[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.

                          ____________________