hispanic-serving institutions on a
competitive, merit-reviewed basis. These grants will enhance the
quality of undergraduate science, math, engineering and technology
education. This will increase student retention and graduation rates
for those students pursuing degrees in these critical areas.
Specifically, this grant program will support faculty development,
which is critical; stipends for undergraduate students participating in
research; and initiatives to improve courses and curriculum in science,
math and engineering and technology.
In 2005, Mr. Chairman, a group of bipartisan congressional lawmakers
asked the experts at the National Academies for steps that policymakers
must pursue in order to ensure the United States remains globally
competitive.
Their report, entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which we
refer to frequently on the Science Committee, found that the United
States will stand to lose in terms of global competitiveness unless we
act immediately.
One of the recommendations was to increase the participation of
minorities in STEM education fields. That report stated that
``increasing participation of underrepresented minorities is critical
to ensuring a high-quality supply of scientists and engineers in the
United States over the long term. And as minority groups increase in
percentage within the United States population, increasing their
participation in those STEM fields is critical.''
In my home State of Arizona, 50 percent of the population 18 years of
age and younger are Hispanic. My amendment will ensure that Hispanics,
our Nation's largest ethnic minority, and many blacks, whites, Asians
and Native Americans who attend Hispanic-serving institutions will be
able to more fully contribute to American innovation. It will expand
the number of students graduating with the credentials to enter the
critical fields that impact American competitiveness, those STEM
fields.
This amendment truly benefits all of the United States of America.
In my district I have three Hispanic-serving institutions, Pima
Community College, Cochise Community College and, of course, the
University of Arizona South. All three of these institutions support
this amendment which would give them the opportunity to improve their
STEM education programs.
Dr. Karen Nicodemus, who is the president of Cochise College, told my
office, ``As President of a rural Hispanic-serving institution, I
applaud and strongly support any and all efforts to fund and expand
undergraduate student access to the STEM areas. Directing resources to
a growing but historically underserved student population is essential,
essential to fully engaging and preparing them for the 21st century,''
Mr. Chairman, which we know is so critical.
According to Dr. Roy Flores, who is the chancellor of Pima Community
College, ``Our ability to increase minority graduates in science,
technology, engineering and math degree programs will determine our
relative position in the global economy.''
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is all about keeping America globally
competitive in this 21st century. I encourage all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to simply rise to congratulate my colleagues, both Mr.
McNerney as well as Ms. Giffords, both leaders on the Science Committee
on this issue, in advancing our Democratic innovative agenda.
This amendment will benefit Hispanic-serving institutions throughout
our Nation to inspire more of our young people to seek careers in
industries that will foster the growth in mathematics and science among
primarily Hispanic-serving institutions.
{time} 2220
And I stand wholeheartedly behind this amendment. This will include
over 10,000 students in my district who will directly benefit from this
amendment. Let me just read some of the institutions in Queens and the
Bronx, including Lehman College, Bronx Community College, Hostos
Community College, LaGuardia Community College, Vaughn College of
Aeronautics and Technology at LaGuardia Airport, and the College of
Mount Saint Vincent. They are just a few of the colleges that will
benefit from this amendment.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support it and ask my
colleagues to support this amendment as well.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the McNerney-Giffords
amendment. This amendment establishes a new competitive grants program
specifically for Hispanic-Serving Institutions at the National Science
Foundation.
[[Page H4404]]
I would like to thank Representative McNerney and Representative
Giffords for their leadership in offering this amendment, which will
increase opportunities for so many undergraduate students.
This amendment will focus attention on the need to involve more
Hispanic students in the science field by creating a specific program
for Hispanic-Serving Institutions to receive infrastructure development
funding.
I would also like to thank Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Chairman
Baird, and the staff at the Science and Technology Committee for their
assistance in drafting this amendment, and for their commitment to
increasing participation of minorities in the science and technology
fields.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions serve the majority of the nearly two
million Hispanic students enrolled in college today, and many of these
institutions offer associate, undergraduate, and graduate programs and
degrees in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
fields.
The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program created by
this amendment will allow these colleges and universities to access the
funding they need to enhance their educational programs.
In my district alone, about 10,000 students attend Hispanic-Serving
Institutions offering degrees in these science fields. Students at
institutions throughout Queens and the Bronx, including Lehman College,
Bronx Community College, Hostos Community College, LaGuardia Community
College, Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology, and the College
of Mount Saint Vincent, like those all across the country, will benefit
from increased access to funding to improve these degree programs.
This amendment corrects a long-standing inequality at the National
Science Foundation.
Unlike their counterparts of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions have not benefited from a specific program to provide them
with grants for research, curriculum, and infrastructure development.
Without access to targeted capacity-building grants, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions have difficulty increasing the ranks of Hispanics in the
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, where they
have been historically underrepresented. Studies show that Hispanics
earn less than 3 percent of doctorates in these areas, compared to more
than 50 percent by non-Hispanic whites.
This amendment also goes to the heart of the Innovation Agenda
spearheaded by Speaker Pelosi and the new Democratic Coalition in the
House to increase our Nation's competitiveness and create more math and
science graduates.
To maintain our global competitiveness, we need to increase our pool
of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.
We can do this by ensuring that Hispanics, the youngest and fastest-
growing ethnic population group in the nation, are prepared with the
knowledge and skills that will contribute to our Nation's future
economic strength, security and global leadership.
This grants program will educate and train a new generation of
experts in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics areas.
By engaging Hispanic-Serving Institutions in this process, we can reach
out to and involve more of the Hispanic educational community.
The National Science Foundation, through its undergraduate and
graduate programs, can assist Hispanic-Serving Institutions in
developing programs to prepare current and future generations of
Hispanics and other minority professionals in the sciences.
I applaud the establishment of a Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Undergraduate Program to achieve these goals, and I urge passage of
this excellent amendment by Representatives McNerney and Giffords.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The prior speakers have been very eloquent in support of this and the
hour is late; so I won't go into any detail. I just want to commend
them for their leadership on this and urge support of this outstanding
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to commend my colleagues as well for bringing what would on
its face value be seen as a remarkably new and innovative program. In
fact, I think as the gentleman said, advancing ``the Democratic
innovation agenda.'' Well, it is curious, Mr. Chairman, because if you
view and look specifically at the language that is in this amendment,
and it is to be commended indeed, it bears striking resemblance to the
language in current law. In fact, the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act of 2002, section 24 has language that is exactly the
same as is in this amendment.
So I want to commend my colleagues for being inventive and being
innovative indeed.
I also think it would be appropriate for them to cite, in fact, where
the original language came from, and that was the prior Republican
Congress. So I commend my colleagues for their innovation, indeed, in
formulating an amendment that is already in place in current law.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 19. REQUIREMENT OF OFFSETS.
(a) In General.--No authorization of appropriations made by
this Act or other provision of this Act that results in costs
to the Federal Government shall be effective except to the
extent that this Act provides for offsetting decreases in
spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect
of this Act does not either increase the Federal deficit or
reduce the Federal surplus.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``deficit''
and ``surplus'' have the meanings given such terms in the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 621 et seq.).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late and we
are drawing to a close on this, and I think this is an appropriate
amendment upon which to end for this is the amendment that allows us as
a Congress to say, yes, indeed, we believe that fiscal responsibility
is important.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill, the National Science Foundation
Authorization Act, authorizes $20.973 billion, nearly $21 billion, over
3 years and creates five new Federal programs. The National Science
Foundation Authorization Act establishes a pilot program of 1-year seed
grants for new investigators to help improve funding rates for young
investigators and to stimulate higher-risk research. It encourages the
NSF to foster relationships between academia and industry in order to
spawn U.S. competitiveness and furthers the Agency's traditions of
education in science, technology, engineering, and math.
The NSF has a mission to achieve excellence in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education at all levels and all settings
from kindergarten through postdoctoral training, from classrooms to
science museums and online resources, having done so for the last half
century. And while what this bill does is extremely important, equally
important is this amendment that will apply the principle of pay as you
go to any new spending authorized by this legislation by requiring that
any new spending have a specific offset.
The amendment provides that no authorization of appropriations made
by this Act that results in costs to the Federal Government shall be
effective unless there are decreases in spending elsewhere in the
Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, common sense dictates that that is what we should do.
Not only common sense, but previous promises by this new majority. An
excerpt of ``A New Direction for America,'' which was proposed by House
Democrats in the 109th Congress as their plan for the majority, it
reads: ``Our New Direction is committed to pay-as-you-go budgeting, no
more deficit spending. We are committed to auditing the books and
subjecting every facet of Federal spending to tough budget discipline
and accountability, forcing the Congress to choose a new direction and
the right priorities for all Americans.''
Well, hear, hear, Mr. Chairman. I heartily agree. But on April 18,
Majority Leader Hoyer was quoted in Roll Call as saying, ``We want to
get the budget deficit under control. We have said that fiscal
responsibility was necessary, but we're not going to be hoisted on the
torrent of fiscal responsibility.''
Well, Mr. Chairman, Americans all across this Nation are being shaken
down by a ``torrent'' of fiscal irresponsibility.
[[Page H4405]]
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, the rules are not rules if you only
follow them when you want to. The Democrats promised pay-as-you-go
rules for everything. Instead, they are picking and choosing, picking
and choosing when to do so. At home, we call that breaking a rule and
breaking a promise.
So while what this bill does is extremely important, $20.973 billion
is a considerable amount of money even here in Washington, and it is
equally important that we are good stewards of the hard-earned money of
the American people. We should not limit our talk about fiscal
responsibility only when it is politically convenient.
So I urge the new majority to rededicate itself to the principle of
pay-as-you-go spending. Fiscal responsibility shouldn't be something
that is just talked about only on the campaign trail.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this commonsense, fiscally
responsible, pay-as-you-go amendment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
In the midst of all this serious debate about an extremely important
bill, I would like to pause just a moment to have a lighter moment that
we can all enjoy as we recognize that one of our leading Members in
this Congress tomorrow reaches a major milestone. The ranking member of
the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall,
tomorrow will begin the second half of his life. He reaches the age of
84 tomorrow. So we can all celebrate with him and appreciate the
tremendous contributions he has made to this Congress and to this
country.
And I think it is entirely appropriate that on the eve of this
important occasion, he spends the entire evening in this Chamber
debating the esoteric aspects of science and its results.
So I hope all of you will join me at some point in the next day of
wishing Mr. Hall an immensely wonderful 84th birthday tomorrow.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to share the happy birthday wishes to the
distinguished ranking member and thank him for his bipartisan
participation in not only this, but so many endeavors.
Congratulations, Ralph. You are a dear friend and a model to many of
us, and I very much appreciate all your service.
I also want to thank Chairman Gordon for his leadership in not only
this bill but the entire innovation agenda that has been moving through
this Congress so efficiently and with, again, good bipartisan support.
I mentioned Mr. Ehlers repeatedly earlier tonight. He has been so
central to the passage of this bill. And I especially want to thank the
majority staff and the minority staff. We have worked very well
together.
And I want to thank my dear friends and colleagues on the other side.
Though we have had a spirited disagreement on some issues and agreed on
some, it has been a civil debate, a well-intentioned debate, and I
think it has advanced our discussion of the important role of this
legislation.
The amendment by the gentleman from Georgia has been offered before.
It has been defeated before on other bills. I would urge its defeat.
And after we accomplish that, I would urge passage of this otherwise
outstanding bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to rise to first thank Dr. Ehlers and reiterate my
support for H.R. 1867. I think we have a good bill here that propels us
on down the innovation and competitiveness path that the President is
on and that we have been on. I also thank Chairman Gordon and Chairman
Baird.
Dr. Ehlers, I thank you again for helping to make this a better bill.
In fact, I would argue that there is no one in this body more familiar
with NSF than you are.
{time} 2230
I thank you for your work for and against some of these amendments.
I rise in support of the bill and urge an ``aye'' vote on it.
And, Dr. Baird, I thank you personally for your kindness and the
classy way you've handled yourself today.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
The amendment to Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Sullivan of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Honda of California.
Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Campbell of California.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Campbell of California.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
Amendment No. 8 by Ms. Matsui of California.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sullivan to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr.
Honda
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Sullivan) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 250, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 287]
AYES--166
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
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
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--250
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
[[Page H4406]]
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
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
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
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
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Feeney
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Neal (MA)
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
{time} 2255
Messrs. JOHNSON of Illinois, DAVIS of Illinois, REYES and RUSH
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MACK and Mrs. SCHMIDT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Honda
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
The question was taken; and the Acting 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 252,
noes 165, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 288]
AYES--252
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
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 (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
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
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--165
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Mollohan
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute
remains in the vote.
{time} 2259
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
[[Page H4407]]
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 222, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
AYES--195
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Gene
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--222
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Mollohan
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised they have
1 minute remaining to vote.
{time} 2305
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, during Rollcall
vote No. 289 on H.R. 1867, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``no'' when
I should have voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement
appear in the Record immediately following Rollcall vote No. 289.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 115,
noes 301, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 290]
AYES--115
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ellsworth
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Putnam
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--301
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
[[Page H4408]]
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--21
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Doyle
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised they have
1 minute remaining to vote.
{time} 2308
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 292, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 291]
AYES--126
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ellsworth
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Putnam
Ramstad
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--292
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--19
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 2313
Mr. PERLMUTTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4409]]
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Flake
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 128,
noes 290, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 292]
AYES--128
Aderholt
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Donnelly
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--290
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 2317
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Matsui
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 186, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 293]
AYES--232
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
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)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
[[Page H4410]]
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--186
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bean
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Brady (PA)
Cannon
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute
remains in this vote.
{time} 2322
Mrs. GILLIBRAND changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 235, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 294]
AYES--183
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--235
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
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)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Faleomavaega
Fattah
Fortuno
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Tancredo
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute
remains in this vote.
{time} 2326
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
[[Page H4411]]
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lynch, Acting 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.
1867) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010
for the National Science Foundation, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 349, 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? If not, 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 399,
noes 17, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 295]
AYES--399
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
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)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
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
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
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
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
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
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
Sutton
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
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--17
Barrett (SC)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Linder
Pitts
Royce
Sali
Shadegg
NOT VOTING--16
Brady (PA)
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Engel
Fattah
Graves
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Lampson
McMorris Rodgers
Ortiz
Paul
Radanovich
Sullivan
Tancredo
{time} 2344
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________