[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 77 (Tuesday, May 19, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3321-H3329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1806, AMERICA COMPETES
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2250,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2353, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ACT OF
2015
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 271 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 271
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1806) to provide for technological innovation
through the prioritization of Federal investment in basic
research, fundamental scientific discovery, and development
to improve the competitiveness of the United States, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology now printed in the bill, it shall be in order
to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
114-15. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2250) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for
the
[[Page H3322]]
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2353) to
provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety,
motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out
of the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, H. Res. 271, providing for consideration of three
important bills.
This rule provides for consideration of the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2015 and the Legislative Branch Appropriations
Act of 2016 under structured rules, and the Highway and Transportation
Funding Act of 2015 under a closed rule. It is important to note that
this combined rule allows for separate consideration of each bill. This
House will separately debate and consider these important issues.
The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is traditionally
considered under a structured amendment process, and that practice is
continued today.
The America COMPETES Act makes a dozen amendments in order, with more
than half--eight amendments--coming from Democratic sponsors.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1806 is a fiscally responsible proscience bill that
reauthorizes civilian research programs at the Department of Energy,
the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, and the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
The bill keeps our Nation competitive on the global stage and works
to refocus the Federal Government's primary scientific role to fund
basic research. This reprioritization of basic research will help
ensure future U.S. economic competitiveness and security and will spur
additional private sector technological innovation, which is crucial to
the United States remaining a world leader in scientific and
technological advances.
This bill keeps overall funding for these programs equal to the
fiscal year 2015 appropriated levels and is consistent with the caps
set by the Budget Control Act, prioritizing taxpayer investment in
basic research without increasing overall Federal spending.
The emphasis this legislation places on Federal investment and
research in the physical sciences and engineering helps to develop and
advance knowledge and technologies used in fields by scientists who are
dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans.
I have seen firsthand the importance of these investments while
visiting the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, one of our 17
national labs, which I am proud to represent in my district,
Washington's Fourth District.
The work being done at PNNL and at the national labs and research
universities all across the country is critical to our country's
future, and the prioritizations and reforms on this bill will enhance
the work being done to the benefit of all Americans.
Additionally, H.R. 1806 reduces by $1 billion the administration's
large and unjustified program, such as late stage commercialization,
which picks winners and losers that compete with the private sector.
We must be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and this
legislation will prevent duplicative and wasteful research activities
by requiring the Department of Energy to certify that the work being
done is original and has not already been conducted by another Federal
agency.
Overall, the America COMPETES Act will reestablish the priority of
basic research in the core physical sciences and biology in the
Nation's civilian science agencies. This bill sets the right priorities
for our Nation's civilian research and will promote U.S. innovation,
ingenuity, and competitiveness, all without increasing our national
debt or deficit.
This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2250, the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2016. This legislation
provides funding for all operations of the United States House of
Representatives, the U.S. Capitol complex, the Capitol Police, the
Congressional Budget Office, and the many other agencies that are so
important to the day-to-day functions of Congress.
H.R. 2250 provides the legislative branch with $3.3 billion in fiscal
year 2016--the same amount as fiscal year 2014, as well as fiscal year
2015--continuing this Chamber's commitment to leading by example during
these times of huge deficits and out-of-control debt.
The activities this bill funds are critical to the operations of the
Capitol complex, which must be protected, cared for, and maintained.
Visitors from my district in central Washington, as well as visitors
from across the country and throughout the world, travel countless
miles to visit this remarkable institution, which is a symbol of
democracy and freedom for so many.
For these and many other reasons, we must ensure that the Capitol
remains in this pristine condition and is able to withstand the test of
time so that many future generations are able to visit this truly
unique and historic place.
{time} 1245
Finally, this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2353, the
Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015.
H.R. 2353 will extend the highway trust fund's expenditure authority
for 2 months--from May 31 to July 31. It will also provide an extension
for many important Federal highway and public transportation programs,
such as the motor carrier and highway safety programs as well as the
hazardous materials transportation program, through July 31.
Last August, Congress passed and the President signed the Highway and
Transportation Funding Act of 2014, which was intended to provide
enough funding for the highway trust fund to remain solvent through May
31 of this year. However, the funding is now lasting longer than was
originally predicted, and this bill will extend the trust fund's
expenditure authority so that transportation spending is able to
continue through July while Congress works to find a solution that will
ensure the trust fund remains solvent for years to come. A constructive
dialogue in Congress is needed on this issue, one that will give States
the certainty they need to build the roads, the bridges,
[[Page H3323]]
and other infrastructure that our communities and our economy need to
thrive in the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good, straightforward rule. I support its
adoption, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bills.
We should be celebrating today the start of the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals expansion and the Deferred Action for Parents of
American Citizens program that President Obama launched in light of the
continued failure of this Congress to finally fix our broken
immigration system. This Congress hasn't brought forth a single
immigration bill, not secured our border, not ensured that employers
follow our law and only employ legal American workers; but, rather, at
every opportunity, it has sought to thwart the executive branch, doing
what they can with the powers they have under our U.S. Constitution to
restore the rule of law without the help of this body.
These three bills before us today are yet another way of kicking the
ball down the road and refusing to address our broken immigration
system, a problem that will continue to get worse until Congress steps
up and solves it.
I hope that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program's
expansion, known as DACA--already a great success with additional
success along the way with the new expansion--and the Deferred Action
for Parents of American Citizens program, or DAPA, are soon unclogged
by the courts to at least reduce the size of this sometimes
insurmountable problem that Congress continues to refuse to tackle.
That is the alternative.
If Congress continues to bring up three bills every week and if none
of them are about border security and none of them are about
immigration, do you know what? Instead of there being 10 million people
here illegally, there are going to be 15 or 20 million here 10 years.
That is exactly where this Republican Congress is leading us--towards
an America where, someday, there might be more people here illegally
than there are here legally. Think about that, Mr. Speaker.
This first bill that we are considering before us today is not
immigration reform. It is, instead, a 2-month extension of the current
surface transportation authorization. Our transportation system is the
lifeblood of our country. It dictates our ability to move and manage
not only people but information, ideas, products, industries, commerce,
jobs. By failing to pass a long-term transportation reauthorization,
which will ensure the security of our highways and transit systems for
more than 60 days, we are putting our Nation's economic lifeblood in
jeopardy.
The second bill we will see before us today is not immigration
reform. The second bill, instead, is a partisan attempt to inject the
ideological priorities of my Republican colleagues into education and
research, priorities that are opposed by the very titans of research
for whom this bill is ostensibly designed. I will talk more about that
in a moment.
Of the third bill before us today, I am hopeful. Is it immigration
reform? I ask the gentleman from Washington: Is the third bill before
us today immigration reform? I am happy to yield to the gentleman for
an answer.
In reclaiming my time, he is speechless. He is speechless because he
knows the truth: the third bill is not immigration reform. The third
bill is actually the funding bill for the legislative branch of
government. Maybe if the legislative branch of government were actually
doing its job we would have an immigration reform bill before us; but,
no, my colleague from Washington is speechless because he knows as well
as I do that this is not immigration reform, that it is, instead, a
funding bill for Members of Congress' salaries and the salaries of our
staffs. I guess that is more important than securing our border. I
guess that is more important to the Republicans than restoring the rule
of law.
Let me get into these three bills.
The Surface Transportation Act would extend the authority of the
government to fund our highways for 2 months--only for 2 months. What
that means is we risk wasting $51 billion and, in jeopardizing that
funding, risk over 660,000 jobs by failing to do a long-term
authorization of the highway trust fund.
We all have an interest in this. Any one of us can talk about the
importance of transportation in our districts. If you have ever been to
Colorado, you will know that there is one major artery to get to our
world-class ski facilities and unparalleled 14,000 peaks from the metro
area--Highway 70. If you have ever taken it, particularly on a Friday,
or have come back on a Sunday, you might very well have sat in your car
at a dead stop. If you have been to Fort Collins, which is the largest
city in my district and is home to one of our great universities,
Colorado State University, you might have found similar circumstances
around the long rush hour on Highway 25 north. Waiting 45 minutes in
traffic to go 5 or 10 miles is something my constituents do every day--
doubling, tripling, quadrupling their commuting time.
These stories aren't unique to Colorado. They aren't unique to my
district. I will bet every Member of Congress can share the importance
of transportation in their districts. That is why, ostensibly, every
Member of Congress says, ``We want transportation. We support roads.''
There are no Republican roads and Democratic roads. There are roads.
Yet, by continuing to fail to provide a long-term funding structure for
them, we are playing games with the livelihoods of the American people,
hurting our own economic lifeblood, wasting people's time as they are
sitting in traffic, throwing into jeopardy the status of the jobs of
contractors and subcontractors, and risking lives by continuing to
repair our necessary bridges and infrastructure that have accumulated
safety deficits. I urge my colleagues to consider the irresponsibility
inherent in this punt.
I would also like to talk about the America COMPETES Act. Now, the
original genesis of this bill, which was passed in 2007, was to help
America compete in an increasingly global environment across the
sciences and to ensure our innovative spirit.
My district is a hub for scientific research, and we are excited to
have the University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado State University,
NOAA, NREL, and NCAR. Research that is done in Colorado has
ramifications and positive effects across the country, like our space
weather lab in Boulder, which helps make sure that air traffic
controllers and pilots have access to up-to-the-minute information
about solar flares that could alter their trajectories in realtime.
This bill, instead of continuing the bipartisan legacy that the
original COMPETES Act sets out or instead of replacing our broken
immigration system with one that works for our country, seems to
cherry-pick winners based on ideology and overturns the historic
priorities of the bill. Why else would the dean of Research at CU-
Boulder oppose this bill? Why else would our widely respected Secretary
of Energy oppose this bill? Dozens of the largest scientific
organizations and coalitions--this is supposed to be a science bill--
are saying, ``Don't give us this bill. It will hurt science in our
country.'' How does that even make any sense?
The efforts of the Republicans to hijack this legislation for
ideological interests are utterly transparent. Scientists are saying,
``Go home Federal Government. Don't help us with this bill.'' Again, in
yet another instance of Federal overreach, the Republicans are imposing
their versions of science on those in the field who are doing work.
Finally, this rule brings forth H.R. 2250, also a bill that is not
immigration reform. It does nothing to secure our border, but it does
make sure that Members of Congress get paid. I am sure Republicans can
go home happy about that. It makes sure our hard-working staff gets
paid, the committees get paid, and the buildings get repaired.
No, I am not against those things. Those are fine things. If we had
an all-volunteer legislature, we probably
[[Page H3324]]
wouldn't have the fine caliber of statesmen we have tackling our
national problems here today. But it is not immigration reform, Mr.
Speaker. It doesn't secure our border, and it will only continue to
increase the number of people who are here illegally in our country
while Congress continues to punt and to undermine the efforts of the
President to do what he can with the powers he has through DACA and
DAPA, which were scheduled to start today.
I do want to point out that the underlying draft of this Legislative
Branch Appropriations Act is another example of the failure to address
many of the needs of our country. There was an effort by my colleague
Debbie Wasserman Schultz to put forward an amendment to ensure that
House cafeteria workers receive a living wage. You would think we would
want to be an example of a model employer. I would hope that we, as
custodians of the U.S. Capitol, would take some pride in that we are a
model employer; we are a little microcosm of what employers should do,
best practices. But there is a Senate employee who is homeless because,
on the salary he gets, he can't even afford to rent here in Washington.
People who work every day here in the Nation's Capital are living in
poverty.
I think that we can do better as a model employer. If this were my
company, I would take no pride in that. I would like to think that this
is our company. It is the United States of America, and we are the
board. Let's have employment policies that we as employers can be proud
of.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and to, instead, bring
to the floor immigration reform or better versions of these bills: a
science bill that, maybe, scientists support, maybe; or a
transportation bill that maybe funds our highways for more than 2
months so that people can plan. It is time we begin working for the
American people, not against them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I share the gentleman from Colorado's opinion that the issue of
immigration reform is huge, that it is one of the biggest issues facing
this country today. I agree that we need to give it adequate debate and
time and consideration; although, today is not the day.
Mr. Speaker, we recently heard from colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that combining multiple bills in a single rule can lead to
fragmented and confusing debate.
In an effort to refocus our debate today, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding me time, and who is a former member of the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee himself.
H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a
pro-science, fiscally responsible bill that sets America on a path to
remain the world's leader in innovation. This bill reauthorizes
civilian research programs at the National Science Foundation, at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, at the Department of
Energy, and at the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Since January, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has
held numerous hearings that have provided input into this bill. This
includes budget hearings with the NSF Director, the Acting NIST
Director, the Secretary of Energy, and the Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. But our consideration of the
provisions in this bill began long before last year.
In the last Congress, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee
held numerous hearings on the topics addressed by this bill as well,
and many of the provisions in the bill were debated during the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee's consideration of the first act last
Congress, which the Science, Space, and Technology Committee passed in
May.
Title I of the bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation for
2 years and provides a 4.3 percent increase for research and related
activities. The bill prioritizes funding for the directors of biology,
computer science, engineering, and mathematics and physical sciences,
and it recognizes the need to make strategic investments in basic R&D
for the U.S. to remain the global leader in science and innovation.
The bill reprioritizes research spending at the National Science
Foundation by reducing funding for the Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Directorate and Geosciences. The bill, instead, focuses funds on the
physical sciences from which there are almost all of the scientific
breakthroughs that drive new technology, new businesses, industries,
and job creation and that spurs innovation.
Tight Federal budget constraints require all taxpayers' dollars to be
spent on high-value science in the national interest. Unfortunately,
the National Science Foundation has funded a number of projects that do
not meet the highest standards of scientific merit--from climate change
musicals, to evaluating animal photographs in National Geographic, to
studying human-set fires in New Zealand in the 1800s--and there are
dozens of other examples.
{time} 1300
The bill ensures accountability by restoring the original intent of
the 1950 NSF Act and requiring that all grants serve the national
interest.
Title II represents the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's
commitment to enhancing STEM education programs. A healthy and viable
STEM workforce is critical to American industries and ensures our
future economic prosperity. The definition of STEM is expanded to
include computer science, which connects all STEM subjects.
Title III includes three bipartisan bills the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology approved in March. Those bills--H.R. 1119, the
Research and Development Efficiency Act; H.R. 1156, the International
Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2015; and H.R. 1162, the
Science Prize Competitions Act--passed the committee by voice vote. Two
of these bills were sponsored by Democrats.
Title IV supports the important measurement standards and technology
work taking place at the National Institute for Standards and
Technology laboratories, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
program, and the recently authorized Network for Manufacturing
Innovation.
Title V reauthorizes the Department of Energy Office of Science for 2
years at a 5.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2015. It prioritizes
basic research that enables researchers in all 50 States to have access
to world-class user facilities, including supercomputers and high-
intensity light sources. This bill also prevents duplication and
requires DOE to certify that its climate science work is unique and not
being undertaken by other Federal agencies.
Title VI reauthorizes the DOE applied research and development
programs and activities for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017.
H.R. 1806 refocuses some spending on late-stage commercialization
efforts within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to
research and development efforts.
Title VII proposes to cut red tape and bureaucracy in the DOE
technology transfer process. Currently, the private sector has little
incentive to build reactor prototypes due to regulatory uncertainty
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
H.R. 1806 sets the right priorities for Federal civilian research,
which enhances innovation and U.S. competitiveness without adding to
the Federal deficit and debt. I encourage all my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I was told the gentleman from Washington
shares a desire to address the broken immigration system. I know the
chair of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Sessions, has indicated similarly.
Just as I have posed to Mr. Sessions in the past, I would like to pose
to the gentleman from Washington if he has a timeframe for when we can
expect immigration legislation here on the floor of the House.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington to answer
that.
Well, sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a
[[Page H3325]]
member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to just one aspect on the floor of this
rule. My colleague from Washington made a statement that we are dealing
with a 2-month extension because we found some extra money to let it
last longer.
No, the reason that we are having a 2-month extension is because we
have not been able to resolve this problem. I made the remarks on the
floor of the House last summer that extending it to May is not going to
get us anyplace, and we would be right back in the same spot. I could
dust off the same speech.
What is happening is that you have a little tiny bit of give, but it
doesn't mean that we have enough money and that there aren't
consequences. There are States across the country, because of the
uncertainty of the Republican funding approach, that are already
cutting back on construction projects this summer.
This will be the 33rd short-term funding extension. It is a symbol of
the failure of my Republican colleagues to do anything in the 55 months
that they have been in charge to deal with transportation funding. They
have never even had a hearing on transportation finance.
Now, I will say that over the last 22 years there have been some
bipartisan failures to step up to it. Ironically, the solution is
clear, thoroughly studied, and broadly supported: raise the gas tax for
the first time since 1993.
The Republican leadership doesn't have to do anything extraordinary,
just allow the Committee on Ways and Means to follow regular order.
Have some serious committee hearings. Listen to the experts. Invite in
the stakeholders that build, that maintain, and use our transportation
system. Let's have at the witness dais heads of the AFL-CIO, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce--who agree we should raise the gas tax--the head of
transit, the American Trucking Association, AAA, bicyclists.
They could refer back to great Republican leaders of the past. Dwight
Eisenhower established the gas tax to fund the Interstate Highway
System. Ronald Reagan, the conservative icon, called Congress back in
November of 1982 to more than double the gas tax, which Ronald Reagan
and Tip O'Neill did.
In fact, my Republican friends could involve Republican leaders
today. Six Republican States have raised the gas tax already this year:
Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, Georgia.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Not exactly liberal bastions.
This is something that we can and should do. Let's step up, solve
this problem, avoid this continual uncertainty for people around the
country. They deserve better.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, just a note to my colleague from Colorado,
I agree that this is an important issue that he keeps bringing up of
immigration, and I will certainly ask my chairman for any timeframe,
and I will look forward to working with him and all my colleagues on
solving this important issue.
But today we are talking about highways. We are talking about
science. We are talking about keeping this place running smoothly.
To get us back on subject, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding me the time. I am glad to hear I am getting us back on
subject.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule on H.R. 1806, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. This is fiscally
responsible legislation that cuts wasteful government spending and
prioritizes innovative scientific research and development.
A key reform included in the America COMPETES Act is reining in
spending at the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, or EERE. EERE's budget has grown by almost 60 percent
in the last decade. President Obama's fiscal year 2016 budget request
for EERE is over $2.7 billion, with a B, which is a requested increase
of another $800 million over last fiscal year.
The Department of Energy's approach to energy research and
development has also become more and more unbalanced with the EERE's
continued growth. In fact, the President's proposed budget for EERE R&D
is more than double the budgets for nuclear, fossil, and electricity
R&D combined. In addition, the work prioritized by EERE is far too
focused on increasing the use of today's existing technology. Many EERE
programs are focused on reducing market barriers for existing
technology or funding R&D activities already prioritized by the private
sector, not conducting the fundamental research to build towards future
breakthroughs.
With our national debt at $18 trillion and rising, and spending caps
guiding budgets on everything from energy to national defense, Congress
cannot rubberstamp this kind of out-of-control spending. It is time to
adjust the Department of Energy's budget to reality.
The America COMPETES Act refocuses Federal investment on energy
research and development, not deployment of today's technology. By
funding the basic research and development prioritized in the America
COMPETES Act, the Department of Energy can build a foundation for the
private sector to bring innovative energy technology to the market and
thereby grow the American economy.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on
H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards), the ranking member on the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Space.
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today both as a member of the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
I can't think of a worse rule, frankly, that we could bring to the
floor. We could have had bipartisan cooperation on America COMPETES so
that we can invest in our science and our research and our technology,
and yet that is not what is happening here today.
As to the Highway and Transportation Funding Act, it doesn't allow
for any amendments to the legislation that would fix and fund our
Nation's crumbling infrastructure with predictability, stability, and
for the long term. The highway trust fund and the current surface
transportation authorization, as we know, are set to expire on May 31,
leaving just 3 legislative days to extend it or 4,000 transportation
workers will be laid off and work would stop on Federal highway
programs all across the country right in the middle of prime
construction and building season.
Now, the responsible among us know that we can't walk away from the
highway trust fund. Millions of jobs and thousands of businesses hang
in the balance. But we also know that what is before us today is the
least most responsible way to fund our infrastructure--2 months at a
time. Can you believe it? Two months at a time, Mr. Speaker; no long-
term projects, no opportunity for planning, no relief for workers, and
at another pivotal moment in the construction season.
As a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
today I am joining Ranking Member DeFazio and Eleanor Holmes Norton in
introducing the GROW AMERICA Act on behalf of the administration. This
bill would serve us well to provide $478 billion over 6 years for our
highways, bridges, transit, rail, and highway safety programs. This
long-term and robust funding bill is a 45 percent increase over our
current spending on our tatterdemalion and crumbling infrastructure. It
is the type of plan that we have to ensure that our major-league
economy does not have the infrastructure that wouldn't even fit
children playing T-ball.
While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle twiddle their
thumbs 2 months at a time, America is falling apart. Once one of the
leaders in the world in quality infrastructure, we are now number 16,
according to the World Economic Forum. According to the American
Society of Engineers, the overall assessment of our Nation's
infrastructure ranks with a whopping D-plus.
[[Page H3326]]
Now look at my home State of Maryland: 5,305 bridges are deficient;
they are falling apart. That is 27 percent of the bridges in our State.
Just a few months ago, one of my constituents was driving along
Suitland Parkway, minding her own business, when a chunk of cement fell
and hit her car hood because the bridge was in disrepair.
Though it is not my preference, we have to extend the highway trust
fund today, and I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to use this time to go through a bipartisan negotiation on how to
pay for our long-term and fully funded investments to construct and
rebuild our roads, bridges, transit, and rail infrastructure.
Thirty-four extensions of the highway trust fund, 52 votes against
ACA. Come on, let's get serious. Move away from the kids' table; get to
the grownup table and fund our highway transportation and
infrastructure.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, the reason you hear so many people talking
about different topics is there are three completely unrelated topics
in this single rule. There is the funding for all of the legislative
salaries and the people who work in this building, that is one bill;
another one funds roads, but only for 2 months, across the whole
country; and the other one is the one that they say is for science but
all the scientists oppose. So that is why it is so confusing. There are
three completely unrelated bills in here, none of which do a thing
about illegal immigration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Welch), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
{time} 1315
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we need a surface transportation bill, but the last
thing in the world we need is this bill, a 2-month extension.
If this short-term plan was a necessary step to get us to a long-term
bill, that would make some sense; but, as speakers have noted, this is
the 33rd time in the past 5 years where Congress has failed to provide
long-term and sustainable funding for our surface transportation needs.
This is a habit; it is not a plan.
Mr. Speaker, this bill follows on the heels of the bill we passed 9
months ago, and that was a 9-month extension of surface transportation
paid for by ``pension smoothing.'' You can't make that up.
We lowered the obligation corporations pay to pensions in order to
put money in the highway transportation fund. We created a pothole in
pensions to fix potholes in the highways; it makes no sense, but now,
we are here on a 2-month plan--a good job, Congress.
We were given some assurances that we would have a long-term bill.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are good long-term plans
out there. Congressman Renacci has a plan, the President has a plan, as
do Congressman Delaney and Congressman Blumenauer. There are policies
out there. We don't need a policy debate. We need a decision.
The reality is we have got to make Congress work, do its job, and
pass a long-term funding bill that is going to allow this country to
modernize its airports, fix its bridges, make its railroads safer, and
dredge our ports deeper.
We have to bring our 20th century infrastructure into the 21st
century, and the only way we are going to get that done is by stepping
up to the responsibility that we have to pass a long-term funding plan.
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Speaker himself that it is a
tough job putting a bill on the floor. It always is tough when Congress
has to pull the trigger on what that revenue source is going to be.
I will support any plan that is reasonable and sustainable. The only
plan I won't support is no revenue plan at all.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Colorado for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I worked at the Economic
Development Board for Tacoma, and in my office, I had a sign that said:
``We are competing with everyone, everywhere, every day, forever.''
That sentiment was echoed in a report by the National Academies last
decade called, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which was the main
influence behind the bipartisan America COMPETES Act. The report
provided us with a pathway on how to increase American competitiveness
so that we don't fall behind our global competitors.
Its finding were stark. The report told us that, if we are going to
compete as a nation, if we want innovation to happen here in America,
if we want jobs to be created here in America, we need to make
significant investments in basic research and double the funding
dedicated toward research and development. That is from that report.
That is not what we are doing here today. In fact, funding for basic
research in the bill that we are currently debating fails to keep up
with the rate of inflation. It fails to live up to the standards set
forth in that bipartisan report.
When this bill was first considered in the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee last Congress, a group of my fellow members of the
New Democratic Coalition developed a set of principles we thought
should guide a reauthorization of America COMPETES legislation.
These principles included increasing funding for basic research,
stabilizing funding for research and development, and supporting
policies that spark innovation.
We were disappointed when the FIRST Act strayed away from these
policies and are disappointed this America COMPETES legislation fails
to make investments needed for America to remain competitive in the
21st century.
The amendment I introduced, along with my colleagues, does not call
for doubling the funding for research and development in the underlying
bill or put funding on pace with what was outlined in ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm.'' The amendment we put forward was a compromise.
Unfortunately, this amendment was made out of order and not brought to
the floor for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, if we fail to make critical investments in research and
innovation, America will fall behind. Let's take up a bill that lives
up to the spirit of bipartisanship and the goals laid out in ``Rising
Above the Gathering Storm.'' Let's compete everywhere, every day,
forever.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Peters), who represents one of the strongest science
clusters in the United States in San Diego.
Mr. PETERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, our country, as Mr. Kilmer pointed out, is facing an
ever-increasing global competition for scientific research. We can't
afford to cede the leading edge we have built up in innovation to other
countries, but the current level of funding in the underlying COMPETES
bill does not provide adequate and constant funding for our basic
scientific endeavors.
It cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by 37 percent, cuts
electric grid reliability research by 30 percent, and cuts the Advanced
Research Projects Agency for Energy, or ARPA-E, by 50 percent.
These levels will not maintain strong foundations for basic
scientific research and will make it even harder for us to retain young
scientists in the United States. The Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, a world leader in ocean research, has noted the harmful
cuts to the geoscientist program, which is used to improve prediction
for events, including earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis,
drought, and solar storms. At a time of increasingly extreme weather,
we should be investing in research, not cutting it.
Unfortunately, the amendment offered by Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Esty, and me
to increase funding by a small but significant 3.5 percent was not even
given
[[Page H3327]]
a chance to have a vote here on the House floor.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule and to stand up for America's
scientists and our competitiveness.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I want to thank the gentleman
from the great State of Colorado for yielding and for his leadership on
the Rules Committee and on so many other important issues before this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the highway trust fund, which finances highway and
transportation projects all across this country, is set to expire at
the end of this month. It is coming right up. Passing a short-term fix
is necessary because the Republicans have ignored our Nation's
transportation needs for the past 10 months, since the last short-term
extension was passed.
We don't need a short-term extension. We need long-term planning and
investment in our infrastructure. The sad reality is that the United
States is not investing nearly enough in its infrastructure. As a share
of gross domestic product, we invest about one-half of what Europe
does. We invest only one-quarter of what China does.
As you look at this chart, it shows the amount of road traffic volume
is up 297 percent; yet the public spending on road maintenance is so
much lower, 125 percent. It is nearly 2.5 times faster that we are
spending--and having volume go up--but we are not investing in our
infrastructure to keep up with this volume.
One out of every four bridges is structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete in the United States. We have had two bridges
with cars on them that literally collapsed in recent history.
The question of whether to fix our infrastructure is not about the
money. We are already spending the money, fixing our cars when they hit
yet another pothole or wasting our time sitting in traffic. Why don't
we have high-speed rail like the rest of the world?
Let's save ourselves some time and money by investing wisely to
support our transportation infrastructure through the highway trust
fund.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, this rule under this debate covers three
significant but entirely unrelated bills. That is why you are hearing
people discuss highway funding; you are hearing people discuss the
legislative branch, and you are hearing people discuss science.
On the day that DACA expansion and DAPA were scheduled to go into
effect to make sure people here illegally can pay a fine, get right
with the law, and be employed legally, rather than illegally, we are
doing nothing relating to restoring the rule of law and securing our
borders or anything to address our broken immigration system.
We are making sure that Members of Congress and our staffs get paid.
That is not the wrong thing. Our hard-working men and women who work
here should get paid. It is a question of priorities. I would like to
see us do something about the 10 or 12 million people here illegally
before we start paying ourselves and our staff.
What about the highway trust fund? Again, this is an example of
Congress kicking the ball down the road 2 months here, 2 months there,
a month here, a month there. All the contractors and subcontractors
don't even know how to present bids when they don't know whether a
yearlong or 2-year project will be funded for more than 2 months.
Taxpayers wind up paying more for the same amount of work because we
lack the certainty.
Then there is the COMPETES Act--the science bill--which targets
certain kinds of science which apparently Republicans don't like--for
instance, the physical sciences and the geological sciences.
Handicapping the physical sciences hurts our ability to recognize the
causes of things like wildfires and floods that affect my district in
Colorado, foresee patterns leading to events like the great Western
drought in California. It seems like, if anything, there should be a
focus on a very relevant form of science that impacts quality of life
every day.
They also apparently don't like, for political reasons, the social
sciences. Again, going after the social sciences would harm our ability
to adapt for historic storms like Hurricane Sandy or the flood in New
Orleans with Katrina and mitigate against floods like those in
Colorado.
There is an interface between the physical sciences and people, and
that is the work of the social science programs: how public health
looks, how flood evacuations look, how disease control looks.
These are important considerations and should not be politicized by
this body, which is why not only I oppose this bill, but dozens of the
largest scientific associations and coalitions oppose this bill that
ostensibly is for the cause of science.
Having all these bills under this rule is what we call a grab-bag
approach, just jamming unrelated legislation into ineffective packages
that seem to confuse and muddle the meaningful debate that needs to
occur.
Since 2011, when Republicans won the majority of the House, this
practice of jamming several unrelated bills together into one rule has
increased by 400 percent. This rule is an example of that, and it is
why the American people suffer from the somewhat disjointed debate
around it--one person talks about highways; another counters a point
about science; another talks about the legislative branch. It is
because they are all in here. This is a Christmas tree bill.
Now, if it had immigration reform in it, I would support this
Christmas tree. I could swallow the others if that was in here. I
offered that to the gentleman from Washington, but unfortunately, it is
not, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, the very people that should be benefiting from the bills we
are reviewing today, like scientists, are actually opposing the bills.
That should be a signal that this body is not understanding or heeding
the needs of the American people.
We can reject this rule. We can tell Congress to get back on course.
We can tell Congress to do a long-term reauthorization of
transportation funding. We can tell Congress to pass a COMPETES Act
that actually fosters innovation and makes America more competitive and
a legislative branch appropriations bill that furthers the ability of
this body to deliberate and be a model employer for those who work
here.
How do we do that, Mr. Speaker? We do that by rejecting this rule.
If we can bring down this grab-bag, Christmas tree rule, we can set
this Congress right.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Americans have sent us here to get things done. They are tired of
gridlock. And we, in the 114th Congress, are on track to be one of the
most productive Congresses in modern history.
House Republicans have an aggressive and forward-looking agenda which
will help our economy recover and help create high-paying American
jobs.
The use of the compound rule, which provides for separate
consideration of each underlying measure under a single rule, helps
expedite legislative business.
The consideration of one rule allows the House more time to debate
the underlying measures, or to consider additional legislative
business. We have a lot to do, and this is an efficient way to get our
work done.
I appreciate the discussion that we have had over the last hour. And
although we may have our differences of opinion, I believe that this
rule and the underlying bills are strong measures that are important to
the future of our country.
This rule provides for ample debate on the floor: the opportunity to
debate and vote on three bills and numerous amendments sponsored by
both Democrat and Republican Members of this Chamber. This rule will
provide for a smooth and deliberative process for sending these bills
to the Senate for their consideration.
These bills are solid and substantial measures that will address
several critical issues facing our country.
[[Page H3328]]
H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, is a
pro-science bill that will keep America competitive in the 21st century
global economy by prioritizing taxpayer investments in basic research
without increasing overall Federal spending.
H.R. 2250, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2016, keeps
funding for the legislative branch level with fiscal years 2014 and
2015 and will be used efficiently and effectively for the operations of
the legislative branch of the Federal Government.
H.R. 2353, the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015, will
allow transportation spending to continue through July while we in
Congress work diligently toward a next step to close the shortfall in
the highway trust fund.
Currently, highway and transit spending authority expires at the end
of this month, and officials at the Department of Transportation are
concerned that Federal cash infusions to transportation projects in my
State and around the country would slow or even halt as the summer
construction season begins unless we extend this temporary extension.
Overall, this is a strong rule that provides for consideration of
three important bills, and I urge my colleagues to support House
Resolution 271 and the underlying bills.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 1806, the
America COMPETES Act of 2015, a bill that was originally written to
provide much needed support for our nation's res arch and development
activities in science and engineering.
I thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter for the
opportunity to speak on the Rules for H.R. 1806.
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 as written raises
serious concerns among the representatives from the scientific,
academic, and business communities.
The groups that oppose the bill include the American Physical
Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Anthropological
Association the Association of American Universities, and the
Consortium of Social Science Associations.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member on the House
Science Committee, the committee that authored the bill, will be
offering a Managers Amendment to this bill.
The Administration has also signaled that it will not support the
bill in its current form.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the bill: reduces
funding for several scientific disciplines; curtails the ability of
federal agencies to pursue climate science; and adds burdensome new
requirements to the way the National Science Foundation operates.
Perhaps most worrisome, the legislation would prevent the federal
government from using Department of Energy-sponsored research to make
policy.
My amendments offered for inclusion in the Rule to H.R. 1806 were
simple and would have improved the bill by addressing the STEM
education and training gap.
These Jackson Lee amendments focus on reducing the STEM gap that
currently exists between people of different geographic regions and
socio-economic backgrounds.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, reports that as many as 1.4 million
new computer science jobs could soon be available in the United States,
but only 400,000 students will be enrolled in programs at colleges and
universities that would prepare them to take these jobs.
This disparity is often referred to as the STEM gap.
Only 1 out of 10 high schools in the U.S. offer computer science
programs.
It is estimated that the education systems in 25 states do not count
computer science classes toward high school graduation.
Both economists and business leaders have identified that the future
of the American economy will 130 in STEM fields, which the Bureau of
Labor Statistics estimates win create more than 9 million jobs between
2012 and 2022.
The STEM gap is more pronounced when considering minority groups.
U.S. Census 2010 data from the National Science Foundation and the
U.S. Census Bureau, showed that underrepresented minorities earned 18.6
percent of total undergraduate degrees from 4-year colleges, but only
16.4 percent of the degrees in science fields and less than 13 percent
of degrees in physical sciences and engineering.
Many historically underrepresented groups, including low income
urban, rural and Native American communities have difficulty accessing
STEM education and job training opportunities.
By including all of the Jackson Lee Amendments in the Rule the
committee could have made significant progress in reducing the STEM gap
underserved populations with the chance to participate in the economy
of the future.
Jackson Lee Amendments offered on H.R. 1806, included: Jackson Lee
Amendment #3, which the Rules Committee has included in the Rule for
the bill would create state and regional workshops to train K-12
teachers in project-based science and technology learning, which will
allow them to provide instruction in initiating robotics and other STEM
competition team development programs.
This amendment also leverages the collaboration among higher
education, businesses, local private and public education agencies to
support STEM efforts at schools located in areas with unemployment is 1
percent or more above the national rate.
Robotics competitions and other similar competitive opportunities
have proven to be one of the most successful paths for engaging young
minds in STEM education.
Competitions such as FIRST, a national robotics competition that
engages 400,000 students each year and awards millions of dollars in
scholarships are paving the way for future STEM success.
Jackson Lee Amendments Not included in the Rule: Jackson Lee
Amendment #17 would have increased awareness among underrepresented
groups in STEM employment and education opportunities by providing
information on certification, undergraduate and graduate STEM programs.
One of the most enduring difficulties faced by underrepresented
populations is a lack of awareness and understanding of the connection
between STEM and employment opportunities.
In 2012, a survey found that despite the nation's growing demand for
more workers in science, technology, engineering, and math, the skills
gap among the largest ethnic and racial minorities groups remain
stubbornly wide.
Blacks and Latinos account for only 7 percent, of the STEM workforce
despite representing 28 percent of the U.S. population.
Jackson Lee Amendment #18 would have made sure that the issue of
reducing the skills and education gap of underrepresented groups in
STEM degree programs is considered as current STEM education federal
programs were reviewed.
Jackson Lee Amendment #19 could have furthered the skills development
and training of teachers who provide instruction in K-12 STEM courses
where 40 percent of the students are on free or reduced lunch programs
or in areas where unemployment is 1 percent or more above the national
average.
Although most STEM specific education occurs in college and graduate
school, interest in STEM fields must be fostered from a young age
through successful K-12 programs.
Many schools serving low-income students lack the resources to
provide continuity of STEM K-12 education, and as a result, students
lose the opportunity to develop the skills that will prepare them for
higher STEM education.
Jackson Lee Amendment #21 was an effort to identify no-cost or low-
cost summer and after school science and technology education programs
and have that information broadly disseminated to the public.
Throughout primary and secondary education, skills retention is one
of the most pressing concerns facing underrepresented students.
Without access to after-school and summer programs, even those
students with a passion for STEM risk falling behind their peers.
Jackson Lee Amendment #22 made grants available to local education
agencies to support training in STEM education methods to teachers to
improve their instruction at schools serving neglected, delinquent, and
migrant students, English learners, at-risk students, and Native
Americans as determined by the director.
Jackson Lee Amendment #23 establishes within the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources an Office of STEM Education Gap Awareness
with the duties of reducing the STEM gap in K-12 and post-secondary
education among underrepresented populations.
The Jackson Lee amendments are intended to bridge the STEM gap in
rural and urban areas where opportunities for training in STEM that can
enhance the productivity of businesses large and small are lacking.
The Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program's report ``The Hidden STEM
Economy,'' reported that in 2011, 26 million jobs or 20 percent of all
occupations required knowledge in 1 or more STEM areas.
Half of all STEM jobs are available to workers without a 4 year
degree and these jobs pay on average $53,000 a year, which is 10
percent higher than jobs with similar education requirements.
There will be STEM winners and losers not because the skills needed
are too difficult to obtain, but because people are not aware of the
jobs that are going unfilled today nor do they know what education or
training will create job security for the next 2 to 3 decades.
I am very aware of the importance of STEM job training and education.
[[Page H3329]]
A third of Houston jobs are in STEM-based fields.
Houston has the second largest concentrations of engineers (22.4 for
every 1,000 workers according to the Greater Houston Partnership).
Houston has 59,070 engineers, the second largest population in the
nation.
STEM jobs are at the core of Houston's economic success, but what we
have done with STEM innovation and job creation in the city of Houston
is not enough to satisfy the region's demand for STEM trained workers.
Houston anticipates that in the next 5 years the gap in the number of
people with STEM skills and training will not keep up with the number
of positions requiring those skills.
This is not just true for Houston, Texas--it is true for every region
of the nation--whether you live in a rural community or urban center.
By 2018 the United States will need: 710,000 Computing workers;
160,000 Engineers; 70,000 Physical Scientists; 40,000 Life Science
workers; 20,000 Mathematics workers.
STEM Computing Jobs are critical to America's future: Software
engineers; Computer networking workers; Systems analysis; Computer
researcher or support workers.
Types of STEM Engineering Jobs: Structural Engineers; Mechanical
Engineers; Software Engineers; Electrical Engineers; Automotive
Engineers; Aeronautical Engineers; Naval Engineers; Architects.
Types of STEM Physical Sciences Jobs: Biologists; Zoologists;
Agricultural; Food Scientists; Conservation Scientists; Medical
Scientists; Climatologists.
Types of STEM Life Scientists [PhDs]: Political Science; Economists;
Anthropologists; Archaeology; Cultural Researchers; Language Experts
(Linguistic and Language Skills).
Types of STEM Mathematics: Teachers; Physicists; Cryptographers;
Statisticians; Accountants.
In order to ensure that underserved populations reach the level of
STEM education and opportunity they choose to pursue, I believe it is
integral to create an office that will focus on closing the STEM
education gap.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 178.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 179, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 243]
YEAS--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Brady (PA)
Capps
Chaffetz
Deutch
Donovan
Gosar
Hastings
Moore
Sanchez, Loretta
Tsongas
Yarmuth
{time} 1359
Ms. CLARKE of New York, Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, and HONDA
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________