[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22292-22381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2272, AMERICA COMPETES ACT

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee submitted the following conference report and 
statement on the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation through 
research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the 
United States:

                  Conference Report (H. Rept. 110-289)

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2272), to invest in innovation through research and 
     development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United 
     States, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses as follows:
       That the House recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an 
     amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``America COMPETES Act'' or 
     the ``America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote 
     Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

   TITLE I--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; GOVERNMENT-WIDE 
                                SCIENCE

Sec. 1001. National Science and Technology Summit.
Sec. 1002. Study on barriers to innovation.
Sec. 1003. National Technology and Innovation Medal.
Sec. 1004. Semiannual Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
              Days.
Sec. 1005. Study of service science.
Sec. 1006. President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness.
Sec. 1007. National coordination of research infrastructure.
Sec. 1008. Sense of Congress on innovation acceleration research.
Sec. 1009. Release of scientific research results.

        TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 2001. NASA's contribution to innovation.
Sec. 2002. Aeronautics.
Sec. 2003. Basic research enhancement.
Sec. 2004. Aging workforce issues program.
Sec. 2005. Sense of Congress regarding NASA's undergraduate student 
              research program.
Sec. 2006. Use of International Space Station National Laboratory to 
              support math and science education and competitiveness.

       TITLE III--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Sec. 3001. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 3002. Amendments to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
              of 1980.
Sec. 3003. Manufacturing Extension Partnership.
Sec. 3004. Institute-wide planning report.

[[Page 22293]]

Sec. 3005. Report by Visiting Committee.
Sec. 3006. Meetings of Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology.
Sec. 3007. Collaborative manufacturing research pilot grants.
Sec. 3008. Manufacturing Fellowship Program.
Sec. 3009. Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.
Sec. 3010. Malcolm Baldrige awards.
Sec. 3011. Report on National Institute of Standards and Technology 
              efforts to recruit and retain early career science and 
              engineering researchers.
Sec. 3012. Technology Innovation Program.
Sec. 3013. Technical amendments to the National Institute of Standards 
              and Technology Act and other technical amendments.
Sec. 3014. Retention of depreciation surcharge.
Sec. 3015. Post-doctoral fellows.

                TITLE IV--OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS

Sec. 4001. Ocean and atmospheric Research and development Program.
Sec. 4002. NOAA ocean and atmospheric Science education Programs.
Sec. 4003. NOAA's contribution to innovation.

                     TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sec. 5001. Short title.
Sec. 5002. Definitions.
Sec. 5003. Science, engineering, and mathematics education at the 
              Department of Energy.
Sec. 5004. Nuclear science talent expansion program for institutions of 
              higher education.
Sec. 5005. Hydrocarbon systems science talent expansion program for 
              institutions of higher education.
Sec. 5006. Department of Energy early career awards for science. 
              engineering, and mathematics researchers.
Sec. 5007. Authorization of appropriations for Department of Energy for 
              basic research.
Sec. 5008. Discovery science and engineering innovation institutes.
Sec. 5009. Protecting America's Competitive Edge (PACE) graduate 
              fellowship program.
Sec. 5010. Sense of Congress regarding certain recommendations and 
              reviews.
Sec. 5011. Distinguished scientist program.
Sec. 5012. Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.

                          TITLE VI--EDUCATION

Sec. 6001. Findings.
Sec. 6002. Definitions.

                     Subtitle A--Teacher Assistance

              Part I--Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow

Sec. 6111. Purpose.
Sec. 6112. Definitions.
Sec. 6113. Programs for baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, 
              engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages, 
              with concurrent teacher certification.
Sec. 6114. Programs for master's degrees in science, technology, 
              engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign language 
              education.
Sec. 6115. General provisions.
Sec. 6116. Authorization of appropriations.

  Part II--Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs

Sec. 6121. Purpose.
Sec. 6122. Definitions.
Sec. 6123. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs.

Part III--Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
                          Mathematics Teaching

Sec. 6131. Promising practices.

                        Subtitle B--Mathematics

Sec. 6201. Math Now for elementary school and middle school students 
              program.
Sec. 6202. Summer term education programs.
Sec. 6203. Math skills for secondary school students.
Sec. 6204. Peer review of State applications.

            Subtitle C--Foreign Language Partnership Program

Sec. 6301. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 6302. Definitions.
Sec. 6303. Program authorized.
Sec. 6304. Authorization of appropriations.

              Subtitle D--Alignment of Education Programs

Sec. 6401. Alignment of secondary school graduation requirements with 
              the demands of 21st century postsecondary endeavors and 
              support for P-16 education data systems.

      Subtitle E--Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants

Sec. 6501. Mathematics and science partnership bonus grants.
Sec. 6502. Authorization of appropriations.

                 TITLE VII--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 7003. Reaffirmation of the merit-review process of the National 
              Science Foundation.
Sec. 7004. Sense of the Congress regarding the mathematics and science 
              partnership programs of the Department of Education and 
              the National Science Foundation.
Sec. 7005. Curricula.
Sec. 7006. Centers for research on learning and education improvement.
Sec. 7007. Interdisciplinary research.
Sec. 7008. Postdoctoral research fellows.
Sec. 7009. Responsible conduct of research.
Sec. 7010. Reporting of research results.
Sec. 7011. Sharing research results.
Sec. 7012. Funding for successful science, technology, engineering, and 
              mathematics education programs.
Sec. 7013. Cost sharing.
Sec. 7014. Additional reports.
Sec. 7015. Administrative amendments.
Sec. 7016. National Science Board reports.
Sec. 7017. Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 amendment.
Sec. 7018. Meeting critical national science needs.
Sec. 7019. Research on innovation and inventiveness.
Sec. 7020. Cyberinfrastructure.
Sec. 7021. Pilot program of grants for new investigators.
Sec. 7022. Broader impacts merit review criterion.
Sec. 7023. Donations.
Sec. 7024. High-performance computing and networking.
Sec. 7025. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics talent 
              expansion program.
Sec. 7026. Laboratory science pilot program.
Sec. 7027. Study on laboratory equipment donations for schools.
Sec. 7028. Mathematics and Science Education Partnerships amendments.
Sec. 7029. National Science Foundation teacher institutes for the 21st 
              century.
Sec. 7030. Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program.
Sec. 7031. Encouraging participation.
Sec. 7032. National Academy of Sciences report on diversity in science, 
              technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
Sec. 7033. Hispanic-serving institutions undergraduate program.
Sec. 7034. Professional science master's degree programs.
Sec. 7035. Sense of Congress on communications training for scientists.
Sec. 7036. Major research instrumentation.
Sec. 7037. Limit on proposals.

                     TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 8001. Collection of data relating to trade in services.
Sec. 8002. Sense of the Senate regarding small business growth and 
              capital markets.
Sec. 8003. Government Accountability Office review of activities, 
              grants, and programs.
Sec. 8004. Sense of the Senate regarding anti-competitive tax policy.
Sec. 8005. Study of the provision of online degree programs.
Sec. 8006. Sense of the Senate regarding deemed exports.
Sec. 8007. Sense of the Senate regarding capital markets.
Sec. 8008. Accountability and transparency of activities authorized by 
              this Act.
   TITLE I--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; GOVERNMENT-WIDE 
                                SCIENCE

     SEC. 1001. NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUMMIT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall convene a 
     National Science and Technology Summit to examine the health 
     and direction of the United States' science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics enterprises. The Summit shall 
     include representatives of industry, small business, labor, 
     academia, State government, Federal research and development 
     agencies, non-profit environmental and energy policy groups 
     concerned with science and technology issues, and other 
     nongovernmental organizations, including representatives of 
     science, technology, and engineering organizations and 
     associations that represent individuals identified in section 
     33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     conclusion of the Summit, the President shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the Summit. The report 
     shall identify key research and technology challenges and 
     recommendations, including recommendations to increase the 
     representation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 
     of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in science, engineering, and 
     technology enterprises, for areas of investment for Federal 
     research and technology programs to be carried out during the 
     5-year period beginning on the date the report is issued.
       (c) Annual Evaluation.--Beginning with the President's 
     budget submission for the fiscal year following the 
     conclusion of the National Science and Technology Summit and 
     for each of the following 4 budget submissions, the 
     Analytical Perspectives component of the budget document that 
     describes the Research and Development budget priorities 
     shall include a description of how those priorities relate to 
     the conclusions and recommendations of the Summit contained 
     in the report required under subsection (b).

     SEC. 1002. STUDY ON BARRIERS TO INNOVATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy shall enter into a contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct and complete 
     a study to identify, and to review methods to mitigate, new 
     forms of risk for businesses beyond

[[Page 22294]]

     conventional operational and financial risk that affect the 
     ability to innovate, including studying and reviewing--
       (1) incentive and compensation structures that could 
     effectively encourage long-term value creation and 
     innovation;
       (2) methods of voluntary and supplemental disclosure by 
     industry of intellectual capital, innovation performance, and 
     indicators of future valuation;
       (3) means by which government could work with industry to 
     enhance the legal and regulatory framework to encourage the 
     disclosures described in paragraph (2);
       (4) practices that may be significant deterrents to United 
     States businesses engaging in innovation risk-taking compared 
     to foreign competitors;
       (5) costs faced by United States businesses engaging in 
     innovation compared to foreign competitors, including the 
     burden placed on businesses by high and rising health care 
     costs;
       (6) means by which industry, trade associations, and 
     universities could collaborate to support research on 
     management practices and methodologies for assessing the 
     value and risks of longer term innovation strategies;
       (7) means to encourage new, open, and collaborative 
     dialogue between industry associations, regulatory 
     authorities, management, shareholders, labor, and other 
     concerned interests to encourage appropriate approaches to 
     innovation risk-taking;
       (8) incentives to encourage participation among 
     institutions of higher education, especially those in rural 
     and underserved areas, to engage in innovation;
       (9) relevant Federal regulations that may discourage or 
     encourage innovation;
       (10) all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     including tax provisions, compliance costs, and reporting 
     requirements, that discourage innovation;
       (11) the extent to which Federal funding promotes or 
     hinders innovation; and
       (12) the extent to which individuals are being equipped 
     with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the 
     21st century workforce, as measured by--
       (A) elementary school and secondary school student academic 
     achievement on the State academic assessments required under 
     section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(3)), especially in 
     mathematics, science, and reading, identified by ethnicity, 
     race, and gender;
       (B) the rate of student entrance into institutions of 
     higher education, identified by ethnicity, race, and gender, 
     by type of institution, and barriers to access to 
     institutions of higher education;
       (C) the rates of--
       (i) students successfully completing postsecondary 
     education programs, identified by ethnicity, race, and 
     gender; and
       (ii) certificates, associate degrees, and baccalaureate 
     degrees awarded in the fields of science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics, identified by ethnicity, race, 
     and gender; and
       (D) access to, and availability of, high quality job 
     training programs.
       (b) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after entering 
     into the contract required by subsection (a) and 4 years 
     after entering into such contract, the National Academy of 
     Sciences shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under such subsection.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 for the purpose of 
     carrying out the study required under this section.

     SEC. 1003. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MEDAL.

       Section 16 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation 
     Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``NATIONAL MEDAL'' 
     and inserting ``NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION MEDAL''; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``Technology Medal'' and 
     inserting ``Technology and Innovation Medal''.

     SEC. 1004. SEMIANNUAL SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 
                   MATHEMATICS DAYS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Director of the Office 
     of Science and Technology Policy should--
       (1) encourage all elementary and middle schools to observe 
     a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Day twice 
     in every school year for the purpose of bringing in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics mentors to provide 
     hands-on lessons to excite and inspire students to pursue the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields 
     (including continuing education and career paths);
       (2) initiate a program, in consultation with Federal 
     agencies and departments, to provide support systems, tools 
     (from existing outreach offices), and mechanisms to allow and 
     encourage Federal employees with scientific, technological, 
     engineering, or mathematical responsibilities to reach out to 
     local classrooms on such Science, Technology, Engineering, 
     and Mathematics Days to instruct and inspire school children, 
     focusing on real life science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics-related applicable experiences along with hands-
     on demonstrations in order to demonstrate the advantages and 
     direct applications of studying the science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics fields; and
       (3) promote Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics Days involvement by private sector and 
     institutions of higher education employees, including 
     partnerships with scientific, engineering, and mathematical 
     professional organizations representing individuals 
     identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b), in a 
     manner similar to the Federal employee involvement described 
     in paragraph (2).

     SEC. 1005. STUDY OF SERVICE SCIENCE.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     in order to strengthen the competitiveness of United States 
     enterprises and institutions and to prepare the people of the 
     United States for high-wage, high-skill employment, the 
     Federal Government should better understand and respond 
     strategically to the emerging management and learning 
     discipline known as service science.
       (b) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy shall, through the National Academy of 
     Sciences, conduct a study and report to Congress on how the 
     Federal Government should support, through research, 
     education, and training, the emerging management and learning 
     discipline known as service science.
       (c) Outside Resources.--In conducting the study under 
     subsection (b), the National Academy of Sciences shall 
     consult with leaders from 2- and 4-year institutions of 
     higher education, as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)), leaders from 
     corporations, and other relevant parties.
       (d) Service Science Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``service science'' means curricula, training, and research 
     programs that are designed to teach individuals to apply 
     scientific, engineering, and management disciplines that 
     integrate elements of computer science, operations research, 
     industrial engineering, business strategy, management 
     sciences, and social and legal sciences, in order to 
     encourage innovation in how organizations create value for 
     customers and shareholders that could not be achieved through 
     such disciplines working in isolation.

     SEC. 1006. PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON INNOVATION AND 
                   COMPETITIVENESS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall establish a 
     President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness.
       (b) Duties.--The duties of the Council shall include--
       (1) monitoring implementation of public laws and 
     initiatives for promoting innovation, including policies 
     related to research funding, taxation, immigration, trade, 
     and education that are proposed in this Act or in any other 
     Act;
       (2) providing advice to the President with respect to 
     global trends in competitiveness and innovation and 
     allocation of Federal resources in education, job training, 
     and technology research and development considering such 
     global trends in competitiveness and innovation;
       (3) in consultation with the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, developing a process for using metrics 
     to assess the impact of existing and proposed policies and 
     rules that affect innovation capabilities in the United 
     States;
       (4) identifying opportunities and making recommendations 
     for the heads of executive agencies to improve innovation, 
     monitoring, and reporting on the implementation of such 
     recommendations;
       (5) developing metrics for measuring the progress of the 
     Federal Government with respect to improving conditions for 
     innovation, including through talent development, investment, 
     and infrastructure improvements; and
       (6) submitting to the President and Congress an annual 
     report on such progress.
       (c) Membership and Coordination.--
       (1) Membership.--The Council shall be composed of the 
     Secretary or head of each of the following:
       (A) The Department of Commerce.
       (B) The Department of Defense.
       (C) The Department of Education.
       (D) The Department of Energy.
       (E) The Department of Health and Human Services.
       (F) The Department of Homeland Security.
       (G) The Department of Labor.
       (H) The Department of the Treasury.
       (I) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (J) The Securities and Exchange Commission.
       (K) The National Science Foundation.
       (L) The Office of the United States Trade Representative.
       (M) The Office of Management and Budget.
       (N) The Office of Science and Technology Policy.
       (O) The Environmental Protection Agency.
       (P) The Small Business Administration.
       (Q) Any other department or agency designated by the 
     President.
       (2) Chairperson.--The Secretary of Commerce shall serve as 
     Chairperson of the Council.
       (3) Coordination.--The Chairperson of the Council shall 
     ensure appropriate coordination between the Council and the 
     National Economic Council, the National Security Council, and 
     the National Science and Technology Council.
       (4) Meetings.--The Council shall meet on a semi-annual 
     basis at the call of the Chairperson and the initial meeting 
     of the Council shall occur not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Development of Innovation Agenda.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall develop a comprehensive 
     agenda for strengthening the innovation and competitiveness 
     capabilities of the

[[Page 22295]]

     Federal Government, State governments, academia, and the 
     private sector in the United States.
       (2) Contents.--The comprehensive agenda required by 
     paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       (A) An assessment of current strengths and weaknesses of 
     the United States investment in research and development.
       (B) Recommendations for addressing weaknesses and 
     maintaining the United States as a world leader in research 
     and development and technological innovation, including 
     strategies for increasing the participation of individuals 
     identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
       (C) Recommendations for strengthening the innovation and 
     competitiveness capabilities of the Federal Government, State 
     governments, academia, and the private sector in the United 
     States.
       (3) Advisors.--
       (A) Recommendation.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the National Academy of 
     Sciences, in consultation with the National Academy of 
     Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National 
     Research Council, shall develop and submit to the President a 
     list of 50 individuals that are recommended to serve as 
     advisors to the Council during the development of the 
     comprehensive agenda required by paragraph (1). The list of 
     advisors shall include appropriate representatives from the 
     following:
       (i) The private sector of the economy.
       (ii) Labor.
       (iii) Various fields including information technology, 
     energy, engineering, high-technology manufacturing, health 
     care, and education.
       (iv) Scientific organizations.
       (v) Academic organizations and other nongovernmental 
     organizations working in the area of science or technology.
       (vi) Nongovernmental organizations, such as professional 
     organizations, that represent individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in the areas of 
     science, engineering, technology, and mathematics.
       (B) Designation.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     that the National Academy of Sciences submits the list of 
     recommended individuals to serve as advisors, the President 
     shall designate 50 individuals to serve as advisors to the 
     Council.
       (C) Requirement to consult.--The Council shall develop the 
     comprehensive agenda required by paragraph (1) in 
     consultation with the advisors.
       (4) Initial submission and updates.--
       (A) Initial submission.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit 
     to Congress and the President the comprehensive agenda 
     required by paragraph (1).
       (B) Updates.--At least once every 2 years, the Council 
     shall update the comprehensive agenda required by paragraph 
     (1) and submit each such update to Congress and the 
     President.
       (e) Optional Assignment.--Notwithstanding subsection (a) 
     and paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c), the President 
     may designate an existing council to carry out the 
     requirements of this section.

     SEC. 1007. NATIONAL COORDINATION OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) Identification and Prioritization of Deficiencies in 
     Federal Research Facilities.--Each year the Director of the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall, through the 
     National Science and Technology Council, identify and 
     prioritize the deficiencies in research facilities and major 
     instrumentation located at Federal laboratories and national 
     user facilities at academic institutions that are widely 
     accessible for use by researchers in the United States. In 
     prioritizing such deficiencies, the Director shall consider 
     research needs in areas relevant to the specific mission 
     requirements of Federal agencies.
       (b) Planning for Acquisition, Refurbishment, and 
     Maintenance of Research Facilities and Major 
     Instrumentation.--The Director shall, through the National 
     Science and Technology Council, coordinate the planning by 
     Federal agencies for the acquisition, refurbishment, and 
     maintenance of research facilities and major instrumentation 
     to address the deficiencies identified under subsection (a).
       (c) Report.--The Director shall submit to Congress each 
     year, together with documents submitted to Congress in 
     support of the budget of the President for the fiscal year 
     beginning in such year (as submitted pursuant to section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code), a report, current as of the 
     fiscal year ending in the year before such report is 
     submitted, setting forth the following:
       (1) A description of the deficiencies in research 
     infrastructure identified in accordance with subsection (a).
       (2) A list of projects and budget proposals of Federal 
     research facilities, set forth by agency, for major 
     instrumentation acquisitions that are included in the budget 
     proposal of the President.
       (3) An explanation of how the projects and instrumentation 
     acquisitions described in paragraph (2) relate to the 
     deficiencies and priorities identified pursuant to subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 1008. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INNOVATION ACCELERATION 
                   RESEARCH.

       (a) Sense of Congress on Support and Promotion of 
     Innovation in the United States.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that each Federal research agency should strive to support 
     and promote innovation in the United States through high-
     risk, high-reward basic research projects that--
       (1) meet fundamental technological or scientific 
     challenges;
       (2) involve multidisciplinary work; and
       (3) involve a high degree of novelty.
       (b) Sense of Congress on Setting Annual Funding Goals for 
     Basic Research.--It is the sense of Congress that each 
     Executive agency that funds research in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics should set a goal of allocating 
     an appropriate percentage of the annual basic research budget 
     of such agency to funding high-risk, high-reward basic 
     research projects described in subsection (a).
       (c) Report.--Each Executive agency described in subsection 
     (b) shall submit to Congress each year, together with 
     documents submitted to Congress in support of the budget of 
     the President for the fiscal year beginning in such year (as 
     submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code), a report describing whether a funding goal as 
     described in subsection (b) has been established, and if such 
     a goal has been established, the following:
       (1) A description of such funding goal.
       (2) Whether such funding goal is being met by the agency.
       (3) A description of activities supported by amounts 
     allocated in accordance with such funding goal.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Basic research.--The term ``basic research'' has the 
     meaning given such term in the Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular No. A-11.
       (2) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 1009. RELEASE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH RESULTS.

       (a) Principles.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the heads 
     of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific 
     research, shall develop and issue an overarching set of 
     principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of 
     data and results to other agencies, policymakers, and the 
     public of research conducted by a scientist employed by a 
     Federal civilian agency and to prevent the intentional or 
     unintentional suppression or distortion of such research 
     findings. The principles shall encourage the open exchange of 
     data and results of research undertaken by a scientist 
     employed by such an agency and shall be consistent with 
     existing Federal laws, including chapter 18 of title 35, 
     United States Code (commonly known as the ``Bayh-Dole Act''). 
     The principles shall also take into consideration the 
     policies of peer-reviewed scientific journals in which 
     Federal scientists may currently publish results.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy shall ensure that all civilian 
     Federal agencies that conduct scientific research develop 
     specific policies and procedures regarding the public release 
     of data and results of research conducted by a scientist 
     employed by such an agency consistent with the principles 
     established under subsection (a). Such polices and procedures 
     shall--
       (1) specifically address what is and what is not permitted 
     or recommended under such policies and procedures;
       (2) be specifically designed for each such agency;
       (3) be applied uniformly throughout each such agency; and
       (4) be widely communicated and readily accessible to all 
     employees of each such agency and the public.
        TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

     SEC. 2001. NASA'S CONTRIBUTION TO INNOVATION.

       (a) Participation in Interagency Activities.--The National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be a full 
     participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation 
     and economic competitiveness through near-term and long-term 
     basic scientific research and development and the promotion 
     of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     education, consistent with the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration's mission, including authorized activities.
       (b) Historic Foundation.--In order to carry out the 
     participation described in subsection (a), the Administrator 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     build on the historic role of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration in stimulating excellence in the 
     advancement of physical science and engineering disciplines 
     and in providing opportunities and incentives for the pursuit 
     of academic studies in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics.
       (c) Balanced Science Program and Robust Authorization 
     Levels.--The balanced science program authorized by section 
     101(d) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16611) shall be an 
     element of the contribution by the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration to such interagency programs.
       (d) Sense of Congress on Contribution of Appropriately 
     Funded National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--It is 
     the

[[Page 22296]]

     sense of Congress that a robust National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, funded at the levels authorized for 
     fiscal years 2007 and 2008 under sections 202 and 203 of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
     Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16631 and 16632) and at appropriate 
     levels in subsequent fiscal years--
       (1) can contribute significantly to innovation in, and the 
     competitiveness of, the United States;
       (2) would enable a fair balance among science, aeronautics, 
     education, exploration, and human space flight programs; and
       (3) would allow full participation in any interagency 
     efforts to promote innovation and economic competitiveness.
       (e) Annual Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Administrator shall submit to 
     Congress and the President an annual report describing the 
     activities conducted pursuant to this section, including a 
     description of the goals and the objective metrics upon which 
     funding decisions were made.
       (2) Content.--Each report submitted pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall include, with regard to science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics education programs, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (A) A description of each program.
       (B) The amount spent on each program.
       (C) The number of students or teachers served by each 
     program.
       (f) Assessment Plan.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report on its plan for instituting assessments 
     of the effectiveness of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration's science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education programs in improving student 
     achievement, including with regard to challenging State 
     achievement standards.

     SEC. 2002. AERONAUTICS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the aeronautics research and development program of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been an 
     important contributor to innovation and to the 
     competitiveness of the United States and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration should maintain its 
     capabilities to advance the state of aeronautics.
       (b) Cooperation With Other Agencies on Aeronautics 
     Activities.--The Administrator shall coordinate, as 
     appropriate, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration's aeronautics activities with relevant 
     programs in the Department of Transportation, the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of 
     Homeland Security, including the activities of the Joint 
     Planning and Development Office established under section 709 
     of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     (Public Law 108-176; 117 Stat. 2582).

     SEC. 2003. BASIC RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of the 
     National Science Foundation, the Secretary of Energy, the 
     Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Commerce shall, to the 
     extent practicable, coordinate basic research activities 
     related to physical sciences, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics.
       (b) Basic Research Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``basic research'' has the meaning given such term in Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11.

     SEC. 2004. AGING WORKFORCE ISSUES PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration should 
     implement a program to address aging work force issues in 
     aerospace that--
       (1) documents technical and management experiences before 
     senior people leave the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, including--
       (A) documenting lessons learned;
       (B) briefing organizations;
       (C) providing opportunities for archiving lessons in a 
     database; and
       (D) providing opportunities for near-term retirees to 
     transition out early from their primary assignment in order 
     to document their career lessons learned and brief new 
     employees prior to their separation from the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration;
       (2) provides incentives for retirees to return and teach 
     new employees about their career lessons and experiences; and
       (3) provides for the development of an award to recognize 
     and reward outstanding senior employees for their 
     contributions to knowledge sharing.

     SEC. 2005. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NASA'S UNDERGRADUATE 
                   STUDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of Congress that in order to generate 
     interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics and to help train the next generation of space 
     and aeronautical scientists, technologists, engineers, and 
     mathematicians the Administrator of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration should utilize the existing 
     Undergraduate Student Research Program of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration to support basic 
     research projects on subjects of relevance to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration that--
       (1) are to be carried out primarily by undergraduate 
     students; and
       (2) combine undergraduate research with other research 
     supported by the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration.

     SEC. 2006. USE OF INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION NATIONAL 
                   LABORATORY TO SUPPORT MATH AND SCIENCE 
                   EDUCATION AND COMPETITIVENESS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the International Space Station National Laboratory offers 
     unique opportunities for educational activities and provides 
     a unique resource for research and development in science, 
     technology, and engineering, which can enhance the global 
     competitiveness of the United States.
       (b) Development of Educational Projects.--The Administrator 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     develop a detailed plan for implementation of 1 or more 
     education projects that utilize the resources offered by the 
     International Space Station. In developing any detailed plan 
     according to this paragraph, the Administrator shall make use 
     of the findings and recommendations of the International 
     Space Station National Laboratory Education Concept 
     Development Task Force.
       (c) Development of Research Plans for Competitiveness 
     Enhancement.--The Administrator shall develop a detailed plan 
     for identification and support of research to be conducted 
     aboard the International Space Station, which offers the 
     potential for enhancement of United States competitiveness in 
     science, technology, and engineering. In developing any 
     detailed plan pursuant to this subsection, the Administrator 
     shall consult with agencies and entities with which 
     cooperative agreements have been reached regarding 
     utilization of International Space Station National 
     Laboratory facilities.
       TITLE III--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

     SEC. 3001. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Scientific and Technical Research and Services.--
       (1) Laboratory activities.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for the scientific 
     and technical research and services laboratory activities of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (A) $502,100,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $541,900,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $584,800,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Construction and maintenance.--There are authorized to 
     be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for construction 
     and maintenance of facilities of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology--
       (A) $150,900,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $86,400,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $49,700,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (b) Industrial Technology Services.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for 
     Industrial Technology Services activities of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology--
       (1) $210,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which--
       (A) $100,000,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation 
     Program under section 28 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at 
     least $40,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
       (B) $110,000,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership program under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l), of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be for the 
     competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act;
       (2) $253,500,000 for fiscal year 2009, of which--
       (A) $131,500,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation 
     Program under section 28 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at 
     least $40,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
       (B) $122,000,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership Program under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l), of which not more than $4,000,000 shall be for the 
     competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act; 
     and
       (3) $272,300,000 for fiscal year 2010, of which--
       (A) $140,500,000 shall be for the Technology Innovation 
     Program under section 28 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n), of which at 
     least $40,000,000 shall be for new awards; and
       (B) $131,800,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership Program under sections 25 and 26 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k and 
     278l), of which not more than $4,000,000 shall be for the 
     competitive grant program under section 25(f) of such Act.

     SEC. 3002. AMENDMENTS TO THE STEVENSON-WYDLER TECHNOLOGY 
                   INNOVATION ACT OF 1980.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3704) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) through (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (a);
       (3) in subsection (a), as redesignated by paragraph (2)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Secretary, acting 
     through the Under Secretary, shall establish for fiscal year 
     1999'' and inserting ``Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the 
     Secretary shall establish'';
       (B) by striking ``, acting through the Under Secretary,'' 
     each place it appears;
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (6) as subsection (b);
       (D) by striking paragraph (7); and
       (E) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Experimental 
     Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology'' and inserting 
     ``Program Establishment'';

[[Page 22297]]

       (4) in subsection (b), as redesignated by paragraph (3)(C), 
     by striking ``this subsection'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (a)''; and
       (5) in the section heading by striking ``COMMERCE AND 
     TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION'' and inserting ``EXPERIMENTAL 
     PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY''.
       (b) Construction.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall not be construed to eliminate the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology or the National Technical 
     Information Service.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Title 5, united states code.--Section 5314 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``Under Secretary 
     of Commerce for Technology.''.
       (2) National institute of standards and technology.--The 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     271 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 2 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 272)--
       (i) in subsection (b), by striking ``and, if appropriate, 
     through other officials,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``and, if appropriate, 
     through other appropriate officials,''; and
       (B) in section 5 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 274), by striking 
     ``The Director shall have the general'' and inserting ``The 
     Director shall report directly to the Secretary and shall 
     have the general''.
       (3) Definitions.--Section 4 of the Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3703) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (3); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (13) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (11), respectively.
       (4) Functions of secretary.--Section 11(g)(1) of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 3710(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``through the 
     Under Secretary, and''.
       (5) Repeal of authorization.--Section 21(a) of such Act (15 
     U.S.C. 3713(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``sections 5, 11(g), and 
     16'' and inserting ``sections 11(g) and 16''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$500,000 is authorized 
     only for the purpose of carrying out the requirements of the 
     Japanese technical literature program established under 
     section 5(d) of this Act;''.
       (6) High-performance computing act of 1991.--Section 208 of 
     the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5528) 
     is amended by striking subsection (c) and redesignating 
     subsection (d) as subsection (c).
       (7) Assistive technology act of 1998.--Section 
     6(b)(4)(B)(v) of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 3005(b)(4)(B)(v)) is amended by striking ``the 
     Technology Administration of the Department of Commerce,'' 
     and inserting ``the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology,''.

     SEC. 3003. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) Clarification of Eligible Contributions in Connection 
     With Regional Centers Responsible for Implementing the 
     Objectives of the Program.--Paragraph (3) of section 25(c) of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278k(c)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) Any nonprofit institution, or group thereof, or 
     consortia of nonprofit institutions, including entities 
     existing on August 23, 1988, may submit to the Secretary an 
     application for financial support under this subsection, in 
     accordance with the procedures established by the Secretary 
     and published in the Federal Register under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) In order to receive assistance under this section, an 
     applicant for financial assistance under subparagraph (A) 
     shall provide adequate assurances that non-Federal assets 
     obtained from the applicant and the applicant's partnering 
     organizations will be used as a funding source to meet not 
     less than 50 percent of the costs incurred for the first 3 
     years and an increasing share for each of the last 3 years. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the costs incurred 
     means the costs incurred in connection with the activities 
     undertaken to improve the management, productivity, and 
     technological performance of small- and medium-sized 
     manufacturing companies.
       ``(C) In meeting the 50 percent requirement, it is 
     anticipated that a Center will enter into agreements with 
     other entities such as private industry, universities, and 
     State governments to accomplish programmatic objectives and 
     access new and existing resources that will further the 
     impact of the Federal investment made on behalf of small- and 
     medium-sized manufacturing companies. All non-Federal costs, 
     contributed by such entities and determined by a Center as 
     programmatically reasonable and allocable under MEP program 
     procedures are includable as a portion of the Center's 
     contribution.
       ``(D) Each applicant under subparagraph (A) shall also 
     submit a proposal for the allocation of the legal rights 
     associated with any invention which may result from the 
     proposed Center's activities.''.
       (b) Manufacturing Center Evaluation.--Paragraph (5) of 
     section 25(c) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5)) is amended by inserting 
     ``A Center that has not received a positive evaluation by the 
     evaluation panel shall be notified by the panel of the 
     deficiencies in its performance and shall be placed on 
     probation for one year, after which time the panel shall 
     reevaluate the Center. If the Center has not addressed the 
     deficiencies identified by the panel, or shown a significant 
     improvement in its performance, the Director shall conduct a 
     new competition to select an operator for the Center or may 
     close the Center.'' after ``at declining levels.''.
       (c) Federal Share.--Section 25 of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k) is amended by 
     striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Acceptance of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to such sums as may be 
     appropriated to the Secretary and Director to operate the 
     Centers program, the Secretary and Director also may accept 
     funds from other Federal departments and agencies and under 
     section 2(c)(7) from the private sector for the purpose of 
     strengthening United States manufacturing.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--
       ``(A) Funds accepted from other federal departments or 
     agencies.--The Director shall determine whether funds 
     accepted from other Federal departments or agencies shall be 
     counted in the calculation of the Federal share of capital 
     and annual operating and maintenance costs under subsection 
     (c).
       ``(B) Funds accepted from the private sector.--Funds 
     accepted from the private sector under section 2(c)(7), if 
     allocated to a Center, shall not be considered in the 
     calculation of the Federal share under subsection (c) of this 
     section.''.
       (d) MEP Advisory Board.--Such section 25 is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) MEP Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Institute a Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory 
     Board (in this subsection referred to as the `MEP Advisory 
     Board').
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The MEP Advisory Board shall consist of 
     10 members broadly representative of stakeholders, to be 
     appointed by the Director. At least 2 members shall be 
     employed by or on an advisory board for the Centers, and at 
     least 5 other members shall be from United States small 
     businesses in the manufacturing sector. No member shall be an 
     employee of the Federal Government.
       ``(B) Term.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C) or (D), 
     the term of office of each member of the MEP Advisory Board 
     shall be 3 years.
       ``(C) Classes.--The original members of the MEP Advisory 
     Board shall be appointed to 3 classes. One class of 3 members 
     shall have an initial term of 1 year, one class of 3 members 
     shall have an initial term of 2 years, and one class of 4 
     members shall have an initial term of 3 years.
       ``(D) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the 
     remainder of such term.
       ``(E) Serving consecutive terms.--Any person who has 
     completed two consecutive full terms of service on the MEP 
     Advisory Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment 
     during the one-year period following the expiration of the 
     second such term.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The MEP Advisory Board shall meet not less 
     than 2 times annually, and provide to the Director--
       ``(A) advice on Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
     programs, plans, and policies;
       ``(B) assessments of the soundness of Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership plans and strategies; and
       ``(C) assessments of current performance against 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership program plans.
       ``(4) Federal advisory committee act.--In discharging its 
     duties under this subsection, the MEP Advisory Board shall 
     function solely in an advisory capacity, in accordance with 
     the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
       ``(5) Report.--The MEP Advisory Board shall transmit an 
     annual report to the Secretary for transmittal to Congress 
     within 30 days after the submission to Congress of the 
     President's annual budget request in each year. Such report 
     shall address the status of the program established pursuant 
     to this section and comment on the relevant sections of the 
     programmatic planning document and updates thereto 
     transmitted to Congress by the Director under subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 23.''.
       (e) Manufacturing Extension Center Competitive Grant 
     Program.--Such section 25 is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(f) Competitive Grant Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish, within 
     the Centers program under this section and section 26 of this 
     Act, a program of competitive awards among participants 
     described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Participants.--Participants receiving awards under 
     this subsection shall be the Centers, or a consortium of such 
     Centers.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
     subsection is to develop projects to solve new or emerging 
     manufacturing problems as determined by the Director, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Centers program, the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board, and small 
     and medium-sized manufacturers. One or more themes for the 
     competition may be identified, which may vary from year to 
     year, depending on the needs of manufacturers and the success 
     of previous competitions. These themes shall be related to 
     projects associated with manufacturing extension activities, 
     including supply chain integration and quality management, 
     and including the transfer of technology based on the 
     technological needs of manufacturers and available 
     technologies from institutions of higher education, 
     laboratories, and

[[Page 22298]]

     other technology producing entities, or extend beyond these 
     traditional areas.
       ``(4) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     subsection shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, 
     and containing such information as the Director shall 
     require, in consultation with the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership Advisory Board.
       ``(5) Selection.--Awards under this subsection shall be 
     peer reviewed and competitively awarded. The Director shall 
     select proposals to receive awards--
       ``(A) that utilize innovative or collaborative approaches 
     to solving the problem described in the competition;
       ``(B) that will improve the competitiveness of industries 
     in the region in which the Center or Centers are located; and
       ``(C) that will contribute to the long-term economic 
     stability of that region.
       ``(6) Program contribution.--Recipients of awards under 
     this subsection shall not be required to provide a matching 
     contribution.''.

     SEC. 3004. INSTITUTE-WIDE PLANNING REPORT.

       Section 23 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278i) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) Three-Year Programmatic Planning Document.--
     Concurrent with the submission to Congress of the President's 
     annual budget request in the first year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Director shall submit to 
     Congress a 3-year programmatic planning document for the 
     Institute, including programs under the Scientific and 
     Technical Research and Services, Industrial Technology 
     Services, and Construction of Research Facilities functions.
       ``(d) Annual Update on Three-Year Programmatic Planning 
     Document.--Concurrent with the submission to the Congress of 
     the President's annual budget request in each year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, the Director shall 
     submit to Congress an update to the 3-year programmatic 
     planning document submitted under subsection (c), revised to 
     cover the first 3 fiscal years after the date of that 
     update.''.

     SEC. 3005. REPORT BY VISITING COMMITTEE.

       Section 10(h)(1) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278(h)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``on or before January 31 in each year'' 
     and inserting ``not later than 30 days after the submittal to 
     Congress of the President's annual budget request in each 
     year''; and
       (2) by adding to the end the following: ``Such report also 
     shall comment on the programmatic planning document and 
     updates thereto submitted to Congress by the Director under 
     subsections (c) and (d) of section 23.''.

     SEC. 3006. MEETINGS OF VISITING COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 10(d) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278(d)) is amended by striking 
     ``quarterly'' and inserting ``twice each year''.

     SEC. 3007. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

       The National Institute of Standards and Technology Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating the first section 32 (15 U.S.C. 271 
     note) as section 34 and moving it to the end of the Act; and
       (2) by inserting before the section moved by paragraph (1) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 33. COLLABORATIVE MANUFACTURING RESEARCH PILOT GRANTS.

       ``(a) Authority.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Director shall establish a pilot 
     program of awards to partnerships among participants 
     described in paragraph (2) for the purposes described in 
     paragraph (3). Awards shall be made on a peer-reviewed, 
     competitive basis.
       ``(2) Participants.--Such partnerships shall include at 
     least--
       ``(A) 1 manufacturing industry partner; and
       ``(B) 1 nonindustry partner.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the program under this 
     section is to foster cost-shared collaborations among firms, 
     educational institutions, research institutions, State 
     agencies, and nonprofit organizations to encourage the 
     development of innovative, multidisciplinary manufacturing 
     technologies. Partnerships receiving awards under this 
     section shall conduct applied research to develop new 
     manufacturing processes, techniques, or materials that would 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and 
     competitiveness of United States manufacturing, and build 
     lasting alliances among collaborators.
       ``(b) Program Contribution.--Awards under this section 
     shall provide for not more than one-third of the costs of a 
     partnership. Not more than an additional one-third of such 
     costs may be obtained directly or indirectly from other 
     Federal sources.
       ``(c) Applications.--Applications for awards under this 
     section shall be submitted in such manner, at such time, and 
     containing such information as the Director shall require. 
     Such applications shall describe at a minimum--
       ``(1) how each partner will participate in developing and 
     carrying out the research agenda of the partnership;
       ``(2) the research that the grant would fund; and
       ``(3) how the research to be funded with the award would 
     contribute to improved performance, productivity, and 
     competitiveness of the United States manufacturing industry.
       ``(d) Selection Criteria.--In selecting applications for 
     awards under this section, the Director shall consider at a 
     minimum--
       ``(1) the degree to which projects will have a broad impact 
     on manufacturing;
       ``(2) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the 
     proposed projects; and
       ``(3) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to 
     successfully carry out the proposed research.
       ``(e) Distribution.--In selecting applications under this 
     section the Director shall ensure, to the extent practicable, 
     a distribution of overall awards among a variety of 
     manufacturing industry sectors and a range of firm sizes.
       ``(f) Duration.--In carrying out this section, the Director 
     shall run a single pilot competition to solicit and make 
     awards. Each award shall be for a 3-year period.''.

     SEC. 3008. MANUFACTURING FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 18 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-1) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Director is authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Manufacturing Fellowship Program.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--To promote the development of a 
     robust research community working at the leading edge of 
     manufacturing sciences, the Director shall establish a 
     program to award--
       ``(A) postdoctoral research fellowships at the Institute 
     for research activities related to manufacturing sciences; 
     and
       ``(B) senior research fellowships to established 
     researchers in industry or at institutions of higher 
     education who wish to pursue studies related to the 
     manufacturing sciences at the Institute.
       ``(2) Applications.--To be eligible for an award under this 
     subsection, an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require.
       ``(3) Stipend levels.--Under this subsection, the Director 
     shall provide stipends for postdoctoral research fellowships 
     at a level consistent with the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Postdoctoral Research Fellowship 
     Program, and senior research fellowships at levels consistent 
     with support for a faculty member in a sabbatical 
     position.''.

     SEC. 3009. PROCUREMENT OF TEMPORARY AND INTERMITTENT 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology may procure the temporary or 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants (or 
     organizations thereof) in accordance with section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, to assist with urgent or short-
     term research projects.
       (b) Extent of Authority.--A procurement under this section 
     may not exceed 1 year in duration, and the Director shall 
     procure no more than 200 experts and consultants per year.
       (c) Sunset.--This section shall cease to be effective after 
     September 30, 2010.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to the Committee on Science and Technology of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on whether 
     additional safeguards would be needed with respect to the use 
     of authorities granted under this section if such authorities 
     were to be made permanent.

     SEC. 3010. MALCOLM BALDRIGE AWARDS.

       Section 17(c)(3) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3711a(c)(3)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(3) In any year, not more than 18 awards may be made 
     under this section to recipients who have not previously 
     received an award under this section, and no award shall be 
     made within any category described in paragraph (1) if there 
     are no qualifying enterprises in that category.''.

     SEC. 3011. REPORT ON NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN EARLY 
                   CAREER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCHERS.

       Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology shall submit to the Committee on Science and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on efforts to recruit and retain young 
     scientists and engineers at the early stages of their careers 
     at the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
     laboratories and joint institutes. The report shall include--
       (1) a description of National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology policies and procedures, including financial 
     incentives, awards, promotions, time set aside for 
     independent research, access to equipment or facilities, and 
     other forms of recognition, designed to attract and retain 
     young scientists and engineers;
       (2) an evaluation of the impact of these incentives on the 
     careers of young scientists and engineers at the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, and also on the 
     quality of the research at the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology's laboratories and in the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology's programs;
       (3) a description of what barriers, if any, exist to 
     efforts to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers, 
     including limited availability of full time equivalent 
     positions, legal and procedural requirements, and pay grading 
     systems; and

[[Page 22299]]

       (4) the amount of funding devoted to efforts to recruit and 
     retain young researchers and the source of such funds.

     SEC. 3012. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Repeal of Advanced Technology Program.--Section 28 of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278n) is repealed.
       (b) Establishment of Technology Innovation Program.--The 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     271 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 27 the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 28. TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Institute a program linked to the purpose and functions of 
     the Institute, to be known as the `Technology Innovation 
     Program' for the purpose of assisting United States 
     businesses and institutions of higher education or other 
     organizations, such as national laboratories and nonprofit 
     research institutions, to support, promote, and accelerate 
     innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-
     reward research in areas of critical national need.
       ``(b) External Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall award competitive, 
     merit-reviewed grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts 
     to--
       ``(A) eligible companies that are small-sized businesses or 
     medium-sized businesses; or
       ``(B) joint ventures.
       ``(2) Single company awards.--No award given to a single 
     company shall exceed $3,000,000 over 3 years.
       ``(3) Joint venture awards.--No award given to a joint 
     venture shall exceed $9,000,000 over 5 years.
       ``(4) Federal cost share.--The Federal share of a project 
     funded by an award under the program shall not be more than 
     50 percent of total project costs.
       ``(5) Prohibitions.--Federal funds awarded under this 
     program may be used only for direct costs and not for 
     indirect costs, profits, or management fees of a contractor. 
     Any business that is not a small-sized or medium-sized 
     business may not receive any funding under this program.
       ``(c) Award Criteria.--The Director shall only provide 
     assistance under this section to an entity--
       ``(1) whose proposal has scientific and technical merit and 
     may result in intellectual property vesting in a United 
     States entity that can commercialize the technology in a 
     timely manner;
       ``(2) whose application establishes that the proposed 
     technology has strong potential to address critical national 
     needs through transforming the Nation's capacity to deal with 
     major societal challenges that are not currently being 
     addressed, and generate substantial benefits to the Nation 
     that extend significantly beyond the direct return to the 
     applicant;
       ``(3) whose application establishes that the research has 
     strong potential for advancing the state-of-the-art and 
     contributing significantly to the United States science and 
     technology knowledge base;
       ``(4) whose proposal explains why Technology Innovation 
     Program support is necessary, including evidence that the 
     research will not be conducted within a reasonable time 
     period in the absence of financial assistance under this 
     section;
       ``(5) whose application demonstrates that reasonable 
     efforts have been made to secure funding from alternative 
     funding sources and no other alternative funding sources are 
     reasonably available to support the proposal; and
       ``(6) whose application explains the novelty of the 
     technology and demonstrates that other entities have not 
     already developed, commercialized, marketed, distributed, or 
     sold similar technologies.
       ``(d) Competitions.--The Director shall solicit proposals 
     at least annually to address areas of critical national need 
     for high-risk, high-reward projects.
       ``(e) Intellectual Property Rights Ownership.--
       ``(1) In general.--Title to any intellectual property 
     developed by a joint venture from assistance provided under 
     this section may vest in any participant in the joint 
     venture, as agreed by the members of the joint venture, 
     notwithstanding section 202 (a) and (b) of title 35, United 
     States Code. The United States may reserve a nonexclusive, 
     nontransferable, irrevocable paid-up license, to have 
     practice for or on behalf of the United States in connection 
     with any such intellectual property, but shall not in the 
     exercise of such license publicly disclose proprietary 
     information related to the license. Title to any such 
     intellectual property shall not be transferred or passed, 
     except to a participant in the joint venture, until the 
     expiration of the first patent obtained in connection with 
     such intellectual property.
       ``(2) Licensing.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to prohibit the licensing to any company of 
     intellectual property rights arising from assistance provided 
     under this section.
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `intellectual property' means an invention patentable 
     under title 35, United States Code, or any patent on such an 
     invention, or any work for which copyright protection is 
     available under title 17, United States Code.
       ``(f) Program Operation.--Not later than 9 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this section, the Director shall 
     promulgate regulations--
       ``(1) establishing criteria for the selection of recipients 
     of assistance under this section;
       ``(2) establishing procedures regarding financial reporting 
     and auditing to ensure that awards are used for the purposes 
     specified in this section, are in accordance with sound 
     accounting practices, and are not funding existing or planned 
     research programs that would be conducted within a reasonable 
     time period in the absence of financial assistance under this 
     section; and
       ``(3) providing for appropriate dissemination of Technology 
     Innovation Program research results.
       ``(g) Annual Report.--The Director shall submit annually to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
     House of Representatives a report describing the Technology 
     Innovation Program's activities, including a description of 
     the metrics upon which award funding decisions were made in 
     the previous fiscal year, any proposed changes to those 
     metrics, metrics for evaluating the success of ongoing and 
     completed awards, and an evaluation of ongoing and completed 
     awards. The first annual report shall include best practices 
     for management of programs to stimulate high-risk, high-
     reward research.
       ``(h) Continuation of ATP Grants.--The Director shall, 
     through the Technology Innovation Program, continue to 
     provide support originally awarded under the Advanced 
     Technology Program, in accordance with the terms of the 
     original award and consistent with the goals of the 
     Technology Innovation Program.
       ``(i) Coordination With Other State and Federal Technology 
     Programs.--In carrying out this section, the Director shall, 
     as appropriate, coordinate with other senior State and 
     Federal officials to ensure cooperation and coordination in 
     State and Federal technology programs and to avoid 
     unnecessary duplication of efforts.
       ``(j) Acceptance of Funds From Other Federal Agencies.--In 
     addition to amounts appropriated to carry out this section, 
     the Secretary and the Director may accept funds from other 
     Federal agencies to support awards under the Technology 
     Innovation Program. Any award under this section which is 
     supported with funds from other Federal agencies shall be 
     selected and carried out according to the provisions of this 
     section. Funds accepted from other Federal agencies shall be 
     included as part of the Federal cost share of any project 
     funded under this section.
       ``(k) TIP Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Institute a TIP Advisory Board.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The TIP Advisory Board shall consist of 
     10 members appointed by the Director, at least 7 of whom 
     shall be from United States industry, chosen to reflect the 
     wide diversity of technical disciplines and industrial 
     sectors represented in Technology Innovation Program 
     projects. No member shall be an employee of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(B) Term.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C) or (D), 
     the term of office of each member of the TIP Advisory Board 
     shall be 3 years.
       ``(C) Classes.--The original members of the TIP Advisory 
     Board shall be appointed to 3 classes. One class of 3 members 
     shall have an initial term of 1 year, one class of 3 members 
     shall have an initial term of 2 years, and one class of 4 
     members shall have an initial term of 3 years.
       ``(D) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his 
     predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the 
     remainder of such term.
       ``(E) Serving consecutive terms.--Any person who has 
     completed 2 consecutive full terms of service on the TIP 
     Advisory Board shall thereafter be ineligible for appointment 
     during the 1-year period following the expiration of the 
     second such term.
       ``(3) Purpose.--The TIP Advisory Board shall meet not less 
     than 2 times annually, and provide the Director--
       ``(A) advice on programs, plans, and policies of the 
     Technology Innovation Program;
       ``(B) reviews of the Technology Innovation Program's 
     efforts to accelerate the research and development of 
     challenging, high-risk, high-reward technologies in areas of 
     critical national need;
       ``(C) reports on the general health of the program and its 
     effectiveness in achieving its legislatively mandated 
     mission; and
       ``(D) guidance on investment areas that are appropriate for 
     Technology Innovation Program funding;
       ``(4) Advisory capacity.--In discharging its duties under 
     this subsection, the TIP Advisory Board shall function solely 
     in an advisory capacity, in accordance with the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.
       ``(5) Annual report.--The TIP Advisory Board shall transmit 
     an annual report to the Secretary for transmittal to the 
     Congress not later than 30 days after the submission to 
     Congress of the President's annual budget request in each 
     year. Such report shall address the status of the Technology 
     Innovation Program and comment on the relevant sections of 
     the programmatic planning document and updates thereto 
     transmitted to Congress by the Director under subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 23.
       ``(l) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `eligible company' means a small-sized or 
     medium-sized business that is incorporated in the United 
     States and does a majority of its business in the United 
     States, and that either--

[[Page 22300]]

       ``(A) is majority owned by citizens of the United States; 
     or
       ``(B) is owned by a parent company incorporated in another 
     country and the Director finds that--
       ``(i) the company's participation in the Technology 
     Innovation Program would be in the economic interest of the 
     United States, as evidenced by--

       ``(I) investments in the United States in research and 
     manufacturing;
       ``(II) significant contributions to employment in the 
     United States; and
       ``(III) agreement with respect to any technology arising 
     from assistance provided under this section to promote the 
     manufacture within the United States of products resulting 
     from that technology; and

       ``(ii) the company is incorporated in a country which--

       ``(I) affords to United States-owned companies 
     opportunities, comparable to those afforded to any other 
     company, to participate in any joint venture similar to those 
     receiving funding under this section;
       ``(II) affords to United States-owned companies local 
     investment opportunities comparable to those afforded any 
     other company; and
       ``(III) affords adequate and effective protection for 
     intellectual property rights of United States-owned 
     companies;

       ``(2) the term `high-risk, high-reward research' means 
     research that--
       ``(A) has the potential for yielding transformational 
     results with far-ranging or wide-ranging implications;
       ``(B) addresses critical national needs within the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology's areas of technical 
     competence; and
       ``(C) is too novel or spans too diverse a range of 
     disciplines to fare well in the traditional peer-review 
     process;
       ``(3) the term `institution of higher education' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001);
       ``(4) the term `joint venture' means a joint venture that--
       ``(A) includes either--
       ``(i) at least 2 separately owned for-profit companies that 
     are both substantially involved in the project and both of 
     which are contributing to the cost-sharing required under 
     this section, with the lead entity of the joint venture being 
     one of those companies that is a small-sized or medium-sized 
     business; or
       ``(ii) at least 1 small-sized or medium-sized business and 
     1 institution of higher education or other organization, such 
     as a national laboratory or nonprofit research institute, 
     that are both substantially involved in the project and both 
     of which are contributing to the cost-sharing required under 
     this section, with the lead entity of the joint venture being 
     either that small-sized or medium-sized business or that 
     institution of higher education; and
       ``(B) may include additional for-profit companies, 
     institutions of higher education, and other organizations, 
     such as national laboratories and nonprofit research 
     institutes, that may or may not contribute non-Federal funds 
     to the project; and
       ``(5) the term `TIP Advisory Board' means the advisory 
     board established under subsection (k).''.
       (c) Transition.--Notwithstanding the repeal made by 
     subsection (a), the Director shall carry out section 28 of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 278n) as such section was in effect on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, with respect to 
     applications for grants under such section submitted before 
     such date, until the earlier of--
       (1) the date that the Director promulgates the regulations 
     required under section 28(f) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act, as added by subsection (b); or
       (2) December 31, 2007.

     SEC. 3013. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 
                   STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT AND OTHER 
                   TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Research Fellowships.--Section 18 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-l) 
     is amended by striking ``up to 1 per centum of the'' and 
     inserting ``up to 1.5 percent of the''.
       (b) Financial Agreements Clarification.--Section 2(b)(4) of 
     the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 
     U.S.C. 272(b)(4)) is amended by inserting ``and grants and 
     cooperative agreements,'' after ``arrangements,''.
       (c) Outdated Specifications.--
       (1) Redefinition of the metric system.--Section 3570 of the 
     Revised Statutes of the United States (derived from section 2 
     of the Act of July 28, 1866, entitled ``An Act to authorize 
     the Use of the Metric System of Weights and Measures'' (15 
     U.S.C. 205; 14 Stat. 339)) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 3570. METRIC SYSTEM DEFINED.

       ``The metric system of measurement shall be defined as the 
     International System of Units as established in 1960, and 
     subsequently maintained, by the General Conference of Weights 
     and Measures, and as interpreted or modified for the United 
     States by the Secretary of Commerce.''.
       (2) Repeal of redundant and obsolete authority.--The Act of 
     July 21, 1950, entitled, ``An Act To redefine the units and 
     establish the standards of electrical and photometric 
     measurements.'' (15 U.S.C. 223 and 224) is hereby repealed.
       (3) Standard time.--Section 1 of the Act of March 19, 1918, 
     (commonly known as the ``Calder Act'') (15 U.S.C. 261) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``For the 
     purpose'';
       (B) by striking the second sentence and the extra period 
     after it and inserting ``Except as provided in section 3(a) 
     of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 260a), the 
     standard time of the first zone shall be Coordinated 
     Universal Time retarded by 4 hours; that of the second zone 
     retarded by 5 hours; that of the third zone retarded by 6 
     hours; that of the fourth zone retarded by 7 hours; that of 
     the fifth zone retarded 8 hours; that of the sixth zone 
     retarded by 9 hours; that of the seventh zone retarded by 10 
     hours; that of the eighth zone retarded by 11 hours; and that 
     of the ninth zone shall be Coordinated Universal Time 
     advanced by 10 hours.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Coordinated Universal Time Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `Coordinated Universal Time' means the time scale 
     maintained through the General Conference of Weights and 
     Measures and interpreted or modified for the United States by 
     the Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the Secretary 
     of the Navy.''.
       (4) Idaho time zone.--Section 3 of the Act of March 19, 
     1918, (commonly known as the ``Calder Act'') (15 U.S.C. 264) 
     is amended by striking ``third zone'' and inserting ``fourth 
     zone''.
       (d) Non-Energy Inventions Program.--Section 27 of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 
     278m) is repealed.

     SEC. 3014. RETENTION OF DEPRECIATION SURCHARGE.

       Section 14 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278d) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Within''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Retention of Fees.--The Director is authorized to 
     retain all building use and depreciation surcharge fees 
     collected pursuant to OMB Circular A-25. Such fees shall be 
     collected and credited to the Construction of Research 
     Facilities Appropriation Account for use in maintenance and 
     repair of the Institute's existing facilities.''.

     SEC. 3015. POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS.

       Section 19 of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-2) is amended by striking 
     ``nor more than 60 new fellows'' and inserting ``nor more 
     than 120 new fellows''.
                TITLE IV--OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS

     SEC. 4001. OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, in consultation with the Director of the 
     National Science Foundation and the Administrator of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall 
     establish a coordinated program of ocean, coastal, Great 
     Lakes, and atmospheric research and development, in 
     collaboration with academic institutions and other 
     nongovernmental entities, that shall focus on the development 
     of advanced technologies and analytical methods that will 
     promote United States leadership in ocean and atmospheric 
     science and competitiveness in the applied uses of such 
     knowledge.

     SEC. 4002. NOAA OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration shall conduct, develop, 
     support, promote, and coordinate formal and informal 
     educational activities at all levels to enhance public 
     awareness and understanding of ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, 
     and atmospheric science and stewardship by the general public 
     and other coastal stakeholders, including underrepresented 
     groups in ocean and atmospheric science and policy careers. 
     In conducting those activities, the Administrator shall build 
     upon the educational programs and activities of the agency.
       (b) NOAA Science Education Plan.--The Administrator, 
     appropriate National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     programs, ocean atmospheric science and education experts, 
     and interested members of the public shall develop a science 
     education plan setting forth education goals and strategies 
     for the Administration, as well as programmatic actions to 
     carry out such goals and priorities over the next 20 years, 
     and evaluate and update such plan every 5 years.
       (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to affect the application of section 438 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232a) or sections 504 
     and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794 and 
     794d).

     SEC. 4003. NOAA'S CONTRIBUTION TO INNOVATION.

       (a) Participation in Interagency Activities.--The National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall be a full 
     participant in any interagency effort to promote innovation 
     and economic competitiveness through near-term and long-term 
     basic scientific research and development and the promotion 
     of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     education, consistent with the agency mission, including 
     authorized activities.
       (b) Historic Foundation.--In order to carry out the 
     participation described in subsection (a), the Administrator 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall 
     build on the historic role of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration in stimulating excellence

[[Page 22301]]

     in the advancement of ocean and atmospheric science and 
     engineering disciplines and in providing opportunities and 
     incentives for the pursuit of academic studies in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics.
                     TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

     SEC. 5001. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Protecting America's 
     Competitive Edge Through Energy Act'' or the ``PACE-Energy 
     Act''.

     SEC. 5002. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of Energy.
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (3) National laboratory.--The term ``National Laboratory'' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

     SEC. 5003. SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION AT 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       (a) Science Education Programs.--Section 3164 of the 
     Department of Energy Science Education Enhancement Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7381a) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (f), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Organization of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics 
     Education Programs.--
       ``(1) Director of science, engineering, and mathematics 
     education.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Science 
     (referred to in this subsection as the `Under Secretary'), 
     shall appoint a Director of Science, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics Education (referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Director') with the principal responsibility for 
     administering science, engineering, and mathematics education 
     programs across all functions of the Department.
       ``(2) Qualifications.--The Director shall be an individual, 
     who by reason of professional background and experience, is 
     specially qualified to advise the Under Secretary on all 
     matters pertaining to science, engineering, and mathematics 
     education at the Department.
       ``(3) Duties.--The Director shall--
       ``(A) oversee all science, engineering, and mathematics 
     education programs of the Department;
       ``(B) represent the Department as the principal interagency 
     liaison for all science, engineering, and mathematics 
     education programs, unless otherwise represented by the 
     Secretary or the Under Secretary;
       ``(C) prepare the annual budget and advise the Under 
     Secretary on all budgetary issues for science, engineering, 
     and mathematics education programs of the Department;
       ``(D) increase, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     participation and advancement of women and underrepresented 
     minorities at every level of science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics education; and
       ``(E) perform other such matters relating to science, 
     engineering, and mathematics education as are required by the 
     Secretary or the Under Secretary.
       ``(4) Staff and other resources.--The Secretary shall 
     assign to the Director such personnel and other resources as 
     the Secretary considers necessary to permit the Director to 
     carry out the duties of the Director.
       ``(5) Assessment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to enter into 
     a contract with the National Academy of Sciences under which 
     the National Academy, not later than 5 years after, and not 
     later than 10 years after, the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph, shall assess the performance of the science, 
     engineering, and mathematics education programs of the 
     Department.
       ``(B) Considerations.--An assessment under this paragraph 
     shall be conducted taking into consideration, where 
     applicable, the effect of science, engineering, and 
     mathematics education programs of the Department on student 
     academic achievement in science and mathematics.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (d) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education 
     Fund.--The Secretary shall establish a Science, Engineering, 
     and Mathematics Education Fund, using not less than 0.3 
     percent of the amount made available to the Department for 
     research, development, demonstration, and commercial 
     application for each fiscal year, to carry out sections 3165, 
     3166, and 3167.
       ``(e) Annual Plan for Allocation of Education Funding.--The 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress as part of the annual 
     budget submission for a fiscal year a report describing the 
     manner in which the Department has complied with subsection 
     (d) for the prior fiscal year and the manner in which the 
     Department proposes to comply with subsection (d) during the 
     following fiscal year, including--
       ``(1) the total amount of funding for research, 
     development, demonstration, and commercial application 
     activities for the corresponding fiscal year;
       ``(2) the amounts set aside for the Science, Engineering, 
     and Mathematics Education Fund under subsection (d) from 
     funding for research activities, development activities, 
     demonstration activities, and commercial application 
     activities for the corresponding fiscal year; and
       ``(3) a description of how the funds set aside under 
     subsection (d) were allocated for the prior fiscal year and 
     will be allocated for the following fiscal year.''.
       (b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) consult with the Secretary of Education and the 
     Director of the National Science Foundation regarding 
     activities authorized under subpart B of the Department of 
     Energy Science Education Enhancement Act (as added by 
     subsection (d)(3)) to improve science and mathematics 
     education; and
       (2) otherwise make available to the Secretary of Education 
     reports associated with programs authorized under that 
     section.
       (c) Definition.--Section 3168 of the Department of Energy 
     Science Education Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381d) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) National laboratory.--The term `National Laboratory' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801).''.
       (d) Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education 
     Programs.--The Department of Energy Science Education 
     Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after section 3162 (42 U.S.C. 7381) the 
     following:

             ``Subpart A--Science Education Enhancement'';

       (2) in section 3169 (42 U.S.C. 7381e), by striking ``part'' 
     and inserting ``subpart''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:

 ``Subpart B--Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Programs

     ``SEC. 3170. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subpart:
       ``(1) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.
       ``(2) National laboratory.--The term `National Laboratory' 
     has the meaning given the term in section 2 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801).

 ``CHAPTER 1--PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS TO SPECIALTY SCHOOLS FOR SCIENCE 
                            AND MATHEMATICS

     ``SEC. 3171. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS TO SPECIALTY SCHOOLS FOR 
                   SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish 
     a pilot program of grants to States to help establish or 
     expand public, statewide specialty secondary schools that 
     provide comprehensive science and mathematics (including 
     technology and engineering) education to improve the academic 
     achievement of students in science and mathematics.
       ``(b) Definition of Specialty School for Science and 
     Mathematics.--In this chapter, the term `specialty school for 
     science and mathematics' means a public secondary school 
     (including a school that provides residential services to 
     students) that--
       ``(1) serves students residing in the State in which the 
     school is located; and
       ``(2) offers to those students a high-quality, 
     comprehensive science and mathematics (including technology 
     and engineering) curriculum designed to improve the academic 
     achievement of students in science and mathematics.
       ``(c) Pilot Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amounts authorized under 
     subsection (i), the Secretary, acting through the Director 
     and in consultation with the Director of the National Science 
     Foundation, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     States in order to provide assistance to the States for the 
     costs of establishing or expanding public, statewide 
     specialty schools for science and mathematics.
       ``(2) Resources.--The Director shall ensure that 
     appropriate resources of the Department, including the 
     National Laboratories, are available to schools funded under 
     this section in order to--
       ``(A) increase experiential, hands-on learning 
     opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics for students attending such schools; and
       ``(B) provide ongoing professional development 
     opportunities for teachers employed at such schools.
       ``(3) Assistance.--Consistent with sections 3165 and 3166, 
     the Director shall make available from funds authorized in 
     this section to carry out a program using scientific and 
     engineering staff of the National Laboratories, during which 
     the staff--
       ``(A) assists teachers in teaching courses at the schools 
     funded under this section;
       ``(B) uses National Laboratory scientific equipment in 
     teaching the courses; and
       ``(C) uses distance education and other technologies to 
     provide assistance described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) to 
     schools funded under this section that are not located near 
     the National Laboratories.
       ``(4) Restrictions.--
       ``(A) Maximum number of funded specialty schools per 
     state.--No State shall receive funding for more than 1 
     specialty school for science and mathematics for a fiscal 
     year.
       ``(B) Maximum amount and duration of grants.--A grant 
     awarded to a State for a specialty school for science and 
     mathematics under this section--
       ``(i) shall not exceed $2,000,000 for a fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) shall not be provided for more than 3 fiscal years.

[[Page 22302]]

       ``(d) Federal and Non-Federal Shares.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs 
     described in subsection (c)(1) shall not exceed 33 percent.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs described in subsection (c)(1) shall be--
       ``(A) not less than 67 percent; and
       ``(B) provided from non-Federal sources, in cash or in 
     kind, fairly evaluated, including services.
       ``(e) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a State shall submit to the Director an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require that describes--
       ``(1) the process by which and selection criteria with 
     which the State will select and designate a school as a 
     specialty school for science and mathematics in accordance 
     with this section;
       ``(2) how the State will ensure that funds made available 
     under this section are used to establish or expand a 
     specialty school for science and mathematics--
       ``(A) in accordance with the activities described in 
     subsection (g); and
       ``(B) that has the capacity to improve the academic 
     achievement of all students in all core academic subjects, 
     and particularly in science and mathematics;
       ``(3) how the State will measure the extent to which the 
     school increases student academic achievement on State 
     academic achievement standards in science, mathematics, and, 
     to the maximum extent applicable, technology and engineering;
       ``(4) the curricula and materials to be used in the school;
       ``(5) the availability of funds from non-Federal sources 
     for the costs of the activities authorized under this 
     section; and
       ``(6) how the State will use technical assistance and 
     support from the Department, including the National 
     Laboratories, and other entities with experience and 
     expertise in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education, including institutions of higher 
     education.
       ``(f) Distribution.--In awarding grants under this section, 
     the Director shall--
       ``(1) ensure a wide, equitable distribution among States 
     that propose to serve students from urban and rural areas; 
     and
       ``(2) provide equal consideration to States without 
     National Laboratories.
       ``(g) Uses of Funds.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--A State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall use the funds made available through the 
     grant to--
       ``(A) employ proven strategies and methods for improving 
     student learning and teaching in science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics;
       ``(B) integrate into the curriculum of the school 
     comprehensive science and mathematics education, including 
     instruction and assessments in science, mathematics, and to 
     the extent applicable, technology and engineering that are 
     aligned with the academic content and student academic 
     achievement standards of the State, within the meaning of 
     section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311);
       ``(C) create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 
     professional development for teachers that improves the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics content 
     knowledge of the teachers; and
       ``(D) design and implement hands-on laboratory experiences 
     to help prepare students to pursue postsecondary studies in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
       ``(2) Special rule.--Grant funds under this section may be 
     used for activities described in paragraph (1) only if the 
     activities are directly relating to improving student 
     academic achievement in science, mathematics, and to the 
     extent applicable, technology and engineering.
       ``(h) Evaluation and Report.--
       ``(1) State evaluation and report.--
       ``(A) Evaluation.--Each State that receives a grant under 
     this section shall develop and carry out an evaluation and 
     accountability plan for the activities funded through the 
     grant that measures the impact of the activities, including 
     measurable objectives for improved student academic 
     achievement on State science, mathematics, and, to the 
     maximum extent applicable, technology and engineering 
     assessments.
       ``(B) Report.--The State shall submit to the Director a 
     report containing the results of the evaluation and 
     accountability plan.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of the PACE-Energy Act, the Director shall 
     submit a report detailing the impact of the activities 
     assisted with funds made available under this section to--
       ``(A) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House 
     of Representatives;
       ``(B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       ``(C) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       ``(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

         ``CHAPTER 2--EXPERIENTIAL-BASED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

     ``SEC. 3175. EXPERIENTIAL-BASED LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES.

       ``(a) Internships Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amounts authorized under 
     subsection (f), the Secretary, acting through the Director, 
     shall establish a summer internship program for middle school 
     and secondary school students that shall--
       ``(A) provide the students with internships at the National 
     Laboratories;
       ``(B) promote experiential, hands-on learning in science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics; and
       ``(C) be of at least 2 weeks in duration.
       ``(2) Residential services.--The Director may provide 
     residential services to students participating in the 
     internship program authorized under paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Selection Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall establish criteria to 
     determine the sufficient level of academic preparedness 
     necessary for a student to be eligible for an internship 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Participation.--The Director shall ensure the 
     participation of students from a wide distribution of States, 
     including States without National Laboratories.
       ``(3) Student achievement.--The Director may consider the 
     academic achievement of middle and secondary school students 
     in determining eligibility under this section, in accordance 
     with paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(c) Priority.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall give priority for an 
     internship under this section to a student who meets the 
     eligibility criteria described in subsection (b) and who 
     attends a school--
       ``(A)(i) in which not less than 30 percent of the children 
     enrolled in the school are from low-income families; or
       ``(ii) that is designated with a school locale code of 41, 
     42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education; and
       ``(B) for which there is--
       ``(i) a high percentage of teachers who are not teaching in 
     the academic subject areas or grade levels in which the 
     teachers were trained to teach;
       ``(ii) a high teacher turnover rate; or
       ``(iii) a high percentage of teachers with emergency, 
     provisional, or temporary certification or licenses.
       ``(2) Coordination.--The Director shall consult with the 
     Secretary of Education in order to determine whether a 
     student meets the priority requirements of this subsection.
       ``(d) Outreach and Experiential-Based Programs for Minority 
     Students.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, in cooperation with Hispanic-serving institutions, 
     historically Black colleges and universities, tribally 
     controlled colleges and universities, Alaska Native- and 
     Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, and other minority-
     serving institutions and nonprofit entities with substantial 
     experience relating to outreach and experiential-based 
     learning projects, shall establish outreach and experiential-
     based learning programs that will encourage underrepresented 
     minority students in kindergarten through grade 12 to pursue 
     careers in science, engineering, and mathematics.
       ``(2) Community involvement.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the programs established under paragraph (1) involve, to 
     the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) participation by parents and educators; and
       ``(B) the establishment of partnerships with business 
     organizations and appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.
       ``(3) Distribution.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     programs established under paragraph (1) are located in 
     diverse geographic regions of the United States, to the 
     maximum extent practicable.
       ``(e) Evaluation and Accountability Plan.--The Director 
     shall develop an evaluation and accountability plan for the 
     activities funded under this chapter that objectively 
     measures the impact of the activities.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $7,500,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

 ``CHAPTER 3--NATIONAL LABORATORIES CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN SCIENCE, 
           TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 3181. NATIONAL LABORATORIES CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE IN 
                   SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 
                   MATHEMATICS EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Definition of High-Need Public Secondary School.--In 
     this section, the term `high-need public secondary school' 
     means a secondary school--
       ``(1) with a high concentration of low-income individuals 
     (as defined in section 1707 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6537)); or
       ``(2) designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 
     43, as determined by the Secretary of Education.
       ``(b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish at each 
     of the National Laboratories a program to support a Center of 
     Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics (referred to in this section as a `Center of 
     Excellence') in at least 1 high-need public secondary school 
     located in the region served by the National Laboratory to 
     provide assistance in accordance with subsection (f).
       ``(c) Collaboration.--
       ``(1) In general.--To comply with subsection (g), each 
     high-need public secondary school selected as a Center of 
     Excellence and the National Laboratory shall form a 
     partnership with a school, department, or program of 
     education at an institution of higher education.

[[Page 22303]]

       ``(2) Nonprofit entities.--The partnership may include a 
     nonprofit entity with demonstrated experience and 
     effectiveness in science or mathematics, as agreed to by 
     other members of the partnership.
       ``(d) Selection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall establish criteria to guide the National 
     Laboratories in selecting the sites for Centers of 
     Excellence.
       ``(2) Process.--A National Laboratory shall select a site 
     for a Center of Excellence through an open, widely-
     publicized, and competitive process.
       ``(e) Goals.--The Secretary shall establish goals and 
     performance assessments for each Center of Excellence 
     authorized under subsection (b).
       ``(f) Assistance.--Consistent with sections 3165 and 3166, 
     the Director shall make available necessary assistance for a 
     program established under this section through the use of 
     scientific and engineering staff of a National Laboratory, 
     including the use of staff--
       ``(1) to assist teachers in teaching a course at a Center 
     of Excellence in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
     Mathematics; and
       ``(2) to use National Laboratory scientific equipment in 
     the teaching of the course.
       ``(g) Special Rules.--A Center of Excellence in a region 
     shall ensure--
       ``(1) provision of clinical practicum, student teaching, or 
     internship experiences for science, technology, and 
     mathematics teacher candidates as part of the teacher 
     preparation program of the Center of Excellence;
       ``(2) provision of supervision and mentoring for teacher 
     candidates in the teacher preparation program; and
       ``(3) to the maximum extent practicable, provision of 
     professional development for veteran teachers in the public 
     secondary schools in the region.
       ``(h) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall consider the results 
     of performance assessments required under subsection (e) in 
     determining the contract award fee of a National Laboratory 
     management and operations contractor.
       ``(i) Plan.--The Director shall--
       ``(1) develop an evaluation and accountability plan for the 
     activities funded under this section that objectively 
     measures the impact of the activities; and
       ``(2) disseminate information obtained from those 
     measurements.
       ``(j) No Effect on Similar Programs.--Nothing in this 
     section displaces or otherwise affects any similar program 
     being carried out as of the date of enactment of this section 
     at any National Laboratory under any other provision of law.

                     ``CHAPTER 4--SUMMER INSTITUTES

     ``SEC. 3185. SUMMER INSTITUTES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Eligible partner.--The term `eligible partner' 
     means--
       ``(A) the science, engineering, or mathematics department 
     at an institution of higher education, acting in coordination 
     with a school, department, or program of education at an 
     institution of higher education that provides training for 
     teachers and principals; or
       ``(B) a nonprofit entity with expertise in providing 
     professional development for science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics teachers.
       ``(2) Summer institute.--The term `summer institute' means 
     an institute, operated during the summer, that--
       ``(A) is hosted by a National Laboratory or an eligible 
     partner;
       ``(B) is operated for a period of not less than 2 weeks;
       ``(C) includes, as a component, a program that provides 
     direct interaction between students and faculty, including 
     personnel of 1 or more National Laboratories who have 
     scientific expertise;
       ``(D) provides for follow-up training, during the academic 
     year, that is conducted in the classroom; and
       ``(E) provides hands-on science, technology, engineering, 
     or mathematics laboratory experience for not less than 2 
     days.
       ``(b) Summer Institute Programs Authorized.--
       ``(1) Programs at the national laboratories.--The 
     Secretary, acting through the Director, shall establish or 
     expand programs of summer institutes at each of the National 
     Laboratories to provide additional training to strengthen the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching 
     skills of teachers employed at public schools for 
     kindergarten through grade 12, in accordance with the 
     activities authorized under paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(2) Programs with eligible partners.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall identify and provide assistance as described 
     in subparagraph (C) to eligible partners to establish or 
     expand programs of summer institutes that provide additional 
     training to strengthen the science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics teaching skills of teachers employed at 
     public schools for kindergarten through grade 12, in 
     accordance with paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(B) Selection criteria.--In identifying eligible partners 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall require that 
     partner institutions describe--
       ``(i) how the partner institution has the capability to 
     administer the program in accordance with this section, which 
     may include a description of any existing programs at the 
     institution of the applicant that are targeted at education 
     of science and mathematics teachers and the number of 
     teachers graduated annually from the programs; and
       ``(ii) how the partner institution will assist the National 
     Laboratory in carrying out the activities described in 
     paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(C) Assistance.--Consistent with sections 3165 and 3166, 
     the Director shall make available funds authorized under this 
     section to carry out a program using scientific and 
     engineering staff of the National Laboratories, during which 
     the staff--
       ``(i) assists in providing training to teachers at summer 
     institutes; and
       ``(ii) uses National Laboratory scientific equipment in the 
     training.
       ``(3) Required activities.--Funds authorized under this 
     section shall be used for--
       ``(A) creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 
     professional development for teachers that improves the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics content 
     knowledge of the teachers;
       ``(B) training to improve the ability of science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics teachers to 
     translate content knowledge and recent developments in 
     pedagogy into classroom practice, including training to use 
     curricula that are--
       ``(i) based on scientific research; and
       ``(ii) aligned with challenging State academic content 
     standards;
       ``(C) training on the use and integration of technology in 
     the classrooms; and
       ``(D) supplemental and follow-up professional development 
     activities as described in subsection (a)(2)(D).
       ``(4) Additional uses of funds.--Funds authorized under 
     this section may be used for--
       ``(A) training and classroom materials to assist in 
     carrying out paragraph (3);
       ``(B) expenses associated with scientific and engineering 
     staff at the National Laboratories assisting in providing 
     training to teachers at summer institutes;
       ``(C) instruction in the use and integration of data and 
     assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice; and
       ``(D) stipends and travel expenses for teachers 
     participating in the program.
       ``(c) Priority.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Director shall ensure that each summer institute program 
     authorized under subsection (b) provides training to--
       ``(1) teachers from a wide range of school districts;
       ``(2) teachers from high-need school districts; and
       ``(3) teachers from groups underrepresented in the fields 
     of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     teaching, including women and members of minority groups.
       ``(d) Coordination and Consultation.--The Director shall 
     consult and coordinate with the Secretary of Education and 
     the Director of the National Science Foundation regarding the 
     implementation of the programs authorized under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(e) Evaluation and Accountability Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall develop an evaluation 
     and accountability plan for the activities funded under this 
     section that measures the impact of the activities.
       ``(2) Contents.--The evaluation and accountability plan 
     shall include--
       ``(A) measurable objectives to increase the number of 
     science, technology, and mathematics teachers who participate 
     in the summer institutes involved; and
       ``(B) measurable objectives for improved student academic 
     achievement on State science, mathematics, and to the maximum 
     extent applicable, technology and engineering assessments.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress with the annual budget submission of the Secretary a 
     report on how the activities assisted under this section 
     improve the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     teaching skills of participating teachers.
       ``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       ``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       ``(3) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

           ``CHAPTER 5--NATIONAL ENERGY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT

     ``SEC. 3191. NATIONAL ENERGY EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director and in consultation with the Director of the 
     National Science Foundation, shall establish a program to 
     coordinate and make available to teachers and students web-
     based kindergarten through high school science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics education resources relating to 
     the science and energy mission of the Department, including 
     existing instruction materials and protocols for classroom 
     laboratory experiments.
       ``(b) Energy Education.--The materials and other resources 
     required under subsection (a) shall include instruction 
     relating to--
       ``(1) the science of energy;
       ``(2) the sources of energy;
       ``(3) the uses of energy in society; and
       ``(4) the environmental consequences and benefits of all 
     energy sources and uses.
       ``(c) Dissemination.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall take all steps necessary, such as through 
     participation in education association conferences, to 
     advertise the program authorized under this section to K-12 
     teachers and science education coordinators across the United 
     States.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section--

[[Page 22304]]

       ``(1) $500,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       ``(2) such sums as necessary for each fiscal year 
     thereafter.

                      ``CHAPTER 6--ADMINISTRATION

     ``SEC. 3195. MENTORING PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--As part of the programs established 
     under chapters 1, 3, and 4, the Director shall establish a 
     program to recruit and provide mentors for women and 
     underrepresented minorities who are interested in careers in 
     science, engineering, and mathematics.
       ``(b) Pairing.--The program shall pair mentors with women 
     and minorities who are in programs of study at specialty 
     schools for science and mathematics, Centers of Excellence, 
     and summer institutes established under chapters 1, 3, and 4, 
     respectively.
       ``(c) Program Evaluation.--The Secretary shall annually--
       ``(1) use metrics to evaluate the success of the programs 
     established under subsection (a); and
       ``(2) submit to Congress a report that describes the 
     results of each evaluation.''.

     SEC. 5004. NUCLEAR SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM FOR 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to address the decline in the number of and resources 
     available to nuclear science programs at institutions of 
     higher education; and
       (2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in 
     nuclear science, an area of strategic importance to the 
     economic competitiveness and energy security of the United 
     States.
       (b) Definition of Nuclear Science.--In this section, the 
     term ``nuclear science'' includes--
       (1) nuclear science;
       (2) nuclear engineering;
       (3) nuclear chemistry;
       (4) radio chemistry; and
       (5) health physics.
       (c) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish, in 
     accordance with this section, a program to expand and enhance 
     institution of higher education nuclear science educational 
     capabilities.
       (d) Nuclear Science Program Expansion Grants for 
     Institutions of Higher Education.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award up to 3 
     competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of 
     higher education that establish new academic degree programs 
     in nuclear science.
       (2) Priority.--In evaluating grants under this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to proposals that involve 
     partnerships with a National Laboratory or other eligible 
     nuclear-related entity, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Criteria.--Criteria for a grant awarded under this 
     subsection shall be based on--
       (A) the potential to attract new students to the program;
       (B) academic rigor; and
       (C) the ability to offer hands-on learning opportunities.
       (4) Duration and amount.--
       (A) Duration.--A grant under this subsection may be up to 5 
     years in duration.
       (B) Amount.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 
     up to $1,000,000 for each year of the grant period.
       (5) Use of funds.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to--
       (A) recruit and retain new faculty;
       (B) develop core and specialized course content;
       (C) encourage collaboration between faculty and researchers 
     in the nuclear science field; and
       (D) support outreach efforts to recruit students.
       (e) Nuclear Science Competitiveness Grants for Institutions 
     of Higher Education.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award up to 5 
     competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of 
     higher education with existing academic degree programs that 
     produce graduates in nuclear science.
       (2) Criteria.--Criteria for a grant awarded under this 
     subsection shall be based on the potential for increasing the 
     number and academic quality of graduates in the nuclear 
     sciences who enter into careers in nuclear-related fields.
       (3) Duration and amount.--
       (A) Duration.--A grant under this subsection may be up to 5 
     years in duration.
       (B) Amount.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 
     up to $500,000 for each year of the grant period.
       (4) Use of funds.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to--
       (A) increase the number of graduates in nuclear science 
     that enter into careers in the nuclear science field;
       (B) enhance the teaching of advanced nuclear technologies;
       (C) aggressively pursue collaboration opportunities with 
     industry and National Laboratories;
       (D) bolster or sustain nuclear infrastructure and research 
     facilities of the institution of higher education, such as 
     research and training reactors or laboratories; and
       (E) provide tuition assistance and stipends to 
     undergraduate and graduate students.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Nuclear science program expansion grants for 
     institutions of higher education.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (d)--
       (A) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Nuclear science competitiveness grants for institutions 
     of higher education.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out subsection (e)--
       (A) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 5005. HYDROCARBON SYSTEMS SCIENCE TALENT EXPANSION 
                   PROGRAM FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to address the decline in the number of and resources 
     available to hydrocarbon systems science programs at 
     institutions of higher education; and
       (2) to increase the number of graduates with degrees in 
     hydrocarbon systems science, an area of strategic importance 
     to the economic competitiveness and energy security of the 
     United States.
       (b) Definition of Hydrocarbon Systems Science.--In this 
     section:
       (1) In general.--The term ``hydrocarbon systems science'' 
     means a science involving natural gas or other petroleum 
     exploration, development, or production.
       (2) Inclusions.--The term ``hydrocarbon systems science'' 
     includes--
       (A) petroleum or reservoir engineering;
       (B) environmental geoscience;
       (C) petrophysics;
       (D) geophysics;
       (E) geochemistry;
       (F) petroleum geology;
       (G) ocean engineering;
       (H) environmental engineering; and
       (I) computer science, as computer science relates to a 
     science described in this subsection.
       (c) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish, in 
     accordance with this section, a program to expand and enhance 
     institution of higher education hydrocarbon systems science 
     educational capabilities.
       (d) Hydrocarbon Systems Science Program Expansion Grants 
     for Institutions of Higher Education.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award up to 3 
     competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of 
     higher education that establish new academic degree programs 
     in hydrocarbon systems science.
       (2) Eligibility.--In evaluating grants under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to proposals 
     that involve partnerships with the National Laboratories, 
     including the National Energy Technology Laboratory, or other 
     hydrocarbon systems scientific entities, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Criteria.--Criteria for a grant awarded under this 
     subsection shall be based on--
       (A) the potential to attract new students to the program;
       (B) academic rigor; and
       (C) the ability to offer hands-on learning opportunities.
       (4) Duration and amount.--
       (A) Duration.--A grant under this subsection may be up to 5 
     years in duration.
       (B) Amount.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 
     up to $1,000,000 for each year of the grant period.
       (5) Use of funds.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to--
       (A) recruit and retain new faculty;
       (B) develop core and specialized course content;
       (C) encourage collaboration between faculty and researchers 
     in the hydrocarbon systems science field; and
       (D) support outreach efforts to recruit students.
       (e) Hydrocarbon Systems Science Competitiveness Grants for 
     Institutions of Higher Education.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award up to 5 
     competitive grants for each fiscal year to institutions of 
     higher education with existing academic degree programs that 
     produce graduates in hydrocarbon systems science.
       (2) Criteria.--Criteria for a grant awarded under this 
     subsection shall be based on the potential for increasing the 
     number and academic quality of graduates in hydrocarbon 
     systems sciences who enter into careers in natural gas and 
     other petroleum exploration, development, and production 
     related fields.
       (3) Duration and amount.--
       (A) Duration.--A grant under this subsection may be up to 5 
     years in duration.
       (B) Amount.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection shall be eligible for 
     up to $500,000 for each year of the grant period.
       (4) Use of funds.--An institution of higher education that 
     receives a grant under this subsection may use the grant to--
       (A) increase the number of graduates in the hydrocarbon 
     systems sciences that enter into careers in the natural gas 
     and other petroleum exploration, development, and production 
     science fields;
       (B) enhance the teaching of advanced natural gas and other 
     petroleum exploration, development, and production 
     technologies;
       (C) aggressively pursue collaboration opportunities with 
     industry and the National Laboratories, including the 
     National Energy Technology Laboratory;
       (D) bolster or sustain natural gas and other petroleum 
     exploration, development, and production infrastructure and 
     research facilities of the institution of higher education, 
     such as research and training or laboratories; and

[[Page 22305]]

       (E) provide tuition assistance and stipends to 
     undergraduate and graduate students.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Hydrocarbon systems science program expansion grants 
     for institutions of higher education.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (d)--
       (A) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $6,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $9,500,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Hydrocarbon systems science competitiveness grants for 
     institutions of higher education.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (e)--
       (A) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (B) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 5006. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EARLY CAREER AWARDS FOR 
                   SCIENCE. ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS 
                   RESEARCHERS.

       (a) Grant Awards.--The Director of the Office of Science of 
     the Department (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Director'') shall carry out a program to award grants to 
     scientists and engineers at an early career stage at 
     institutions of higher education and organizations described 
     in subsection (c) to conduct research in fields relevant to 
     the mission of the Department.
       (b) Amount and Duration.--
       (1) Amount.--The amount of a grant awarded under this 
     section shall be--
       (A) not less than $80,000; and
       (B) not more than $125,000.
       (2) Duration.--The term of a grant awarded under this 
     section shall be not more than 5 years.
       (c) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an individual shall, as determined by the 
     Director--
       (A) subject to paragraph (2), have completed a doctorate or 
     other terminal degree not more than 10 years before the date 
     on which the proposal for a grant is submitted under 
     subsection (e)(1);
       (B) have demonstrated promise in a science, engineering, or 
     mathematics field relevant to the missions of the Department; 
     and
       (C) be employed--
       (i) in a tenure track-position as an assistant professor or 
     equivalent title at an institution of higher education in the 
     United States;
       (ii) at an organization in the United States that is a 
     nonprofit, nondegree-granting research organization such as a 
     museum, observatory, or research laboratory; or
       (iii) as a scientist at a National Laboratory.
       (2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(A), the Director 
     may determine that an individual who has completed a 
     doctorate more than 10 years before the date of submission of 
     a proposal under subsection (e)(1) is eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section if the individual was unable to 
     conduct research for a period of time because of extenuating 
     circumstances, including military service or family 
     responsibilities, as determined by the Director.
       (d) Selection.--Grant recipients shall be selected on a 
     competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       (e) Selection Process and Criteria.--
       (1) Proposal.--To be eligible to receive a grant under this 
     section, an individual shall submit to the Director a 
     proposal at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require.
       (2) Evaluation.--In evaluating the proposals submitted 
     under paragraph (1), the Director shall take into 
     consideration, at a minimum--
       (A) the intellectual merit of the proposed project;
       (B) the innovative or transformative nature of the proposed 
     research;
       (C) the extent to which the proposal integrates research 
     and education, including undergraduate education in science 
     and engineering disciplines; and
       (D) the potential of the applicant for leadership at the 
     frontiers of knowledge.
       (f) Diversity Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Director shall endeavor to ensure that the grant recipients 
     represent a variety of types of institutions of higher 
     education and nonprofit, nondegree-granting research 
     organizations.
       (2) Requirement.--In support of the goal described in 
     paragraph (1), the Director shall broadly disseminate 
     information regarding the deadlines applicable to, and manner 
     in which to submit, proposals for grants under this section, 
     including by conducting outreach activities for--
       (A) part B institutions, as defined in section 322 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061); and
       (B) minority institutions, as defined in section 365 of 
     that Act (20 U.S.C. 1067k).
       (g) Report on Recruiting and Retaining Early Career Science 
     and Engineering Researchers at National Laboratories.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report describing efforts of the 
     Director to recruit and retain young scientists and engineers 
     at early career stages at the National Laboratories.
       (2) Inclusions.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a description of applicable Department and National 
     Laboratory policies and procedures, including policies and 
     procedures relating to financial incentives, awards, 
     promotions, time reserved for independent research, access to 
     equipment or facilities, and other forms of recognition, 
     designed to attract and retain young scientists and 
     engineers;
       (B) an evaluation of the impact of the incentives described 
     in subparagraph (A) on--
       (i) the careers of young scientists and engineers at the 
     National Laboratories; and
       (ii) the quality of the research at the National 
     Laboratories and in Department programs;
       (C) a description of barriers, if any, that exist with 
     respect to efforts to recruit and retain young scientists and 
     engineers, including the limited availability of full-time 
     equivalent positions, legal and procedural requirements, and 
     pay grading systems; and
       (D) the amount of funding devoted to efforts to recruit and 
     retain young researchers, and the source of the funds.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, to carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

     SEC. 5007. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
                   ENERGY FOR BASIC RESEARCH.

       Section 971(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     16311(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) $5,814,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''.

     SEC. 5008. DISCOVERY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INNOVATION 
                   INSTITUTES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish distributed, 
     multidisciplinary institutes (referred to in this section as 
     ``Institutes'') centered at National Laboratories to apply 
     fundamental science and engineering discoveries to 
     technological innovations relating to--
       (1) the missions of the Department; and
       (2) the global competitiveness of the United States.
       (b) Topical Areas.--The Institutes shall support scientific 
     and engineering research and education activities on critical 
     emerging technologies determined by the Secretary to be 
     essential to global competitiveness, including activities 
     relating to--
       (1) sustainable energy technologies;
       (2) multiscale materials and processes;
       (3) micro- and nano-engineering;
       (4) computational and information engineering; and
       (5) genomics and proteomics.
       (c) Partnerships.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall establish partnerships between the Institutes 
     and--
       (1) institutions of higher education--
       (A) to train undergraduate and graduate science and 
     engineering students;
       (B) to develop innovative undergraduate and graduate 
     educational curricula; and
       (C) to conduct research within the topical areas described 
     in subsection (b); and
       (2) private industry to develop innovative technologies 
     within the topical areas described in subsection (b).
       (d) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary may 
     select not more than 3 Institutes to receive a grant under 
     this section.
       (2) Merit-based selection.--The selection of Institutes 
     under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) merit-based; and
       (B) made through an open, competitive selection process.
       (3) Term.--An Institute shall receive a grant under this 
     section for not more than 3 fiscal years.
       (e) Review.--The Secretary shall offer to enter into an 
     agreement with the National Academy of Sciences under which 
     the Academy shall, by not later than 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act--
       (1) review the performance of the Institutes under this 
     section; and
       (2) submit to Congress and the Secretary a report 
     describing the results of the review.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to provide grants to each Institute 
     selected under this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2010.

     SEC. 5009. PROTECTING AMERICA'S COMPETITIVE EDGE (PACE) 
                   GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Student.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible student'' means a student who attends an 
     institution of higher education that offers a doctoral degree 
     in a field relevant to a mission area of the Department.
       (b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     graduate fellowship program for eligible students pursuing a 
     doctoral degree in a mission area of the Department.
       (c) Selection.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall award fellowships to 
     eligible students under this section through a competitive 
     merit review process, involving written and oral interviews, 
     that will result in a wide distribution of awards throughout 
     the United States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish selection 
     criteria for awarding fellowships under this section that 
     require an eligible student--
       (A) to pursue a field of science or engineering of 
     importance to a mission area of the Department;
       (B) to demonstrate to the Secretary--
       (i) the capacity of the eligible student to understand 
     technical topics relating to the fellowship that can be 
     derived from the first principles of the technical topics;

[[Page 22306]]

       (ii) imagination and creativity;
       (iii) leadership skills in organizations or intellectual 
     endeavors, demonstrated through awards and past experience; 
     and
       (iv) excellent verbal and communication skills to explain, 
     defend, and demonstrate an understanding of technical 
     subjects relating to the fellowship; and
       (C) to be a citizen or legal permanent resident of the 
     United States.
       (d) Awards.--
       (1) Amount.--A fellowship awarded under this section 
     shall--
       (A) provide an annual living stipend; and
       (B) cover--
       (i) graduate tuition at an institution of higher education 
     described in subsection (a); and
       (ii) incidental expenses associated with curricula and 
     research at the institution of higher education (including 
     books, computers, and software).
       (2) Duration.--A fellowship awarded under this section 
     shall be up to 3 years duration within a 5-year period.
       (3) Portability.--A fellowship awarded under this section 
     shall be portable with the eligible student.
       (e) Administration.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education--
       (1) shall administer the program established under this 
     section; and
       (2) may enter into a contract with a nonprofit entity to 
     administer the program, including the selection and award of 
     fellowships.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, including nonexpiring 
     fellowships for the preceding fiscal year; and
       (3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, including nonexpiring 
     fellowships for preceding fiscal years.

     SEC. 5010. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CERTAIN 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS AND REVIEWS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Energy should implement the 
     recommendations contained in the report of the Government 
     Accountability Office numbered 04-639; and
       (2) the Secretary of Energy should annually conduct reviews 
     in accordance with title IX of the Education Amendments of 
     1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) of at least 2 recipients of 
     grants provided by the Department of Energy.

     SEC. 5011. DISTINGUISHED SCIENTIST PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to promote 
     scientific and academic excellence through collaborations 
     between institutions of higher education and National 
     Laboratories.
       (b) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to support the joint appointment of distinguished scientists 
     by institutions of higher education and National 
     Laboratories.
       (c) Qualifications.--To be eligible for appointment as a 
     distinguished scientist under this section, an individual, by 
     reason of professional background and experience, shall be 
     able to bring international recognition to the appointing 
     institution of higher education or National Laboratory in the 
     field of scientific endeavor of the individual.
       (d) Selection.--A distinguished scientist appointed under 
     this section shall be selected through an open, competitive 
     process.
       (e) Appointment.--
       (1) Institution of higher education.--An appointment by an 
     institution of higher education under this section shall be 
     filled within the tenure allotment of the institution of 
     higher education, at a minimum rank of professor.
       (2) National laboratory.--An appointment by a National 
     Laboratory under this section shall be at the rank of the 
     highest grade of distinguished scientist or technical staff 
     of the National Laboratory.
       (f) Duration.--An appointment under this section shall--
       (1) be for a term of 6 years; and
       (2) consist of 2 3-year funding allotments.
       (g) Use of Funds.--Funds made available under this section 
     may be used for--
       (1) the salary of the distinguished scientist and support 
     staff;
       (2) undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral 
     appointments;
       (3) research-related equipment;
       (4) professional travel; and
       (5) such other requirements as the Secretary determines to 
     be necessary to carry out the purpose of the program.
       (h) Review.--
       (1) In general.--The appointment of a distinguished 
     scientist under this section shall be reviewed at the end of 
     the first 3-year allotment for the distinguished scientist 
     through an open peer-review process to determine whether the 
     appointment is meeting the purpose of this section under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Funding.--Funding of the appointment of the 
     distinguished scientist for the second 3-year allotment shall 
     be determined based on the review conducted under paragraph 
     (1).
       (i) Cost Sharing.--To be eligible for assistance under this 
     section, an appointing institution of higher education shall 
     pay at least 50 percent of the total costs of the 
     appointment.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       (3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.

     SEC. 5012. ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY--ENERGY.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) ARPA-E.--The term ``ARPA-E'' means the Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency--Energy established by subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     ARPA-E appointed under subsection (d).
       (3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Energy 
     Transformation Acceleration Fund established under subsection 
     (m)(1).
       (b) Establishment.--There is established the Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency--Energy within the Department to 
     overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers 
     in the development of energy technologies.
       (c) Goals.--
       (1) In general.--The goals of ARPA-E shall be--
       (A) to enhance the economic and energy security of the 
     United States through the development of energy technologies 
     that result in--
       (i) reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources;
       (ii) reductions of energy-related emissions, including 
     greenhouse gases; and
       (iii) improvement in the energy efficiency of all economic 
     sectors; and
       (B) to ensure that the United States maintains a 
     technological lead in developing and deploying advanced 
     energy technologies.
       (2) Means.--ARPA-E shall achieve the goals established 
     under paragraph (1) through energy technology projects by--
       (A) identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in 
     fundamental sciences;
       (B) translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge 
     inventions into technological innovations; and
       (C) accelerating transformational technological advances in 
     areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake 
     because of technical and financial uncertainty.
       (d) Director.--
       (1) Appointment.--There shall be in the Department of 
     Energy a Director of ARPA-E, who shall be appointed by the 
     President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       (2) Qualifications.--The Director shall be an individual 
     who, by reason of professional background and experience, is 
     especially qualified to advise the Secretary on, and manage 
     research programs addressing, matters pertaining to long-term 
     and high-risk technological barriers to the development of 
     energy technologies.
       (3) Relationship to secretary.--The Director shall report 
     to the Secretary.
       (4) Relationship to other programs.--No other programs 
     within the Department shall report to the Director.
       (e) Responsibilities.--The responsibilities of the Director 
     shall include--
       (1) approving all new programs within ARPA-E;
       (2) developing funding criteria and assessing the success 
     of programs through the establishment of technical 
     milestones;
       (3) administering the Fund through awards to institutions 
     of higher education, companies, research foundations, trade 
     and industry research collaborations, or consortia of such 
     entities, which may include federally-funded research and 
     development centers, to achieve the goals described in 
     subsection (c) through targeted acceleration of--
       (A) novel early-stage energy research with possible 
     technology applications;
       (B) development of techniques, processes, and technologies, 
     and related testing and evaluation;
       (C) research and development of manufacturing processes for 
     novel energy technologies; and
       (D) coordination with nongovernmental entities for 
     demonstration of technologies and research applications to 
     facilitate technology transfer; and
       (4) terminating programs carried out under this section 
     that are not achieving the goals of the programs.
       (f) Personnel.--
       (1) Program managers.--
       (A) In general.--The Director shall designate employees to 
     serve as program managers for each of the programs 
     established pursuant to the responsibilities established for 
     ARPA-E under subsection (e).
       (B) Responsibilities.--A program manager of a program shall 
     be responsible for--
       (i) establishing research and development goals for the 
     program, including through the convening of workshops and 
     conferring with outside experts, and publicizing the goals of 
     the program to the public and private sectors;
       (ii) soliciting applications for specific areas of 
     particular promise, especially areas that the private sector 
     or the Federal Government are not likely to undertake alone;
       (iii) building research collaborations for carrying out the 
     program;
       (iv) selecting on the basis of merit, with advice under 
     subsection (j) as appropriate, each of the projects to be 
     supported under the program after considering--

       (I) the novelty and scientific and technical merit of the 
     proposed projects;
       (II) the demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to 
     successfully carry out the proposed project;
       (III) the consideration by the applicant of future 
     commercial applications of the project, including the 
     feasibility of partnering with 1 or more commercial entities; 
     and
       (IV) such other criteria as are established by the 
     Director;

[[Page 22307]]

       (v) monitoring the progress of projects supported under the 
     program; and
       (vi) recommending program restructure or termination of 
     research partnerships or whole projects.
       (C) Term.--The term of a program manager shall be 3 years 
     and may be renewed.
       (2) Hiring and management.--
       (A) In general.--The Director shall have the authority to--
       (i) make appointments of scientific, engineering, and 
     professional personnel without regard to the civil service 
     laws; and
       (ii) fix the compensation of such personnel at a rate to be 
     determined by the Director.
       (B) Number.--The Director shall appoint not less than 70, 
     and not more than 120, personnel under this section.
       (C) Private recruiting firms.--The Secretary, or the 
     Director serving as an agent of the Secretary, may contract 
     with private recruiting firms for the hiring of qualified 
     technical staff to carry out this section.
       (D) Additional staff.--The Director may use all authorities 
     in existence on the date of enactment of this Act that are 
     provided to the Secretary to hire administrative, financial, 
     and clerical staff as necessary to carry out this section.
       (g) Reports and Roadmaps.--
       (1) Annual report.--As part of the annual budget request 
     submitted for each fiscal year, the Director shall provide to 
     the relevant authorizing and appropriations committees of 
     Congress a report describing projects supported by ARPA-E 
     during the previous fiscal year.
       (2) Strategic vision roadmap.--Not later than October 1, 
     2008, and October 1, 2011, the Director shall provide to the 
     relevant authorizing and appropriations committees of 
     Congress a roadmap describing the strategic vision that ARPA-
     E will use to guide the choices of ARPA-E for future 
     technology investments over the following 3 fiscal years.
       (h) Coordination and Nonduplication.--
       (1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Director shall ensure that the activities of ARPA-E are 
     coordinated with, and do not duplicate the efforts of, 
     programs and laboratories within the Department and other 
     relevant research agencies.
       (2) Technology transfer coordinator.--To the extent 
     appropriate, the Director may coordinate technology transfer 
     efforts with the Technology Transfer Coordinator appointed 
     under section 1001 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 16391).
       (i) Federal Demonstration of Technologies.--The Secretary 
     shall make information available to purchasing and 
     procurement programs of Federal agencies regarding the 
     potential to demonstrate technologies resulting from 
     activities funded through ARPA-E.
       (j) Advice.--
       (1) Advisory committees.--The Director may seek advice on 
     any aspect of ARPA-E from--
       (A) an existing Department of Energy advisory committee; 
     and
       (B) a new advisory committee organized to support the 
     programs of ARPA-E and to provide advice and assistance on--
       (i) specific program tasks; or
       (ii) overall direction of ARPA-E.
       (2) Additional sources of advice.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Director may seek advice and review from--
       (A) the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and 
     Technology; and
       (B) any professional or scientific organization with 
     expertise in specific processes or technologies under 
     development by ARPA-E.
       (k) ARPA-E Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--After ARPA-E has been in operation for 4 
     years, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences under which the 
     National Academy shall conduct an evaluation of how well 
     ARPA-E is achieving the goals and mission of ARPA-E.
       (2) Inclusions.--The evaluation shall include--
       (A) the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences 
     on whether ARPA-E should be continued or terminated; and
       (B) a description of lessons learned from operation of 
     ARPA-E.
       (3) Availability.--On completion of the evaluation, the 
     evaluation shall be made available to Congress and the 
     public.
       (l) Existing Authorities.--The authorities granted by this 
     section are--
       (1) in addition to existing authorities granted to the 
     Secretary; and
       (2) are not intended to supersede or modify any existing 
     authorities.
       (m) Funding.--
       (1) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury of the 
     United States a fund, to be known as the ``Energy 
     Transformation Acceleration Fund'', which shall be 
     administered by the Director for the purposes of carrying out 
     this section.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--Subject to paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Director for deposit in the Fund, without fiscal year 
     limitation--
       (A) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
       (B) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 
     2009 and 2010.
       (3) Separate budget and appropriation.--
       (A) Budget request.--The budget request for ARPA-E shall be 
     separate from the rest of the budget of the Department.
       (B) Appropriations.--Appropriations to the Fund shall be 
     separate and distinct from the rest of the budget for the 
     Department.
       (4) Limitation.--No amounts may be appropriated for ARPA-E 
     for fiscal year 2008 unless the amount appropriated for the 
     activities of the Office of Science of the Department for 
     fiscal year 2008 exceeds the amount appropriated for the 
     Office for fiscal year 2007, as adjusted for inflation in 
     accordance with the Consumer Price Index published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       (5) Allocation.--Of the amounts appropriated for a fiscal 
     year under paragraph (2)--
       (A) not more than 50 percent of the amount shall be used to 
     carry out subsection (e)(3)(D);
       (B) at least 2.5 percent of the amount shall be used for 
     technology transfer and outreach activities; and
       (C) no funds may be used for construction of new buildings 
     or facilities during the 5-year period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                          TITLE VI--EDUCATION

     SEC. 6001. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) A well-educated population is essential to retaining 
     America's competitiveness in the global economy.
       (2) The United States needs to build on and expand the 
     impact of existing programs by taking additional, well-
     coordinated steps to ensure that all students are able to 
     obtain the knowledge the students need to obtain 
     postsecondary education and participate successfully in the 
     workforce or the Armed Forces.
       (3) The next steps must be informed by independent 
     information on the effectiveness of current programs in 
     science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical 
     foreign language education, and by identification of best 
     practices that can be replicated.
       (4) Teacher preparation and elementary school and secondary 
     school programs and activities must be aligned with the 
     requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and the requirements of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (5) The ever increasing knowledge and skill demands of the 
     21st century require that secondary school preparation and 
     requirements be better aligned with the knowledge and skills 
     needed to succeed in postsecondary education and the 
     workforce, and States need better data systems to track 
     educational achievement from prekindergarten through 
     baccalaureate degrees.

     SEC. 6002. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) ESEA Definitions.--Unless otherwise specified in this 
     title, the terms used in this title have the meanings given 
     the terms in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (b) Other Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Critical foreign language.--The term ``critical foreign 
     language'' means a foreign language that the Secretary 
     determines, in consultation with the heads of such Federal 
     departments and agencies as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate, is critical to the national security and 
     economic competitiveness of the United States.
       (2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (4) Scientifically valid research.--The term 
     ``scientifically valid research'' includes applied research, 
     basic research, and field-initiated research in which the 
     rationale, design, and interpretation are soundly developed 
     in accordance with accepted principles of scientific 
     research.
                     Subtitle A--Teacher Assistance

              PART I--TEACHERS FOR A COMPETITIVE TOMORROW

     SEC. 6111. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this part is--
       (1) to develop and implement programs to provide integrated 
     courses of study in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign languages, and teacher 
     education, that lead to a baccalaureate degree in science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign 
     language, with concurrent teacher certification;
       (2) to develop and implement 2- or 3-year part-time 
     master's degree programs in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language education for 
     teachers in order to enhance the teachers' content knowledge 
     and pedagogical skills; and
       (3) to develop programs for professionals in science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign 
     language education that lead to a master's degree in teaching 
     that results in teacher certification.

     SEC. 6112. DEFINITIONS.

       In this part:
       (1) Children from low-income families.--The term ``children 
     from low-income families'' means children described in 
     section 1124(c)(1)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)(1)(A)).
       (2) Eligible recipient.--The term ``eligible recipient'' 
     means an institution of higher education that receives grant 
     funds under this part on behalf of a department of science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign 
     language, or on behalf of a department or school with a 
     competency-based degree program (in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language) 
     that includes teacher certification, for use in carrying out 
     activities assisted under this part.

[[Page 22308]]

       (3) High-need local educational agency.--The term ``high-
     need local educational agency'' means a local educational 
     agency or educational service agency--
       (A)(i) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from low-
     income families;
       (ii) for which not less than 20 percent of the children 
     served by the agency are children from low-income families; 
     or
       (iii) with a total of less than 600 students in average 
     daily attendance at the schools that are served by the agency 
     and all of whose schools are designated with a school locale 
     code of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (B)(i) for which there is a high percentage of teachers 
     providing instruction in academic subject areas or grade 
     levels for which the teachers are not highly qualified; or
       (ii) for which there is a high teacher turnover rate or a 
     high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or 
     temporary certification or licensure.
       (4) Highly qualified.--The term ``highly qualified'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801) and, 
     with respect to special education teachers, in section 602 of 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1401).
       (5) Partnership.--The term ``partnership'' means a 
     partnership that--
       (A) shall include--
       (i) an eligible recipient;
       (ii)(I)(aa) a department within the eligible recipient that 
     provides a program of study in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language; and
       (bb) a school, department, or program of education within 
     the eligible recipient, or a 2-year institution of higher 
     education that has a teacher preparation offering or a dual 
     enrollment program with the eligible recipient; or
       (II) a department or school within the eligible recipient 
     with a competency-based degree program (in science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign 
     language) that includes teacher certification; and
       (iii) not less than 1 high-need local educational agency 
     and a public school or a consortium of public schools served 
     by the agency; and
       (B) may include a nonprofit organization that has a 
     demonstrated record of providing expertise or support to meet 
     the purposes of this part.
       (6) Teaching skills.--The term ``teaching skills'' means 
     the ability to--
       (A) increase student achievement and learning and increase 
     a student's ability to apply knowledge;
       (B) effectively convey and explain academic subject matter;
       (C) employ strategies grounded in the disciplines of 
     teaching and learning that--
       (i) are based on scientifically valid research;
       (ii) are specific to academic subject matter; and
       (iii) focus on the identification of students' specific 
     learning needs, particularly students with disabilities, 
     students who are limited English proficient, students who are 
     gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, 
     and the tailoring of academic instruction to such needs;
       (D) conduct ongoing assessment of student learning;
       (E) effectively manage a classroom; and
       (F) communicate and work with parents and guardians, and 
     involve parents and guardians in their children's education.

     SEC. 6113. PROGRAMS FOR BACCALAUREATE DEGREES IN SCIENCE, 
                   TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS, OR 
                   CRITICAL FOREIGN LANGUAGES, WITH CONCURRENT 
                   TEACHER CERTIFICATION.

       (a) Program Authorized.--From the amounts made available to 
     carry out this section under section 6116(1) and not reserved 
     under section 6115(d) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible recipients to enable partnerships served by the 
     eligible recipients to develop and implement programs to 
     provide courses of study in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign languages that--
       (1) are integrated with teacher education; and
       (2) lead to a baccalaureate degree in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language with 
     concurrent teacher certification.
       (b) Application.--Each eligible recipient desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require. Each application shall--
       (1) describe the program for which assistance is sought;
       (2) describe how a department of science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language 
     participating in the partnership will ensure significant 
     collaboration with a teacher preparation program in the 
     development of undergraduate degrees in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language, 
     with concurrent teacher certification, including providing 
     student teaching and other clinical classroom experiences or 
     how a department or school participating in the partnership 
     with a competency-based degree program has ensured, in the 
     development of a baccalaureate degree program in science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign 
     language, the provision of concurrent teacher certification, 
     including providing student teaching and other clinical 
     classroom experiences;
       (3) describe the high-quality research, laboratory, or 
     internship experiences, integrated with coursework, that will 
     be provided under the program;
       (4) describe how members of groups that are 
     underrepresented in the teaching of science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages will 
     be encouraged to participate in the program;
       (5) describe how program participants will be encouraged to 
     teach in schools determined by the partnership to be most in 
     need, and the assistance in finding employment in such 
     schools that will be provided;
       (6) describe the ongoing activities and services that will 
     be provided to graduates of the program;
       (7) describe how the activities of the partnership will be 
     coordinated with any activities funded through other Federal 
     grants, and how the partnership will continue the activities 
     assisted under the program when the grant period ends;
       (8) describe how the partnership will assess the content 
     knowledge and teaching skills of the program participants; 
     and
       (9) provide any other information the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.
       (c) Priority.--Priority shall be given to applications 
     whose primary focus is on placing participants in high-need 
     local educational agencies.
       (d) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible recipient receiving a grant 
     under this section shall use the grant funds to enable a 
     partnership to develop and implement a program to provide 
     courses of study in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or a critical foreign language that--
       (A) are integrated with teacher education programs that 
     promote effective teaching skills; and
       (B) lead to a baccalaureate degree in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language with 
     concurrent teacher certification.
       (2) Program requirements.--The program shall--
       (A) provide high-quality research, laboratory, or 
     internship experiences for program participants;
       (B) provide student teaching or other clinical classroom 
     experiences that--
       (i) are integrated with coursework; and
       (ii) lead to the participants' ability to demonstrate 
     effective teaching skills;
       (C) if implementing a program in which program participants 
     are prepared to teach science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language courses, include 
     strategies for improving student literacy;
       (D) encourage the participation of individuals who are 
     members of groups that are underrepresented in the teaching 
     of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical 
     foreign languages;
       (E) encourage participants to teach in schools determined 
     by the partnership to be most in need, and actively assist 
     the participants in finding employment in such schools;
       (F) offer training in the use of and integration of 
     educational technology;
       (G) collect data regarding and evaluate, using measurable 
     objectives and benchmarks, the extent to which the program 
     succeeded in--
       (i) increasing the percentage of highly qualified 
     mathematics, science, or critical foreign language teachers, 
     including increasing the percentage of such teachers teaching 
     in those schools determined by the partnership to be most in 
     need;
       (ii) improving student academic achievement in mathematics, 
     science, and where applicable, technology and engineering;
       (iii) increasing the number of students in secondary 
     schools enrolled in upper level mathematics, science, and, 
     where available, technology and engineering courses; and
       (iv) increasing the numbers of elementary school and 
     secondary school students enrolled in and continuing in 
     critical foreign language courses;
       (H) collect data on the employment placement and retention 
     of all graduates of the program, including information on how 
     many graduates are teaching and in what kinds of schools;
       (I) provide ongoing activities and services to graduates of 
     the program who teach elementary school or secondary school, 
     by--
       (i) keeping the graduates informed of the latest 
     developments in their respective academic fields; and
       (ii) supporting the graduates of the program who are 
     employed in schools in the local educational agency 
     participating in the partnership during the initial years of 
     teaching through--

       (I) induction programs;
       (II) promotion of effective teaching skills; and
       (III) providing opportunities for regular professional 
     development; and

       (J) develop recommendations to improve the school, 
     department, or program of education participating in the 
     partnership.
       (e) Annual Report.--Each eligible recipient receiving a 
     grant under this section shall collect and report to the 
     Secretary annually such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require, including--
       (1) the number of participants in the program;
       (2) information on the academic majors of participating 
     students;
       (3) the race, gender, income, and disability status of 
     program participants;
       (4) the placement of program participants as teachers in 
     schools determined by the partnership to be most in need;
       (5) the extent to which the program succeeded in meeting 
     the objectives and benchmarks described in subsection 
     (d)(2)(G); and
       (6) the data collected under subparagraphs (G) and (H) of 
     subsection (d)(2).

[[Page 22309]]

       (f) Technical Assistance.--From the funds made available 
     under section 6116(1), the Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to an eligible recipient developing a 
     baccalaureate degree program with concurrent teacher 
     certification, including technical assistance provided 
     through a grant or contract awarded on a competitive basis to 
     an institution of higher education or a technical assistance 
     center.
       (g) Compliance With FERPA.--Any activity under this section 
     shall be carried out in compliance with section 444 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly 
     known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 
     1974).
       (h) Induction Program Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``induction program'' means a formalized program for new 
     teachers during not less than the teachers' first 2 years of 
     teaching that is designed to provide support for, and improve 
     the professional performance and advance the retention in the 
     teaching field of, beginning teachers. Such program shall 
     promote effective teaching skills and shall include the 
     following components:
       (1) High-quality teacher mentoring.
       (2) Periodic, structured time for collaboration with 
     teachers in the same department or field, as well as time for 
     information-sharing among teachers, principals, 
     administrators, and participating faculty in the partner 
     institution.
       (3) The application of empirically based practice and 
     scientifically valid research on instructional practices.
       (4) Opportunities for new teachers to draw directly upon 
     the expertise of teacher mentors, faculty, and researchers to 
     support the integration of empirically based practice and 
     scientifically valid research with practice.
       (5) The development of skills in instructional and 
     behavioral interventions derived from empirically based 
     practice and, where applicable, scientifically valid 
     research.
       (6) Faculty who--
       (A) model the integration of research and practice in the 
     classroom; and
       (B) assist new teachers with the effective use and 
     integration of technology in the classroom.
       (7) Interdisciplinary collaboration among exemplary 
     teachers, faculty, researchers, and other staff who prepare 
     new teachers on the learning process and the assessment of 
     learning.
       (8) Assistance with the understanding of data, particularly 
     student achievement data, and the data's applicability in 
     classroom instruction.
       (9) Regular evaluation of the new teacher.

     SEC. 6114. PROGRAMS FOR MASTER'S DEGREES IN SCIENCE, 
                   TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS, OR 
                   CRITICAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION.

       (a) Program Authorized.--From the amounts made available to 
     carry out this section under section 6116(2) and not reserved 
     under section 6115(d) for a fiscal year, the Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible recipients to enable the partnerships served by the 
     eligible recipients to develop and implement--
       (1) 2- or 3-year part-time master's degree programs in 
     science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical 
     foreign language education for teachers in order to enhance 
     the teacher's content knowledge and teaching skills; or
       (2) programs for professionals in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language that 
     lead to a 1-year master's degree in teaching that results in 
     teacher certification.
       (b) Application.--Each eligible recipient desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require. Each application shall describe--
       (1) how a department of science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or a critical foreign language will ensure 
     significant collaboration with a school, department, or 
     program of education in the development of the master's 
     degree programs authorized under subsection (a), or how a 
     department or school with a competency-based degree program 
     has ensured, in the development of a master's degree program, 
     the provision of rigorous studies in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language that 
     enhance the teachers' content knowledge and teaching skills;
       (2) the role of the local educational agency in the 
     partnership in developing and administering the program and 
     how feedback from the local educational agency, school, and 
     participants will be used to improve the program;
       (3) how the program will help increase the percentage of 
     highly qualified mathematics, science, or critical foreign 
     language teachers, including increasing the percentage of 
     such teachers teaching in schools determined by the 
     partnership to be most in need;
       (4) how the program will--
       (A) improve student academic achievement in mathematics, 
     science, and, where applicable, technology and engineering 
     and increase the number of students taking upper-level 
     courses in such subjects; or
       (B) increase the numbers of elementary school and secondary 
     school students enrolled and continuing in critical foreign 
     language courses;
       (5) how the program will prepare participants to become 
     more effective science, technology, engineering, mathematics, 
     or critical foreign language teachers;
       (6) how the program will prepare participants to assume 
     leadership roles in their schools;
       (7) how teachers (or science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language professionals) who 
     are members of groups that are underrepresented in the 
     teaching of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or 
     critical foreign languages and teachers from schools 
     determined by the partnership to be most in need will be 
     encouraged to apply for and participate in the program;
       (8) the ongoing activities and services that will be 
     provided to graduates of the program;
       (9) how the partnership will continue the activities 
     assisted under the grant when the grant period ends;
       (10) how the partnership will assess, during the program, 
     the content knowledge and teaching skills of the program 
     participants; and
       (11) methods to ensure applicants to the master's degree 
     program for professionals in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language 
     demonstrate advanced knowledge in the relevant subject.
       (c) Authorized Activities.--Each eligible recipient 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to develop and implement a 2- or 3-year part-time 
     master's degree program in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language education for 
     teachers in order to enhance the teachers' content knowledge 
     and teaching skills, or programs for professionals in 
     science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or a critical 
     foreign language that lead to a 1-year master's degree in 
     teaching that results in teacher certification. The program 
     shall--
       (1) promote effective teaching skills so that program 
     participants become more effective science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign language 
     teachers;
       (2) prepare teachers to assume leadership roles in their 
     schools by participating in activities such as teacher 
     mentoring, development of curricula that integrate state of 
     the art applications of science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language into the classroom, 
     working with school administrators in establishing in-service 
     professional development of teachers, and assisting in 
     evaluating data and assessments to improve student academic 
     achievement;
       (3) use high-quality research, laboratory, or internship 
     experiences for program participants that are integrated with 
     coursework;
       (4) provide student teaching or clinical classroom 
     experience;
       (5) if implementing a program in which participants are 
     prepared to teach science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or critical foreign language courses, provide 
     strategies for improving student literacy;
       (6) align the content knowledge in the master's degree 
     program with challenging student academic achievement 
     standards and challenging academic content standards 
     established by the State in which the program is conducted;
       (7) encourage the participation of--
       (A) individuals who are members of groups that are 
     underrepresented in the teaching of science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages;
       (B) members of the Armed Forces who are transitioning to 
     civilian life; and
       (C) teachers teaching in schools determined by the 
     partnership to be most in need;
       (8) offer tuition assistance, based on need, as 
     appropriate;
       (9) create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 
     professional development for teachers that improves the 
     science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and critical 
     foreign language content knowledge and teaching skills of 
     such teachers; and
       (10) evaluate and report on the impact of the program, in 
     accordance with subsection (d).
       (d) Evaluation and Report.--Each eligible recipient 
     receiving a grant under this section shall evaluate, using 
     measurable objectives and benchmarks, and provide an annual 
     report to the Secretary regarding, the extent to which the 
     program assisted under this section succeeded in the 
     following:
       (1) Increasing the number and percentage of science, 
     technology, engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign 
     language teachers who have a master's degree and meet 1 or 
     more of the following requirements:
       (A) Are teaching in schools determined by the partnership 
     to be most in need, and taught in such schools prior to 
     participation in the program.
       (B) Are teaching in schools determined by the partnership 
     to be most in need, and did not teach in such schools prior 
     to participation in the program.
       (C) Are members of a group underrepresented in the teaching 
     of science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or a 
     critical foreign language.
       (2) Bringing professionals in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or a critical foreign language into 
     the field of teaching.
       (3) Retaining teachers who participate in the program.

     SEC. 6115. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Duration of Grants.--The Secretary shall award each 
     grant under this part for a period of not more than 5 years.
       (b) Matching Requirement.--Each eligible recipient that 
     receives a grant under this part shall provide, from non-
     Federal sources, an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount 
     of the grant (which may be provided in cash or in kind) to 
     carry out the activities supported by the grant.
       (c) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this part shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, 
     other Federal or State funds.
       (d) Evaluation.--From amounts made available for any fiscal 
     year under section 6116, the Secretary shall reserve such 
     sums as may be necessary--

[[Page 22310]]

       (1) to provide for the conduct of an annual independent 
     evaluation, by grant or by contract, of the activities 
     assisted under this part, which shall include an assessment 
     of the impact of the activities on student academic 
     achievement; and
       (2) to prepare and submit an annual report on the results 
     of the evaluation described in paragraph (1) to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives.

     SEC. 6116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     section $276,200,000 for fiscal year 2008, and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the 2 succeeding fiscal years, 
     of which--
       (1) $151,200,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     6113 for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal year; 
     and
       (2) $125,000,000 shall be available to carry out section 
     6114 for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.

  PART II--ADVANCED PLACEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS

     SEC. 6121. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this part--
       (1) to raise academic achievement through Advanced 
     Placement and International Baccalaureate programs by 
     increasing, by 70,000, over a 4-year period beginning in 
     2008, the number of teachers serving high-need schools who 
     are qualified to teach Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, and critical 
     foreign languages;
       (2) to increase, to 700,000 per year, the number of 
     students attending high-need schools who--
       (A) take and score a 3, 4, or 5 on an Advanced Placement 
     examination in mathematics, science, or a critical foreign 
     language administered by the College Board; or
       (B) achieve a passing score on an examination administered 
     by the International Baccalaureate Organization in such a 
     subject;
       (3) to increase the availability of, and enrollment in, 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, and critical foreign languages, and 
     pre-Advanced Placement or pre-International Baccalaureate 
     courses in such subjects, in high-need schools; and
       (4) to support statewide efforts to increase the 
     availability of, and enrollment in, Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     and critical foreign languages, and pre-Advanced Placement or 
     pre-International Baccalaureate courses in such subjects, in 
     high-need schools.

     SEC. 6122. DEFINITIONS.

       In this part:
       (1) Advanced placement or international baccalaureate 
     course.--The term ``Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate course'' means--
       (A) a course of college-level instruction provided to 
     secondary school students, terminating in an examination 
     administered by the College Board or the International 
     Baccalaureate Organization, or another such examination 
     approved by the Secretary; or
       (B) another highly rigorous, evidence-based, postsecondary 
     preparatory program terminating in an examination 
     administered by another nationally recognized educational 
     organization that has a demonstrated record of effectiveness 
     in assessing secondary school students, or another such 
     examination approved by the Secretary.
       (2) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
       (A) a State educational agency;
       (B) a local educational agency; or
       (C) a partnership consisting of--
       (i) a national, regional, or statewide nonprofit 
     organization, with expertise and experience in providing 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate services; 
     and
       (ii) a State educational agency or local educational 
     agency.
       (3) Low-income student.--The term ``low-income student'' 
     has the meaning given the term ``low-income individual'' in 
     section 1707(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6537(3)).
       (4) High concentration of low-income students.--The term 
     ``high concentration of low-income students'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 1707(2) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6537(2)).
       (5) High-need local educational agency.--The term ``high-
     need local educational agency'' means a local educational 
     agency or educational service agency described in 6112(3)(A).
       (6) High-need school.--The term ``high-need school'' means 
     a secondary school--
       (A) with a pervasive need for Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     or critical foreign languages, or for additional Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in such a 
     subject; and
       (B)(i) with a high concentration of low-income students; or
       (ii) designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43, 
     as determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 6123. ADVANCED PLACEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL BACCALAUREATE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Program Authorized.--From the amounts appropriated 
     under subsection (l), the Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to 
     enable the eligible entities to carry out the authorized 
     activities described in subsection (g).
       (b) Duration of Grants.--The Secretary may award grants 
     under this section for a period of not more than 5 years.
       (c) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate the 
     activities carried out under this section with the activities 
     carried out under section 1705 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6535).
       (d) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that are 
     part of a statewide strategy for increasing--
       (1) the availability of Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, and critical 
     foreign languages, and pre-Advanced Placement or pre-
     International Baccalaureate courses in such subjects, in 
     high-need schools; and
       (2) the number of students who participate in Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, and critical foreign language in high-
     need schools, and take and score a 3, 4, or 5 on an Advanced 
     Placement examination in such a subject, or pass an 
     examination administered by the International Baccalaureate 
     Organization in such a subject in such schools.
       (e) Equitable Distribution.--The Secretary, to the extent 
     practicable, shall--
       (1) ensure an equitable geographic distribution of grants 
     under this section among the States; and
       (2) promote an increase in participation in Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate mathematics, 
     science, and critical foreign language courses and 
     examinations in all States.
       (f) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--The application shall, at a minimum, include 
     a description of--
       (A) the goals and objectives for the project, including--
       (i) increasing the number of teachers serving high-need 
     schools who are qualified to teach Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     or critical foreign languages;
       (ii) increasing the number of qualified teachers serving 
     high-need schools who are teaching Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     or critical foreign languages to students in the high-need 
     schools;
       (iii) increasing the number of Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     and critical foreign languages that are available to students 
     attending high-need schools; and
       (iv) increasing the number of students attending a high-
     need school, particularly low-income students, who enroll in 
     and pass--

       (I) Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate 
     courses in mathematics, science, or critical foreign 
     languages; and
       (II) pre-Advanced Placement or pre-International 
     Baccalaureate courses in such a subject (where provided in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B));

       (B) how the eligible entity will ensure that students have 
     access to courses, including pre-Advanced Placement and pre-
     International Baccalaureate courses, that will prepare the 
     students to enroll and succeed in Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, 
     or critical foreign languages;
       (C) how the eligible entity will provide professional 
     development for teachers assisted under this section;
       (D) how the eligible entity will ensure that teachers 
     serving high-need schools are qualified to teach Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, or critical foreign languages;
       (E) how the eligible entity will provide for the 
     involvement of business and community organizations and other 
     entities, including institutions of higher education, in the 
     activities to be assisted; and
       (F) how the eligible entity will use funds received under 
     this section, including how the eligible entity will evaluate 
     the success of its project.
       (g) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this section shall use the grant funds to carry out 
     activities designed to increase--
       (A) the number of qualified teachers serving high-need 
     schools who are teaching Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, or critical 
     foreign languages; and
       (B) the number of students attending high-need schools who 
     enroll in, and pass, the examinations for such Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate courses.
       (2) Permissive activities.--The activities described in 
     paragraph (1) may include--
       (A) teacher professional development, in order to expand 
     the pool of teachers in the participating State, local 
     educational agency, or high-need school who are qualified to 
     teach Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate 
     courses in mathematics, science, or critical foreign 
     languages;
       (B) pre-Advanced Placement or pre-International 
     Baccalaureate course development and professional 
     development;

[[Page 22311]]

       (C) coordination and articulation between grade levels to 
     prepare students to enroll and succeed in Advanced Placement 
     or International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, 
     science, or critical foreign languages;
       (D) purchase of instructional materials;
       (E) activities to increase the availability of, and 
     participation in, online Advanced Placement or International 
     Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, science, and critical 
     foreign languages;
       (F) reimbursing low-income students attending high-need 
     schools for part or all of the cost of Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate examination fees;
       (G) carrying out subsection (j), relating to collecting and 
     reporting data;
       (H) in the case of a State educational agency that receives 
     a grant under this section, awarding subgrants to local 
     educational agencies to enable the local educational agencies 
     to carry out authorized activities described in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (G); and
       (I) providing salary increments or bonuses to teachers 
     serving high-need schools who--
       (i) become qualified to teach, and teach, Advanced 
     Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, or a critical foreign language; or
       (ii) increase the number of low-income students, who take 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate 
     examinations in mathematics, science, or a critical foreign 
     language with the goal of successfully passing such 
     examinations.
       (h) Matching Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), each eligible 
     entity that receives a grant under this section shall 
     provide, toward the cost of the activities assisted under the 
     grant, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 200 
     percent of the amount of the grant, except that an eligible 
     entity that is a high-need local educational agency shall 
     provide an amount equal to not more than 100 percent of the 
     amount of the grant.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the 
     matching requirement described in paragraph (1) for any 
     fiscal year for an eligible entity described in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 6122(2), if the Secretary determines 
     that applying the matching requirement to such eligible 
     entity would result in serious hardship or an inability to 
     carry out the authorized activities described in subsection 
     (g).
       (i) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, other 
     Federal and non-Federal funds available to carry out the 
     activities described in subsection (g).
       (j) Collecting and Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Report.--Each eligible entity receiving a grant under 
     this section shall collect and report to the Secretary 
     annually such data on the results of the grant as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require, including data regarding--
       (A) the number of students enrolling in Advanced Placement 
     or International Baccalaureate courses in mathematics, 
     science, or a critical foreign language, and pre-Advanced 
     Placement or pre-International Baccalaureate courses in such 
     a subject, by the grade the student is enrolled in, and the 
     distribution of grades those students receive;
       (B) the number of students taking Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate examinations in mathematics, 
     science, or a critical foreign language, and the distribution 
     of scores on those examinations by the grade the student is 
     enrolled in at the time of the examination;
       (C) the number of teachers receiving training in teaching 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, or a critical foreign language who will 
     be teaching such courses in the next school year;
       (D) the number of teachers becoming qualified to teach 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, or a critical foreign language; and
       (E) the number of qualified teachers who are teaching 
     Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses in 
     mathematics, science, or critical foreign languages to 
     students in a high-need school.
       (2) Reporting of data.--Each eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall report data required under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) disaggregated by subject area;
       (B) in the case of student data, disaggregated in the same 
     manner as information is disaggregated under section 
     1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(i)); and
       (C) to the extent feasible, in a manner that allows 
     comparison of conditions before, during, and after the 
     project.
       (k) Evaluation and Report.--From the amount made available 
     for any fiscal year under subsection (l), the Secretary shall 
     reserve such sums as may be necessary--
       (1) to conduct an annual independent evaluation, by grant 
     or by contract, of the program carried out under this 
     section, which shall include an assessment of the impact of 
     the program on student academic achievement; and
       (2) to prepare and submit an annual report on the results 
     of the evaluation described in paragraph (1) to the Committee 
     on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives.
       (l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 2 succeeding fiscal years.

PART III--PROMISING PRACTICES IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 
                          MATHEMATICS TEACHING

     SEC. 6131. PROMISING PRACTICES.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish 
     an expert panel to provide information on promising practices 
     for strengthening teaching and learning in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics at the elementary 
     school and secondary school levels. The panel shall build on 
     prior Federal efforts, such as efforts by the National 
     Mathematics Advisory Panel, and shall synthesize scientific 
     evidence pertaining to the improvement of science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching and 
     learning.
       (b) National Panel on Promising Practices in K-12 STEM 
     Teaching and Learning.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into a contract 
     with the Center for Education of the National Academy of 
     Sciences to establish and convene, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, an expert panel to--
       (A) identify promising practices for improving teaching and 
     student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics in kindergarten through grade 12; and
       (B) examine and synthesize the scientific evidence 
     pertaining to the improvement of science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics teaching and learning.
       (2) Composition of national panel.--The National Academy of 
     Sciences shall ensure that the panel established under 
     paragraph (1) represents scientists, engineers, 
     mathematicians, technologists, computer and information 
     technology experts, educators, principals, researchers with 
     expertise in teaching and learning (including experts in 
     cognitive science), and others with relevant expertise. The 
     National Academy of Sciences shall ensure that the panel 
     includes the following:
       (A) Representation of teachers and principals directly 
     involved in teaching science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics in kindergarten through grade 12.
       (B) Representation of teachers and principals from diverse 
     demographic groups and geographic areas, including urban, 
     suburban, and rural schools.
       (C) Representation of teachers and principals from public 
     and private schools.
       (3) Qualification of members.--The members of the panel 
     established under paragraph (1) shall be individuals who have 
     expertise and experience relating to--
       (A) existing science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education programs;
       (B) developing and improving science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics curricula content;
       (C) improving the academic achievement of students who are 
     below grade level in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics fields; and
       (D) research on teaching or learning.
       (c) Authorized Activities of National Panel.--The panel 
     established under subsection (b) shall identify--
       (1) promising practices in the effective teaching and 
     learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     topics in kindergarten through grade 12;
       (2) promising training and professional development 
     techniques designed to help teachers increase their skills 
     and expertise in improving student achievement in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics in kindergarten 
     through grade 12;
       (3) critical skills and skills progressions needed to 
     enable students to acquire competence in science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics and readiness for advanced 
     secondary school and college level science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics coursework;
       (4) processes by which students with varying degrees of 
     prior academic achievement and backgrounds learn effectively 
     in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     fields; and
       (5) areas in which existing data about promising practices 
     in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     education are insufficient.
       (d) Report.--The panel established under subsection (b) 
     shall prepare a written report for the Secretary that 
     presents the findings of the panel pursuant to this section 
     and includes recommendations, based on the findings of the 
     panel, to strengthen science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics teaching and learning in kindergarten through 
     grade 12.
       (e) Dissemination.--The Secretary shall disseminate the 
     report under subsection (d) to the public, State educational 
     agencies, and local educational agencies, and shall make the 
     information in such report available, in an easy to 
     understand format, on the website of the Department.
       (f) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
     Promising Practices.--
       (1) Reliability and measurement.--The promising practices 
     in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics in elementary schools and secondary schools 
     collected under this section shall be--
       (A) reliable, valid, and grounded in scientifically valid 
     research;
       (B) inclusive of the critical skills and skill progressions 
     needed for students to acquire competence in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics;

[[Page 22312]]

       (C) reviewed regularly to assess effectiveness; and
       (D) reviewed in the context of State academic assessments 
     and student academic achievement standards.
       (2) Students with diverse learning needs.--In identifying 
     promising practices under this section, the panel established 
     under subsection (b) shall take into account the needs of 
     students with diverse learning needs, particularly students 
     with disabilities and students who are limited English 
     proficient.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,200,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008.
                        Subtitle B--Mathematics

     SEC. 6201. MATH NOW FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL 
                   STUDENTS PROGRAM.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to enable all 
     students to reach or exceed grade-level academic achievement 
     standards and to prepare the students to enroll in and pass 
     algebra courses by--
       (1) improving instruction in mathematics for students in 
     kindergarten through grade 9 through the implementation of 
     mathematics programs and the support of comprehensive 
     mathematics initiatives that are research-based and reflect a 
     demonstrated record of effectiveness; and
       (2) providing targeted help to low-income students who are 
     struggling with mathematics and whose achievement is 
     significantly below grade level.
       (b) Definition of Eligible Local Educational Agency.--In 
     this section, the term ``eligible local educational agency'' 
     means a high-need local educational agency (as defined in 
     section 6112(3)) serving 1 or more schools--
       (1) with significant numbers or percentages of students 
     whose mathematics skills are below grade level;
       (2) that are not making adequate yearly progress in 
     mathematics under section 1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)); or
       (3) in which students are receiving instruction in 
     mathematics from teachers who do not have mathematical 
     content knowledge or expertise in the teaching of 
     mathematics.
       (c) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (k) for any fiscal year, the Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, for a 
     period of 3 years, to State educational agencies to enable 
     the State educational agencies to award grants to eligible 
     local educational agencies to carry out the activities 
     described in subsection (e) for students in any of the grades 
     kindergarten through grade 9.
       (2) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to applications for projects 
     that will implement statewide strategies for improving 
     mathematics instruction and raising the mathematics 
     achievement of students, particularly students in grades 4 
     through 8.
       (d) State Uses of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under this section for a fiscal year--
       (A) shall expend not more than a total of 10 percent of the 
     grant funds to carry out the activities described in 
     paragraphs (2) or (3) for the fiscal year; and
       (B) shall use not less than 90 percent of the grant funds 
     to award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible local 
     educational agencies to enable the eligible local educational 
     agencies to carry out the activities described in subsection 
     (e) for the fiscal year.
       (2) Mandatory uses of funds.--A State educational agency 
     shall use the grant funds made available under paragraph 
     (1)(A) to carry out each of the following activities:
       (A) Planning and administration.--Planning and 
     administration, including--
       (i) evaluating applications from eligible local educational 
     agencies using peer review teams described in subsection 
     (f)(1)(D);
       (ii) administering the distribution of grants to eligible 
     local educational agencies; and
       (iii) assessing and evaluating, on a regular basis, 
     eligible local educational agency activities assisted under 
     this section, with respect to whether the activities have 
     been effective in increasing the number of students--

       (I) making progress toward meeting grade-level mathematics 
     achievement; and
       (II) meeting or exceeding grade-level mathematics 
     achievement.

       (B) Reporting.--Annually providing the Secretary with a 
     report on the implementation of this section as described in 
     subsection (i).
       (3) Permissive uses of funds; technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--A State educational agency may use the 
     grant funds made available under paragraph (1)(A) for 1 or 
     more of the following technical assistance activities that 
     assist an eligible local educational agency, upon request by 
     the eligible local educational agency, in accomplishing the 
     tasks required to design and implement a project under this 
     section, including assistance in--
       (i) implementing mathematics programs or comprehensive 
     mathematics initiatives that are research-based and reflect a 
     demonstrated record of effectiveness;
       (ii) evaluating and selecting diagnostic and classroom 
     based instructional mathematics assessments; and
       (iii) identifying eligible professional development 
     providers to conduct the professional development activities 
     described in subsection (e)(1)(B).
       (B) Guidance.--The technical assistance described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be guided by researchers with 
     expertise in the pedagogy of mathematics, mathematicians, and 
     mathematics educators from high-risk, high-achievement 
     schools and eligible local educational agencies.
       (e) Local Uses of Funds.--
       (1) Mandatory uses of funds.--Each eligible local 
     educational agency receiving a grant under this section shall 
     use the grant funds to carry out each of the following 
     activities for students in any of the grades kindergarten 
     through grade 9:
       (A) To implement mathematics programs or comprehensive 
     mathematics initiatives--
       (i) for students in the grades of a participating school as 
     identified in the application submitted under subsection 
     (f)(2)(B); and
       (ii) that are research-based and reflect a demonstrated 
     record of effectiveness.
       (B) To provide professional development and instructional 
     leadership activities for teachers and, if appropriate, for 
     administrators and other school staff, on the implementation 
     of comprehensive mathematics initiatives designed--
       (i) to improve the achievement of students performing 
     significantly below grade level;
       (ii) to improve the mathematical content knowledge of the 
     teachers, administrators, and other school staff;
       (iii) to increase the use of effective instructional 
     practices; and
       (iv) to monitor student progress.
       (C) To conduct continuous progress monitoring, which may 
     include the adoption and use of assessments that--
       (i) measure student progress and identify areas in which 
     students need help in learning mathematics; and
       (ii) reflect mathematics content that is consistent with 
     State academic achievement standards in mathematics described 
     in section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)).
       (2) Permissive uses of funds.--An eligible local 
     educational agency may use grant funds under this section 
     to--
       (A) adopt and use mathematics instructional materials and 
     assessments;
       (B) implement classroom-based assessments, including 
     diagnostic or formative assessments;
       (C) provide remedial coursework and interventions for 
     students, which may be provided before or after school;
       (D) provide small groups with individualized instruction in 
     mathematics;
       (E) conduct activities designed to improve the content 
     knowledge and expertise of teachers, such as the use of a 
     mathematics coach, enrichment activities, and 
     interdisciplinary methods of mathematics instruction; and
       (F) collect and report performance data.
       (f) Applications.--
       (1) State educational agency.--Each State educational 
     agency desiring a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner 
     as the Secretary may require. Each application shall 
     include--
       (A) an assurance that the core mathematics instructional 
     program, supplemental instructional materials, and 
     intervention programs used by the eligible local educational 
     agencies for the project, are research-based and reflect a 
     demonstrated record of effectiveness and are aligned with 
     State academic achievement standards;
       (B) an assurance that eligible local educational agencies 
     will meet the requirements described in paragraph (2);
       (C) an assurance that local applications will be evaluated 
     using a peer review process;
       (D) a description of the qualifications of the peer review 
     teams, which shall consist of--
       (i) researchers with expertise in the pedagogy of 
     mathematics;
       (ii) mathematicians; and
       (iii) mathematics educators serving high-risk, high-
     achievement schools and eligible local educational agencies; 
     and
       (E) an assurance that the State has a process to safeguard 
     against conflicts of interest consistent with subsection 
     (j)(2) and section 6204 for individuals providing technical 
     assistance on behalf of the State educational agency or 
     participating in the State peer review process under this 
     subtitle.
       (2) Eligible local educational agency.--Each eligible local 
     educational agency desiring a grant under this section shall 
     submit an application to the State educational agency at such 
     time and in such manner as the State educational agency may 
     require. Each application shall include--
       (A) an assurance that the eligible local educational agency 
     will provide assistance to 1 or more schools that are--
       (i) served by the eligible local educational agency; and
       (ii) described in section 6201(b);
       (B) a description of the grades, and of the schools, that 
     will be served;
       (C) information, on an aggregate basis, on each school to 
     be served by the project, including such demographic, 
     socioeconomic, and mathematics achievement data as the State 
     educational agency may request;
       (D) a description of the core mathematics instructional 
     program, supplemental instructional materials, and 
     intervention programs or strategies that will be used for the 
     project, including an assurance that the programs or 
     strategies are research-based and reflect a demonstrated 
     record of effectiveness and are aligned with State academic 
     achievement standards;

[[Page 22313]]

       (E) a description of the activities that will be carried 
     out under the grant, including a description of the 
     professional development that will be provided to teachers, 
     and, if appropriate, administrators and other school staff, 
     and a description of how the activities will support 
     achievement of the purpose of this section;
       (F) an assurance that the eligible local educational agency 
     will report to the State educational agency all data on 
     student academic achievement that is necessary for the State 
     educational agency's report under subsection (i);
       (G) a description of the eligible entity's plans for 
     evaluating the impact of professional development and 
     leadership activities in mathematics on the content knowledge 
     and expertise of teachers, administrators, or other school 
     staff; and
       (H) any other information the State educational agency may 
     reasonably require.
       (g) Prohibitions.--
       (1) In general.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretary shall not--
       (A) endorse, approve, or sanction any mathematics 
     curriculum designed for use in any school; or
       (B) engage in oversight, technical assistance, or 
     activities that will require the adoption of a specific 
     mathematics program or instructional materials by a State, 
     local educational agency, or school.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subtitle shall 
     be construed to authorize or permit the Department of 
     Education, or a Department of Education contractor, to 
     mandate, direct, control, or suggest the selection of a 
     mathematics curriculum, supplemental instructional materials, 
     or program of instruction by a State, local educational 
     agency, or school.
       (h) Matching Requirements.--
       (1) State educational agency.--A State educational agency 
     that receives a grant under this section shall provide, from 
     non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 50 percent of the 
     amount of the grant, in cash or in kind, to carry out the 
     activities supported by the grant, of which not more than 20 
     percent of such 50 percent may be provided by local 
     educational agencies within the State.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all of or a portion of 
     the matching requirement described in paragraph (1) for any 
     fiscal year, if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the application of the matching requirement will result 
     in serious hardship for the State educational agency; or
       (B) providing a waiver best serves the purpose of the 
     program assisted under this section.
       (i) Program Performance and Accountability.--
       (1) Information.--Each State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall collect and report to the 
     Secretary annually such information on the results of the 
     grant as the Secretary may reasonably require, including 
     information on--
       (A) mathematics achievement data that show the progress of 
     students participating in projects under this section 
     (including, to the extent practicable, comparable data from 
     students not participating in such projects), based primarily 
     on the results of State, school district wide, or classroom-
     based, assessments, including--
       (i) specific identification of those schools and eligible 
     local educational agencies that report the largest gains in 
     mathematics achievement; and
       (ii) evidence on whether the State educational agency and 
     eligible local educational agencies within the State have--

       (I) significantly increased the number of students 
     achieving at grade level or above in mathematics;
       (II) significantly increased the percentages of students 
     described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) who are achieving at grade level or 
     above in mathematics;
       (III) significantly increased the number of students making 
     significant progress toward meeting grade-level mathematics 
     achievement standards; and
       (IV) successfully implemented this section;

       (B) the percentage of students in the schools served by the 
     eligible local educational agency who enroll in algebra 
     courses and the percentage of such students who pass algebra 
     courses; and
       (C) the progress made in increasing the quality and 
     accessibility of professional development and leadership 
     activities in mathematics, especially activities resulting in 
     greater content knowledge and expertise of teachers, 
     administrators, and other school staff, except that the 
     Secretary shall not require such information until after the 
     third year of a grant awarded under this section.
       (2) Reporting and disaggregation.--The information required 
     under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) reported in a manner that allows for a comparison of 
     aggregated score differentials of student academic 
     achievement before (to the extent feasible) and after 
     implementation of the project assisted under this section; 
     and
       (B) disaggregated in the same manner as information is 
     disaggregated under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(h)(1)(C)(i)).
       (3) Privacy protection.--The data in the report shall be 
     reported in a manner that--
       (A) protects the privacy of individuals; and
       (B) complies with the requirements of section 444 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly 
     known as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 
     1974).
       (j) Evaluation and Technical Assistance.--
       (1) Evaluation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     independent evaluation, by grant or by contract, of the 
     program assisted under this section, which shall include an 
     assessment of the impact of the program on student academic 
     achievement and teacher performance, and may use funds 
     available to carry out this section to conduct the 
     evaluation.
       (B) Report.--The Secretary shall annually submit, to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report on the 
     results of the evaluation.
       (C) Limitations.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     organization selected to carry out the independent evaluation 
     under subparagraph (A) does not hold a contract or 
     subcontract to implement any aspect of the program under this 
     section.
       (ii) Subcontractors.--Any contract entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall prohibit the organization conducting 
     the evaluation from subcontracting with any entity that holds 
     a contract or subcontract for any aspect of the 
     implementation of this section.
       (iii) Waiver.--Subject to clause (iv), the Secretary may 
     waive the application of clause (i) or (ii), or both, in 
     accordance with the requirements under section 9.503 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations, if the Secretary determines 
     that their application in a particular situation would not be 
     in the Federal Government's interest.
       (iv) Special rule regarding waivers.--No organization or 
     subcontractor under this paragraph shall receive a waiver 
     that allows the organization or subcontractor to evaluate any 
     aspect of the program under this section that the 
     organization or subcontractor was involved in implementing.
       (2) Technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may use funds made available 
     under paragraph (3) to provide technical assistance to 
     prospective applicants and to eligible local educational 
     agencies receiving a grant under this section.
       (B) Conflicts of interest.--If the Secretary carries out 
     subparagraph (A) through any contracts, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Office of the General Counsel of the 
     Department, shall ensure that each contract requires the 
     contractor to--
       (i) screen for conflicts of interest when hiring 
     individuals to carry out the responsibilities under the 
     contract;
       (ii) include the requirement of clause (i) in any 
     subcontracts the contractor enters into under the contract; 
     and
       (iii) establish and follow a schedule for carrying out 
     clause (i) and subparagraph (C) and reporting to the 
     Secretary on the contractor's actions under those provisions.
       (C) Screening process.--Subject to subparagraph (D), the 
     screening process described in subparagraph (B)(i) shall--
       (i) include, at a minimum, a review of--

       (I) each individual performing duties under the contract or 
     subcontract for connections to any State's program under this 
     section;
       (II) such individual's potential financial interests in, or 
     other connection to, products, activities, or services that 
     might be purchased by a State educational agency or local 
     educational agency in the course of the agency's 
     implementation of the program under this section; and
       (III) such individual's connections to teaching 
     methodologies that might require the use of specific 
     products, activities, or services; and

       (ii) ensure that individuals performing duties under the 
     contract do not maintain significant financial interests in 
     products, activities, or services supported under this 
     section.
       (D) Waiver.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary may, in consultation with 
     the Office of the General Counsel of the Department, waive 
     the requirements of subparagraph (C).
       (ii) Report.--The Secretary shall--

       (I) establish criteria for the waivers under clause (i); 
     and
       (II) report any waivers under clause (i), and the criteria 
     under which such waivers are allowed, to the Committee on 
     Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate.

       (E) Information dissemination.--
       (i) In general.--If the Secretary enters into contracts to 
     provide technical assistance under subparagraph (A), and if a 
     contractor enters into subcontracts for that purpose, each 
     such contract and subcontract shall require the provider of 
     technical assistance to clearly separate technical assistance 
     provided under the contract or subcontract from information 
     provided, or activities engaged in, as part of the normal 
     operations of the contractor or subcontractor.
       (ii) Methods of compliance.--Efforts to comply with clause 
     (i) may include the creation of separate webpages for the 
     purpose of fulfilling a contract or subcontract entered into 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (3) Reservation of funds.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 2.5 percent of funds appropriated under subsection 
     (k) for a fiscal year to carry out this subsection.
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $95,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008,

[[Page 22314]]

     and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 2 
     succeeding fiscal years.

     SEC. 6202. SUMMER TERM EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to create 
     opportunities for summer learning by providing students with 
     access to summer learning in mathematics, technology, and 
     problem-solving to ensure that students do not experience 
     learning losses over the summer and to remedy, reinforce, and 
     accelerate the learning of mathematics and problem-solving.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means an 
     entity that--
       (A) desires to participate in a summer learning grant 
     program under this section by providing summer learning 
     opportunities described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(ii) to 
     eligible students; and
       (B) is--
       (i) a high-need local educational agency; or
       (ii) a consortium consisting of a high-need local 
     educational agency and 1 or more of the following entities:

       (I) Another local educational agency.
       (II) A community-based youth development organization with 
     a demonstrated record of effectiveness in helping students 
     learn.
       (III) An institution of higher education.
       (IV) An educational service agency.
       (V) A for-profit educational provider, nonprofit 
     organization, science center, museum, or summer enrichment 
     camp, that has been approved by the State educational agency 
     to provide the summer learning opportunity described in 
     subsection (d)(4)(A)(ii).

       (2) Eligible student.--The term ``eligible student'' means 
     a student who--
       (A) is eligible for a free lunch under the Richard B. 
     Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.); 
     and
       (B) is served by a local educational agency identified by 
     the State educational agency in the application described in 
     subsection (c)(2).
       (3) High-need local educational agency.--The term ``high-
     need local educational agency'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 6112.
       (c) Demonstration Grant Program.--
       (1) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--From the funds appropriated under 
     subsection (f) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall carry 
     out a demonstration grant program in which the Secretary 
     awards grants, on a competitive basis, to State educational 
     agencies to enable the State educational agencies to pay the 
     Federal share of summer learning grants for eligible 
     students.
       (B) Number of grants.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall award not more than 5 grants under this section.
       (2) Application.--A State educational agency that desires 
     to receive a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     require. Such application shall identify the areas in the 
     State where the summer learning grant program will be offered 
     and the local educational agencies that serve such areas.
       (3) Award basis.--
       (A) Special consideration.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give special consideration to a 
     State educational agency that agrees, to the extent possible, 
     to enter into agreements with eligible entities that are 
     consortia described in subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) and that 
     proposes to target services to children in grades 
     kindergarten through grade 8.
       (B) Geographic distribution.--In awarding grants under this 
     section, the Secretary shall take into consideration an 
     equitable geographic distribution of the grants.
       (d) Summer Learning Grants.--
       (1) Use of grants for summer learning grants.--
       (A) In general.--Each State educational agency that 
     receives a grant under subsection (c) for a fiscal year shall 
     use the grant funds to provide summer learning grants for the 
     fiscal year to eligible students in the State who desire to 
     attend a summer learning opportunity offered by an eligible 
     entity that enters into an agreement with the State 
     educational agency under paragraph (4)(A).
       (B) Amount; federal and non-federal shares.--
       (i) Amount.--The amount of a summer learning grant provided 
     under this section shall be--

       (I) for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011, $1,600; 
     and
       (II) for fiscal year 2012, $1,800.

       (ii) Federal share.--The Federal share of each summer 
     learning grant shall be not more than 50 percent of the 
     amount of the summer learning grant determined under clause 
     (i).
       (iii) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of each 
     summer learning grant shall be not less than 50 percent of 
     the amount of the summer learning grant determined under 
     clause (i), and shall be provided from non-Federal sources.
       (2) Designation of summer scholars.--Eligible students who 
     receive summer learning grants under this section shall be 
     known as ``summer scholars''.
       (3) Selection of summer learning opportunity.--
       (A) Dissemination of information.--A State educational 
     agency that receives a grant under subsection (c) shall 
     disseminate information about summer learning opportunities 
     and summer learning grants to the families of eligible 
     students in the State.
       (B) Application.--The parents of an eligible student who 
     are interested in having their child participate in a summer 
     learning opportunity and receive a summer learning grant 
     shall submit an application to the State educational agency 
     that includes a ranked list of preferred summer learning 
     opportunities.
       (C) Process.--A State educational agency that receives an 
     application under subparagraph (B) shall--
       (i) process such application;
       (ii) determine whether the eligible student shall receive a 
     summer learning grant;
       (iii) coordinate the assignment of eligible students 
     receiving summer learning grants with summer learning 
     opportunities; and
       (iv) if demand for a summer learning opportunity exceeds 
     capacity, the State educational agency shall prioritize 
     applications to low-achieving eligible students.
       (D) Flexibility.--A State educational agency may assign a 
     summer scholar to a summer learning opportunity program that 
     is offered in an area served by a local educational agency 
     that is not the local educational agency serving the area 
     where such scholar resides.
       (E) Requirement of acceptance.--An eligible entity shall 
     accept, enroll, and provide the summer learning opportunity 
     of such entity to, any summer scholar assigned to such summer 
     learning opportunity by a State educational agency pursuant 
     to this subsection.
       (4) Agreement with eligible entity.--
       (A) In general.--A State educational agency shall enter 
     into an agreement with one or more eligible entities offering 
     a summer learning opportunity, under which--
       (i) the State educational agency shall agree to make 
     payments to the eligible entity, in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B), for a summer scholar; and
       (ii) the eligible entity shall agree to provide the summer 
     scholar with a summer learning opportunity that--

       (I) provides a total of not less than the equivalent of 30 
     full days of instruction (or not less than the equivalent of 
     25 full days of instruction, if the equivalent of an 
     additional 5 days is devoted to field trips or other 
     enrichment opportunities) to the summer scholar;
       (II) employs small-group, research-based educational 
     programs, materials, curricula, and practices;
       (III) provides a curriculum that--

       (aa) emphasizes mathematics, technology, engineering, and 
     problem-solving through experiential learning opportunities;
       (bb) is primarily designed to increase the numeracy and 
     problem-solving skills of the summer scholar; and
       (cc) is aligned with State academic content standards and 
     goals of the local educational agency serving the summer 
     scholar;

       (IV) measures student progress to determine the gains made 
     by summer scholars in the summer learning opportunity, and 
     disaggregates the results of such progress for summer 
     scholars by race and ethnicity, economic status, limited 
     English proficiency status, and disability status, in order 
     to determine the opportunity's impact on each subgroup of 
     summer scholars;
       (V) collects daily attendance data on each summer scholar;
       (VI) provides professional development opportunities for 
     teachers to improve their practice in teaching numeracy, and 
     in integrating problem-solving techniques into the 
     curriculum; and
       (VII) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local civil 
     rights laws.

       (B) Amount of payment.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), a State 
     educational agency shall make a payment to an eligible entity 
     for a summer scholar in the amount determined under paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i).
       (ii) Adjustment.--In the case in which a summer scholar 
     does not attend the full summer learning opportunity, the 
     State educational agency shall reduce the amount provided to 
     the eligible entity pursuant to clause (i) by a percentage 
     that is equal to the percentage of the summer learning 
     opportunity not attended by such scholar.
       (5) Administrative costs.--A State educational agency or 
     eligible entity receiving funding under this section may use 
     not more than 5 percent of such funding for administrative 
     costs associated with carrying out this section.
       (e) Evaluations; Report; Website.--
       (1) Evaluation and assessment.--For each year that an 
     eligible entity enters into an agreement under subsection 
     (d)(4), the eligible entity shall prepare and submit to the 
     Secretary a report on the activities and outcomes of each 
     summer learning opportunity that enrolled a summer scholar, 
     including--
       (A) information on the design of the summer learning 
     opportunity;
       (B) the alignment of the summer learning opportunity with 
     State standards; and
       (C) data from assessments of student mathematics and 
     problem-solving skills for the summer scholars and on the 
     attendance of the scholars, disaggregated by the subgroups 
     described in subsection (d)(4)(A)(ii)(IV).
       (2) Report.--For each year funds are appropriated under 
     subsection (f) for this section, the Secretary shall prepare 
     and submit a report to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Education and Labor of the House of Representatives on the 
     summer learning grant programs, including the effectiveness 
     of the summer learning opportunities in improving student 
     achievement and learning.

[[Page 22315]]

       (3) Summer learning grants website.--The Secretary shall 
     make accessible, on the Department of Education website, 
     information for parents and school personnel on successful 
     programs and curricula, and best practices, for summer 
     learning opportunities.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each of the 2 
     succeeding fiscal years.

     SEC. 6203. MATH SKILLS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS.

       (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to provide assistance to State educational agencies and 
     local educational agencies in implementing effective 
     research-based mathematics programs for students in secondary 
     schools, including students with disabilities and students 
     with limited English proficiency;
       (2) to improve instruction in mathematics for students in 
     secondary school through the implementation of mathematics 
     programs and the support of comprehensive mathematics 
     initiatives that are based on the best available evidence of 
     effectiveness;
       (3) to provide targeted help to low-income students who are 
     struggling with mathematics and whose achievement is 
     significantly below grade level; and
       (4) to provide in-service training for mathematics coaches 
     who can assist secondary school teachers to utilize research-
     based mathematics instruction to develop and improve 
     students' mathematical abilities and knowledge, and assist 
     teachers in assessing and improving student academic 
     achievement.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible 
     local educational agency'' means a local educational agency 
     that is eligible to receive funds, and that is receiving 
     funds, under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
       (2) Mathematics coach.--The term ``mathematics coach'' 
     means a certified or licensed teacher, with a demonstrated 
     effectiveness in teaching mathematics to students with 
     specialized needs in mathematics and improving student 
     academic achievement in mathematics, a command of 
     mathematical content knowledge, and the ability to work with 
     classroom teachers to improve the teachers' instructional 
     techniques to support mathematics improvement, who works on 
     site at a school--
       (A) to train teachers to better assess student learning in 
     mathematics;
       (B) to train teachers to assess students' mathematics 
     skills and identify students who need remediation; and
       (C) to provide or assess remedial mathematics instruction, 
     including for--
       (i) students in after-school and summer school programs;
       (ii) students requiring additional instruction;
       (iii) students with disabilities; and
       (iv) students with limited English proficiency.
       (c) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--From funds appropriated under subsection 
     (o) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall establish a 
     program, in accordance with the requirements of this section, 
     that will provide grants on a competitive basis to State 
     educational agencies to award grants and subgrants to 
     eligible local educational agencies for the purpose of 
     establishing mathematics programs to improve the overall 
     mathematics performance of secondary school students in the 
     State.
       (2) Length of grant.--A grant to a State educational agency 
     under this section shall be awarded for a period of 3 years.
       (d) Reservation of Funds by the Secretary.--From amounts 
     appropriated under subsection (o) for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may reserve--
       (1) not more than 3 percent of such amounts to fund 
     national activities in support of the programs assisted under 
     this section, such as research and dissemination of best 
     practices, except that the Secretary may not use the reserved 
     funds to award grants directly to local educational agencies; 
     and
       (2) not more than \1/2\ of 1 percent of such amounts for 
     the Bureau of Indian Education of the Department of the 
     Interior to carry out the services and activities described 
     in subsection (k)(3) for Indian children.
       (e) Grant Formulas.--
       (1) Competitive grants to state educational agencies.--From 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (o) and not reserved 
     under subsection (d), the Secretary shall award grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to State educational agencies to enable 
     the State educational agencies to provide subgrants to 
     eligible local educational agencies to establish mathematics 
     programs for the purpose of improving overall mathematics 
     performance among students in secondary school in the State.
       (2) Minimum grant.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     minimum grant made to any State educational agency under this 
     section shall be not less than $500,000.
       (f) Applications.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section, a State educational agency shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may 
     require. Each such application shall meet the following 
     conditions:
       (1) A State educational agency shall not include the 
     application for assistance under this section in a 
     consolidated application submitted under section 9302 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7842).
       (2) The State educational agency's application shall 
     include assurances that such application and any technical 
     assistance provided by the State will be guided by a peer 
     review team, which shall consist of--
       (A) researchers with expertise in the pedagogy of 
     mathematics;
       (B) mathematicians; and
       (C) mathematics educators serving high-risk, high-
     achievement schools and eligible local educational agencies.
       (3) The State educational agency shall include an assurance 
     that the State has a process to safeguard against conflicts 
     of interest consistent with subsection (m)(2) and section 
     6204 for individuals providing technical assistance on behalf 
     of the State educational agency or participating in the State 
     peer review process under this subtitle.
       (4) The State educational agency will participate, if 
     requested, in any evaluation of the State educational 
     agency's program under this section.
       (5) The State educational agency's application shall 
     include a program plan that contains a description of the 
     following:
       (A) How the State educational agency will assist eligible 
     local educational agencies in implementing subgrants, 
     including providing ongoing professional development for 
     mathematics coaches, teachers, paraprofessionals, and 
     administrators.
       (B) How the State educational agency will help eligible 
     local educational agencies identify high-quality screening, 
     diagnostic, and classroom-based instructional mathematics 
     assessments.
       (C) How the State educational agency will help eligible 
     local educational agencies identify high-quality research-
     based mathematics materials and programs.
       (D) How the State educational agency will help eligible 
     local educational agencies identify appropriate and effective 
     materials, programs, and assessments for students with 
     disabilities and students with limited English proficiency.
       (E) How the State educational agency will ensure that 
     professional development funded under this section--
       (i) is based on mathematics research;
       (ii) will effectively improve instructional practices for 
     mathematics for secondary school students;
       (iii) will improve student academic achievement in 
     mathematics; and
       (iv) is coordinated with professional development 
     activities funded through other programs, including section 
     2113 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 6613).
       (F) How funded activities will help teachers and other 
     instructional staff to implement research-based components of 
     mathematics instruction and improve student academic 
     achievement.
       (G) The subgrant process the State educational agency will 
     use to ensure that eligible local educational agencies 
     receiving subgrants implement programs and practices based on 
     mathematics research.
       (H) How the State educational agency will build on and 
     promote coordination among mathematics programs in the State 
     to increase overall effectiveness in improving mathematics 
     instruction and student academic achievement, including for 
     students with disabilities and students with limited English 
     proficiency.
       (I) How the State educational agency will regularly assess 
     and evaluate the effectiveness of the eligible local 
     educational agency activities funded under this section.
       (g) State Use of Funds.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall--
       (1) establish a peer review team comprised of researchers 
     with expertise in the pedagogy of mathematics, 
     mathematicians, and mathematics educators from high-risk, 
     high-achievement schools, to provide guidance to eligible 
     local educational agencies in selecting or developing and 
     implementing appropriate, research-based mathematics programs 
     for secondary school students;
       (2) use 80 percent of the grant funds received under this 
     section for a fiscal year to fund high-quality applications 
     for subgrants to eligible local educational agencies having 
     applications approved under subsection (k); and
       (3) use 20 percent of the grant funds received under this 
     section--
       (A) to carry out State-level activities described in the 
     application submitted under subsection (f);
       (B) to provide--
       (i) technical assistance to eligible local educational 
     agencies; and
       (ii) high-quality professional development to teachers and 
     mathematics coaches in the State;
       (C) to oversee and evaluate subgrant services and 
     activities undertaken by the eligible local educational 
     agencies as described in subsection (k)(3); and
       (D) for administrative costs, of which not more than 5 
     percent of the grant funds may be used for planning, 
     administration, and reporting.
       (h) Notice to Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--Each 
     State educational agency receiving a grant under this section 
     shall provide notice to all eligible local educational 
     agencies in the State about the availability of subgrants 
     under this section.
       (i) Prohibitions.--
       (1) In general.--In implementing this section, the 
     Secretary shall not--

[[Page 22316]]

       (A) endorse, approve, or sanction any mathematics 
     curriculum designed for use in any school; or
       (B) engage in oversight, technical assistance, or 
     activities that will require the adoption of a specific 
     mathematics program or instructional materials by a State, 
     local educational agency, or school.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize or permit the Secretary, Department of 
     Education, or a Department of Education contractor, to 
     mandate, direct, control, or suggest the selection of a 
     mathematics curriculum, supplemental instructional materials, 
     or program of instruction by a State, local educational 
     agency, or school.
       (j) Supplement Not Supplant.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall use the grant 
     funds to supplement, not supplant, State funding for 
     activities authorized under this section or for other 
     educational activities.
       (k) Subgrants to Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--
       (1) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Each eligible local educational agency 
     desiring a subgrant under this subsection shall submit an 
     application to the State educational agency in the form and 
     according to the schedule established by the State 
     educational agency.
       (B) Contents.--In addition to any information required by 
     the State educational agency, each application under 
     subparagraph (A) shall demonstrate how the eligible local 
     educational agency will carry out the following required 
     activities:
       (i) Development or selection and implementation of 
     research-based mathematics assessments.
       (ii) Development or selection and implementation of 
     research-based mathematics programs, including programs for 
     students with disabilities and students with limited English 
     proficiency.
       (iii) Selection of instructional materials based on 
     mathematics research.
       (iv) High-quality professional development for mathematics 
     coaches and teachers based on mathematics research.
       (v) Evaluation and assessment strategies.
       (vi) Reporting.
       (vii) Providing access to research-based mathematics 
     materials.
       (C) Consortia.--Consistent with State law, an eligible 
     local educational agency may apply to the State educational 
     agency for a subgrant as a member of a consortium of local 
     educational agencies if each member of the consortium is an 
     eligible local educational agency.
       (2) Award basis.--
       (A) Priority.--A State educational agency awarding 
     subgrants under this subsection shall give priority to 
     eligible local educational agencies that--
       (i) are among the local educational agencies in the State 
     with the lowest graduation rates, as described in section 
     1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(C)(vi)); and
       (ii) have the highest number or percentage of students who 
     are counted under section 1124(c) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)).
       (B) Amount of grants.--Subgrants under this subsection 
     shall be of sufficient size and scope to enable eligible 
     local educational agencies to fully implement activities 
     assisted under this subsection.
       (3) Local use of funds.--Each eligible local educational 
     agency receiving a subgrant under this subsection shall use 
     the subgrant funds to carry out, at the secondary school 
     level, the following services and activities:
       (A) Hiring mathematics coaches and providing professional 
     development for mathematics coaches--
       (i) at a level to provide effective coaching to classroom 
     teachers;
       (ii) to work with classroom teachers to better assess 
     student academic achievement in mathematics;
       (iii) to work with classroom teachers to identify students 
     with mathematics problems and, where appropriate, refer 
     students to available programs for remediation and additional 
     services;
       (iv) to work with classroom teachers to diagnose and 
     remediate mathematics difficulties of the lowest-performing 
     students, so that those teachers can provide intensive, 
     research-based instruction, including during after-school and 
     summer sessions, geared toward ensuring that those students 
     can access and be successful in rigorous academic coursework; 
     and
       (v) to assess and organize student data on mathematics and 
     communicate that data to school administrators to inform 
     school reform efforts.
       (B) Reviewing, analyzing, developing, and, where possible, 
     adapting curricula to make sure mathematics skills are taught 
     within other core academic subjects.
       (C) Providing mathematics professional development for all 
     relevant teachers in secondary school, as necessary, that 
     addresses both remedial and higher level mathematics skills 
     for students in the applicable curriculum.
       (D) Providing professional development for teachers, 
     administrators, and paraprofessionals serving secondary 
     schools to help the teachers, administrators, and 
     paraprofessionals improve student academic achievement in 
     mathematics.
       (E) Procuring and implementing programs and instructional 
     materials based on mathematics research, including software 
     and other education technology related to mathematics 
     instruction with demonstrated effectiveness in improving 
     mathematics instruction and student academic achievement.
       (F) Building on and promoting coordination among 
     mathematics programs in the eligible local educational agency 
     to increase overall effectiveness in--
       (i) improving mathematics instruction; and
       (ii) increasing student academic achievement, including for 
     students with disabilities and students with limited English 
     proficiency.
       (G) Evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional 
     strategies, teacher professional development programs, and 
     other interventions that are implemented under the subgrant.
       (H) Measuring improvement in student academic achievement, 
     including through progress monitoring or other assessments.
       (4) Supplement not supplant.--Each eligible local 
     educational agency receiving a subgrant under this subsection 
     shall use the subgrant funds to supplement, not supplant, the 
     eligible local educational agency's funding for activities 
     authorized under this section or for other educational 
     activities.
       (5) New services and activities.--Subgrant funds provided 
     under this subsection may be used only to provide services 
     and activities authorized under this section that were not 
     provided on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (6) Evaluations.--Each eligible local educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this subsection shall participate, as 
     requested by the State educational agency or the Secretary, 
     in reviews and evaluations of the programs of the eligible 
     local educational agency and the effectiveness of such 
     programs, and shall provide such reports as are requested by 
     the State educational agency and the Secretary.
       (l) Matching Requirements.--
       (1) State educational agency requirements.--A State 
     educational agency that receives a grant under this section 
     shall provide, from non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 
     50 percent of the amount of the grant, in cash or in-kind, to 
     carry out the activities supported by the grant, of which not 
     more than 20 percent of such 50 percent may be provided by 
     local educational agencies within the State.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or a portion of 
     the matching requirements described in paragraph (1) for any 
     fiscal year, if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the application of the matching requirement will result 
     in serious hardship for the State educational agency; or
       (B) providing a waiver best serves the purpose of the 
     program assisted under this section.
       (m) Evaluation and Technical Assistance.--
       (1) Evaluation.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual 
     independent evaluation, by grant or by contract, of the 
     program assisted under this section, which shall include an 
     assessment of the impact of the program on student academic 
     achievement and teacher performance, and may use funds 
     available to carry out this section to conduct the 
     evaluation.
       (B) Report.--The Secretary shall annually submit to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report on the 
     results of the evaluation.
       (C) Limitations.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     organization selected to carry out the independent evaluation 
     under subparagraph (A) does not hold a contract or 
     subcontract to implement any aspect of the program under this 
     section.
       (ii) Subcontractors.--Any contract entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall prohibit the organization conducting 
     the evaluation from subcontracting with any entity that holds 
     a contract or subcontract for any aspect of the 
     implementation of this section.
       (iii) Waiver.--Subject to clause (iv), the Secretary may 
     waive the application of clause (i) or (ii), or both, in 
     accordance with the requirements under section 9.503 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations, if the Secretary determines 
     that their application in a particular situation would not be 
     in the Federal Government's interest.
       (iv) Special rule regarding waivers.--No organization or 
     subcontractor under this paragraph shall receive a waiver 
     that allows the organization or subcontractor to evaluate any 
     aspect of the program under this section that the 
     organization or subcontractor was involved in implementing.
       (2) Technical assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may use funds made available 
     under paragraph (3) to provide technical assistance to 
     prospective applicants and to State educational agencies and 
     eligible local educational agencies receiving grants or 
     subgrants under this section.
       (B) Conflicts of interest.--If the Secretary carries out 
     subparagraph (A) through any contracts, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Office of the General Counsel of the 
     Department, shall ensure that each contract requires the 
     contractor to--
       (i) screen for conflicts of interest when hiring 
     individuals to carry out the responsibilities under the 
     contract;
       (ii) include the requirement of clause (i) in any 
     subcontracts the contractor enters into under the contract; 
     and
       (iii) establish and follow a schedule for carrying out 
     clause (i) and subparagraph (C) and reporting to the 
     Secretary on the contractor's actions under those provisions.

[[Page 22317]]

       (C) Screening process.--Subject to subparagraph (D), the 
     screening process described in subparagraph (B)(i) shall--
       (i) include, at a minimum, a review of--

       (I) each individual performing duties under the contract or 
     subcontract for connections to any State's program under this 
     section;
       (II) such individual's potential financial interests in, or 
     other connection to, products, activities, or services that 
     might be purchased by a State educational agency or local 
     educational agency in the course of the agency's 
     implementation of the program under this section; and
       (III) such individual's connections to teaching 
     methodologies that might require the use of specific 
     products, activities, or services; and

       (ii) ensure that individuals performing duties under the 
     contract do not maintain significant financial interests in 
     products, activities, or services supported under this 
     section.
       (D) Waiver.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary may, in consultation with 
     the Office of the General Counsel of the Department, waive 
     the requirements of subparagraph (C).
       (ii) Report.--The Secretary shall--

       (I) establish criteria for the waivers under clause (i); 
     and
       (II) report any waivers under clause (i), and the criteria 
     under which such waivers are allowed, to the Committee on 
     Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate.

       (E) Information dissemination.--
       (i) In general.--If the Secretary enters into contracts to 
     provide technical assistance under subparagraph (A), and if a 
     contractor enters into subcontracts for that purpose, each 
     such contract and subcontract shall require the provider of 
     technical assistance to clearly separate technical assistance 
     provided under the contract or subcontract from information 
     provided, or activities engaged in, as part of the normal 
     operations of the contractor or subcontractor.
       (ii) Methods of compliance.--Efforts to comply with clause 
     (i) may include the creation of separate webpages for the 
     purpose of fulfilling a contract or subcontract entered into 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (3) Reservation of funds.--The Secretary may reserve not 
     more than 2.5 percent of funds appropriated under subsection 
     (o) for a fiscal year to carry out this subsection.
       (n) Program Performance and Accountability.--
       (1) Information.--Each State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall collect and report to the 
     Secretary annually such information on the results of the 
     grant as the Secretary may reasonably require, including 
     information on--
       (A) mathematics achievement data that show the progress of 
     students participating in projects under this section 
     (including, to the extent practicable, comparable data from 
     students not participating in such projects), based primarily 
     on the results of State, school districtwide, or classroom-
     based monitoring reports or assessments, including--
       (i) specific identification of those schools and eligible 
     local educational agencies that report the largest gains in 
     mathematics achievement; and
       (ii) evidence on whether the State educational agency and 
     eligible local educational agencies within the State have--

       (I) significantly increased the number of students 
     achieving at the proficient or advanced level on the State 
     student academic achievement standards in mathematics under 
     section 1111(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(1)(D)(ii));
       (II) significantly increased the percentages of students 
     described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)) who are achieving proficiency or 
     advanced levels on such State academic content standards in 
     mathematics;
       (III) significantly increased the number of students making 
     significant progress toward meeting such State academic 
     content and achievement standards in mathematics; and
       (IV) successfully implemented this section;

       (B) the percentage of students in the schools served by the 
     eligible local educational agency who enroll in advanced 
     mathematics courses in grades 9 through 12, including the 
     percentage of such students who pass such courses; and
       (C) the progress made in increasing the quality and 
     accessibility of professional development and leadership 
     activities in mathematics, especially activities resulting in 
     greater content knowledge and expertise of teachers, 
     administrators, and other school staff, except that the 
     Secretary shall not require such information until after the 
     third year of a grant awarded under this section.
       (2) Reporting and disaggregation.--The information required 
     under paragraph (1) shall be--
       (A) reported in a manner that allows for a comparison of 
     aggregated score differentials of student academic 
     achievement before (to the extent feasible) and after 
     implementation of the project assisted under this section; 
     and
       (B) disaggregated in the same manner as information is 
     disaggregated under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6311(h)(1)(C)(i)).
       (o) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $95,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008 and each of the 2 succeeding fiscal years.

     SEC. 6204. PEER REVIEW OF STATE APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Peer Review of State Applications.--The Secretary shall 
     establish peer review panels to review State educational 
     agency applications submitted pursuant to sections 6201 and 
     6203 and shall consider the recommendation of the peer review 
     panels in deciding whether to approve the applications.
       (b) Screening.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process 
     through which individuals on the peer review panels who 
     review State applications under sections 6201 and 6203 
     (referred to in this section as ``reviewers'') are screened 
     for potential conflicts of interest.
       (2) Screening requirements.--The screening process 
     described in paragraph (1) shall, subject to paragraph (3)--
       (A) be reviewed and approved by the Office of the General 
     Counsel of the Department;
       (B) include, at a minimum, a review of each reviewer's--
       (i) professional connection to any State's program under 
     such sections, including a disclosure of any connection to 
     publishers, entities, private individuals, or organizations 
     related to such State's program;
       (ii) potential financial interest in products, activities, 
     or services that might be purchased by a State educational 
     agency or local educational agency in the course of the 
     agency's implementation of the programs under such sections; 
     and
       (iii) professional connections to teaching methodologies 
     that might require the use of specific products, activities, 
     or services; and
       (C) ensure that reviewers do not maintain significant 
     financial interests in products, activities, or services 
     supported under such sections.
       (3) Waiver.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may, in consultation with 
     the Office of the General Counsel of the Department, waive 
     the requirements of paragraph (2)(C).
       (B) Report of waivers.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) establish criteria for the waivers permitted under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) report any waivers allowed under subparagraph (A), and 
     the criteria under which such waivers are allowed, to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
       (c) Guidance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop procedures 
     for, and issue guidance regarding, how reviewers will review 
     applications submitted under sections 6201 and 6203 and 
     provide feedback to State educational agencies and 
     recommendations to the Secretary. The Secretary shall also 
     develop guidance for how the Secretary will review those 
     recommendations and make final determinations of approval or 
     disapproval of those applications.
       (2) Requirements.--Such procedures shall, at a minimum--
       (A) create a transparent process through which review 
     panels provide clear, consistent, and publicly available 
     documentation and explanations in support of all 
     recommendations, including the final reviews of the 
     individual reviewers, except that a final review shall not 
     reveal any personally identifiable information about the 
     reviewer;
       (B) ensure that a State educational agency has the 
     opportunity for direct interaction with any review panel that 
     reviewed the agency's application under section 6201 or 6203 
     when revising that application as a result of feedback from 
     the panel, including the disclosure of the identities of the 
     reviewers;
       (C) require that any review panel and the Secretary clearly 
     and consistently document that all required elements of an 
     application under section 6201 or 6203 are included before 
     the application is approved; and
       (D) create a transparent process through which the 
     Secretary clearly, consistently, and publicly documents 
     decisions to approve or disapprove applications under such 
     sections and the reasons for those decisions.
            Subtitle C--Foreign Language Partnership Program

     SEC. 6301. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States faces a shortage of skilled 
     professionals with higher levels of proficiency in foreign 
     languages and area knowledge critical to the Nation's 
     security.
       (2) Given the Nation's economic competitiveness interests, 
     it is crucial that our Nation expand the number of Americans 
     who are able to function effectively in the environments in 
     which critical foreign languages are spoken.
       (3) Students' ability to become proficient in foreign 
     languages can be addressed by starting language learning at a 
     younger age and expanding opportunities for continuous 
     foreign language education from elementary school through 
     postsecondary education.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this subtitle is to 
     significantly increase--
       (1) the opportunities to study critical foreign languages 
     and the context in which the critical foreign languages are 
     spoken; and
       (2) the number of American students who achieve the highest 
     level of proficiency in critical foreign languages.

     SEC. 6302. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Eligible recipient.--The term ``eligible recipient'' 
     means an entity mutually agreed upon by a partnership that 
     shall receive grant funds under this subtitle on behalf of 
     the partnership for use in carrying out the activities 
     assisted under this subtitle.

[[Page 22318]]

       (2) Partnership.--The term ``partnership'' means a 
     partnership that--
       (A) shall include--
       (i) an institution of higher education; and
       (ii) 1 or more local educational agencies; and
       (B) may include 1 or more entities that support the 
     purposes of this subtitle.
       (3) Superior level of proficiency.--The term ``superior 
     level of proficiency'' means level 3, the professional 
     working level, as measured by the Federal Interagency 
     Language Roundtable (ILR) or by other generally recognized 
     measures of superior standards.

     SEC. 6303. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants to eligible recipients to enable partnerships served 
     by the eligible recipients to establish articulated programs 
     of study in critical foreign languages that will enable 
     students to advance successfully from elementary school 
     through postsecondary education and achieve higher levels of 
     proficiency in a critical foreign language.
       (2) Duration.--A grant awarded under paragraph (1) shall be 
     for a period of not more than 5 years, of which 2 years may 
     be for planning and development. A grant may be renewed for 
     not more than 2 additional 5-year periods, if the Secretary 
     determines that the partnership's program is effective and 
     the renewal will best serve the purposes of this subtitle.
       (b) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible recipient desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application shall--
       (A) identify each local educational agency partner, 
     including contact information and letters of commitment, and 
     describe the responsibilities of each member of the 
     partnership, including--
       (i) how each of the partners will be involved in planning, 
     developing, and implementing--

       (I) program curriculum and materials; and
       (II) teacher professional development;

       (ii) what resources each of the partners will provide; and
       (iii) how the partners will contribute to ensuring the 
     continuity of student progress from elementary school through 
     the postsecondary level;
       (B) describe how an articulated curriculum for students 
     will be developed and implemented, which may include the use 
     and integration of technology into such curriculum;
       (C) identify target proficiency levels for students at 
     critical benchmarks (such as grades 4, 8, and 12), and 
     describe how progress toward those proficiency levels will be 
     assessed at the benchmarks, and how the program will use the 
     results of the assessments to ensure continuous progress 
     toward achieving a superior level of proficiency at the 
     postsecondary level;
       (D) describe how the partnership will--
       (i) ensure that students from a program assisted under this 
     subtitle who are beginning postsecondary education will be 
     assessed and enabled to progress to a superior level of 
     proficiency;
       (ii) address the needs of students already at, or near, the 
     superior level of proficiency, which may include diagnostic 
     assessments for placement purposes, customized and 
     individualized language learning opportunities, and 
     experimental and interdisciplinary language learning; and
       (iii) identify and describe how the partnership will work 
     with institutions of higher education outside the partnership 
     to provide participating students with multiple options for 
     postsecondary education consistent with the purposes of this 
     subtitle;
       (E) describe how the partnership will support and continue 
     the program after the grant has expired, including how the 
     partnership will seek support from other sources, such as 
     State and local governments, foundations, and the private 
     sector; and
       (F) describe what assessments will be used or, if 
     assessments not available, how assessments will be developed.
       (c) Uses of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this 
     subtitle--
       (1) shall be used to plan, develop, and implement programs 
     at the elementary school level through postsecondary 
     education, consistent with the purpose of this subtitle, 
     including--
       (A) the development of curriculum and instructional 
     materials; and
       (B) recruitment of students; and
       (2) may be used for--
       (A) teacher recruitment (including recruitment from other 
     professions and recruitment of native-language speakers in 
     the community) and professional development directly related 
     to the purposes of this subtitle at the elementary school 
     through secondary school levels;
       (B) development of appropriate assessments;
       (C) opportunities for maximum language exposure for 
     students in the program, such as the creation of immersion 
     environments (such as language houses, language tables, 
     immersion classrooms, and weekend and summer experiences) and 
     special tutoring and academic support;
       (D) dual language immersion programs;
       (E) scholarships and study-abroad opportunities, related to 
     the program, for postsecondary students and newly recruited 
     teachers who have advanced levels of proficiency in a 
     critical foreign language, except that not more than 20 
     percent of the grant funds provided to an eligible recipient 
     under this section for a fiscal year may be used to carry out 
     this subparagraph;
       (F) activities to encourage community involvement to assist 
     in meeting the purposes of this subtitle;
       (G) summer institutes for students and teachers;
       (H) bridge programs that allow dual enrollment for 
     secondary school students in institutions of higher 
     education;
       (I) programs that expand the understanding and knowledge of 
     historic, geographic, and contextual factors within countries 
     with populations who speak critical foreign languages, if 
     such programs are carried out in conjunction with language 
     instruction;
       (J) research on, and evaluation of, the teaching of 
     critical foreign languages;
       (K) data collection and analysis regarding the results of--
       (i) various student recruitment strategies;
       (ii) program design; and
       (iii) curricular approaches;
       (L) the impact of the strategies, program design, and 
     curricular approaches described in subparagraph (K) on 
     increasing--
       (i) the number of students studying critical foreign 
     languages; and
       (ii) the proficiency of the students in the critical 
     foreign languages; and
       (M) distance learning projects for critical foreign 
     language learning.
       (d) Matching Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible recipient that receives a 
     grant under this subtitle shall provide, toward the cost of 
     carrying out the activities supported by the grant, from non-
     Federal sources, an amount equal to--
       (A) 20 percent of the amount of the grant payment for the 
     first fiscal year for which a grant payment is made;
       (B) 30 percent of the amount of the grant payment for the 
     second such fiscal year;
       (C) 40 percent of the amount of the grant payment for the 
     third such fiscal year; and
       (D) 50 percent of the amount of the grant payment for each 
     of the fourth and fifth such fiscal years.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share required 
     under paragraph (1) may be provided in cash or in-kind.
       (3) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive all or part of the 
     matching requirement of paragraph (1), for any fiscal year, 
     if the Secretary determines that--
       (A) the application of the matching requirement will result 
     in serious hardship for the partnership; or
       (B) the waiver will best serve the purposes of this 
     subtitle.
       (e) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this subtitle shall be used to supplement, not supplant, 
     other Federal and non-Federal funds available to carry out 
     the activities described in subsection (c).
       (f) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract to establish a technical assistance center to 
     provide technical assistance to partnerships developing 
     critical foreign language programs assisted under this 
     subtitle. The center shall--
       (1) assist the partnerships in the development of critical 
     foreign language instructional materials and assessments; and
       (2) disseminate promising foreign language instructional 
     practices.
       (g) Program Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may reserve not more than 5 
     percent of the total amount appropriated for this subtitle 
     for any fiscal year to annually evaluate the programs under 
     this subtitle.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall prepare and annually 
     submit, to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions of the Senate, the Committee on Education and Labor 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, a 
     report--
       (A) on the results of any program evaluation conducted 
     under this subsection; and
       (B) that includes best practices on the teaching and 
     learning of foreign languages based on the findings from the 
     evaluation.

     SEC. 6304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       For the purpose of carrying out this subtitle, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 2 
     succeeding fiscal years.
              Subtitle D--Alignment of Education Programs

     SEC. 6401. ALIGNMENT OF SECONDARY SCHOOL GRADUATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS WITH THE DEMANDS OF 21ST CENTURY 
                   POSTSECONDARY ENDEAVORS AND SUPPORT FOR P-16 
                   EDUCATION DATA SYSTEMS.

       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section--
       (1) to promote more accountability with respect to 
     preparation for higher education, the 21st century workforce, 
     and the Armed Forces, by aligning--
       (A) student knowledge, student skills, State academic 
     content standards and assessments, and curricula, in 
     elementary and secondary education, especially with respect 
     to mathematics, science, reading, and, where applicable, 
     engineering and technology; with
       (B) the demands of higher education, the 21st century 
     workforce, and the Armed Forces;
       (2) to support the establishment or improvement of 
     statewide P-16 education data systems that--
       (A) assist States in improving the rigor and quality of 
     State academic content standards and assessments;
       (B) ensure students are prepared to succeed in--

[[Page 22319]]

       (i) academic credit-bearing coursework in higher education 
     without the need for remediation;
       (ii) the 21st century workforce; or
       (iii) the Armed Forces; and
       (3) enable States to have valid and reliable information to 
     inform education policy and practice.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) P-16 education.--The term ``P-16 education'' means the 
     educational system from preschool through the conferring of a 
     baccalaureate degree.
       (2) Statewide partnership.--The term ``statewide 
     partnership'' means a partnership that--
       (A) shall include--
       (i) the Governor of the State or the designee of the 
     Governor;
       (ii) the heads of the State systems for public higher 
     education, or, if such a position does not exist, not less 
     than 1 representative of a public degree-granting institution 
     of higher education;
       (iii) a representative of the agencies in the State that 
     administer Federal or State-funded early childhood education 
     programs;
       (iv) not less than 1 representative of a public community 
     college;
       (v) not less than 1 representative of a technical school;
       (vi) not less than 1 representative of a public secondary 
     school;
       (vii) the chief State school officer;
       (viii) the chief executive officer of the State higher 
     education coordinating board;
       (ix) not less than 1 public elementary school teacher 
     employed in the State;
       (x) not less than 1 early childhood educator in the State;
       (xi) not less than 1 public secondary school teacher 
     employed in the State;
       (xii) not less than 1 representative of the business 
     community in the State; and
       (xiii) not less than 1 member of the Armed Forces; and
       (B) may include other individuals or representatives of 
     other organizations, such as a school administrator, a 
     faculty member at an institution of higher education, a 
     member of a civic or community organization, a representative 
     from a private institution of higher education, a dean or 
     similar representative of a school of education at an 
     institution of higher education or a similar teacher 
     certification or licensure program, or the State official 
     responsible for economic development.
       (c) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     award grants, on a competitive basis, to States to enable 
     each such State to work with a statewide partnership--
       (1) to promote better alignment of content knowledge 
     requirements for secondary school graduation with the 
     knowledge and skills needed to succeed in postsecondary 
     education, the 21st century workforce, or the Armed Forces; 
     or
       (2) to establish or improve a statewide P-16 education data 
     system.
       (d) Period of Grants; Non-Renewability.--
       (1) Grant period.--The Secretary shall award a grant under 
     this section for a period of not more than 3 years.
       (2) Non-renewability.--The Secretary shall not award a 
     State more than 1 grant under this section.
       (e) Authorized Activities.--
       (1) Grants for p-16 alignment.--Each State receiving a 
     grant under subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) shall use the grant funds for--
       (i) identifying and describing the content knowledge and 
     skills students who enter institutions of higher education, 
     the workforce, and the Armed Forces need to have in order to 
     succeed without any remediation based on detailed 
     requirements obtained from institutions of higher education, 
     employers, and the Armed Forces;
       (ii) identifying and making changes that need to be made to 
     a State's secondary school graduation requirements, academic 
     content standards, academic achievement standards, and 
     assessments preceding graduation from secondary school in 
     order to align the requirements, standards, and assessments 
     with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in 
     academic credit-bearing coursework in postsecondary 
     education, in the 21st century workforce, and in the Armed 
     Forces without the need for remediation;
       (iii) convening stakeholders within the State and creating 
     a forum for identifying and deliberating on education issues 
     that--

       (I) involve preschool through grade 12 education, 
     postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and the 
     Armed Forces; and
       (II) transcend any single system of education's ability to 
     address; and

       (iv) implementing activities designed to ensure the 
     enrollment of all elementary school and secondary school 
     students in rigorous coursework, which may include--

       (I) specifying the courses and performance levels necessary 
     for acceptance into institutions of higher education; and
       (II) developing or providing guidance to local educational 
     agencies within the State on the adoption of curricula and 
     assessments aligned with State academic content standards, 
     which assessments may be used as measures of student academic 
     achievement in secondary school as well as for entrance or 
     placement at institutions of higher education, including 
     through collaboration with institutions of higher education 
     in, or State educational agencies serving, other States; and

       (B) may use the grant funds for--
       (i) developing and making available specific opportunities 
     for extensive professional development for teachers, 
     paraprofessionals, principals, and school administrators, 
     including collection and dissemination of effective teaching 
     practices to improve instruction and instructional support 
     mechanisms;
       (ii) identifying changes in State academic content 
     standards, academic achievement standards, and assessments 
     for students in grades preceding secondary school in order to 
     ensure such standards and assessments are appropriately 
     aligned and adequately reflect the content needed to prepare 
     students to enter secondary school;
       (iii) developing a plan to provide remediation and 
     additional learning opportunities for students who are 
     performing below grade level to ensure that all students will 
     have the opportunity to meet secondary school graduation 
     requirements;
       (iv) identifying and addressing teacher certification 
     needs; or
       (v) incorporating 21st century learning skills into the 
     State plan, which skills shall include critical thinking, 
     problem solving, communication, collaboration, global 
     awareness, and business and financial literacy.
       (2) Grants for statewide p-16 education data systems.--
       (A) Establishment of system.--Each State that receives a 
     grant under subsection (c)(2) shall establish a statewide P-
     16 education longitudinal data system that--
       (i) provides each student, upon enrollment in a public 
     elementary school or secondary school in the State, with a 
     unique identifier, such as a bar code, that--

       (I) does not permit a student to be individually identified 
     by users of the system; and
       (II) is retained throughout the student's enrollment in P-
     16 education in the State; and

       (ii) meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) through 
     (E).
       (B) Improvement of existing system.--Each State that 
     receives a grant under subsection (c)(2) for the improvement 
     of a statewide P-16 education data system may employ, 
     coordinate, or revise an existing statewide data system to 
     establish a statewide longitudinal P-16 education data system 
     that meets the requirements of subparagraph (A), if the 
     statewide longitudinal P-16 education data system produces 
     valid and reliable data.
       (C) Privacy and access to data.--
       (i) In general.--Each State that receives a grant under 
     subsection (c)(2) shall implement measures to--

       (I) ensure that the statewide P-16 education data system 
     meets the requirements of section 444 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (commonly known as 
     the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974);
       (II) limit the use of information in the statewide P-16 
     education data system by institutions of higher education and 
     State or local educational agencies or institutions to the 
     activities set forth in paragraph (1) or State law regarding 
     education, consistent with the purposes of this subtitle;
       (III) prohibit the disclosure of personally identifiable 
     information except as permitted under section 444 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act and any additional 
     limitations set forth in State law;
       (IV) keep an accurate accounting of the date, nature, and 
     purpose of each disclosure of personally identifiable 
     information in the statewide P-16 education data system, a 
     description of the information disclosed, and the name and 
     address of the person, agency, institution, or entity to whom 
     the disclosure is made, which accounting shall be made 
     available on request to parents of any student whose 
     information has been disclosed;
       (V) notwithstanding section 444 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act, require any non-governmental party obtaining 
     personally identifiable information to sign a data use 
     agreement prior to disclosure that--

       (aa) prohibits the party from further disclosing the 
     information;
       (bb) prohibits the party from using the information for any 
     purpose other than the purpose specified in the agreement; 
     and
       (cc) requires the party to destroy the information when the 
     purpose for which the disclosure was made is accomplished;

       (VI) maintain adequate security measures to ensure the 
     confidentiality and integrity of the statewide P-16 education 
     data system, such as protecting a student record from 
     identification by a unique identifier;
       (VII) where rights are provided to parents under this 
     clause, provide those rights to the student instead of the 
     parent if the student has reached the age of 18 or is 
     enrolled in a postsecondary educational institution; and
       (VIII) ensure adequate enforcement of the requirements of 
     this clause.

       (ii) Use of unique identifiers.--

       (I) Governmental use of unique identifiers.--It shall be 
     unlawful for any Federal, State, or local governmental agency 
     to use the unique identifiers employed in the statewide P-16 
     education data systems for any purpose other than as 
     authorized by Federal or State law regarding education, or to 
     deny any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided 
     by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose the 
     individual's unique identifier.
       (II) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations governing the use by governmental and non-
     governmental entities of the unique identifiers employed in 
     statewide P-16 education data systems, including, where 
     necessary, regulations requiring

[[Page 22320]]

     States desiring grants for statewide P-16 education data 
     systems under this section to implement specified measures, 
     with the goal of safeguarding individual privacy to the 
     maximum extent practicable consistent with the uses of the 
     information authorized in this Act or other Federal or State 
     law regarding education.

       (D) Required elements of a statewide p-16 education data 
     system.--The State shall ensure that the statewide P-16 
     education data system includes the following elements:
       (i) Preschool through grade 12 education and postsecondary 
     education.--With respect to preschool through grade 12 
     education and postsecondary education--

       (I) a unique statewide student identifier that does not 
     permit a student to be individually identified by users of 
     the system;
       (II) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program 
     participation information;
       (III) student-level information about the points at which 
     students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or 
     complete P-16 education programs;
       (IV) the capacity to communicate with higher education data 
     systems; and
       (V) a State data audit system assessing data quality, 
     validity, and reliability.

       (ii) Preschool through grade 12 education.--With respect to 
     preschool through grade 12 education--

       (I) yearly test records of individual students with respect 
     to assessments under section 1111(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b));
       (II) information on students not tested by grade and 
     subject;
       (III) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match 
     teachers to students;
       (IV) student-level transcript information, including 
     information on courses completed and grades earned; and
       (V) student-level college readiness test scores.

       (iii) Postsecondary education.--With respect to 
     postsecondary education, data that provide--

       (I) information regarding the extent to which students 
     transition successfully from secondary school to 
     postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in 
     remedial coursework; and
       (II) other information determined necessary to address 
     alignment and adequate preparation for success in 
     postsecondary education.

       (E) Functions of the statewide p-16 education data 
     system.--In implementing the statewide P-16 education data 
     system, the State shall--
       (i) identify factors that correlate to students' ability to 
     successfully engage in and complete postsecondary-level 
     general education coursework without the need for prior 
     developmental coursework;
       (ii) identify factors to increase the percentage of low-
     income and minority students who are academically prepared to 
     enter and successfully complete postsecondary-level general 
     education coursework; and
       (iii) use the data in the system to otherwise inform 
     education policy and practice in order to better align State 
     academic content standards, and curricula, with the demands 
     of postsecondary education, the 21st century workforce, and 
     the Armed Forces.
       (f) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Each State desiring a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       (2) Application contents.--Each application submitted under 
     this section shall specify whether the State application is 
     for the conduct of P-16 education alignment activities, or 
     the establishment or improvement of a statewide P-16 
     education data system. The application shall include, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (A) A description of the activities and programs to be 
     carried out with the grant funds and a comprehensive plan for 
     carrying out the activities.
       (B) A description of how the concerns and interests of the 
     larger education community, including parents, students, 
     teachers, teacher educators, principals, and preschool 
     administrators will be represented in carrying out the 
     authorized activities described in subsection (e).
       (C) In the case of a State applying for funding for P-16 
     education alignment, a description of how the State will 
     provide assistance to local educational agencies in 
     implementing rigorous State academic content standards, 
     substantive curricula, remediation, and acceleration 
     opportunities for students, as well as other changes 
     determined necessary by the State.
       (D) In the case of a State applying for funding to 
     establish or improve a statewide P-16 education data system--
       (i) a description of the privacy protection and enforcement 
     measures that the State has implemented or will implement 
     pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(C), and assurances that these 
     measures will be in place prior to the establishment or 
     improvement of the statewide P-16 education data system; and
       (ii) an assurance that the State will continue to fund the 
     statewide P-16 education data system after the end of the 
     grant period.
       (g) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this section shall be used to supplement, not supplant, other 
     Federal, State, and local funds available to carry out the 
     authorized activities described in subsection (e).
       (h) Matching Requirement.--Each State that receives a grant 
     under this section shall provide, from non-Federal sources, 
     an amount equal to 100 percent of the amount of the grant, in 
     cash or in kind, to carry out the activities supported by the 
     grant.
       (i) Rule of Construction.--
       (1) No raw data requirement.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to require States to provide raw data to the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Private or home schools.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to affect any private school that does not 
     receive funds or services under this Act or any home school, 
     whether or not the home school is treated as a home school or 
     a private school under State law, including imposing new 
     requirements for students educated through a home school 
     seeking admission to institutions of higher education.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $120,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     year 2009.
      Subtitle E--Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants

     SEC. 6501. MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP BONUS GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under section 
     6502, the Secretary shall award a grant--
       (1) for each of the school years 2007-2008 through 2010-
     2011, to each of the 3 elementary schools, and each of the 3 
     secondary schools, each of which has a high concentration of 
     low income students as defined in section 1707(2) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6537(2)), in each State whose students demonstrate the most 
     improvement in mathematics, as measured by the improvement in 
     the students' average score on the State's assessments in 
     mathematics for the school year for which the grant is 
     awarded, as compared to the school year preceding the school 
     year for which the grant is awarded; and
       (2) for each of the school years 2008-2009 through 2010-
     2011, to each of the 3 elementary schools, and each of the 3 
     secondary schools, each of which has a high concentration of 
     low income students as defined in section 1707(2) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6537(2)), in each State whose students demonstrate the most 
     improvement in science, as measured by the improvement in the 
     students' average score on the State's assessments in science 
     for the school year for which the grant is awarded, as 
     compared to the school year preceding the school year for 
     which the grant is awarded.
       (b) Grant Amount.--The amount of each grant awarded under 
     this section shall be $50,000.

     SEC. 6502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subtitle such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2008 
     and each of the 2 succeeding fiscal years.
                 TITLE VII--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

     SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Basic research.--The term ``basic research'' has the 
     meaning given such term in the Office of Management and 
     Budget circular No. A-11.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the National Science 
     Board established under section 2 of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
       (3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Foundation.
       (4) Elementary school.--The term ``elementary school'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
       (5) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
     Science Foundation.
       (6) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (7) Secondary school.--The term ``secondary school'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).

     SEC. 7002. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Fiscal Year 2008.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $6,600,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,156,000,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which--
       (i) $115,000,000 shall be made available for the Major 
     Research Instrumentation program;
       (ii) $165,400,000 shall be made available for the Faculty 
     Early Career Development (CAREER) Program;
       (iii) $61,600,000 shall be made available for the Research 
     Experiences for Undergraduates program;
       (iv) $120,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research;
       (v) $47,300,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program;
       (vi) $9,000,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program; and
       (vii) $10,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     professional science master's degree program under section 
     7034;
       (B) $896,000,000 shall be made available for education and 
     human resources, of which--
       (i) $100,000,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established

[[Page 22321]]

     under section 9 of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $89,800,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $40,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
       (iv) $52,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (v) $27,100,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program; and
       (vi) $96,600,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program;
       (C) $245,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $285,600,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,050,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $12,350,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (b) Fiscal Year 2009.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $7,326,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $5,742,300,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which--
       (i) $123,100,000 shall be made available for the Major 
     Research Instrumentation program;
       (ii) $183,600,000 shall be made available for the Faculty 
     Early Career Development (CAREER) Program;
       (iii) $68,400,000 shall be made available for the Research 
     Experiences for Undergraduates program;
       (iv) $133,200,000 shall be made available for the 
     Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research;
       (v) $52,500,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program;
       (vi) $10,000,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program; and
       (vii) $12,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     professional science master's degree program under section 
     7034;
       (B) $995,000,000 shall be made available for education and 
     human resources, of which--
       (i) $111,000,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $115,000,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $50,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
       (iv) $57,700,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program as established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (v) $30,100,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program; and
       (vi) $107,200,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program;
       (C) $262,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $309,760,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,190,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $12,750,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.
       (c) Fiscal Year 2010.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Foundation $8,132,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Specific allocations.--Of the amount authorized under 
     paragraph (1)--
       (A) $6,401,000,000 shall be made available for research and 
     related activities, of which--
       (i) $131,700,000 shall be made available for the Major 
     Research Instrumentation program;
       (ii) $203,800,000 shall be made available for the Faculty 
     Early Career Development (CAREER) Program;
       (iii) $75,900,000 shall be made available for the Research 
     Experiences for Undergraduates program;
       (iv) $147,800,000 shall be made available for the 
     Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research;
       (v) $58,300,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program;
       (vi) $11,100,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program; and
       (vii) $15,000,000 shall be made available for the 
     professional science master's degree program under section 
     7034;
       (B) $1,104,000,000 shall be made available for education 
     and human resources, of which--
       (i) $123,200,000 shall be for Mathematics and Science 
     Education Partnerships established under section 9 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n);
       (ii) $140,500,000 shall be for the Robert Noyce Scholarship 
     Program established under section 10 of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1);
       (iii) $55,000,000 shall be for the Science, Mathematics, 
     Engineering, and Technology Talent Expansion Program 
     established under section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-368);
       (iv) $64,000,000 shall be for the Advanced Technological 
     Education program as established by section 3(a) of the 
     Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (Public Law 
     102-476);
       (v) $33,400,000 shall be made available for the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program; and
       (vi) $119,000,000 shall be made available for the Graduate 
     Research Fellowship program;
       (C) $280,000,000 shall be made available for major research 
     equipment and facilities construction;
       (D) $329,450,000 shall be made available for agency 
     operations and award management;
       (E) $4,340,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     the National Science Board; and
       (F) $13,210,000 shall be made available for the Office of 
     Inspector General.

     SEC. 7003. REAFFIRMATION OF THE MERIT-REVIEW PROCESS OF THE 
                   NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       Nothing in this title or title I, or the amendments made by 
     this title or title I, shall be interpreted to require or 
     recommend that the Foundation--
       (1) alter or modify its merit-review system or peer-review 
     process; or
       (2) exclude the awarding of any proposal by means of the 
     merit-review or peer-review process.

     SEC. 7004. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE MATHEMATICS 
                   AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS OF THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE NATIONAL 
                   SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) although the mathematics and science education 
     partnership program at the Foundation and the mathematics and 
     science partnership program at the Department of Education 
     practically share the same name, the 2 programs are intended 
     to be complementary, not duplicative;
       (2) the Foundation partnership programs are innovative, 
     model reform initiatives that move promising ideas in 
     education from research into practice to improve teacher 
     quality, develop challenging curricula, and increase student 
     achievement in mathematics and science, and Congress intends 
     that the Foundation peer-reviewed partnership programs found 
     to be effective should be put into wider practice by 
     dissemination through the Department of Education partnership 
     programs; and
       (3) the Director and the Secretary of Education should have 
     ongoing collaboration to ensure that the 2 components of this 
     priority effort for mathematics and science education 
     continue to work in concert for the benefit of States and 
     local practitioners nationwide.

     SEC. 7005. CURRICULA.

       Nothing in this title, or the amendments made by this 
     title, shall be construed to limit the authority of State 
     governments or local school boards to determine the curricula 
     of their students.

     SEC. 7006. CENTERS FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND EDUCATION 
                   IMPROVEMENT.

       (a) Funding for Centers.--The Director shall continue to 
     carry out the program of Centers for Research on Learning and 
     Education Improvement as established in section 11 of the 
     National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n-2).
       (b) Eligibility for Centers.--Section 11 of the National 
     Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
     1862n-2) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``or eligible 
     nonprofit organizations'' after ``institutions of higher 
     education'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``or an eligible 
     nonprofit organization'' after ``institution of higher 
     education''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``of such 
     institutions'' and inserting ``thereof''.

     SEC. 7007. INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the role of the 
     Foundation in supporting interdisciplinary research, 
     including through the Major Research Instrumentation program, 
     the effectiveness of the Foundation's efforts in providing 
     information to the scientific community about opportunities 
     for funding of interdisciplinary research proposals, and the 
     process through which interdisciplinary proposals are 
     selected for support. The Board shall also evaluate the 
     effectiveness of the Foundation's efforts to engage 
     undergraduate students in research experiences in 
     interdisciplinary settings, including through the Research in 
     Undergraduate Institutions program and the Research 
     Experiences for Undergraduates program.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall provide the results of 
     its evaluation under subsection (a), including a 
     recommendation for the proportion of the Foundation's 
     research and related activities funding that should be 
     allocated for interdisciplinary research, to the Committee on 
     Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
     the Senate.

     SEC. 7008. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS.

       (a) Mentoring.--The Director shall require that all grant 
     applications that include funding to support postdoctoral 
     researchers include a description of the mentoring activities 
     that will be provided for such individuals, and shall ensure 
     that this part of the application is evaluated under the 
     Foundation's broader impacts merit

[[Page 22322]]

     review criterion. Mentoring activities may include career 
     counseling, training in preparing grant applications, 
     guidance on ways to improve teaching skills, and training in 
     research ethics.
       (b) Reports.--The Director shall require that annual 
     reports and the final report for research grants that include 
     funding to support postdoctoral researchers include a 
     description of the mentoring activities provided to such 
     researchers.

     SEC. 7009. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH.

       The Director shall require that each institution that 
     applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for 
     science and engineering research or education describe in its 
     grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and 
     oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research 
     to undergraduate students, graduate students, and 
     postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed 
     research project.

     SEC. 7010. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS.

       The Director shall ensure that all final project reports 
     and citations of published research documents resulting from 
     research funded, in whole or in part, by the Foundation, are 
     made available to the public in a timely manner and in 
     electronic form through the Foundation's Web site.

     SEC. 7011. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS.

       An investigator supported under a Foundation award, whom 
     the Director determines has failed to comply with the 
     provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy 
     Manual, shall be ineligible for a future award under any 
     Foundation supported program or activity. The Director may 
     restore the eligibility of such an investigator on the basis 
     of the investigator's subsequent compliance with the 
     provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Policy 
     Manual and with such other terms and conditions as the 
     Director may impose.

     SEC. 7012. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, 
                   ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Evaluation of Programs.--The Director shall, on an 
     annual basis, evaluate all of the Foundation's grants that 
     are scheduled to expire within 1 year and--
       (1) that have the primary purpose of meeting the objectives 
     of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunity Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885 et seq.); or
       (2) that have the primary purpose of providing teacher 
     professional development.
       (b) Continuation of Funding.--For grants that are 
     identified under subsection (a) and that are determined by 
     the Director to be successful in meeting the objectives of 
     the initial grant solicitation, the Director may extend the 
     duration of those grants for not more than 3 additional years 
     beyond their scheduled expiration without the requirement for 
     a recompetition.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Director shall submit a report to the Committee on Science 
     and Technology of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate that--
       (1) lists the grants that have been extended in duration by 
     the authority provided under this section; and
       (2) provides any recommendations the Director may have 
     regarding the extension of the authority provided under this 
     section to programs other than those specified in subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 7013. COST SHARING.

       (a) In General.--The Board shall evaluate the impact of its 
     policy to eliminate cost sharing for research grants and 
     cooperative agreements for existing programs that were 
     developed around industry partnerships and historically 
     required industry cost sharing, such as the Engineering 
     Research Centers and Industry/University Cooperative Research 
     Centers. The Board shall also consider the impact that the 
     cost sharing policy has on initiating new programs for which 
     industry interest and participation are sought.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall report to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, on the results of 
     the evaluation under subsection (a).

     SEC. 7014. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.

       (a) Report on Funding for Major Facilities.--
       (1) Preconstruction funding.--The Board shall evaluate the 
     appropriateness of the requirement that funding for detailed 
     design work and other preconstruction activities for major 
     research equipment and facilities come exclusively from the 
     sponsoring research division rather than being available, at 
     least in part, from the Major Research Equipment and 
     Facilities Construction account.
       (2) Maintenance and operation costs.--The Board shall 
     evaluate the appropriateness of the Foundation's policies for 
     allocation of costs for, and oversight of, maintenance and 
     operation of major research equipment and facilities.
       (3) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Board shall report on the results 
     of the evaluations under paragraphs (1) and (2) and on any 
     recommendations for modifying the current policies related to 
     allocation of funding for major research equipment and 
     facilities to the Committee on Science and Technology and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
     and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Inclusion of Polar Facilities Upgrades in Major 
     Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Plan.--Section 
     201(a)(2)(D) of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862l(a)(2)(D)) is amended by 
     inserting ``and for major upgrades of facilities in support 
     of Antarctic research programs'' after ``facilities 
     construction account''.
       (c) Report on Education Programs Within the Research 
     Directorates.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate a report cataloging all elementary 
     school and secondary school, informal, and undergraduate 
     educational programs and activities supported through 
     appropriations for Research and Related Activities. The 
     report shall display the programs and activities by 
     directorate, along with estimated funding levels for the 
     fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and shall provide a 
     description of the goals of each program and activity. The 
     report shall also describe how the programs and activities 
     relate to or are coordinated with the programs supported by 
     the Education and Human Resources Directorate.
       (d) Report on Research in Undergraduate Institutions 
     Program.--The Director shall transmit to Congress, as part of 
     the President's fiscal year 2011 budget submission under 
     section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a report 
     listing the funding success rates and distribution of awards 
     for the Research in Undergraduate Institutions program, by 
     type of institution based on the highest academic degree 
     conferred by the institution, for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 
     and 2010.
       (e) Annual Plan for Allocation of Education and Human 
     Resources Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of legislation providing for the annual 
     appropriation of funds for the Foundation, the Director shall 
     submit to the Committee on Science and Technology and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 
     and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate, a plan for the allocation of education and human 
     resources funds authorized by this title for the 
     corresponding fiscal year, including any funds from within 
     the research and related activities account used to support 
     activities that have the primary purpose of improving 
     education or broadening participation.
       (2) Specific requirements.--The plan shall include a 
     description of how the allocation of funding--
       (A) will affect the average size and duration of education 
     and human resources grants supported by the Foundation;
       (B) will affect trends in research support for the 
     effective instruction of science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics;
       (C) will affect the kindergarten through grade 20 pipeline 
     for the study of science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics; and
       (D) will encourage the interest of individuals identified 
     in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics, and help prepare 
     such individuals to pursue postsecondary studies in these 
     fields.

     SEC. 7015. ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Triannual Audit of the Office of the National Science 
     Board.--Section 15(a) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``an annual audit'' and 
     inserting ``an audit every three years'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``each year'' and 
     inserting ``every third year''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) Materials relating to closed portions of meetings.--
     To facilitate the audit required under paragraph (3) of this 
     subsection, the Office of the National Science Board shall 
     maintain the General Counsel's certificate, the presiding 
     officer's statement, and a transcript or recording of any 
     closed meeting, for at least 3 years after such meeting.''.
       (b) Limited Term Personnel for the National Science 
     Board.--Subsection (g) of section 4 of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(g)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(g) The Board may, with the concurrence of a majority of 
     its members, permit the appointment of a staff consisting of 
     not more than 5 professional staff members, technical and 
     professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, 
     industrial, or research institutions for a limited term, and 
     such operations and support staff members as may be 
     necessary. Such staff shall be appointed by the Chairman and 
     assigned at the direction of the Board. The professional 
     members and limited term technical and professional personnel 
     of such staff may be appointed without regard to the 
     provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing 
     appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions 
     of chapter 51 of such title relating to classification,

[[Page 22323]]

     and shall be compensated at a rate not exceeding the maximum 
     rate payable under section 5376 of such title, as may be 
     necessary to provide for the performance of such duties as 
     may be prescribed by the Board in connection with the 
     exercise of its powers and functions under this Act. Section 
     14(a)(3) shall apply to each limited term appointment of 
     technical and professional personnel under this subsection. 
     Each appointment under this subsection shall be subject to 
     the same security requirements as those required for 
     personnel of the Foundation appointed under section 14(a).''.
       (c) Increase in Number of Waterman Awards to Three.--
     Section 6(c) of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act, 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1881a) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Not more than three awards may be made under this 
     section in any one fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 7016. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORTS.

       Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 4(j) of the National 
     Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1863(j)(1) and (2)) 
     are amended by striking ``, for submission to'' and ``for 
     submission to'', respectively, and inserting ``and''.

     SEC. 7017. PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT OF 1986 
                   AMENDMENT.

       Section 3801(a)(1) of title 31, United States Code 
     (commonly known as the ``Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 
     1986'') is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) the National Science Foundation.''.

     SEC. 7018. MEETING CRITICAL NATIONAL SCIENCE NEEDS.

       (a) In General.--In addition to any other criteria, the 
     Director shall include consideration of the degree to which 
     awards and research activities that otherwise qualify for 
     support by the Foundation may assist in meeting critical 
     national needs in innovation, competitiveness, safety and 
     security, the physical and natural sciences, technology, 
     engineering, social sciences, and mathematics.
       (b) Priority Treatment.--The Director shall give priority 
     in the selection of awards and the allocation of Foundation 
     resources to proposed research activities, and grants funded 
     under the Foundation's Research and Related Activities 
     Account, that can be expected to make contributions in 
     physical or natural science, technology, engineering, social 
     sciences, or mathematics, or that enhance competitiveness, 
     innovation, or safety and security in the United States.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to restrict or bias the grant selection process against 
     funding other areas of research deemed by the Foundation to 
     be consistent with its mandate nor to change the core mission 
     of the Foundation.

     SEC. 7019. RESEARCH ON INNOVATION AND INVENTIVENESS.

       In carrying out its research programs on science policy and 
     on the science of learning, the Foundation may support 
     research on the process of innovation and the teaching of 
     inventiveness.

     SEC. 7020. CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE.

       In order to continue and expand efforts to ensure that 
     research institutions throughout the Nation can fully 
     participate in research programs of the Foundation and 
     collaborate with colleagues throughout the Nation, the 
     Director, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, shall develop and publish a plan that--
       (1) describes the current status of broadband access for 
     scientific research purposes at institutions in EPSCoR-
     eligible States, at institutions in rural areas, and at 
     minority serving institutions; and
       (2) outlines actions that can be taken to ensure that such 
     connections are available to enable participation in those 
     Foundation programs that rely heavily on high-speed 
     networking and collaborations across institutions and 
     regions.

     SEC. 7021. PILOT PROGRAM OF GRANTS FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall carry out a pilot 
     program to award 1-year grants to individuals to assist them 
     in improving research proposals that were previously 
     submitted to the Foundation but not selected for funding.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an individual--
       (1) may not have previously received funding as the 
     principal investigator of a research grant from the 
     Foundation; and
       (2) shall have submitted a proposal to the Foundation, 
     which may include a proposal submitted to the Research in 
     Undergraduate Institutions program, that was rated excellent 
     under the Foundation's competitive merit review process.
       (c) Selection Process.--The Director shall make awards 
     under this section based on the advice of the program 
     officers of the Foundation.
       (d) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded under this section shall 
     be used to enable an individual to resubmit an updated 
     research proposal for review by the Foundation through the 
     agency's competitive merit review process. Uses of funds made 
     available under this section may include the generation of 
     new data and the performance of additional analysis.
       (e) Program Administration.--The Director shall carry out 
     this section through the Small Grants for Exploratory 
     Research program.
       (f) National Science Board Review.--The Board shall conduct 
     a review and assessment of the pilot program under this 
     section, including the number of new investigators funded, 
     the distribution of awards by type of institution of higher 
     education, and the success rate upon resubmittal of proposals 
     by new investigators funded through such pilot program. Not 
     later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Board shall summarize its findings and any 
     recommendations regarding changes to, the termination of, or 
     the continuation of the pilot program in a report to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions of the Senate.

     SEC. 7022. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION.

       (a) In General.--Among the types of activities that the 
     Foundation shall consider as appropriate for meeting the 
     requirements of its broader impacts criterion for the 
     evaluation of research proposals are partnerships between 
     academic researchers and industrial scientists and engineers 
     that address research areas identified as having high 
     importance for future national economic competitiveness, such 
     as nanotechnology.
       (b) Report on Broader Impacts Criterion.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director 
     shall transmit to Congress a report on the impact of the 
     broader impacts grant criterion used by the Foundation. The 
     report shall--
       (1) identify the criteria that each division and 
     directorate of the Foundation uses to evaluate the broader 
     impacts aspects of research proposals;
       (2) provide a breakdown of the types of activities by 
     division that awardees have proposed to carry out to meet the 
     broader impacts criterion;
       (3) provide any evaluations performed by the Foundation to 
     assess the degree to which the broader impacts aspects of 
     research proposals were carried out and how effective they 
     have been at meeting the goals described in the research 
     proposals;
       (4) describe what national goals, such as improving 
     undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education, improving kindergarten through grade 
     12 science and mathematics education, promoting university-
     industry collaboration, and broadening participation of 
     underrepresented groups, the broader impacts criterion is 
     best suited to promote; and
       (5) describe what steps the Foundation is taking and should 
     take to use the broader impacts criterion to improve 
     undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education.

     SEC. 7023. DONATIONS.

       Section 11(f) of the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon ``, except that funds may be donated for specific 
     prize competitions for `basic research' as defined in the 
     Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11''.

     SEC. 7024. HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND NETWORKING.

       (a) High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.--
       (1) Amendments.--Title I of the High-Performance Computing 
     Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5511 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in the title heading, by striking ``AND THE NATIONAL 
     RESEARCH AND EDUCATION NETWORK'' and inserting ``RESEARCH AND 
     DEVELOPMENT'';
       (B) in section 101(a) (15 U.S.C. 5511(a))--
       (i) by striking subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(A) provide for long-term basic and applied research on 
     high-performance computing, including networking;
       ``(B) provide for research and development on, and 
     demonstration of, technologies to advance the capacity and 
     capabilities of high-performance computing and networking 
     systems, and related software;
       ``(C) provide for sustained access by the research 
     community throughout the United States to high-performance 
     computing and networking systems that are among the most 
     advanced in the world in terms of performance in solving 
     scientific and engineering problems, including provision for 
     technical support for users of such systems;
       ``(D) provide for widely dispersed efforts to increase 
     software availability, productivity, capability, security, 
     portability, and reliability;
       ``(E) provide for high-performance networks, including 
     experimental testbed networks, to enable research and 
     development on, and demonstration of, advanced applications 
     enabled by such networks;
       ``(F) provide for computational science and engineering 
     research on mathematical modeling and algorithms for 
     applications in all fields of science and engineering;
       ``(G) provide for the technical support of, and research 
     and development on, high-performance computing systems and 
     software required to address Grand Challenges;
       ``(H) provide for educating and training additional 
     undergraduate and graduate students in software engineering, 
     computer science, computer and network security, applied 
     mathematics, library and information science, and 
     computational science; and
       ``(I) provide for improving the security of computing and 
     networking systems, including Federal systems, including 
     providing for research required to establish security 
     standards and practices for these systems.'';
       (ii) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively;
       (iii) in paragraph (2), as redesignated by clause (ii)--

[[Page 22324]]

       (I) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (D) and (F), respectively;
       (III) by inserting before subparagraph (D), as redesignated 
     by subclause (II), the following:

       ``(A) establish the goals and priorities for Federal high-
     performance computing research, development, networking, and 
     other activities;
       ``(B) establish Program Component Areas that implement the 
     goals established under subparagraph (A), and identify the 
     Grand Challenges that the Program should address;
       ``(C) provide for interagency coordination of Federal high-
     performance computing research, development, networking, and 
     other activities undertaken pursuant to the Program;''; and

       (IV) by inserting after subparagraph (D), as redesignated 
     by subclause (II) of this clause, the following:

       ``(E) develop and maintain a research, development, and 
     deployment roadmap covering all States and regions for the 
     provision of high-performance computing and networking 
     systems under paragraph (1)(C); and''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated by clause (ii) of 
     this subparagraph--

       (I) by striking ``paragraph (3)(A)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (2)(D)'';
       (II) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:

       ``(A) provide a detailed description of the Program 
     Component Areas, including a description of any changes in 
     the definition of or activities under the Program Component 
     Areas from the preceding report, and the reasons for such 
     changes, and a description of Grand Challenges addressed 
     under the Program;'';

       (III) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``specific 
     activities'' and all that follows through ``the Network'' and 
     inserting ``each Program Component Area'';
       (IV) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``, and for each 
     Program Component Area,'' after ``participating in the 
     Program'';
       (V) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``applies;'' and 
     inserting ``applies; and'';
       (VI) by striking subparagraph (E) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E); and
       (VII) in subparagraph (E), as redesignated by subclause 
     (VI), by inserting ``and the extent to which the Program 
     incorporates the recommendations of the advisory committee 
     established under subsection (b)'' after ``for the Program'';

       (C) by striking subsection (b) of section 101 (15 U.S.C. 
     5511) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Advisory Committee.--(1) The President shall 
     establish an advisory committee on high-performance 
     computing, consisting of geographically dispersed non-Federal 
     members, including representatives of the research, 
     education, and library communities, network and related 
     software providers, and industry representatives in the 
     Program Component Areas, who are specially qualified to 
     provide the Director with advice and information on high-
     performance computing. The recommendations of the advisory 
     committee shall be considered in reviewing and revising the 
     Program. The advisory committee shall provide the Director 
     with an independent assessment of--
       ``(A) progress made in implementing the Program;
       ``(B) the need to revise the Program;
       ``(C) the balance between the components of the Program, 
     including funding levels for the Program Component Areas;
       ``(D) whether the research and development undertaken 
     pursuant to the Program is helping to maintain United States 
     leadership in high-performance computing, networking 
     technology, and related software; and
       ``(E) other issues identified by the Director.
       ``(2) In addition to the duties outlined in paragraph (1), 
     the advisory committee shall conduct periodic evaluations of 
     the funding, management, coordination, implementation, and 
     activities of the Program. The advisory committee shall 
     report not less frequently than once every 2 fiscal years to 
     the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate on its findings and 
     recommendations. The first report shall be due within 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act.
       ``(3) Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
     shall not apply to the advisory committee established under 
     this subsection.''; and
       (D) in section 101(c) (15 U.S.C. 5511(c))--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``Program or'' and 
     inserting ``Program Component Areas or''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (a)(3)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (a)(2)(D)''.
       (2) Definitions.--Section 4 of the High-Performance 
     Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and multidisciplinary 
     teams of researchers'' after ``high-performance computing 
     resources'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``scientific workstations,'';
       (ii) by striking ``(including vector supercomputers and 
     large scale parallel systems)'';
       (iii) by striking ``and applications'' and inserting 
     ``applications''; and
       (iv) by inserting ``, and the management of large data 
     sets'' after ``systems software'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking ``packet switched'';
       (D) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (E) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (F) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) `Program Component Areas' means the major subject 
     areas under which related individual projects and activities 
     carried out under the Program are grouped.''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 1(26) of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to prevent the elimination of certain 
     reports'', approved November 28, 2001 (31 U.S.C. 3113 note) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``101(a)(3)'' and inserting ``101(a)(2)''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``(15 U.S.C. 5511(a)(3))'' and inserting 
     ``(15 U.S.C. 5511(a)(2))''.
       (b) Advanced Information and Communications Technology 
     Research.--
       (1) In general.--As part of the Program described in title 
     I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 
     5511 et seq.), the Foundation shall support basic research 
     related to advanced information and communications 
     technologies that will contribute to enhancing or 
     facilitating the availability and affordability of advanced 
     communications services for all people of the United States. 
     Areas of research to be supported may include research on--
       (A) affordable broadband access, including wireless 
     technologies;
       (B) network security and reliability;
       (C) communications interoperability;
       (D) networking protocols and architectures, including 
     resilience to outages or attacks;
       (E) trusted software;
       (F) privacy;
       (G) nanoelectronics for communications applications;
       (H) low-power communications electronics;
       (I) implementation of equitable access to national advanced 
     fiber optic research and educational networks in 
     noncontiguous States; and
       (J) such other related areas as the Director finds 
     appropriate.
       (2) Centers.--The Director shall award multiyear grants, 
     subject to the availability of appropriations and on a merit-
     reviewed competitive basis, to institutions of higher 
     education, nonprofit research institutions affiliated with 
     institutions of higher education, or consortia of either type 
     of institution to establish multidisciplinary Centers for 
     Communications Research. The purpose of the Centers shall be 
     to generate innovative approaches to problems in information 
     and communications technology research, including the 
     research areas described in paragraph (1). Institutions of 
     higher education, nonprofit research institutions affiliated 
     with institutions of higher education, or consortia receiving 
     such grants may partner with 1 or more government 
     laboratories, for-profit entities, or other institutions of 
     higher education or nonprofit research institutions.
       (3) Funding allocation.--The Director shall increase 
     funding for the basic research activities described in 
     paragraph (1), which shall include support for the Centers 
     described in paragraph (2), in proportion to the increase in 
     the total amount appropriated to the Foundation for research 
     and related activities for the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2010.
       (4) Report to congress.--The Director shall transmit to 
     Congress, as part of the President's annual budget submission 
     under section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, a report 
     on the amounts allocated for support of research under this 
     subsection for the fiscal year during which such report is 
     submitted and the levels proposed for the fiscal year with 
     respect to which the budget submission applies.

     SEC. 7025. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS 
                   TALENT EXPANSION PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 8(7) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``competitive, merit-
     based'' and all that follows through ``in recent years.'' and 
     inserting ``competitive, merit-based multiyear grants for 
     eligible applicants to improve undergraduate education in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics through--
       ``(i) the creation of programs to increase the number of 
     students studying toward and completing associate's or 
     bachelor's degrees in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics, particularly in fields that have faced declining 
     enrollment in recent years; and
       ``(ii) the creation of not more than 5 centers (in this 
     paragraph referred to as `Centers') to increase the number of 
     students completing undergraduate courses in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics, including the 
     number of nonmajors, and to improve student academic 
     achievement in those courses, by developing--
       ``(I) undergraduate educational material, including 
     curricula and courses of study;
       ``(II) teaching methods for undergraduate courses; and
       ``(III) methods to improve the professional development of 
     professors and teaching assistants who teach undergraduate 
     courses.
     Grants made under clause (ii) shall be awarded jointly 
     through the Education and Human Resources Directorate and at 
     least 1 research directorate of the Foundation.'';
       (2) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) In selecting projects under subparagraph (A)(i), the 
     Director shall strive to increase the number of students 
     studying toward and completing associate's or bachelor's 
     degrees, concentrations, or certificates in science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics by giving priority to 
     programs that heavily recruit individuals who are--
       ``(i) individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the 
     Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1885a or 1885b); or

[[Page 22325]]

       ``(ii) graduates of a public secondary school that--
       ``(I) is among the highest 25 percent of schools served by 
     the local educational agency that serves the school, in terms 
     of the percentage of students from families with incomes 
     below the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of the 
     Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), 
     applicable to a family of the size involved; or
       ``(II) is designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, 
     or 43, as determined by the Secretary of Education.'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C)(i) The types of projects the Foundation may support 
     under subparagraph (A)(i) include those programs that--
       ``(I) promote high quality--
       ``(aa) interdisciplinary teaching;
       ``(bb) undergraduate-conducted research;
       ``(cc) mentor relationships for students, especially 
     underrepresented minority and female science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics students;
       ``(dd) bridge programs that enable students at community 
     colleges to matriculate directly into baccalaureate science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics programs;
       ``(ee) internships carried out in partnership with 
     industry;
       ``(ff) innovative uses of digital technologies, 
     particularly at institutions of higher education that serve 
     high numbers or percentages of economically disadvantaged 
     students; and
       ``(gg) bridge programs that enable underrepresented 
     minority and female secondary school students to obtain extra 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics instruction 
     prior to entering an institution of higher education;
       ``(II) finance summer internships for science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics undergraduate students; and
       ``(III) conduct outreach programs that provide secondary 
     school students and their science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics teachers opportunities to increase the 
     students' and teachers' exposure to engineering and 
     technology.
       ``(ii) The types of activities the Foundation may support 
     under subparagraph (A)(ii) include--
       ``(I) creating model curricula and laboratory programs;
       ``(II) developing and demonstrating research-based 
     instructional methods and technologies;
       ``(III) developing methods to train graduate students and 
     faculty to be more effective teachers of undergraduates;
       ``(IV) conducting programs to disseminate curricula, 
     instructional methods, or training methods to faculty at the 
     grantee institutions and at other institutions;
       ``(V) conducting assessments of the effectiveness of the 
     Center at accomplishing the goals described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii); and
       ``(VI) conducting any other activities the Director 
     determines will accomplish the goals described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii).'';
       (4) in subparagraph (D)(i), by striking ``under this 
     paragraph'' and inserting ``under subparagraph (A)(i)'';
       (5) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``under this 
     paragraph'' and inserting ``under subparagraph (A)(i)'';
       (6) after subparagraph (D)(iii), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iv) A grant under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be awarded 
     for up to 5 years.'';
       (7) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``under this 
     paragraph'' both places it appears and inserting ``under 
     subparagraph (A)(i)'';
       (8) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (J); 
     and
       (9) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) Grants awarded under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall be 
     carried out by a department or departments of science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics at institutions of 
     higher education (or a consortia thereof), which may partner 
     with the department, college, or school of education at the 
     institution. Applications for awards under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) shall be submitted to the Director at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the Director 
     may require. At a minimum, the application shall include--
       ``(i) a description of the activities to be carried out by 
     the Center;
       ``(ii) a plan for disseminating programs related to the 
     activities carried out by the Center to faculty at the 
     grantee institution and at other institutions;
       ``(iii) an estimate of the number of faculty, graduate 
     students (if any), and undergraduate students who will be 
     affected by the activities carried out by the Center; and
       ``(iv) a plan for assessing the effectiveness of the Center 
     at accomplishing the goals described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(G) In evaluating the applications submitted under 
     subparagraph (F), the Director shall consider, at a minimum--
       ``(i) the ability of the applicant to effectively carry out 
     the proposed activities, including the dissemination 
     activities described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(IV); and
       ``(ii) the extent to which the faculty, staff, and 
     administrators of the applicant institution are committed to 
     improving undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics education.
       ``(H) In awarding grants under subparagraph (A)(ii), the 
     Director shall ensure that a wide variety of science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and types of 
     institutions of higher education, including 2-year colleges 
     and minority-serving institutions, are covered, and that--
       ``(i) at least 1 Center is housed at a Doctoral/Research 
     University as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the 
     Advancement of Teaching; and
       ``(ii) at least 1 Center is focused on improving 
     undergraduate education in an interdisciplinary area.
       ``(I) The Director shall convene an annual meeting of the 
     awardees under this paragraph to foster collaboration and to 
     disseminate the results of the Centers and the other 
     activities funded under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Report on Data Collection.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on how the Director is 
     determining whether current grant recipients in the Science, 
     Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion 
     Program are making satisfactory progress as required by 
     section 8(7)(D)(ii) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 and what funding actions have been 
     taken as a result of the Director's determinations.

     SEC. 7026. LABORATORY SCIENCE PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) To remain competitive in science and technology in the 
     global economy, the United States must increase the number of 
     students graduating from high school prepared to pursue 
     postsecondary education in science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics.
       (2) There is broad agreement in the scientific community 
     that learning science requires direct involvement by students 
     in scientific inquiry and that laboratory experience is so 
     integral to the nature of science that it must be included in 
     every science program for every science student.
       (3) In America's Lab Report, the National Research Council 
     concluded that the current quality of laboratory experiences 
     is poor for most students and that educators and researchers 
     do not agree on how to define high school science 
     laboratories or on their purpose, hampering the accumulation 
     of research on how to improve laboratories.
       (4) The National Research Council found that schools with 
     higher concentrations of non-Asian minorities and schools 
     with higher concentrations of poor students are less likely 
     to have adequate laboratory facilities than other schools.
       (5) The Government Accountability Office reported that 49.1 
     percent of schools where the minority student population is 
     greater than 50.5 percent reported not meeting functional 
     requirements for laboratory science well or at all.
       (6) 40 percent of those college students who left the 
     science fields reported some problems related to high school 
     science preparation, including lack of laboratory experience 
     and no introduction to theoretical or to analytical modes of 
     thought.
       (7) It is in the national interest for the Federal 
     Government to invest in research and demonstration projects 
     to improve the teaching of laboratory science in the Nation's 
     high schools.
       (b) Grant Program.--Section 8(8) of the National Science 
     Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as 
     clauses (i) through (vi), respectively;
       (2) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``A program of 
     competitive''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) In accordance with subparagraph (A)(v), the Director 
     shall establish a research pilot program designated as 
     `Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science' to award 
     grants to partnerships to improve laboratories and provide 
     instrumentation as part of a comprehensive program to enhance 
     the quality of science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics instruction at the secondary school level. Grants 
     under this subparagraph may be used for--
       ``(i) professional development and training for teachers 
     aligned with activities supported under section 2123 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6623);
       ``(ii) purchase, rental, or leasing of equipment, 
     instrumentation, and other scientific educational materials;
       ``(iii) development of instructional programs designed to 
     integrate the laboratory experience with classroom 
     instruction and to be consistent with State mathematics and 
     science and, to the extent applicable, technology and 
     engineering, academic achievement standards;
       ``(iv) training in laboratory safety for school personnel;
       ``(v) design and implementation of hands-on laboratory 
     experiences to encourage the interest of individuals 
     identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and help 
     prepare such individuals to pursue postsecondary studies in 
     these fields; and
       ``(vi) assessment of the activities funded under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(C) Grants may be made under subparagraph (B) only to a 
     partnership--
       ``(i) for a project that includes significant teacher 
     preparation and professional development components; or
       ``(ii) that establishes that appropriate teacher 
     preparation and professional development is being addressed, 
     or has been addressed, through other means.
       ``(D) Grants awarded under subparagraph (B) shall be to a 
     partnership that--

[[Page 22326]]

       ``(i) includes a 2-year or 4-year degree granting 
     institution of higher education;
       ``(ii) includes a high need local educational agency (as 
     defined in section 201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965);
       ``(iii) includes a business or eligible nonprofit 
     organization; and
       ``(iv) may include a State educational agency, other public 
     agency, National Laboratory, or community-based organization.
       ``(E) The Federal share of the cost of activities carried 
     out using amounts from a grant under subparagraph (B) shall 
     not exceed 40 percent.
       ``(F) The Director shall require grant recipients under 
     subparagraph (B) to submit a report to the Director on the 
     results of the project supported by the grant.''.
       (c) Report.--The Director shall evaluate the effectiveness 
     of activities carried out under the research pilot projects 
     funded by the grant program established pursuant to the 
     amendment made by subsection (b) in improving student 
     achievement in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics. A report documenting the results of that 
     evaluation shall be submitted to the Committee on Science and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate not 
     later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     The report shall identify best practices and materials 
     developed and demonstrated by grant awardees.
       (d) Sunset.--The provisions of this section shall cease to 
     have force or effect on the last day of fiscal year 2010.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--From the amounts 
     authorized under subsections (a)(2)(B), (b)(2)(B), and 
     (c)(2)(B) of section 7002, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments 
     made by this section $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the 2 succeeding 
     fiscal years.

     SEC. 7027. STUDY ON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT DONATIONS FOR 
                   SCHOOLS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Director shall transmit a report to Congress 
     examining the extent to which institutions of higher 
     education and entities in the private sector are donating 
     used laboratory equipment to elementary schools and secondary 
     schools. The Director, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education, shall survey institutions of higher education and 
     entities in the private sector to determine--
       (1) how often, how much, and what type of equipment is 
     donated;
       (2) what criteria or guidelines the institutions and 
     entities are using to determine what types of equipment can 
     be donated, what condition the equipment should be in, and 
     which schools receive the equipment;
       (3) whether the institutions and entities provide any 
     support to, or follow-up with the schools; and
       (4) how appropriate donations can be encouraged.

     SEC. 7028. MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       Section 9 of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``a State 
     educational agency'' and inserting ``the department, college, 
     or program of education at an institution of higher 
     education, a State educational agency,'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) of subsection (a)(3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) offering professional development programs, 
     including--
       ``(i) teacher institutes for the 21st century, as described 
     in paragraph (10); and
       ``(ii) academic year institutes or workshops that--

       ``(I) are designed to strengthen the capabilities of 
     mathematics and science teachers; and
       ``(II) may include professional development activities to 
     prepare mathematics and science teachers to teach challenging 
     mathematics, science, and technology college-preparatory 
     courses;'';

       (3) in subsection (a)(3)(C)--
       (A) by inserting ``and laboratory experiences'' after 
     ``technology''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and laboratory'' after ``provide 
     technical'';
       (4) in subsection (a)(3)(I), by inserting ``including the 
     use of induction programs, as defined in section 6113(h) of 
     the America COMPETES Act, for teachers in their first 2 years 
     of teaching,'' after ``and science,'';
       (5) by striking subparagraph (K) of section (a)(3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(K) developing science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics educational programs and materials and conducting 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics enrichment 
     programs for students, including after-school programs and 
     summer programs, with an emphasis on including and serving 
     students described in subsection (b)(2)(G);'';
       (6) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Mentors for teachers and students of challenging 
     courses.--Partnerships carrying out activities to prepare 
     mathematics and science teachers to teach challenging 
     mathematics, science, and technology college-preparatory 
     courses in accordance with paragraph (3)(B) shall encourage 
     companies employing scientists, technologists, engineers, or 
     mathematicians to provide mentors to teachers and students 
     and provide for the coordination of such mentoring 
     activities.
       ``(9) Innovation.--Activities carried out in accordance 
     with paragraph (3)(H) may include the development and 
     dissemination of curriculum tools that will help foster 
     inventiveness and innovation.'';
       (7) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) the extent to which the evaluation described in 
     paragraph (1)(E) will be independent and based on objective 
     measures;'';
       (8) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (c) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Report on evaluations.--Not later than 4 years after 
     the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act, the 
     Director shall transmit a report summarizing the evaluations 
     required under subsection (b)(1)(E) of grants received under 
     this program and describing any changes to the program 
     recommended as a result of these evaluations to the Committee 
     on Science and Technology and the Committee on Education and 
     Labor of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. Such 
     report shall be made widely available to the public.''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `mathematics and science teacher' means a 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics teacher at 
     the elementary school or secondary school level; and
       ``(2) the term `science', in the context of elementary and 
     secondary education, includes technology and pre-
     engineering.''.

     SEC. 7029. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TEACHER INSTITUTES FOR 
                   THE 21ST CENTURY.

       Section 9(a) of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (as amended by section 7028) (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n(a)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(10) Teacher institutes for the 21st century.--
       ``(A) In general.--Teacher institutes for the 21st century 
     carried out in accordance with paragraph (3)(B) shall--
       ``(i) be carried out in conjunction with a school served by 
     the local educational agency in the partnership;
       ``(ii) be science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     focused institutes that provide professional development to 
     elementary school and secondary school teachers;
       ``(iii) serve teachers who--

       ``(I) are considered highly qualified (as defined in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965);
       ``(II) teach high-need subjects in science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics; and
       ``(III) teach in high-need schools (as described in section 
     1114(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965);

       ``(iv) focus on the priorities developed by the Director in 
     consultation with a broad group of relevant educational 
     organizations;
       ``(v) be content-based and build on school year curricula 
     that are experiment-oriented, content-based, and grounded in 
     current research;
       ``(vi) ensure that the pedagogy component is designed 
     around specific strategies that are relevant to teaching the 
     subject and content on which teachers are being trained, 
     which may include training teachers in the essential 
     components of reading instruction for adolescents in order to 
     improve student reading skills within the subject areas of 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;
       ``(vii) be a multiyear program that is conducted for a 
     period of not less than 2 weeks per year;
       ``(viii) provide for direct interaction between 
     participants in and faculty of the teacher institute;
       ``(ix) have a component that includes the use of the 
     Internet;
       ``(x) provide for followup training in the classroom during 
     the academic year for a period of not less than 3 days, which 
     may or may not be consecutive, for participants in the 
     teacher institute, except that for teachers in rural local 
     educational agencies, the followup training may be provided 
     through the Internet;
       ``(xi) provide teachers participating in the teacher 
     institute with travel expense reimbursement and classroom 
     materials related to the teacher institute, and may include 
     providing stipends as necessary; and
       ``(xii) establish a mechanism to provide supplemental 
     support during the academic year for teacher institute 
     participants to apply the knowledge and skills gained at the 
     teacher institute.
       ``(B) Optional members of the partnership.--In addition to 
     the partnership requirement under paragraph (2), an 
     institution of higher education or eligible nonprofit 
     organization (or consortium) desiring a grant for a teacher 
     institute for the 21st century may also partner with a 
     teacher organization, museum, or educational partnership 
     organization.''.

     SEC. 7030. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       Section 10 of the National Science Foundation Authorization 
     Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 10. ROBERT NOYCE TEACHER SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Scholarship Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall carry out a program 
     to award grants to eligible entities to recruit and train 
     mathematics and science teachers and to provide scholarships 
     and

[[Page 22327]]

     stipends to individuals participating in the program. Such 
     program shall be known as the `Robert Noyce Teacher 
     Scholarship Program'.
       ``(2) Merit review.--Grants shall be provided under this 
     section on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       ``(3) Use of grants.--A grant provided under this section 
     shall be used by the eligible entity--
       ``(A) to develop and implement a program to recruit and 
     prepare undergraduate students majoring in science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics at the eligible 
     entity (and participating institutions of higher education of 
     the consortium, if applicable) to become qualified as 
     mathematics and science teachers, through--
       ``(i) administering scholarships in accordance with 
     subsection (c);
       ``(ii) offering academic courses and early clinical 
     teaching experiences designed to prepare students 
     participating in the program to teach in elementary schools 
     and secondary schools, including such preparation as is 
     necessary to meet requirements for teacher certification or 
     licensing;
       ``(iii) offering programs to students participating in the 
     program, both before and after the students receive their 
     baccalaureate degree, to enable the students to become better 
     mathematics and science teachers, to fulfill the service 
     requirements of this section, and to exchange ideas with 
     others in the students' fields; and
       ``(iv) providing summer internships for freshman and 
     sophomore students participating in the program; or
       ``(B) to develop and implement a program to recruit and 
     prepare science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 
     professionals to become qualified as mathematics and science 
     teachers, through--
       ``(i) administering stipends in accordance with subsection 
     (d);
       ``(ii) offering academic courses and clinical teaching 
     experiences designed to prepare stipend recipients to teach 
     in elementary schools and secondary schools served by a high 
     need local educational agency, including such preparation as 
     is necessary to meet requirements for teacher certification 
     or licensing; and
       ``(iii) offering programs to stipend recipients, both 
     during and after matriculation in the program for which the 
     stipend is received, to enable recipients to become better 
     mathematics and science teachers, to fulfill the service 
     requirements of this section, and to exchange ideas with 
     others in the students' fields.
       ``(4) Eligibility requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an eligible entity shall ensure that specific 
     faculty members and staff from the science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics departments and specific 
     education faculty of the eligible entity (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) are designated to carry out the development and 
     implementation of the program.
       ``(B) Inclusion of master teachers.--An eligible entity 
     (and participating institutions of higher education of the 
     consortium, if applicable) receiving a grant under this 
     section may also include master teachers in the development 
     of the pedagogical content of the program and in the 
     supervision of students participating in the program in their 
     clinical teaching experiences.
       ``(C) Active participants.--No eligible entity (or 
     participating institution of higher education of the 
     consortium, if applicable) shall be eligible for a grant 
     under this section unless faculty from the science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics departments of the 
     eligible entity (and participating institutions of higher 
     education of the consortium, if applicable) are active 
     participants in the program.
       ``(5) Awards.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Director shall ensure that the eligible entities (and 
     participating institutions of higher education of the 
     consortia, if applicable) represent a variety of types of 
     institutions of higher education. In support of this goal, 
     the Director shall broadly disseminate information about when 
     and how to apply for grants under this section, including by 
     conducting outreach to--
       ``(A) historically Black colleges and universities that are 
     part B institutions, as defined in section 322(2) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)); and
       ``(B) minority institutions, as defined in section 365(3) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1067k(3)).
       ``(6) Supplement not supplant.--Grant funds provided under 
     this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, 
     other Federal or State funds available for the type of 
     activities supported by the grant.
       ``(b) Selection Process.--
       ``(1) Application.--An eligible entity seeking funding 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require. The application 
     shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) in the case of an applicant that is submitting an 
     application on behalf of a consortium of institutions of 
     higher education, a description of the participating 
     institutions of higher education and the roles and 
     responsibilities of each such institution;
       ``(B) a description of the program that the applicant 
     intends to operate, including the number of scholarships and 
     summer internships or the size and number of stipends the 
     applicant intends to award, the type of activities proposed 
     for the recruitment of students to the program, and the 
     selection process that will be used in awarding the 
     scholarships or stipends;
       ``(C) evidence that the applicant has the capability to 
     administer the program in accordance with the provisions of 
     this section, which may include a description of any existing 
     programs at the applicant eligible entity (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) that are targeted to the education of mathematics 
     and science teachers and the number of teachers graduated 
     annually from such programs;
       ``(D) a description of the academic courses and clinical 
     teaching experiences required under subparagraphs (A)(ii) and 
     (B)(ii) of subsection (a)(3), as applicable, including--
       ``(i) a description of the undergraduate program that will 
     enable a student to graduate within 5 years with a major in 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics and to 
     obtain teacher certification or licensing;
       ``(ii) a description of the clinical teaching experiences 
     proposed; and
       ``(iii) evidence of agreements between the applicant and 
     the schools or local educational agencies that are identified 
     as the locations at which clinical teaching experiences will 
     occur;
       ``(E) a description of the programs required under 
     subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B)(iii) of subsection (a)(3), 
     including activities to assist new teachers in fulfilling the 
     teachers' service requirements under this section;
       ``(F) an identification of the applicant eligible entity's 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty and 
     its education faculty (and such faculty of participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) who will carry out the development and 
     implementation of the program as required under subsection 
     (a)(4); and
       ``(G) a description of the process the applicant will use 
     to fulfill the requirements of subsection (f).
       ``(2) Review of applications.--In evaluating the 
     applications submitted under paragraph (1), the Director 
     shall consider, at a minimum--
       ``(A) the ability of the applicant (and the participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) to effectively carry out the program;
       ``(B) the extent to which the applicant's science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics faculty and its 
     education faculty (and such faculty of participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) have worked or will work collaboratively to 
     design new or revised curricula that recognize the 
     specialized pedagogy required to teach science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics effectively in elementary 
     schools and secondary schools;
       ``(C) the extent to which the applicant (and the 
     participating institutions of higher education of the 
     consortium, if applicable) is committed to making the program 
     a central organizational focus;
       ``(D) the degree to which the proposed programming will 
     enable scholarship or stipend recipients to become successful 
     mathematics and science teachers;
       ``(E) the number and academic qualifications of the 
     students who will be served by the program; and
       ``(F) the ability of the applicant (and the participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) to recruit students who would otherwise not 
     pursue a career in teaching in elementary schools or 
     secondary schools and students who are individuals identified 
     in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       ``(c) Scholarship Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Scholarships under this section shall be 
     available only to students who--
       ``(A) are majoring in science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics; and
       ``(B) have attained at least junior status in a 
     baccalaureate degree program.
       ``(2) Selection.--Individuals shall be selected to receive 
     scholarships primarily on the basis of academic merit, with 
     consideration given to financial need and to the goal of 
     promoting the participation of individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       ``(3) Amount.--The Director shall establish for each year 
     the amount to be awarded for scholarships under this section 
     for that year, which shall be not less than $10,000 per year, 
     except that no individual shall receive for any year more 
     than the cost of attendance at that individual's institution. 
     Full-time students may receive annual scholarships through 
     the completion of a baccalaureate degree program, not to 
     exceed a maximum of 3 years. Part-time students may receive 
     scholarships that are prorated according to such students' 
     enrollment status, not to exceed 6 years of scholarship 
     support.
       ``(4) Service obligation.--If an individual receives a 
     scholarship under this section, such individual shall be 
     required to complete, within 8 years after graduation from 
     the baccalaureate degree program for which the scholarship 
     was awarded, 2 years of service as a mathematics or science 
     teacher for each full scholarship award received, with a 
     maximum service requirement of 6 years. Service required 
     under this paragraph shall be performed in a high need local 
     educational agency.
       ``(d) Stipends.--
       ``(1) In general.--Stipends under this section shall be 
     available only to science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics professionals who, while receiving the stipend, 
     are enrolled in a program established under subsection 
     (a)(3)(B).
       ``(2) Selection.--Individuals shall be selected to receive 
     stipends under this section primarily

[[Page 22328]]

     on the basis of academic merit and professional achievement, 
     with consideration given to financial need and to the goal of 
     promoting the participation of individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       ``(3) Amount and duration.--Stipends under this section 
     shall be not less than $10,000 per year, except that no 
     individual shall receive for any year more than the cost of 
     attendance at such individual's institution. Individuals may 
     receive a maximum of 1 year of stipend support, except that 
     if an individual is enrolled in a part-time program, such 
     amount shall be prorated according to the length of the 
     program.
       ``(4) Service obligation.--If an individual receives a 
     stipend under this section, such individual shall be required 
     to complete, within 4 years after graduation from the program 
     for which the stipend was awarded, 2 years of service as a 
     mathematics or science teacher. Service required under this 
     paragraph shall be performed in a high need local educational 
     agency.
       ``(e) Conditions of Support.--As a condition of acceptance 
     of a scholarship or stipend under this section, a recipient 
     of a scholarship or stipend shall enter into an agreement 
     with the eligible entity--
       ``(1) accepting the terms of the scholarship or stipend 
     pursuant to subsection (c) or subsection (d);
       ``(2) agreeing to provide the eligible entity with annual 
     certification of employment and up-to-date contact 
     information and to participate in surveys conducted by the 
     eligible entity as part of an ongoing assessment program; and
       ``(3) establishing that if the service obligation required 
     under this section is not completed, all or a portion of the 
     scholarship or stipend received under this section shall be 
     repaid in accordance with subsection (g).
       ``(f) Collection for Noncompliance.--
       ``(1) Monitoring compliance.--An eligible entity receiving 
     a grant under this section shall, as a condition of 
     participating in the program, enter into an agreement with 
     the Director to monitor the compliance of scholarship or 
     stipend recipients with their respective service 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Collection of repayment.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the event that a scholarship or 
     stipend recipient is required to repay the scholarship or 
     stipend under subsection (g), the eligible entity shall--
       ``(i) be responsible for determining the repayment amounts 
     and for notifying the recipient and the Director of the 
     amount owed; and
       ``(ii) collect such repayment amount within a period of 
     time as determined under the agreement described in paragraph 
     (1), or the repayment amount shall be treated as a loan in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Returned to treasury.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), any such repayment shall be returned to the 
     Treasury of the United States.
       ``(C) Retain percentage.--An eligible entity may retain a 
     percentage of any repayment the eligible entity collects to 
     defray administrative costs associated with the collection. 
     The Director shall establish a single, fixed percentage that 
     will apply to all eligible entities.
       ``(g) Failure to Complete Service Obligation.--
       ``(1) General rule.--If an individual who has received a 
     scholarship or stipend under this section--
       ``(A) fails to maintain an acceptable level of academic 
     standing in the educational institution in which the 
     individual is enrolled, as determined by the Director;
       ``(B) is dismissed from such educational institution for 
     disciplinary reasons;
       ``(C) withdraws from the program for which the award was 
     made before the completion of such program;
       ``(D) declares that the individual does not intend to 
     fulfill the service obligation under this section; or
       ``(E) fails to fulfill the service obligation of the 
     individual under this section,
     such individual shall be liable to the United States as 
     provided in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Amount of repayment.--
       ``(A) Less than one year of service.--If a circumstance 
     described in paragraph (1) occurs before the completion of 1 
     year of a service obligation under this section, the total 
     amount of awards received by the individual under this 
     section shall be repaid or such amount shall be treated as a 
     loan to be repaid in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) More than one year of service.--If a circumstance 
     described in subparagraph (D) or (E) of paragraph (1) occurs 
     after the completion of 1 year of a service obligation under 
     this section--
       ``(i) for a scholarship recipient, the total amount of 
     scholarship awards received by the individual under this 
     section, reduced by the ratio of the number of years of 
     service completed divided by the number of years of service 
     required, shall be repaid or such amount shall be treated as 
     a loan to be repaid in accordance with subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) for a stipend recipient, \1/2\ of the total amount 
     of stipends received by the individual under this section 
     shall be repaid or such amount shall be treated as a loan to 
     be repaid in accordance with subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Repayments.--The loans described under subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) shall be payable to the Federal Government, 
     consistent with the provisions of part B or D of title IV of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965, and shall be subject to 
     repayment in accordance with terms and conditions specified 
     by the Director (in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Education) in regulations promulgated to carry out this 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Exceptions.--The Director may provide for the partial 
     or total waiver or suspension of any service or payment 
     obligation by an individual under this section whenever 
     compliance by the individual with the obligation is 
     impossible or would involve extreme hardship to the 
     individual, or if enforcement of such obligation with respect 
     to the individual would be unconscionable.
       ``(h) Data Collection.--An eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall supply to the Director any 
     relevant statistical and demographic data on scholarship and 
     stipend recipients the Director may request, including 
     information on employment required under this section.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `cost of attendance' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087ll);
       ``(2) the term `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) an institution of higher education; or
       ``(B) an institution of higher education that receives 
     grant funds on behalf of a consortium of institutions of 
     higher education;
       ``(3) the term `fellowship' means an award to an individual 
     under section 10A;
       ``(4) the term `high need local educational agency' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 201 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1021);
       ``(5) the term `mathematics and science teacher' means a 
     science, technology, engineering, or mathematics teacher at 
     the elementary school or secondary school level;
       ``(6) the term `scholarship' means an award under 
     subsection (c);
       ``(7) the term `science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics professional' means a person who holds a 
     baccalaureate, master's, or doctoral degree in science, 
     technology, engineering, or mathematics, and is working in or 
     had a career in such field or a related area; and
       ``(8) the term `stipend' means an award under subsection 
     (d).
       ``(j) Mathematics and Science Scholarship Gift Fund.--In 
     accordance with section 11(f) of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)), the Director is 
     authorized to accept donations from the private sector to 
     supplement but not supplant scholarships, stipends, 
     internships, or fellowships associated with programs under 
     this section or section 10A.
       ``(k) Assessment of Teacher Service and Retention.--Not 
     later than 4 years after the date of enactment of the America 
     COMPETES Act, the Director shall transmit to the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the effectiveness of the programs 
     carried out under this section and section 10A. The report 
     shall include the proportion of individuals receiving 
     scholarships, stipends, or fellowships under the program 
     who--
       ``(1) fulfill the individuals' service obligation required 
     under this section or section 10A;
       ``(2) remain in the teaching profession beyond the 
     individuals' service obligation; and
       ``(3) remain in the teaching profession in a high need 
     local educational agency beyond the individuals' service 
     obligation.
       ``(l) Evaluation.--Not less than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of the America COMPETES Act, the Director, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Education, shall conduct 
     an evaluation to determine whether the scholarships, 
     stipends, and fellowships authorized under this section and 
     section 10A have been effective in increasing the numbers of 
     high-quality mathematics and science teachers teaching in 
     high need local educational agencies and whether there 
     continue to exist significant shortages of such teachers in 
     high need local educational agencies.

     ``SEC. 10A. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION TEACHING FELLOWSHIPS 
                   AND MASTER TEACHING FELLOWSHIPS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--As part of the Robert Noyce Teacher 
     Scholarship Program established under section 10, the 
     Director shall establish a separate program to award grants 
     to eligible entities to enable such entities to administer 
     fellowships in accordance with this section.
       ``(B) Definitions.--The terms used in this section have the 
     meanings given the terms in section 10.
       ``(2) Fellowships.--Fellowships under this section shall be 
     available only to--
       ``(A) science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 
     professionals, who shall be referred to as `National Science 
     Foundation Teaching Fellows' and who, in the first year of 
     the fellowship, are enrolled in a master's degree program 
     leading to teacher certification or licensing; and
       ``(B) mathematics and science teachers, who shall be 
     referred to as `National Science Foundation Master Teaching 
     Fellows' and who possess a master's degree in their field.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this section, an eligible entity shall enter into 
     a partnership that shall include--
       ``(1) a department within an institution of higher 
     education participating in the partnership that provides an 
     advanced program of study in mathematics and science;
       ``(2)(A) a school or department within an institution of 
     higher education participating in the partnership that 
     provides a teacher preparation program; or
       ``(B) a 2-year institution of higher education that has a 
     teacher preparation offering or a

[[Page 22329]]

     dual enrollment program with an institution of higher 
     education participating in the partnership;
       ``(3) not less than 1 high need local educational agency 
     and a public school or a consortium of public schools served 
     by the agency; and
       ``(4) 1 or more nonprofit organizations that have a 
     demonstrated record of capacity to provide expertise or 
     support to meet the purposes of this section.
       ``(c) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under this section 
     shall be used by the eligible entity (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) to develop and implement a program for National 
     Science Foundation Teaching Fellows or National Science 
     Foundation Master Teaching Fellows, through--
       ``(1) administering fellowships in accordance with this 
     section, including providing the teaching fellowship salary 
     supplements described in subsection (f);
       ``(2) in the case of National Science Foundation Teaching 
     Fellowships--
       ``(A) offering academic courses and clinical teaching 
     experiences leading to a master's degree and designed to 
     prepare individuals to teach in elementary schools and 
     secondary schools, including such preparation as is necessary 
     to meet the requirements for certification or licensing; and
       ``(B) offering programs both during and after matriculation 
     in the program for which the fellowship is received to enable 
     fellows to become highly effective mathematics and science 
     teachers, including mentoring, training, induction, and 
     professional development activities, to fulfill the service 
     requirements of this section, including the requirements of 
     subsection (e), and to exchange ideas with others in their 
     fields; and
       ``(3) in the case of National Science Foundation Master 
     Teaching Fellowships--
       ``(A) offering academic courses and leadership training to 
     prepare individuals to become master teachers in elementary 
     schools and secondary schools; and
       ``(B) offering programs both during and after matriculation 
     in the program for which the fellowship is received to enable 
     fellows to become highly effective mathematics and science 
     teachers, including mentoring, training, induction, and 
     professional development activities, to fulfill the service 
     requirements of this section, including the requirements of 
     subsection (e), and to exchange ideas with others in their 
     fields.
       ``(d) Selection Process.--
       ``(1) Merit review.--Grants shall be awarded under this 
     section on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis.
       ``(2) Applications.--An eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Director may require. The application 
     shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) in the case of an applicant that is submitting an 
     application on behalf of a consortium of institutions of 
     higher education, a description of the participating 
     institutions of higher education and the roles and 
     responsibilities of each such institution;
       ``(B) a description of the program that the applicant 
     intends to operate, including the number of fellowships the 
     applicant intends to award, the type of activities proposed 
     for the recruitment of students to the program, and the 
     amount of the teaching fellowship salary supplements to be 
     provided in accordance with subsection (f);
       ``(C) evidence that the applicant has the capability to 
     administer the program in accordance with the provisions of 
     this section, which may include a description of any existing 
     programs at the applicant eligible entity (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) that are targeted to the education of mathematics 
     and science teachers and the number of teachers graduated 
     annually from such programs;
       ``(D) in the case of National Science Foundation Teaching 
     Fellowships, a description of--
       ``(i) the selection process that will be used in awarding 
     fellowships, including a description of the rigorous measures 
     to be used, including the rigorous, nationally recognized 
     assessments to be used, in order to determine whether 
     individuals applying for fellowships have advanced content 
     knowledge of science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics;
       ``(ii) the academic courses and clinical teaching 
     experiences described in subsection (c)(2)(A), including--

       ``(I) a description of an educational program that will 
     enable a student to obtain a master's degree and teacher 
     certification or licensing within 1 year; and
       ``(II) evidence of agreements between the applicant and the 
     schools or local educational agencies that are identified as 
     the locations at which clinical teaching experiences will 
     occur;

       ``(iii) a description of the programs described in 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), including activities to assist 
     individuals in fulfilling their service requirements under 
     this section;
       ``(E) evidence that the eligible entity will provide the 
     teaching supplements required under subsection (f); and
       ``(F) a description of the process the applicant will use 
     to fulfill the requirements of section 10(f).
       ``(3) Criteria.--In evaluating the applications submitted 
     under paragraph (2), the Director shall consider, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(A) the ability of the applicant (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) to effectively carry out the program and to meet 
     the requirements of subsection (f);
       ``(B) the extent to which the mathematics, science, or 
     engineering faculty and the education faculty at the eligible 
     entity (and participating institutions of higher education of 
     the consortium, if applicable) have worked or will work 
     collaboratively to design new or revised curricula that 
     recognizes the specialized pedagogy required to teach 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics effectively 
     in elementary schools and secondary schools;
       ``(C) the extent to which the applicant (and participating 
     institutions of higher education of the consortium, if 
     applicable) is committed to making the program a central 
     organizational focus;
       ``(D) the degree to which the proposed programming will 
     enable participants to become highly effective mathematics 
     and science teachers and prepare such participants to assume 
     leadership roles in their schools, in addition to their 
     regular classroom duties, including serving as mentor or 
     master teachers, developing curriculum, and assisting in the 
     development and implementation of professional development 
     activities;
       ``(E) the number and quality of the individuals that will 
     be served by the program; and
       ``(F) in the case of the National Science Foundation 
     Teaching Fellowship, the ability of the applicant (and 
     participating institutions of higher education of the 
     consortium, if applicable) to recruit individuals who would 
     otherwise not pursue a career in teaching and individuals 
     identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering 
     Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1855a or 1855b).
       ``(4) Selection of fellows.--
       ``(A) In general.--Individuals shall be selected to receive 
     fellowships under this section primarily on the basis of--
       ``(i) professional achievement;
       ``(ii) academic merit;
       ``(iii) content knowledge of science, technology, 
     engineering, or mathematics, as demonstrated by their 
     performance on an assessment in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(D)(i); and
       ``(iv) in the case of National Science Foundation Master 
     Teaching Fellows, demonstrated success in improving student 
     academic achievement in science, technology, engineering, or 
     mathematics.
       ``(B) Promoting participation of certain individuals.--
     Among individuals demonstrating equivalent qualifications, 
     consideration may be given to the goal of promoting the 
     participation of individuals identified in section 33 or 34 
     of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b).
       ``(e) Duties of National Science Foundation Teaching 
     Fellows and Master Teaching Fellows.--A National Science 
     Foundation Teaching Fellow or a National Science Foundation 
     Master Teaching Fellow, while fulfilling the service 
     obligation under subsection (g) and in addition to regular 
     classroom activities, shall take on a leadership role within 
     the school or local educational agency in which the fellow is 
     employed, as defined by the partnership according to such 
     fellow's expertise, including serving as a mentor or master 
     teacher, developing curricula, and assisting in the 
     development and implementation of professional development 
     activities.
       ``(f) Teaching Fellowship Salary Supplements.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section shall provide salary supplements to 
     individuals who participate in the program under this section 
     during the period of their service obligation under 
     subsection (g). A local educational agency through which the 
     service obligation is fulfilled shall agree not to reduce the 
     base salary normally paid to an individual solely because 
     such individual receives a salary supplement under this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Amount and duration.--
       ``(A) Amount.--Salary supplements provided under paragraph 
     (1) shall be not less than $10,000 per year, except that, in 
     the case of a National Science Foundation Teaching Fellow, 
     while enrolled in the master's degree program as described in 
     subsection (c)(2)(A), such fellow shall receive not more than 
     the cost of attendance at such fellow's institution.
       ``(B) Support while enrolled in master's degree program.--A 
     National Science Foundation Teaching Fellow may receive a 
     maximum of 1 year of fellowship support while enrolled in a 
     master's degree program as described in subsection (c)(2)(A), 
     except that if such fellow is enrolled in a part-time 
     program, such amount shall be prorated according to the 
     length of the program.
       ``(C) Duration of support.--An eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall provide teaching fellowship 
     salary supplements through the period of the fellow's service 
     obligation under subsection (g).
       ``(g) Service Obligation.--An individual awarded a 
     fellowship under this section shall serve as a mathematics or 
     science teacher in an elementary school or secondary school 
     served by a high need local educational agency for--
       ``(1) in the case of a National Science Foundation Teaching 
     Fellow, 4 years, to be fulfilled within 6 years of completing 
     the master's program described in subsection (c)(2)(A); and
       ``(2) in the case of a National Science Foundation Master 
     Teaching Fellow, 5 years, to be fulfilled within 7 years of 
     the start of participation in the program under subsection 
     (c)(3).
       ``(h) Matching Requirement.--

[[Page 22330]]

       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under this section shall provide, from non-Federal sources, 
     an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant 
     (which may be provided in cash or in-kind) to carry out the 
     activities supported by the grant.
       ``(2) Waiver.--The Director may waive all or part of the 
     matching requirement described in paragraph (1) for any 
     fiscal year for an eligible entity receiving a grant under 
     this section, if the Director determines that applying the 
     matching requirement would result in serious hardship or 
     inability to carry out the authorized activities described in 
     this section.
       ``(i) Conditions of Support; Collection for Noncompliance; 
     Failure to Complete Service Obligation; Data Collection.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h) of section 10 shall apply 
     to eligible entities and recipients of fellowships under this 
     section, as applicable, in the same manner as such 
     subsections apply to eligible entities and recipients of 
     scholarships and stipends under section 10, as applicable.
       ``(2) Amount of repayment.--If a circumstance described in 
     subparagraph (D) or (E) of section 10(g)(1) occurs after the 
     completion of 1 year of a service obligation under this 
     section--
       ``(A) for a National Science Foundation Teaching Fellow, 
     the total amount of fellowship award received by the 
     individual under this section while enrolled in the master's 
     degree program, reduced by \1/4\ of the total amount for each 
     year of service completed, plus \1/2\ of the total teaching 
     fellowship salary supplements received by such individual 
     under this section, shall be repaid or such amount shall be 
     treated as a loan to be repaid in accordance with section 
     10(g)(1)(C); and
       ``(B) for a National Science Foundation Master Teaching 
     Fellow, the total amount of teaching fellowship salary 
     supplements received by the individual under this section, 
     reduced by \1/2\, shall be repaid or such amount shall be 
     treated as a loan to be repaid in accordance with section 
     10(g)(1)(C).''.

     SEC. 7031. ENCOURAGING PARTICIPATION.

       (a) Community College Program.--Section 3 of the Scientific 
     and Advanced-Technology Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 1862i) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the semicolon and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) encourage participation of individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b);''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Mentor training grants.--The Director shall--
       ``(A) establish a program to encourage and make grants 
     available to institutions of higher education that award 
     associate degrees to recruit and train individuals from the 
     fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     to mentor students who are described in section 33 or 34 of 
     the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) in order to assist those students in 
     identifying, qualifying for, and entering higher-paying 
     technical jobs in those fields; and
       ``(B) make grants available to associate-degree-granting 
     colleges to carry out the program identified in subsection 
     (A).''.
       (b) Evaluation and Report.--The Director shall establish 
     metrics to evaluate the success of the programs established 
     by the Foundation for encouraging individuals identified in 
     section 33 or 34 of the Science and Engineering Equal 
     Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 1885b) to study and 
     prepare for careers in science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics, including programs that provide for mentoring 
     for such individuals. The Director shall carry out 
     evaluations based on the metrics developed and report to 
     Congress annually on the findings and conclusions of the 
     evaluations.

     SEC. 7032. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REPORT ON DIVERSITY 
                   IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 
                   MATHEMATICS FIELDS.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a 
     report, to be transmitted to the Congress not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, about barriers 
     to increasing the number of underrepresented minorities in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields and 
     to identify strategies for bringing more underrepresented 
     minorities into the science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics workforce.
       (b) Specific Requirements.--The Director shall ensure that 
     the report described in subsection (a) addresses--
       (1) social and institutional factors that shape the 
     decisions of minority students to commit to education and 
     careers in the science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics fields;
       (2) specific barriers preventing greater minority student 
     participation in the science, technology, engineering, and 
     mathematics fields;
       (3) primary focus points for policy intervention to 
     increase the recruitment and retention of underrepresented 
     minorities in the future workforce of the United States;
       (4) programs already underway to increase diversity in the 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and 
     their level of effectiveness;
       (5) factors that make such programs effective, and how to 
     expand and improve upon existing programs;
       (6) the role of minority-serving institutions in the 
     diversification of the workforce of the United States in 
     these fields and how that role can be supported and 
     strengthened; and
       (7) how the public and private sectors can better assist 
     minority students in their efforts to join the workforce of 
     the United States in these fields.

     SEC. 7033. HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS UNDERGRADUATE 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Director is authorized to establish a 
     new program to award grants on a competitive, merit-reviewed 
     basis to Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in section 
     502 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a)) to 
     enhance the quality of undergraduate science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics education at such institutions 
     and to increase the retention and graduation rates of 
     students pursuing associate's or baccalaureate degrees in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
       (b) Program Components.--Grants awarded under this section 
     shall support--
       (1) activities to improve courses and curriculum in 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;
       (2) faculty development;
       (3) stipends for undergraduate students participating in 
     research; and
       (4) other activities consistent with subsection (a), as 
     determined by the Director.
       (c) Instrumentation.--Funding for instrumentation is an 
     allowed use of grants awarded under this section.

     SEC. 7034. PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS.

       (a) Clearinghouse.--
       (1) Development.--The Director shall establish a 
     clearinghouse, in collaboration with 4-year institutions of 
     higher education (including applicable graduate schools and 
     academic departments), and industries and Federal agencies 
     that employ science-trained personnel, to share program 
     elements used in successful professional science master's 
     degree programs and other advanced degree programs related to 
     science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
       (2) Availability.--The Director shall make the 
     clearinghouse of program elements developed under paragraph 
     (1) available to institutions of higher education that are 
     developing professional science master's degree programs.
       (b) Programs.--
       (1) Programs authorized.--The Director shall award grants 
     to 4-year institutions of higher education to facilitate the 
     institutions' creation or improvement of professional science 
     master's degree programs that may include linkages between 
     institutions of higher education and industries that employ 
     science-trained personnel, with an emphasis on practical 
     training and preparation for the workforce in high-need 
     fields.
       (2) Application.--A 4-year institution of higher education 
     desiring a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application to the Director at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the Director may require. 
     The application shall include--
       (A) a description of the professional science master's 
     degree program that the institution of higher education will 
     implement;
       (B) a description of how the professional science master's 
     degree program at the institution of higher education will 
     produce individuals for the workforce in high-need fields;
       (C) the amount of funding from non-Federal sources, 
     including from private industries, that the institution of 
     higher education shall use to support the professional 
     science master's degree program; and
       (D) an assurance that the institution of higher education 
     shall encourage students in the professional science master's 
     degree program to apply for all forms of Federal assistance 
     available to such students, including applicable graduate 
     fellowships and student financial assistance under titles IV 
     and VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 
     et seq., 1133 et seq.).
       (3) Preferences.--The Director shall give preference in 
     making awards to 4-year institutions of higher education 
     seeking Federal funding to create or improve professional 
     science master's degree programs, to those applicants--
       (A) located in States with low percentages of citizens with 
     graduate or professional degrees, as determined by the Bureau 
     of the Census, that demonstrate success in meeting the unique 
     needs of the corporate, non-profit, and government 
     communities in the State, as evidenced by providing 
     internships for professional science master's degree students 
     or similar partnership arrangements; or
       (B) that secure more than \2/3\ of the funding for such 
     professional science master's degree programs from sources 
     other than the Federal Government.
       (4) Number of grants; time period of grants.--
       (A) Number of grants.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriated funds, the Director shall award grants under 
     paragraph (1) to a maximum of 200 4-year institutions of 
     higher education.
       (B) Time period of grants.--Grants awarded under this 
     section shall be for one 3-year term. Grants may be renewed 
     only once for a maximum of 2 additional years.
       (5) Evaluation and reports.--
       (A) Development of performance benchmarks.--Prior to the 
     start of the grant program,

[[Page 22331]]

     the Director, in collaboration with 4-year institutions of 
     higher education (including applicable graduate schools and 
     academic departments), and industries and Federal agencies 
     that employ science-trained personnel, shall develop 
     performance benchmarks to evaluate the pilot programs 
     assisted by grants under this section.
       (B) Evaluation.--For each year of the grant period, the 
     Director, in consultation with 4-year institutions of higher 
     education (including applicable graduate schools and academic 
     departments), and industries and Federal agencies that employ 
     science-trained personnel, shall complete an evaluation of 
     each program assisted by grants under this section. Any 
     program that fails to satisfy the performance benchmarks 
     developed under subparagraph (A) shall not be eligible for 
     further funding.
       (C) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion 
     of an evaluation described in subparagraph (B), the Director 
     shall submit a report to Congress that includes--
       (i) the results of the evaluation; and
       (ii) recommendations for administrative and legislative 
     action that could optimize the effectiveness of the pilot 
     programs, as the Director determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 7035. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON COMMUNICATIONS TRAINING FOR 
                   SCIENTISTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     institutions of higher education receiving awards under the 
     Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship 
     program of the Foundation should, among the activities 
     supported under these awards, train graduate students in the 
     communication of the substance and importance of their 
     research to nonscientist audiences.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 3 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit a 
     report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
     House of Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, describing the 
     training programs described in subsection (a) provided to 
     graduate students who participated in the Integrative 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program. The 
     report shall include data on the number of graduate students 
     trained and a description of the types of activities funded.

     SEC. 7036. MAJOR RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION.

       (a) Award Amount.--The minimum amount of an award under the 
     Major Research Instrumentation program shall be $100,000. The 
     maximum amount of an award under the program shall be 
     $4,000,000 except if the total amount appropriated for the 
     program for a fiscal year exceeds $125,000,000, in which case 
     the maximum amount of an award shall be $6,000,000.
       (b) Use of Funds.--In addition to the acquisition of 
     instrumentation and equipment, funds made available by awards 
     under the Major Research Instrumentation program may be used 
     to support the operations and maintenance of such 
     instrumentation and equipment.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--An institution of higher education 
     receiving an award under the Major Research Instrumentation 
     program shall provide at least 30 percent of the cost from 
     private or non-Federal sources.
       (2) Exceptions.--Institutions of higher education that are 
     not Ph.D.-granting institutions are exempt from the cost 
     sharing requirement in paragraph (1), and the Director may 
     reduce or waive the cost sharing requirement for--
       (A) institutions--
       (i) that are not ranked among the top 100 institutions 
     receiving Federal research and development funding, as 
     documented by the statistical data published by the 
     Foundation; and
       (ii) for which the proposed project will make a substantial 
     improvement in the institution's capabilities to conduct 
     leading edge research, to provide research experiences for 
     undergraduate students using leading edge facilities, and to 
     broaden the participation in science and engineering research 
     by individuals identified in section 33 or 34 of the Science 
     and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or 
     1885b); and
       (B) consortia of institutions of higher education that 
     include at least one institution that is not a Ph.D.-granting 
     institution.

     SEC. 7037. LIMIT ON PROPOSALS.

       (a) Policy.--For programs supported by the Foundation that 
     require as part of the selection process for awards the 
     submission of preproposals and that also limit the number of 
     preproposals that may be submitted by an institution, the 
     Director shall allow the subsequent submission of a full 
     proposal based on each preproposal that is determined to have 
     merit following the Foundation's merit review process.
       (b) Review and Assessment of Policies.--The Board shall 
     review and assess the effects on institutions of higher 
     education of the policies of the Foundation regarding the 
     imposition of limitations on the number of proposals that may 
     be submitted by a single institution for programs supported 
     by the Foundation. The Board shall determine whether current 
     policies are well justified and appropriate for the types of 
     programs that limit the number of proposal submissions. Not 
     later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Board shall summarize the Board's findings and any 
     recommendations regarding changes to the current policy on 
     the restriction of proposal submissions in a report to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
                     TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 8001. COLLECTION OF DATA RELATING TO TRADE IN SERVICES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than January 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     of Commerce, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis, shall report to Congress on the 
     feasibility, annual cost, and potential benefits of a program 
     to collect and study data relating to export and import of 
     services.
       (b) Program.--The proposed program to be studied under 
     subsection (a) shall include requirements that the Secretary 
     annually--
       (1) provide data collection and analysis relating to export 
     and import of services;
       (2) collect and analyze data for service imports and 
     exports in not less than 40 service industry categories, on a 
     State-by-State basis;
       (3) collect data on, and analyze, the employment effects of 
     exports and imports on the service industry; and
       (4) integrate ongoing and planned data collection and 
     analysis initiatives in research and development and 
     innovation.

     SEC. 8002. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SMALL BUSINESS 
                   GROWTH AND CAPITAL MARKETS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States has the most fair, most transparent, 
     and most efficient capital markets in the world, in part due 
     to its strong securities statutory and regulatory scheme;
       (2) it is of paramount importance for the continued growth 
     of the economy of the Nation, that our capital markets retain 
     their leading position in the world;
       (3) small businesses are vital participants in United 
     States capital markets, and play a critical role in future 
     economic growth and high-wage job creation;
       (4) section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has 
     greatly enhanced the quality of corporate governance and 
     financial reporting for public companies and increased 
     investor confidence;
       (5) the Securities and Exchange Commission (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Commission'') and the Public Company 
     Accounting Oversight Board (referred to in this section as 
     the ``PCAOB'') have both determined that the current auditing 
     standard implementing section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 
     of 2002 has imposed unnecessary and unintended cost burdens 
     on small and mid-sized public companies;
       (6) the Commission and the PCAOB are now near completion of 
     a 2-year process intended to revise the auditing standard in 
     order to provide more efficient and effective regulation; and
       (7) the Chairman of the Commission recently has said, with 
     respect to section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 
     that, ``We don't need to change the law, we need to change 
     the way the law is implemented. It is the implementation of 
     the law that has caused the excessive burden, not the law 
     itself. That's an important distinction. I don't believe 
     these important investor protections, which are even now only 
     a few years old, should be opened up for amendment, or that 
     they need to be.''.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Commission and the PCAOB should complete 
     promulgation of the final rules implementing section 404 of 
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262).

     SEC. 8003. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW OF 
                   ACTIVITIES, GRANTS, AND PROGRAMS.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit a report to Congress that--
       (1) assesses and evaluates the effectiveness of a 
     representative sample of the new or expanded programs and 
     activities (including programs and activities carried out 
     under grants) required to be carried out under this Act; and
       (2) includes such recommendations as the Comptroller 
     General determines are appropriate to ensure effectiveness 
     of, or improvements to, the programs and activities, 
     including termination of programs or activities.

     SEC. 8004. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ANTI-COMPETITIVE TAX 
                   POLICY.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Federal funds should not 
     be provided to any organization or entity that advocates 
     against a United States tax policy that is internationally 
     competitive.

     SEC. 8005. STUDY OF THE PROVISION OF ONLINE DEGREE PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall enter 
     into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     conduct a study and provide a report to the Secretary, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, and Congress. The study shall consider 
     the mechanisms and supports needed for an institution of 
     higher education (as defined in section 7001) or nonprofit 
     organization to develop and maintain a program to provide 
     free access to online educational content as part of a degree 
     program, especially in science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or foreign languages, without using Federal 
     funds, including funds provided under title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) The study 
     shall consider whether such a program could be developed and 
     managed by such institution of higher education or nonprofit 
     organization and sustained through private funding. The study 
     shall examine how such program can--
       (1) build on existing online programs, including making use 
     of existing online courses;
       (2) modify or expand traditional course content for online 
     educational content;

[[Page 22332]]

       (3) develop original course content for online courses and 
     degree programs;
       (4) provide necessary laboratory experience for science, 
     technology, and engineering courses;
       (5) be accepted for full credit by other institutions of 
     higher education; and
       (6) provide credentials that would be recognized by 
     employers, enabling program participants to attain 
     employment.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2008.

     SEC. 8006. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEEMED EXPORTS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the policies of the United States Government relating 
     to deemed exports should safeguard the national security of 
     the United States and protect fundamental research;
       (2) the Department of Commerce has established the Deemed 
     Export Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for 
     improving current controls on deemed exports; and
       (3) the President and Congress should consider the 
     recommendations of the Deemed Export Advisory Committee in 
     the development and implementation of export control 
     policies.

     SEC. 8007. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CAPITAL MARKETS.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) Congress, the President, regulators, industry leaders, 
     and other stakeholders should take the necessary steps to 
     reclaim the preeminent position of the United States in the 
     global financial services marketplace;
       (2) the Federal and State financial regulatory agencies 
     should, to the maximum extent possible--
       (A) coordinate activities on significant policy matters, so 
     as not to impose regulations that may have adverse unintended 
     consequences on innovativeness with respect to financial 
     products, instruments, and services, or that impose 
     regulatory costs that are disproportionate to their benefits; 
     and
       (B) at the same time, ensure that the regulatory framework 
     overseeing the United States capital markets continues to 
     promote and protect the interests of investors in those 
     markets; and
       (3) given the complexity of the financial services 
     marketplace, Congress should exercise vigorous oversight over 
     Federal regulatory and statutory requirements affecting the 
     financial services industry and consumers, with the goal of 
     eliminating excessive regulation and problematic 
     implementation of existing laws and regulations, while 
     ensuring that necessary investor protections are not 
     compromised.

     SEC. 8008. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF ACTIVITIES 
                   AUTHORIZED BY THIS ACT.

       (a) Prohibited Use of Funds.--A grant or contract funded by 
     amounts authorized by this Act may not be used for the 
     purpose of defraying the costs of a banquet or conference 
     that is not directly and programmatically related to the 
     purpose for which the grant or contract was awarded. A 
     directly and programmatically related banquet or conference 
     includes a banquet or conference held in connection with 
     planning, training, assessment, review, or other routine 
     purposes related to a project funded by the grant or 
     contract. Records of the total costs related to, and 
     justifications for, all banquets and conferences shall be 
     reported to the appropriate Department, Administration, or 
     Foundation. Not later than 60 days after receipt of such 
     records, the appropriate Department, Administration, or 
     Foundation shall make the records available to the public.
       (b) Conflict of Interest Statement.--Any person awarded a 
     grant or contract funded by amounts authorized by this Act 
     shall submit a statement to the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Education, the 
     Administrator, or the Director, as appropriate, certifying 
     that no funds derived from the grant or contract will be made 
     available through a subcontract or in any other manner to 
     another person who has a financial interest or other conflict 
     of interest in the person awarded the grant or contract, 
     unless such conflict is previously disclosed and approved in 
     the process of entering into a contract or awarding a grant. 
     Not later than 60 days after receipt of the certification, 
     the appropriate Secretary, Administrator, or Director shall 
     make all documents received that relate to the certification 
     available to the public.
       (c) Application to Federal Grants and Contracts.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect 360 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to 
     grants or contracts authorized under sections 6201 and 6203.
       And the Senate agree to the same.
     From the Committee on Science and Technology, for 
     consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Bart Gordon,
     Daniel Lipinski,
     Brian Baird,
     David Wu,
     Nick Lampson,
     Mark Udall,
     Gabrielle Giffords,
     Jerry McNerney,
     Vernon J. Ehlers,
     From the Committee on Education and Labor, for consideration 
     of Division C of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
     committed to conference:
     George Miller,
     Rush Holt,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     Jeff Bingaman,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
     Edward Kennedy,
     Joseph Lieberman,
     Barbara A. Mikulski,
     John F. Kerry,
     Bill Nelson,
     Pete V. Domenici,
     Ted Stevens,
     Michael B. Enzi,
     Lamar Alexander,
     John Ensign,
     Norm Coleman,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

       JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in 
     innovation through research and development, and to improve 
     the competitiveness of the United States, submit the 
     following joint statement to the House and the Senate in 
     explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the 
     managers and recommended in the accompanying conference 
     report:

   TITLE I--OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY; GOVERNMENT-WIDE 
                                SCIENCE


           national science and technology summit (sec. 1001)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1101) that 
     would require the President to convene a National Science and 
     Technology Summit within 180 days of enactment to evaluate 
     the health and direction of the nation's science, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics enterprises and to identify key 
     research and technology challenges and recommendations for 
     research and development investment over the next five years.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to subsections (a) and (b) and agrees to 
     modified text for subsection (c).


              study on barriers to innovation (sec. 1002)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1102) that 
     requires the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy (OSTP) to enter into a contract with the National 
     Academy of Sciences one year after enactment and four years 
     after enactment to conduct a study to identify forms of risk 
     that create barriers to innovation. The study is intended to 
     review the long-term value of innovation to the business 
     community and to identify means to mitigate risks presently 
     associated with such innovation activities.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate provision with the removal 
     of paragraphs (a)(13) and (a)(14).


          national technology and innovation medal (sec. 1003)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1103) that 
     amends Section 16 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 to rename the ``National Technology 
     Medal'' as the ``National Technology and Innovation Medal.''
       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 205) that 
     establishes the Presidential Innovation Award to be presented 
     periodically, on the basis of recommendations from the 
     director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, to 
     citizens or permanent residents of the United States who 
     develop unique scientific or engineering ideas judged to 
     stimulate scientific and engineering advances in the national 
     interest, to illustrate the linkage between science and 
     engineering and national needs, and to provide an example to 
     excite the interest of students in science or engineering 
     professions.
       The House recedes.


semiannual science, technology, engineering, and mathematics days (sec. 
                                 1004)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1105) that 
     expresses the Sense of Congress that OSTP should encourage 
     all elementary and middle schools to observe a Science, 
     Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Day twice in every 
     school year for the purpose of facilitating the interaction 
     between science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     mentors and grade school students. This section also 
     expresses a Sense of Congress that OSTP should encourage 
     involvement of federal employees, the private sector, and 
     institutions of higher learning in such days.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


                  study of service science (sec. 1005)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1106) that 
     would express a Sense of Congress that the Federal Government 
     should better understand and respond strategically to the 
     emerging management and learning discipline known as 
     ``service science.'' The provision would require the Director 
     of OSTP, through the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct 
     a study on how the Federal Government should best support

[[Page 22333]]

     service science through research, education, and training.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to change the report 
     requirement from 270 days to 1 year.


   president's council on innovation and competitiveness (sec. 1006)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1201) that 
     would require the President to establish a President's 
     Council on Innovation and Competitiveness to develop a 
     comprehensive agenda to promote innovation in the public and 
     private sectors. The Council, which could be constituted by 
     designating an existing body to perform its functions, would 
     include the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Education, 
     Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, and 
     Treasury along with the heads of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
     the National Science Foundation, the Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative, the Office of Management and 
     Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business 
     Administration, and other relevant federal agencies involved 
     in innovation. As the President's Council on Innovation and 
     Competitiveness develops a comprehensive agenda for 
     strengthening innovation and competitiveness it should 
     consult with advisors from the private sector, labor, 
     scientific organizations, academic organizations, and other 
     nongovernmental organizations working in the area of science 
     or technology.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


      national coordination of research infrastructure (sec. 1007)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 206) that 
     establishes a National Coordination Office for Research 
     Infrastructure under the OSTP to identify and prioritize 
     deficiencies in research facilities and instrumentation in 
     academic institutions and national laboratories and to make 
     recommendations for use of funding authorized. The Office is 
     directed to report to Congress annually at the time of the 
     Administration's budget proposal.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to modified language that directs the 
     Director of the OSTP to identify and prioritize the 
     deficiencies in research facilities and major instrumentation 
     located at Federal laboratories and national user facilities 
     at academic institutions that are widely accessible for use 
     by researchers in the United States. The provision also 
     requires the Director of OSTP to annually submit to Congress, 
     in support of the President's budget, a report setting forth 
     the deficiencies in research infrastructure, projects, and 
     budget proposals of Federal research facilities for major 
     instrumentation acquisitions that are included in the budget 
     and an explanation of how the projects and instrumentation 
     acquisitions relate to the identified deficiencies and 
     priorities.


   sense of congress on innovation acceleration research (sec. 1008)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1202) that 
     would require the President, through the head of each Federal 
     research agency, to establish the ``Innovation Acceleration 
     Research Program'' to support and promote innovation in the 
     United States by requiring each department or agency that 
     sponsors scientific research to set as a goal 8 percent of 
     its annual research budget to be directed toward innovation 
     acceleration research.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to a modified provision that expresses 
     the Sense of Congress that each Federal research agency 
     should strive to support and promote innovation through high-
     risk, high-reward basic research and set a goal of allocating 
     an appropriate percentage of its annual basic research budget 
     to funding high-risk, high-reward basic research projects.


           release of scientific research results (sec. 1009)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1104) that 
     would require the Director of OSTP, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 
     heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct 
     scientific research, to develop and issue a set of principles 
     for the communication of scientific information by government 
     scientists, policy makers, and managers to the public within 
     90 days after the date of enactment.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with a clarifying amendment.

        TITLE II--NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION


             nasa's contribution to innovation (sec. 2001)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 209) that 
     expresses the Sense of the Congress that a balanced and 
     robust program in science, aeronautics, exploration, and 
     human space flight at NASA, as authorized in the NASA 
     Authorization Act of 2005, contributes significantly to 
     national innovation and competitiveness. It also directs the 
     NASA Administrator to participate fully in interagency 
     efforts to promote innovation and economic competitiveness 
     through scientific research and development.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1301) that 
     directs that NASA be regarded as a full participant in 
     interagency activities to promote competitiveness and 
     innovation and to enhance science, technology, engineering, 
     and mathematics education, provided that such efforts are 
     consistent with NASA's mission, including authorized 
     activities. It also identifies NASA's balanced science 
     program as an essential part of NASA's contribution to 
     innovation in and the economic competitiveness of the United 
     States and that funding NASA at the levels authorized in the 
     NASA Authorization Act of 2005 would enable NASA's programs 
     to contribute to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.
       The House recedes with modifications.


                         aeronautics (sec.2002)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1302) that 
     would consolidate NASA's aeronautics research authorized 
     under the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 into an Aeronautics 
     Institute for Research within NASA. It would require the 
     Institute to cooperate with relevant programs in the 
     Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland 
     Security, including the Joint Planning and Development Office 
     established under the VISION 100-Century of Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act. The Aeronautics Institute would be 
     allowed to accept assistance, staff, and funding from other 
     federal departments and agencies.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to modified language that includes a 
     Sense of Congress that NASA's aeronautics research and 
     development program has been an important contributor to 
     innovation and to the competitiveness of the United States, 
     and that NASA should maintain its capabilities to advance the 
     state of aeronautics. The provision also includes language 
     that directs the Administrator to coordinate NASA's 
     aeronautics activities with relevant departments and 
     agencies.


                 basic research enhancement (sec. 2003)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1303) that 
     establishes, within NASA, a Basic Research Executive council 
     to oversee the distribution and management of programs and 
     resources engaged in support of basic research activity 
     including the most senior agency official representing the 
     space science, earth science, life and microgravity sciences, 
     and aeronautical research areas. The duties of the Council 
     will be to set criteria for identification of basic research, 
     set priority of research activity, review and evaluate 
     research activity, make recommendations regarding needed 
     adjustments in research activities, and provide annual 
     reports to Congress on research activities.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to strike all but subsection (a) as 
     amended.


               aging workforce issues program (sec. 2004)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1304) that 
     expresses the Sense of Congress that the NASA Administrator 
     should implement a program to address aging workforce issues 
     in aerospace that would document technical and management 
     experiences of senior NASA employees before they leave the 
     Administration, provide incentives for retirees to return to 
     NASA to teach new NASA employees about their lessons and 
     experiences, and provide for the development of an award to 
     recognize and reward senior NASA employees for their 
     contribution to knowledge sharing.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


 sense of the congress regarding nasa's undergraduate student research 
                          program (sec. 2005)

       The Senate amendment contained no provision.
       The House bill contained no provision.
       The Conferees agree to include a provision to express the 
     Sense of Congress that in order to generate interest in 
     careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
     and to help train the next generation of space and 
     aeronautics scientists, technologists, engineers, and 
     mathematicians, the Administrator should utilize NASA's 
     existing Undergraduate Student Research Program to support 
     basic research projects on subjects relevant to NASA.


use of international space station national laboratory to support math 
         and science education and competitiveness (sec. 2006)

       The Senate amendment contained no provision.
       The House bill contained no provision.
       The Conferees agree to include a provision to express the 
     Sense of Congress that the International Space Station 
     National Laboratory offers unique opportunities for 
     educational activities and provides a unique resource for 
     research and development in

[[Page 22334]]

     science, technology, and engineering which can enhance the 
     global competitiveness of the United States. The provision 
     also directs the Administrator to develop detailed plans for 
     implementing one or more education projects that utilize the 
     International Space Station and identifying and supporting 
     research to be conducted aboard the International Space 
     Station.
     Fiscal Year 2008 basic science and research funding
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1306) that 
     increases funding for basic science and research, including 
     for the Explorer program, for fiscal year 2008 by $160 
     million by transferring such amount for such purpose from 
     NASA accounts. The availability of these funds is made 
     contingent upon unobligated balances being available to NASA.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
     Conforming amendments
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1305) that 
     would amend Section 101(d) of the NASA Authorization Act of 
     2005 by adding that the assessment undertaken by NASA 
     examines the number and content of science activities which 
     may be considered as fundamental, or basic research, whether 
     incorporated within specific missions or conducted 
     independently of any specific mission. In addition, this 
     section would require NASA to assess how NASA science 
     activities can best be structured to ensure that basic and 
     fundamental research can be effectively maintained and 
     coordinated in response to national goals in competitiveness 
     and innovation.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.

       TITLE III--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY


              authorization of appropriations (sec. 3001)

       The House bill contained provisions (sec. 411 and 412) that 
     authorize appropriations for the next three fiscal years. 
     Included in the House provisions were authorizations for 
     Science and Technical Research and Services of $470.9 million 
     for Laboratory Activities, $7.9 million for the Malcolm 
     Baldrige National Quality Award Program, and $93.9 million 
     for Construction and Maintenance in FY08; $497.8 million for 
     Laboratory Activities, $8.1 million for the Malcolm Baldrige 
     National Quality Award Program, and $86.4 million for 
     Construction and Maintenance in FY09; and $537.6 million for 
     Laboratory Activities, $8.3 million for the Malcolm Baldrige 
     National Quality Award Program, and $49.7 million for 
     Construction and Maintenance in FY10. In addition, the House 
     provision authorizes for Industrial Technology Services: $223 
     million for FY08, of which $110 million is for the Technology 
     Innovation Program (TIP) of which at least $45 million shall 
     be for new awards, and $113 million is for the Manufacturing 
     Extension Partnership (MEP) Program of which not more than $1 
     million is for the MEP competitive grant program; $263.5 
     million for FY09, of which $141.5 million is for the TIP of 
     which at least $45 million shall be for new awards, and $122 
     million is for the MEP of which not more than $4 million is 
     for the MEP competitive grant program; and $282.3 million for 
     FY10, of which $150.5 million is for the TIP of which at 
     least $45 million shall be for new awards, and $131.8 million 
     is for the MEP of which not more than $4 million is for the 
     MEP competitive grant program.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1401) that 
     authorized appropriations for the next four fiscal years. The 
     Senate provision authorizes $703.6 million in FY08 of which 
     $115 million is for the MEP; $774 million in FY09 of which 
     $122 million is for the MEP; $851.4 million in FY10 of which 
     $131.8 million is for the MEP; and $936.5 million in FY11 of 
     which $142.3 million is for the MEP.
       The Conferees agree to alternate language that authorizes 
     NIST appropriations for three years and at sums for Science 
     and Technical Research and Services of $502.1 million for 
     Laboratory Activities and $150.9 million for Construction and 
     Maintenance in FY08; $541.9 million for Laboratory Activities 
     and $86.4 million for Construction and Maintenance in FY09; 
     and $584.8 million for Laboratory Activities and $49.7 
     million for Construction and Maintenance in FY10. In 
     addition, the Conferees authorize for Industrial Technology 
     Services: $210 million for FY08, of which $100 million is for 
     the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) of which at least $40 
     million shall be for new awards, and $110 million is for the 
     Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program of which 
     not more than $1 million is for the MEP competitive grant 
     program; $253.5 million for FY09, of which $131.5 million is 
     for the TIP of which at least $40 million shall be for new 
     awards, and $122 million is for the MEP of which not more 
     than $4 million is for the MEP competitive grant program; and 
     $272.3 million for FY10, of which $140.5 million is for the 
     TIP of which at least $40 million shall be for new awards, 
     and $131.8 million is for the MEP of which not more than $4 
     million is for the MEP competitive grant program.


 amendments to the stevenson-wydler technology innovation act of 1980 
                               (sec.3002)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1402) that 
     eliminates the Technology Administration and the Under 
     Secretary of Commerce for Technology at the Department of 
     Commerce, and makes conforming amendments.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to a modified provision that 
     restructures the Technology Administration Authority and 
     makes appropriate conforming amendments, including 
     clarification that the Directors of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology and the National Technical 
     Information Service shall report directly to the Secretary of 
     Commerce.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1405) that 
     re-establishes the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
     Competitive Technology (EPSCoT), which was previously managed 
     by the Technology Administration, at NIST. In making awards 
     under this section the NIST Director is directed to ensure 
     that the awards are made on a competitive basis. Special 
     emphasis would be given to projects which would increase the 
     participation of women, Native Americans (including Native 
     Hawaiians and Alaska Natives) and other under-represented 
     groups in science and technology. The program has a matching 
     requirement of not less than 50 percent.
       The House bill contains no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to a modified provision that transfers 
     the responsibility of the EPSCoT to the Secretary of Commerce 
     rather than the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology as in the original Senate provision.


            manufacturing extension partnership (sec. 3003)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1407) that 
     would amend paragraph 3 of section 25(c) of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act to clarify that a 
     MEP Center that receives Federal aid must pay for at least 50 
     percent of the costs incurred in operating the Center with 
     funding from non-Federal sources for the first 3 years and an 
     increasing percentage for the last three years in which the 
     Center is receiving aid under the program. All non-Federal 
     funding that a Center receives from private industry, 
     universities, and State governments, may be included as a 
     portion of the Center's 50 percent or greater funding 
     obligation, if it is determined by the Center to be 
     programmatically reasonable and allocable.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to a modified provision.
       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 423(A)) that 
     creates an independent and outside Advisory Board for the MEP 
     to assess and provide advice on MEP programs, plans, 
     policies, and performance.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 423(B)) that 
     allows the MEP to accept funds from the private sector and 
     other Federal departments and agencies. The provision 
     specifies that these funds shall not be considered in the 
     calculation of the Federal cost-share.
       The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (sec. 
     1404 (b)) that allows the MEP to accept funds from the 
     private sector and other Federal departments and agencies and 
     stipulates that any private sector funding would not be 
     considered a part of the Federal share in the calculation of 
     the Federal cost-share. Funding accepted from other Federal 
     departments or agencies may be considered in the calculation 
     of the Federal cost share.
       The Conferees agree to a modified provision that allows the 
     MEP to accept funds from the private sector and other Federal 
     departments and agencies. Any private sector funding would 
     not be considered a part of the Federal share in the 
     calculation of the Federal cost-share. When funds are 
     accepted from other Federal departments or agencies, the 
     provision specifies that the Director shall make the 
     determination if funds from other Federal departments and 
     agencies shall be considered a part of the Federal share in 
     the calculation of the Federal cost share.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1404(a)) 
     that amends section 25(c)(5) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 USC 278(c)(5)) by inserting 
     a probationary program for MEP Centers that have not received 
     a satisfactory rating. If a Center's performance has not 
     improved in one year, the Director would be required to 
     conduct a competition to select a new operator for the 
     Center.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes.
       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 423(C)) that 
     establishes a competitive grants program for MEP Centers or 
     consortia of Centers. The grants are for Centers to conduct 
     projects to solve new or emerging manufacturing problems. 
     Awardees are not required to provide matching funds.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

[[Page 22335]]

       The Senate recedes.


               institute-wide planning report (sec. 3004)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 421) that 
     requires the Director of NIST to submit a 3-year programmatic 
     planning document for NIST to Congress and submit yearly 
     updates thereafter.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                report by visiting committee (sec. 3005)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 422) that 
     changes the reporting requirement for the Visiting Committee 
     on Advanced Technology to be due 30 days after the budget 
     submission and to comment on the NIST Director's 3-year 
     planning document.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


   meetings of visiting committee on advanced technology (sec. 3006)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 428) that 
     reduces the frequency of meetings for the Visiting Committee 
     on Advanced Technology from quarterly to twice annually.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


     collaborative manufacturing research pilot grants (sec. 3007)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 426) that 
     establishes a collaborative manufacturing research pilot 
     grant program for partnerships between at least one industry 
     and one non-industry partner, with the purpose of fostering 
     collaboration and conducting applied research on 
     manufacturing. The award can be no more than one-third of the 
     cost of the partnership, with no more than an additional one-
     third coming from other Federal sources. NIST will run one 
     pilot competition and awards will be for three years.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision
       The Senate recedes.


              manufacturing fellowship program (sec. 3008)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 427) that 
     establishes a program of postdoctoral and senior research 
     fellowships at NIST in manufacturing sciences.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


     procurement of temporary and intermittent services (sec. 3009)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 449) that 
     authorizes NIST to issue up to 200 personal services 
     contracts per year to procure the temporary or intermittent 
     services of scientific and technical experts and consultants. 
     The authority expires in 2010.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                  malcolm baldrige awards (sec. 3010)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 450) that raises 
     to 18 the limit on the number of annual awards under the 
     Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program and removes 
     category restrictions.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


  report on national institute of standards and technology efforts to 
  recruit and retain early career science and engineering researchers 
                              (sec. 3011)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 208) that 
     requires the Director of NIST to report on efforts to recruit 
     and retain young scientists and engineers at the early stages 
     of their careers.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


               technology innovation program (sec. 3012)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 424) that 
     repeals the existing Advanced Technology Program (ATP) 
     statute and creates the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). 
     The purpose of TIP is to assist businesses and universities 
     to accelerate the development of high-risk technologies that 
     will have broad-based economic impact. The TIP will make 
     awards to either small- or medium-sized businesses or joint 
     ventures. Awards made to single companies can be for no more 
     than $3 million over three years. Awards made to joint 
     ventures may not exceed $9 million over five years. (A joint 
     venture includes either two separately owned for-profit 
     companies with the lead being a small- or medium-sized 
     business, or at least one small- or medium-sized business and 
     one institution of higher education.) The Federal share of a 
     project shall not exceed 50 percent. To participate in the 
     TIP an eligible company must be majority owned by U.S. 
     citizens or owned by a parent company incorporated in another 
     country provided that the company's participation is in U.S. 
     economic interests. The provision establishes minimum 
     criteria for the selection of awards based upon scientific 
     and technological merit, the project's potential for benefits 
     that extend beyond direct return to the applicant, the 
     applicant's ability to manage the award successfully and an 
     explanation of why TIP support is necessary. In the case of 
     joint ventures, language is included to ensure that 
     intellectual property is to vest in any participant as agreed 
     to by the joint venture participants. The provisions requires 
     the TIP to continue funding awards made under the prior 
     Advanced Technology Program, requires the Director to 
     coordinate with other Federal agencies to ensure there is no 
     duplication of efforts, and allows the TIP to accept funds 
     from other Federal agencies. An Advisory board is established 
     to provide independent advice on TIP operations and planning.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Conferees agree to accept a modified version of the 
     House provision. The modifications clarify that the focus of 
     the program is to support, promote, and accelerate innovation 
     in the United States through high-risk, high-reward research 
     in areas of critical national need, and establish that large 
     companies may not receive any TIP funding. The modified 
     version also includes a list of award criteria requiring the 
     applicant to: establish that the proposed technology has 
     strong potential to address critical national needs through 
     transforming the Nation's capacity to deal with major 
     societal challenges that are not currently being addressed; 
     provide evidence that the research will not be conducted 
     within a reasonable time period without TIP assistance; 
     demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made by the 
     applicant to secure funding from alternative sources and that 
     no other alternative funding sources were reasonably 
     available; and demonstrate that other entities have not 
     already developed, commercialized, marketed, distributed or 
     sold similar technologies. In addition, the Director shall 
     transmit to Congress an annual report on the program's 
     activities. The TIP may accept funds from other Federal 
     agencies, and these funds will be included as part of the 
     Federal cost share of any TIP project. The section also 
     provides a definition of ``high-risk, high-reward research.''


    technical amendments to the national institute of standards and 
       technology act and other technical amendments (sec. 3013)

       The House bill contained several provisions (sec. 425, 442, 
     443, 445, 446, 447, and 448) that make technical amendments 
     to the NIST Act. These provisions: raise the limitation on 
     the amount NIST can spend on research fellowships from 1 
     percent to 1.5 percent of the total appropriations; authorize 
     NIST to enter into grants and cooperative agreements in 
     addition to its current authority to enter into contracts and 
     cooperative research and development agreements; authorize 
     NIST to transfer up to 0.25 percent of its total 
     appropriations, and any funds from other agencies given to 
     NIST to produce Standard Reference Materials, into the 
     Working Capital Fund; repeal an outdated statute requiring 
     the NIST Director to establish a program to evaluate non-
     energy inventions; clarify in statute that the metric system 
     used in the U.S. is the modern system of metric measurement 
     units; eliminate archaic, special-case language related to 
     the definition of units of electrical and light measurement; 
     and specify that standard time in the US is Coordinated 
     Universal Time and fix technical problems in statute with the 
     time zone definitions.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1406) that 
     makes technical amendments to the NIST Act as requested in 
     previous years by the President. These provisions: eliminate 
     the limitation on the amount NIST can spend on research 
     fellowships; authorize NIST to enter in grants and 
     cooperative agreements in addition to its current authority 
     to enter in contracts and cooperative research and 
     development agreements; authorize NIST to purchase 
     memberships in scientific organizations and pay registration 
     fees for NIST employees' attendance at conferences; clarify 
     in statute that the metric system used in the U.S. is the 
     modern system of metric measurement units; eliminate archaic, 
     special-case language related to the definition of units of 
     electrical and light measurement; specify that standard time 
     in the U.S. is Coordinated Universal Time and fix technical 
     problems in statute with the time zone definitions; and 
     repeal an outdated statute requiring the NIST Director to 
     establish a program to evaluate non-energy inventions.
       The Senate recedes to sec 425 of the House bill.
       The Conferees agree to include all House and Senate 
     provisions, except the Working Capital Fund Transfers (sec. 
     443 of the House bill) and the authorization for NIST to 
     purchase memberships in scientific organizations and pay 
     registration fees for NIST employees' attendance at 
     conferences (sec. 1406(b)(2) of the Senate amendment).


            retention of depreciation surcharge (sec. 3014)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 444) that allows 
     NIST to retain the building use and depreciation surcharge 
     fees that are charged by the General Services Administration.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                   post-doctoral fellows (sec. 3015)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 441) that raises 
     the cap on the number of post-doctoral fellows that NIST can 
     accept each year from 60 to 120.

[[Page 22336]]

       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
     Innovation acceleration
       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1403) that 
     establishes an Innovation Acceleration grants program at NIST 
     to be known as the ``Standards and Technology Acceleration 
     Research Program.'' The purpose of the program is to support 
     and promote innovation in the United States through high-
     risk, high-reward research. No less than 8 percent of the 
     funds available to NIST are for this program, and they shall 
     be taken from the funds available to NIST for Laboratory 
     Activities. At least 80 percent of the funds available to the 
     program shall be used to award competitive, merit-reviewed 
     grants, cooperative agreements or contracts to public or 
     private entities, including businesses and universities. The 
     Director is required to ensure that any resulting 
     intellectual property from awards under the program shall 
     vest in a United States entity that can commercialize the 
     technology in a timely manner. Each funded project would be 
     required to have a least one small- or medium-sized business 
     and would receive priority when educational institutions are 
     involved. The Director is required to solicit proposals 
     annually to address areas of national need for high-risk, 
     high-reward research. ``High-risk, high-reward research'' is 
     defined as research that: 1) has the potential for yielding 
     results with far-ranging or wide-ranging implications, 2) 
     addresses critical national needs related to measurement 
     standards and technology, and 3) is too novel or too 
     interdisciplinary to fare well in the traditional peer-review 
     process.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
     Manufacturing research database
       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 429) that 
     requires NIST to establish a manufacturing research database 
     to enable private sector individuals and Federal officials to 
     access a broad range of information on manufacturing research 
     supported by Federal funding. NIST may charge a nominal fee 
     for use of the database. This section authorizes $2 million 
     for these activities.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes.

                TITLE IV--OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAMS


   ocean and atmospheric research and development program (sec. 4001)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1501) that 
     directs the Administrator of NOAA, in consultation with the 
     NASA and the NSF, to establish a coordinated program of 
     ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, and atmospheric research, in 
     collaboration with academic and nongovernmental entities, 
     that is focused on the development of advanced technologies 
     and analytic methods to promote U.S. leadership in ocean and 
     atmospheric science and competitiveness in the uses of such 
     knowledge.
       The House bill contains no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


   noaa ocean and atmospheric science education programs (sec. 4002)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1502) that 
     directs the Administrator of NOAA to develop, conduct, and 
     coordinate education activities, built upon existing NOAA 
     programs, to increase public awareness of ocean, coastal, 
     Great Lakes, and atmospheric science and stewardship. The 
     Administrator of NOAA is also directed to develop a science 
     education plan for the next twenty years and evaluate and 
     update the education plan every five years thereafter.
       The House bill contains no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


             noaa's contribution to innovation (sec. 4003)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 1503) that 
     directs that NOAA is to be a full participant in interagency 
     efforts to promote innovation and economic competitiveness, 
     consistent with the agency mission.
       The House contains no similar provision.
       The House recedes.

                     TITLE V--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


  mathematics, science and engineering education at the department of 
                           energy (sec. 5003)

       The Senate amendment (section 2003) contained a provision 
     that would amend the Department of Energy Science Education 
     Enhancement Act (42 U.S.C. 7381a) to establish a Director of 
     Mathematics, Science and Engineering Education, reporting to 
     the Undersecretary of Science. The Director would be 
     responsible for coordinating Mathematics, Science and 
     Engineering Education across the Department of Energy; 
     preparing unified budgets; and acting as the interagency 
     liaison for this area. The Secretary is directed to establish 
     a separate fund to which 0.3 percent of funds made available 
     to the Department for research, development, demonstration 
     and commercial application activities for each fiscal year 
     are made available to carry out activities authorized in this 
     Act.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment requiring 
     along with the Department's annual budget proposal a 
     description of how funds were spent from this fund in the 
     prior fiscal year and a proposal for how they will be spent 
     in the fiscal year of the budget proposal.


   pilot program of grants to specialty schools for mathematics and 
                      science (sec. 5003, chpt. 1)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision to establish a 
     competitive grant program to assist States in establishing or 
     expanding public, statewide specialty schools that provide 
     comprehensive mathematics, science, engineering and 
     technology education. The provision authorized scientific and 
     engineering staff of the National Laboratories to assist in 
     teaching courses in statewide specialty schools in 
     mathematics and science education, and to use National 
     Laboratory scientific equipment in the teaching of courses. 
     The Federal share of the costs of establishing or expanding 
     public statewide specialty schools for mathematics and 
     science would not exceed 50 percent. The Senate amendment 
     provided $140 million over 4 years for these schools.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment authorizing a 3-year 
     pilot program; setting a cap on the award amount and duration 
     for each State; reducing the Federal share; clarifying the 
     required uses of funds; and reducing the total authorization 
     to $66.5 million over fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
       The conferees intend for all 50 states to be eligible to 
     participate in the pilot program, and that schools serve 
     students residing in the State where the school is located 
     and offer a high quality comprehensive math, science, 
     engineering and technology curriculum designed to improve 
     academic achievement in those areas. The conferees intend for 
     the specialty schools to integrate parental involvement into 
     curricula.


     experiential-based learning opportunities (sec. 5003, chpt. 2)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision to establish 
     summer internships, including internships at the National 
     Laboratories, for middle and high school students to promote 
     experiential, hands-on learning in math and science. The 
     Senate amendment provided $60 million over 4 years for these 
     internships.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to reduce the total 
     authorization to $22.5 million over fiscal years 2008 through 
     2010.
       The conferees do not intend for this provision to override 
     any policies of the Department as they pertain to liability 
     concerns with hosting minors onsite at the National 
     Laboratories.


  national laboratories centers of excellence in science, technology, 
       engineering and mathematics education (sec. 5003, chpt. 3)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision to establish a 
     program at each of the National Laboratories to support a 
     Center of Excellence in Mathematics and Science at one high 
     need public secondary school located in the region of the 
     National Laboratory.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment providing the National 
     Laboratories flexibility to designate more than 1 high-need 
     school in the region as a Center of Excellence; clarifying 
     the eligibility requirement for partnerships with 
     institutions of higher education; and permitting nonprofit 
     entities to participate in the partnerships.
       The conferees intend for the institutions of higher 
     education and any nonprofit partners in this program to have 
     long-standing expertise in teacher training, including pre-
     service preparation and postgraduate professional development 
     of teachers and other school personnel. In addition, the 
     conferees intend that the schools and students throughout the 
     region benefit from the Centers of Excellence through the 
     distribution of best practices and teacher training at the 
     Centers.


                 summer institutes (sec. 5003, chpt. 4)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision to establish 
     programs of summer institutes, at both the National 
     Laboratories and at eligible partner institutions, including 
     universities and certain nonprofits, to strengthen the 
     teaching skills of K-12 math and science teachers. The 
     provision gave priority to the establishment of summer 
     institutes that provide training to teachers from a wide 
     range of high need school districts. The Senate amendment 
     provided $190 million over 4 years for these institutes.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment clarifying the 
     definitions of ``eligible partner'' and ``summer institute''; 
     establishing selection criteria for eligible partners; 
     clarifying the assistance provided by the National 
     Laboratories to the eligible partners; specifying the 
     required and allowable uses of funds under this program; and 
     reducing the total authorization to $60 million over fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2010.

[[Page 22337]]

       The conferees intend for this provision to create two 
     programs. The first program would provide funds to the 
     National Laboratories to establish or expand existing summer 
     institutes on-site. The conferees encourage the National 
     Laboratories to leverage the federal contribution by 
     continuing to solicit state and local government support 
     along with that of the private sector for these summer 
     institutes. The second program would allow National 
     Laboratory resources, including staff and equipment, to be 
     used to assist eligible partner institutions seeking to 
     establish or expand their own summer institutes. Provision of 
     such assistance may require travel and other expenditures by 
     the National Laboratories. However, the conferees do not 
     intend for any of the funds authorized under this program to 
     be made available directly to eligible partners but that 
     funds shall be made available through the National 
     Laboratories to the eligible partner for the costs associated 
     with hosting an institute provided that the Department of 
     Energy shall ensure adequate oversight of such funds. It is 
     the intent of the conferees that the National Laboratory seek 
     partnerships in which the National Laboratory contributes 
     unique expertise and resources. Under the definition of 
     eligible partners the conferees intend for the institution of 
     higher education that provides training for teachers and 
     principals to have strong and longstanding expertise in 
     teacher training, including pre-service preparation and 
     postgraduate professional development for teachers and other 
     school personnel.


  nuclear science talent expansion program for institutions of higher 
education (sec. 5004) and hydrocarbon systems science talent expansion 
        program for institutions of higher education (sec. 5005)

       The Senate bill contained a provision, Section 2003, 
     Chapter 5 that would create a program of grants to 
     institutions of higher education to create or expand research 
     and education programs in nuclear science. The Senate 
     provision placed the authority for this program under the 
     newly created Director of Mathematics, Science and 
     Engineering Education, a position reporting to the 
     Undersecretary for Science. The Senate bill provided $139.5 
     million over 4 years for these grants.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment removing this program 
     from the authority of the newly created Director and 
     elevating it to the level of the Secretary; giving the 
     Secretary more flexibility in determining the duration of 
     grants; creating an additional program for hydrocarbon 
     systems sciences; and reducing the overall authorizations for 
     the program.
       The conferees believe that the Office of Science and the 
     Office of Nuclear Energy have distinct roles in supporting 
     nuclear science research and education. Accordingly, the 
     conferees do not intend the new program created in this 
     provision to be a replacement for the existing University 
     Nuclear Science and Engineering Support program authorized in 
     Sec. 954 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). In 
     particular, the conferees believe that the Office of Nuclear 
     Energy has the responsibility to support university research 
     and training reactors and associated infrastructure, as 
     described in subsection (d) of Sec. 954. In addition, while 
     nuclear sciences has been defined broadly in Sec. 5004 to 
     include a range of fields with varying degrees of relevance 
     to the nuclear energy mission of the Department, it is the 
     intent of the conferees that the Office of Nuclear Energy 
     maintain its primary responsibility for supporting research 
     and human infrastructure development in areas identified by 
     the Secretary as critical to the near term nuclear energy 
     mission. Such support may be in the form of fellowships or 
     research grants as authorized in Sec. 954 of EPACT, or in the 
     form of institutional grants authorized under this Act. The 
     conferees believe that the Office of Science should 
     participate in the new program only in support of basic 
     sciences, which may include fields like separations chemistry 
     that are relevant to the long-term nuclear energy research 
     plan. The conferees encourage the Secretary to allocate 
     responsibilities under this provision accordingly.
       The conferees intend for the program of grants to 
     institutions of higher education to create or expand research 
     and education programs in hydrocarbon systems science 
     authorized in Section 5005 to begin to address the decline in 
     resources dedicated to hydrocarbons systems science education 
     at institutions of higher education and bolster the number of 
     graduates with degrees in hydrocarbon systems science. The 
     conferees believe that increasing hydrocarbon systems science 
     programs at institutions of higher education will rebuild the 
     science and engineering capabilities of the nation in this 
     critical energy sector. Programs to educate and create 
     graduates of hydrocarbon systems science are needed to 
     replace forecasted workforce shortages in this area due to 
     retirements of aging hydrocarbon systems science 
     professionals. The conferees seek to address this workforce 
     challenge in the nation's energy industry.


                    Early career grants (sec. 5006)

       The House bill contained a provision (section 203) to award 
     grants to scientists and engineers at the early stage of 
     their careers in academia or in nonprofit, non-degree 
     granting research organizations to conduct research in fields 
     relevant to the mission of the Department, giving priority to 
     grants expanding energy production and use through coal-to-
     liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing. The 
     grants provide 5 years of research funding support at a 
     minimum of $80 thousand per year per award and are based upon 
     merit.
       The Senate amendment contained a similar provision (section 
     2004) to award early career grants of not more than $100 
     thousand annually for up to 5 years to scientists and 
     engineers within 10 years of completing their doctorate, 
     particularly at National Laboratories or other federally 
     funded research and development centers.
       The Senate recedes to the House provision with an amendment 
     expanding eligibility for early career awards to include 
     scientists at the National Laboratories; requiring an award 
     ceiling of $125 thousand per year; [and striking the priority 
     given to coal-to-liquids technology and advanced nuclear 
     reprocessing.]


              Office of Science authorization (sec. 5007)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2006) 
     that amended section 971(b) of the Energy Policy Act (42 
     U.S.C. 16311(B)) by lowering the authorization for the Office 
     of Science in fiscal year 2009 from $5.2 billion to $4.8 
     billion and extending the authorization out to fiscal year 
     2010 to $4.945 billion and fiscal year 2011 to $5.265 billion 
     consistent with the President's American Competitiveness 
     Initiative.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment that 
     retains the authorization levels for the Office of Science 
     found in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and adds an additional 
     year of authorization in Fiscal Year 2010, increasing it to 
     $5.814 billion.


                Discovery science institutes (sec. 5008)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2007) 
     to select, based upon merit, 3 multidisciplinary institutes 
     centered at National Laboratories to apply fundamental 
     science and engineering discoveries to technological 
     innovations related to missions of the Department and the 
     global competitiveness of the United States. The institutes 
     would partner with institutions of higher education to train 
     engineering students and work with private industry, state 
     and local governments and financing entities, such as venture 
     capital funds, to transition innovative technologies from the 
     institutes to the private sector.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment striking the 
     partnership with state and local governments as well as 
     financing entities and limiting the funding of any one 
     institute to three years in duration.


     Protecting America's Competitive Edge Fellowships (sec. 5009)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2008) 
     that would award competitive, merit-based, portable 
     fellowships not exceeding 5 years in duration to students 
     pursuing a Ph.D. at an institution of higher education in a 
     field relevant to the mission of the Department. Selection 
     criteria included that the applicants be in the upper 10 
     percent of their class. Funding was authorized based on a 
     fellowship of $40 thousand--$50 thousand per year, including 
     a stipend, tuition and incidentals. The enumerated 
     authorizations were to fund in fiscal year 2008 200 
     fellowships, increasing in fiscal year 2011 to 700 
     fellowships. A limit on a fee for a third party administrator 
     was placed on the program to approximately 10 percent of the 
     fellowship program.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment limiting the duration 
     of the fellowship to 3 years within a 5 year period; 
     eliminating the criterion that applicants be in the upper 10 
     percent of their class; removing the cap on administrative 
     fees; and reducing the total authorization for the program 
     such that the number of fellowships available is 
     approximately 160 in fiscal year 2008 (assuming the same 
     fellowship amount as above), increasing to approximately 430 
     in fiscal year 2010.


 Sense of Congress regarding certain recommendations and reviews (sec. 
                                 5010)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2009) 
     requiring the Secretary of Energy to implement the 
     recommendations of Government Accountability Report number 
     04-639 and annually conduct compliance reviews of at least 2 
     recipients of Department grants in order to comply with Title 
     IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment expressing a Sense of 
     Congress that the Department comply with the recommendations 
     of GAO report 04-639 and annually conduct reviews in 
     accordance with Title IX of at least 2 grant recipients.


              Distinguished scientist program (sec. 5011)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2011) 
     to establish a program to support the joint appointment of 
     distinguished scientists by institutions of higher

[[Page 22338]]

     education and National Laboratories. The provision authorized 
     $30 million in fiscal year 2008 to support 30 appointments, 
     increasing to $100 million in fiscal year 2010 and 2011 to 
     support 100 appointments at $1 million each, with a 
     requirement for a $1 million cost-match by the institution of 
     higher education.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment reducing the total 
     authorization level to $65 million over fiscal years 2008 
     through 2010.
       It is the intent of the conferees that the amounts 
     authorized for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010 support 
     appointments at approximately $1 million with an equal or 
     greater cost-match by the institution of higher education.


         Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (sec. 5012)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2005) 
     that establishes an Advanced Research Projects Authority--
     Energy, enabling the Secretary acting through a Director to 
     fund projects to overcome long-term and high-risk 
     technological barriers to the development of energy 
     technologies. Authorization of the authority was established 
     based on such sum as necessary to carry out this section for 
     Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011. An authorization for ARPA-E 
     was previously contained in Senate bill S. 2197 in the 109th 
     Congress at $250 million annually for Fiscal Years 2008 
     through 2011.
       The House bill contained no such provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment that establishes an 
     Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA-E, whose 
     purpose is to fund collaborative research and development to 
     overcome long-term or high-risk technological barriers in 
     energy technologies that industry by itself will not 
     undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty. 
     ARPA-E is to be headed by a Director nominated by the 
     President and confirmed by the Senate. The conferees expect 
     the President to appoint an acting Director who shall have 
     the full authority allowed to the Director under this Act, to 
     serve from the time ARPA-E is established until the Senate 
     acts to confirm a Director. Similar to the Defense Advanced 
     Research Projects Agency the Director is to establish and 
     monitor project milestones, initiate research projects 
     quickly, and just as quickly terminate or restructure 
     projects if such milestones are not achieved. The Director is 
     to utilize the existing authorities granted to the Department 
     of Energy by Congress to fund projects. Projects should be 
     conducted through teams that utilize the talent, resources 
     and facilities found in the nation?s universities, National 
     Laboratories and the private sector. In the case of awards to 
     consortia that include one or more of the National 
     Laboratories, the conferees intend that the unique, taxpayer-
     funded resources and facilities of the National Laboratories 
     be used to complement the abilities of companies, nonprofits, 
     institutions of higher learning, or other participants in the 
     consortia. The Director is given hiring authority to hire 70 
     to 120 scientific, engineering personnel to act as program 
     managers without regard to civil service laws to quickly 
     offer competitive salaries rivaling those of industry. Use of 
     this hiring authority is limited to a 3 year appointment 
     which may be extended. This ensures that technical program 
     managers pass through ARPA-E with the intent of executing 
     technically challenging projects during their tenure, while 
     circulating new talent and ideas through ARPA-E. A fund is 
     established in the United States Treasury without fiscal year 
     limitation, for ARPA-E, to be included as a separate line 
     item in the annual budget request to the Congress. Likewise, 
     with this separate fund it is the intent that ARPA-E should 
     be a semi-autonomous agency outside the Department of Energy 
     bureaucracy, able to react quickly to the most challenging 
     energy problems in the 21st century to reduce foreign imports 
     of energy, develop revolutionary energy efficient and low-
     emitting technologies, and ensure the United States leads the 
     world in energy technology competitiveness. The conferees 
     intend that funding for ARPA-E be provided through the same 
     appropriations process and subcommittee consideration used 
     for other semi-autonomous agencies of the Department at the 
     time of enactment of this Act. It is the strong intent of the 
     conferees that ARPA-E should not be established at the 
     expense of on-going programs at the Department of Energy. In 
     particular, the conferees intend that ARPA-E be funded to the 
     full extent practicable provided that the Office of Science, 
     the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), and laboratory 
     directed research and development (LDRD) at the National 
     Laboratories maintain the funding levels they would have 
     received in the absence of ARPA-E. In this regard, the 
     provision contains language specifying that no funds for 
     ARPA-E shall be appropriated unless the appropriation for the 
     Office of Science increases by inflation over Fiscal Year 
     2007. Authorization of appropriations for ARPA-E is 
     established in FY 2008 at $300 million and such sums 
     thereafter for fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
     Provisions deleted


                    High-Risk, High Reward Research

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 2010) 
     that required the Secretary of Energy and the Director of the 
     United States Geological Survey to establish a grant program 
     to conduct high-risk, high-reward research.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes to the House.

          FINAL STATEMENT OF MANAGERS FOR TITLE VI--EDUCATION


                    Findings of Congress (sec. 6001)

       The Senate amendment included findings regarding the 
     importance of improving education to ensure that the nation 
     remains competitive in the global economy.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


                        Definitions (sec. 6002)

       The Senate amendment provided that, unless otherwise 
     specified, all terms used in the division have the same 
     meanings given in section 9101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act. It also defined critical foreign 
     languages and the Secretary.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes.

                     Subtitle A--Teacher Assistance

              Part I--Teachers for a Competitive Tomorrow


                          Purpose (sec. 6111)

       The Senate amendment stated that the purposes of this Part 
     were: to develop and implement programs to provide integrated 
     courses of study in mathematics, science, engineering, or 
     critical foreign languages, and teacher education that lead 
     to a baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher 
     certification; to develop and implement master's degree 
     programs that enhance science, mathematics, technology, or 
     critical foreign language teachers? content knowledge and 
     pedagogical skills; and to develop master's degree programs 
     in education for professionals in science, mathematics or 
     critical foreign language fields to become teachers.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to clarify that 
     technology and engineering fields should be supported by the 
     programs in this Part.


                        Definitions (sec. 6112)

       The Senate amendment defined Children from Low-income 
     Families, Eligible Recipient, High-Need Local Educational 
     Agencies, Highly Qualified, Partnership, and Teaching Skills.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to clarify the 
     definition of teaching skills.
       Programs for baccalaureate degrees in science, technology, 
     engineering, mathematics, or critical foreign languages, with 
     concurrent teacher certification (sec. 6113)
       The Senate amendment authorized competitive grants that 
     enable partnerships to develop and implement programs to 
     provide courses of study in mathematics, science, 
     engineering, or critical foreign language in ways that are 
     integrated with teacher education and that lead to a 
     baccalaureate degree with concurrent teacher certification.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to collect data on the 
     retention of program graduates, placing a priority on 
     applications with a focus on placing participants in high 
     need local educational agencies clarifying that technology 
     programs also should be supported and to include a rule of 
     construction maintaining compliance with section 444 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).


  Programs for master's degrees in science, technology, engineering, 
         mathematics, or critical foreign language (sec. 6114)

       The Senate amendment authorized competitive grants for 
     partnerships to develop and implement 2- or 3-year part-time 
     master's degree programs in mathematics, science, technology, 
     or critical foreign language education for current teachers 
     to improve their content knowledge and pedagogical skills, 
     and programs for professionals in mathematics, science, 
     engineering, or critical foreign languages that lead to 1-
     year master's degree in teaching that results in teacher 
     certification. The partnerships consist of institutions of 
     higher education, departments of mathematics, engineering, 
     science or critical foreign languages, teacher preparation 
     programs and high-need local educational agencies and their 
     schools.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment that technology and 
     engineering fields should be supported by both programs.


                     General provisions (sec. 6115)

       The Senate amendment includes provisions requiring the 
     programs under sections 6113 and 6114 to provide grants for 
     five years, require applicants to provide matching funds and 
     ensure that grants supplement existing state and federal 
     funding. The Secretary is also required to evaluate the 
     programs and provide an annual report to Congress.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to change House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce to House Committee 
     on Education and Labor.


              Authorization of appropriations (sec. 6116)

       The Senate amendment authorized $210,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2008, and such sums

[[Page 22339]]

     as may be necessary for each of the 3 succeeding fiscal 
     years, of which 57.1 percent will be available to carry out 
     section 3113 for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year; and 42.9 percent will be available to carry out section 
     3114 for fiscal year 2008 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment changing the amounts 
     authorize to $276 million for fiscal year 2008 and such sums 
     for the two succeeding years, with $151,200,000 for section 
     6113 and $125,000,000 for section 6114.

  Part II--Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs


                          Purpose (sec. 6121)

       The Senate amendment stated that the purpose of the section 
     was to increase the number of students taking Advanced 
     Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) classes 
     and to increase the number of students passing AP and IB 
     tests, and to increase the number of qualified AP and IB 
     teachers serving in high-need schools teaching mathematics, 
     science, and critical foreign languages.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


                        Definitions (sec. 6122)

       The Senate amendment defined Advanced Placement or 
     International Baccalaureate courses as courses of college-
     level instruction provided to middle or secondary school 
     students, terminating in an examination administered by the 
     College Board or the International Baccalaureate 
     Organization, or another highly rigorous, evidence-based, 
     postsecondary preparatory program terminating in an 
     examination administered by another nationally recognized 
     educational organization that has a demonstrated record of 
     effectiveness in assessing secondary school students.
       The House had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to update the 
     definition to include the additional program that may be 
     allowed and to strike the reference to middle school students 
     from the definition because such students are included in the 
     definition of ``secondary school'' students used in this 
     bill.


Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs (sec. 6123)

       The Senate amendment authorized competitive grants to 
     expand access to AP and IB and pre-AP and pre-IB classes and 
     to increase the number of qualified AP and IB teachers in 
     high-need schools. The Senate amendment outlined allowable 
     uses of funds, terms of grants and application requirements. 
     It also authorized appropriations of $58,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     three succeeding fiscal years.
       The House had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to change the reference 
     to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to the 
     House Committee on Education and Labor and to increase the 
     authorized appropriation to $65,000,000 for 2008 and such 
     sums for each of the next 2 succeeding fiscal years. The 
     amendment also places a priority on grant applications that 
     increase the number of students in high need schools who 
     participate in and pass IB and AP courses.

Part III--Promising Practices in Mathematics, Science, Technology, and 
                          Engineering Teaching


                    Promising practices (sec. 6131)

       The Senate amendment authorized the Secretary of Education 
     to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to convene 
     a national panel within a year after the enactment of this 
     Act to identify promising practices in the teaching of 
     science, technology, engineering and mathematics in 
     elementary and secondary education. Scientists, 
     practitioners, teachers, principals, and representatives from 
     entities with expertise in education, mathematics, and 
     science would participate in the panel.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment clarifying the 
     provision, including that promising practices identified 
     under this program should be grounded in scientifically valid 
     research as that term is defined in the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965. The House amendment also authorizes appropriations 
     of $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2008.

                        Subtitle B--Mathematics


Math Now for elementary school and middle school students program (sec. 
                                 6201)

       The Senate amendment authorized a grant program to improve 
     instruction in elementary and middle school mathematics and 
     provided targeted help for students struggling with 
     mathematics to reach or exceed grade-level academic 
     achievement standards. Grants would be awarded to implement 
     mathematics instructional materials and interventions, 
     provide professional development activities, and monitor the 
     progress of students in mathematics. State educational 
     agencies would be awarded grants on a competitive basis to 
     enable them to award grants to eligible local educational 
     agencies. Priority would be given to applications for 
     projects that would implement statewide strategies for 
     improving mathematics instruction and raising the mathematics 
     achievement of students, particularly those in grades 4 
     through 8. The provision requires a match, but the Secretary 
     is given the authority to waive all or part of it in cases of 
     serious hardship. The section authorized $146,700,000 for 
     fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the three succeeding fiscal years.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to decrease the 
     duration of the grants from five years to three years and to 
     authorize $95,000,000 in fiscal year 2008 and such sums in 
     the succeeding two, not three, years. The amendment also 
     requires the Secretary of Education to establish a screening 
     process to ensure that those providing technical assistance 
     to states and school districts under this program do not have 
     financial interests in the products, activities or services 
     that grant recipients might purchase with grant funding.


               Summer Term Education Programs (sec. 6202)

       The Senate amendment authorized the Secretary of Education 
     to provide grants to support summer learning opportunities 
     for low income students in the fields of mathematics, 
     technology, and problem-solving to mitigate learning losses 
     experienced over the summer. The Senate bill authorized such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to authorize such sums 
     as may be necessary to carry out the program for 2008 and 
     each of the succeeding two succeeding fiscal years.


         Math Skills for Secondary School Students (sec. 6203)

       The Senate amendment authorized the Secretary of Education 
     to provide grants supporting the following activities: (1) 
     assistance to State and local education agencies in 
     implementing research-based mathematics programs for students 
     in secondary schools; (2) improving the instruction of 
     mathematics programs based on best practices; (3) providing 
     targeted help to low-income students who are struggling with 
     mathematics; and (4) providing in-service training to 
     instructors to improve the teaching of mathematics to 
     students.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to decrease the 
     duration of the grants from a period of four years to a 
     period of three years and to authorize $95,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2008 and such sums for the succeeding two, not three, 
     fiscal years. The amendment also requires the Secretary of 
     Education to establish a screening process that would ensure 
     that those providing technical assistance to states and 
     school districts under this program do not have financial 
     interests in the products, activities or services that 
     recipients could purchase with grant funding.


             Peer review of state applications (sec. 6204)

       The Senate amendment banned conflict of interests for those 
     reviewing grant applications for the Math Now program (sec. 
     3201).
       The House bill had no similar provisions.
       The House recedes with an amendment adding a section 
     prohibiting conflicts of interest and establishing a 
     screening process for identifying such conflicts under the 
     Math Now and Math Skills programs. The amendment requires the 
     Secretary of Education to establish peer review panels to 
     review State applications and further requires that the 
     Secretary and the Office of General Counsel establish a 
     process for screening reviewers to prevent conflicts arising 
     from professional connections to teaching methodologies, 
     connections to state programs, or financial interests. The 
     amendment requires that the review process be transparent and 
     that reviewer's reports be available to the public but not 
     reveal any personally identifiable information about the 
     reviewer. However, State educational agencies shall have the 
     opportunity for direct interaction with the review panel 
     including the disclosure of the identities of the reviewers.

            Subtitle C--Foreign Language Partnership Program


                    Findings and purpose (sec. 6301)

       The Senate amendment included findings regarding the 
     shortage of skilled professionals with higher levels of 
     proficiency in foreign language and the need to provide 
     language instruction at younger ages, starting in elementary 
     school and carrying through to postsecondary education. The 
     Senate amendment stated that the purpose of the subtitle was 
     to significantly increase both the opportunities to study 
     critical foreign languages programs and the number of 
     students who obtain the highest levels of foreign language 
     proficiency.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


                        Definitions (sec. 6302)

       The Senate amendment contained definitions for eligible 
     recipient and superior level of proficiency.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to revise the 
     definition of the term `eligible entity' to mean an entity 
     mutually agreed upon by a partnership that shall receive 
     grant funds under this subtitle on behalf of the partnership 
     for use in carrying out the activities assisted under this 
     title.


                     Program authorized (sec. 6303)

       The Senate amendment authorizes a competitive grant program 
     to enable institutions

[[Page 22340]]

     of higher education and local educational agencies working in 
     partnership to establish articulated programs of study in 
     critical foreign languages so that students from elementary 
     school through postsecondary education can advance their 
     knowledge successfully and achieve higher levels of 
     proficiency in a critical foreign language.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to change the reference 
     to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to the 
     House Committee on Education and Labor. The amendment also 
     requires that the evaluation required by the Senate bill 
     identify best practices on teaching and learning of foreign 
     languages. The amendment also clarifies that 2 of the 5 years 
     of the grant duration may be used for planning and 
     development.


              Authorization of appropriations (sec. 6304)

       The Senate amendment authorizes $22,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the three 
     succeeding fiscal years.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to authorize 
     $28,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the succeeding two, not three, fiscal 
     years.

              Subtitle D--Alignment of Education Programs


Alignment of secondary school graduation requirements with the demands 
of 21st century postsecondary endeavors and support for P-16 education 
                        data systems (sec. 6401)

       The Senate amendment authorized the Secretary of Education 
     to award competitive grants to States to promote better 
     alignment of elementary and secondary education with the 
     knowledge and skills needed to succeed in academic credit-
     bearing coursework in institutions of higher education, in 
     the 21st century workforce and in the Armed Forces. The 
     Senate amendment also authorized competitive grants to 
     support the establishment or improvement of statewide P-16 
     educational longitudinal data systems to assist States in 
     improving the rigor and quality of content knowledge 
     requirements and assessments, ensure that students are 
     prepared to succeed in postsecondary endeavors, and enable 
     States to have valid and reliable information to inform 
     education policy and practice. The Senate amendment 
     authorized $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to add the requirement 
     that access to personally identifiable information be limited 
     by the provisions of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
     USC 1232g) and to authorize $120,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 
     and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009.

      Subtitle E--Mathematics and Science Partnership Bonus Grants


      Mathematics and science partnership bonus grants (sec. 6501)

       The Senate amendment directed the Secretary of Education to 
     award grants of $50,000 to three elementary and three 
     secondary schools, each of which has a high concentration of 
     low income students, in each State whose students demonstrate 
     the largest improvement in mathematics and science.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes.


              Authorization of appropriations (sec. 6502)

       The Senate amendment authorized such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 2008-2011 to carry out the 
     activities under Title V.
       The House bill had no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment to authorize such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each of the two 
     succeeding fiscal years.

                 TITLE VII--NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


                        Definitions (sec. 7001)

       The House bill contained a provision (sec. 302) that 
     defined a number of terms used in this Title.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with the addition of a definition for 
     the term basic research.


        Total amount and length of NSF authorization (sec. 7002)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing total 
     appropriations for NSF as follows: $6.5 billion for FY 2008, 
     $6.98 billion for FY 2009, and $7.49 billion for FY 2010 
     (sec. 303).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision authorizing 
     total appropriations as follows: $6.73 billion for FY 2008, 
     $7.74 billion for FY 2009, $8.9 billion for FY 2010, and 
     $10.2 billion for FY 2011 (sec. 4001).
       The Conference substitute provides $6.6 billion for FY 
     2008, $7.33 billion for FY 2009, and $8.13 billion for FY 
     2010, which would place NSF on a path to achieve budget 
     doubling in approximately 7 years (sec. 7002).
       The conferees intend that the rate of budget increase for 
     the education activities supported by NSF keep pace with the 
     rate of increase for the research activities for FY 2009 and 
     beyond.


    Research and Related Activities (R&RA) Authorization (sec. 7002)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing 
     appropriations for Research and Related Activities (R&RA) as 
     follows: $5.08 billion for FY 2008, of which $115 million is 
     provided for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI); $5.46 
     billion for FY 2009, of which $123.1 million is provided for 
     MRI; and $5.86 billion for FY 2010, of which $131.7 million 
     is provided for MRI (sec. 303). In addition, the provision 
     required NSF to increase funding for Research Experiences for 
     Undergraduates (REU) in proportion to appropriations received 
     for R&RA (sec. 303(g)); and required NSF to allocate at least 
     3.5 percent of appropriations received for R&RA for the 
     CAREER program (sec. 202).
       The Senate amendment contained no provision for authorizing 
     the overall R&RA budget. However, it contained authorization 
     amounts for specified programs: for the Professional Science 
     Master's program, it provided $15 million for FY 2008, $18 
     million for FY 2009, and $20 million for each of FY 2010 and 
     FY 2011 (sec. 4004); for the EPSCoR program, it provided $125 
     million for FY 2008 and provided for increases above that 
     amount in proportion to overall appropriations increases in 
     each year thereafter (sec. 4008); and for communications 
     technology research, it provided $45 million for FY 2008, $50 
     million for FY 2009, $55 million for FY 2010, and $60 million 
     for FY 2011 (sec. 4011).
       The Senate recedes on sections 303(g) and 202 with an 
     amendment to authorize specific amounts for REU and CAREER. 
     The Conference substitute (sec. 7002) provides the following 
     authorizations of appropriations for R&RA:
        $5.156 billion for FY 2008, of which $115 million 
     is provided for Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), $165.4 
     million for early-career (CAREER) grants, $61.6 million for 
     Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), $120.0 million 
     for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
     (EPSCoR), $47.3 million for the R&RA share of the Integrated 
     Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, 
     $9.0 million for the R&RA share of the Graduate Research 
     Fellowship (GRF) program, and $10.0 million for the 
     Professional Science Masters (PSM) program.  
        $5.742 billion for FY 2009, of which $123.1 
     million is provided for MRI, $183.6 million for CAREER 
     grants, $68.4 million for REU, $133.2 million for EPSCoR, 
     $52.5 million for the R&RA share of IGERT, $10.0 million for 
     the R&RA share of GRF, and $12.0 million for PSM.
        $6.401 billion for FY 2010, of which $131.7 
     million is provided for MRI, $203.8 million for CAREER 
     grants, $75.9 million for REU, $147.8 million for EPSCoR, 
     $58.3 million for the R&RA share of IGERT, $11.1 million for 
     the R&RA share of GRF, and $15.0 million for PSM.

         SUMMARY OF R&RA AUTHORIZATIONS, IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 FY08     FY09     FY10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&RA.........................................     5156     5742     6401
MRI..........................................      115    123.1    131.7
CAREER.......................................    165.4    183.6    203.8
REU..........................................     61.6     68.4     75.9
EPSCoR.......................................    120.0    133.2    147.8
IGERT........................................     47.3     52.5     58.3
GRF..........................................      9.0     10.0     11.1
PSM..........................................     10.0     12.0     15.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Education and Human Resources (EHR) Authorization (sec. 7002)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing 
     appropriations for Education and Human Resources (EHR) as 
     follows (sec 303):
        $873 million for FY08, of which $94 million was 
     provided for Math and Science Partnerships (MSP), $70 million 
     for the Noyce Scholarship Program (Noyce), $44 million for 
     the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP), and $51.6 million 
     for the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program.
        $934 million for FY09, of which $100.6 million was 
     provided for MSP, $101 million for Noyce, $55 million for 
     STEP, and $55.2 million for ATE.
        $1.003 billion for FY10, of which $107.6 million 
     was provided for MSP, $133 million for Noyce, $60 million for 
     STEP, and $59.1 million for ATE.
       In addition, the House bill required NSF to increase 
     funding for undergraduate education programs in proportion to 
     appropriations received for the entire Foundation (sec. 
     303(e)); and required NSF to support activities to create 
     informal educational materials relevant to global warming 
     (sec 303(h)).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision authorizing 
     $1050 million for EHR for FY08, with the rate of increase for 
     the three subsequent years equal to the rate of increase for 
     the entire Foundation (sec 4002). It also authorized specific 
     amounts for the following programs:
        For STEP, provided $40 million for FY08; $45 
     million for FY 09, $50 million for FY 10, and $55 million for 
     FY 11 (sec. 4005);
        For Noyce, provided $117 million for FY 08, $130 
     million for FY 09, $148 million for FY 10, and $200 million 
     for FY 11 (sec. 4012);
        For the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century, 
     provided $84 million for FY 08, $94 million for FY 09, $106 
     million for FY 10, and $140 million for FY 11 (sec. 4014)
       The House recedes to the Senate on sections 303 (e) and 
     (h). The Conference substitute provides (sec. 7002):
        $896.0 million for FY 2008, of which $100.0 
     million is provided for MSP, $89.8 million for

[[Page 22341]]

     Noyce, $40.0 million for STEP, $52.0 million for ATE, $27.1 
     million for the EHR share of the Integrated Graduate 
     Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program, and $96.6 
     million for the EHR share of the Graduate Research Fellowship 
     (GRF) program.
        $995.0 million for FY 2009, of which $111.0 
     million is provided for MSP, $115.0 million for Noyce, $50.0 
     million for STEP, $57.7 million for ATE, $30.1 million for 
     the EHR share of the IGERT, and $107.2 million for the EHR 
     share of GRF.
        $1.104 billion for FY 2010, of which $123.2 
     million is provided for MSP, $140.5 million for Noyce, $55.0 
     million for STEP, $64.0 million for ATE, $33.4 million for 
     the EHR share of the IGERT, and $119.0 million for the EHR 
     share of GRF.
       The conferees intend that a significant proportion of the 
     appropriation for the Math and Science Partnerships be used 
     to support the Teacher Training Institutes for the 21st 
     Century (sec. 7029).

          SUMMARY OF EHR AUTHORIZATIONS, IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 FY08     FY09     FY10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHR..........................................    896.0    995.0   1104.0
MSP..........................................    100.0    111.0    123.2
Noyce........................................     89.8    115.0    140.5
STEP.........................................     40.0     50.0     55.0
ATE..........................................     52.0     57.7     64.0
IGERT........................................     27.1     30.1     33.4
GRF..........................................     96.6    107.2    119.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Other Programs Authorizations (sec. 7002)

       The House bill (sec. 303) contained a provision authorizing 
     appropriations for other accounts as follows:
        For FY 2008, $245.0 million for Major Research 
     Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), $285.6 million 
     for the Agency Operations & Award Management (AOAM), $4.05 
     million for the National Science Board (NSB), and $12.35 
     million for the Office of the Inspector General (IG).
        For FY 2009, $262.0 million for MREFC, $309.8 
     million for the AOAM, $4.12 million for NSB, and $12.72 
     million for the IG.
        For FY 2010, $280.0 million for MREFC, $329.5 
     million for the AOAM, $4.25 million for NSB, and $13.1 
     million for the IG.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Conference Substitute provides (sec. 7002):
        For FY 2008, $245.0 million for MREFC, $286.6 
     million for AOAM, $4.05 million for NSB, and $12.35 million 
     for the IG.
        For FY 2009, $262.0 million for MREFC, $309.8 
     million for the AOAM, $4.19 million for NSB, and $12.75 
     million for the IG.
        For FY 2010, $280.0 million for MREFC, $329.5 
     million for the AOAM, $4.34 million for NSB, and $13.21 
     million for the IG.

  SUMMARY OF NSF AUTHORIZATIONS OTHER THAN R&RA OR EHR, IN MILLIONS OF
                                 DOLLARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 FY08     FY09     FY10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MREFC........................................    245.0    262.0    280.0
AOAM.........................................    285.6    309.8    329.5
NSB..........................................     4.05     4.19     4.34
IG...........................................    12.35    12.75    13.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Reaffirmation of the merit-review process of the National Science 
                         Foundation (sec. 7003)

       The House bill contained no provision.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision clarifying that 
     the Act does not change NSF?s merit-review system or peer 
     review process (sec. 4007).
       The House recedes.


Sense of the Congress regarding the mathematics and science partnership 
   programs of the Department of Education and the National Science 
                         Foundation (sec. 7004)

       The House bill contained a provision expressing a sense of 
     the Congress that the Math and Science Partnerships programs 
     at NSF and the Department of Education are complementary and 
     not duplicative and that the two agencies should have ongoing 
     collaboration to ensure the two programs continue to work in 
     concert (sec. 319).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision expressing a 
     sense of the Senate with language identical to the House 
     provision (sec. 4013).
       The Senate recedes.


                         Curricula (sec. 7005)

       The House bill contained a provision clarifying that 
     nothing in the Act limits the authority of state or local 
     governments to determine curricula (sec. 124).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


 Centers for research on learning and education improvement (sec. 7006)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     continue funding Centers for Research on Learning and 
     Education Improvement (sec. 304).
       Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                 Interdisciplinary research (sec. 7007)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring the National 
     Science Board to evaluate NSF's role and effectiveness in 
     supporting interdisciplinary research and to report to 
     Congress on its findings (sec. 305).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


               Postdoctoral research fellows (sec. 7008)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring all research 
     proposals that support postdoctoral researchers to include a 
     description of the mentoring activities that will be provided 
     and to require that this aspect of the proposal be evaluated 
     under NSF's ``broader impacts'' criterion (sec. 308). It also 
     required that the grant annual and final reports describe the 
     mentoring activities that were provided
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


              Responsible conduct of research (sec. 7009)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring institutions 
     funded by NSF to provide training in the responsible conduct 
     of research to students participating in research projects 
     (sec. 309).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
       The conferees recognize that what constitutes ``appropriate 
     training'' may not be the same for undergraduate students as 
     for graduate students or postdocs. The conferees prefer to 
     give NSF maximum flexibility in determining the full range of 
     activities that would constitute appropriate training; 
     however, the conferees do expect NSF to promptly develop and 
     provide written guidelines and/or templates for universities 
     to follow so that compliance can be verified by all parties. 
     The conferees intend for NSF, when developing guidelines, to 
     consider the financial impact that these measures will have 
     on institutions and seek to minimize such impacts 
     accordingly.


               Reporting of research results (sec. 7010)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring NSF to make 
     available to the public in electronic form final project 
     reports and citations to NSF-funded research (sec. 310).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
       The conferees intend for NSF to provide to the public a 
     readily accessible summary of the outcomes of NSF-sponsored 
     research projects. In addition to citations to journal 
     publications, the conferees intend for NSF to make available 
     research project summaries, not including any proprietary or 
     otherwise sensitive information.


                  Sharing research results (sec. 7011)

       The House bill contained a provision making investigators 
     who fail to comply with existing NSF policy on sharing of 
     research results ineligible for future NSF awards until they 
     come into compliance (sec. 311).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.
       In deciding if and when to reinstate eligibility, the 
     conferees urge the Director to weigh heavily whether the 
     research results being requested were withheld deliberately 
     and were critical to a policy decision being made at the time 
     of the denied request.


     Funding for successful science, technology, engineering, and 
               mathematics education programs (sec. 7012)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing NSF to 
     exempt from re-competition and renew for up to 3 years, with 
     the possibility of a second extension of 3 years, grants that 
     are for teacher professional development or that have the 
     primary purpose of increasing diversity in STEM fields. Such 
     grant extensions are to be based on the success of the 
     project in meeting the objectives of the initial grant 
     proposal (sec. 312).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment to allow only one 
     extension of a grant under this exemption for a total of 3 
     years beyond the initial period of support.


                        Cost sharing (sec. 7013)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring the National 
     Science Board to evaluate and report to Congress on the 
     impact of its ruling to eliminate all cost-sharing for NSF's 
     awards as it affects programs that involve industry 
     partnerships and historically have required industry cost 
     sharing (sec. 313).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                     Additional reports (sec. 7014)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring the National 
     Science Board to report to Congress on options for supporting 
     the cost of detailed design for major research facilities 
     construction projects; requiring NSF to include plans for 
     polar research facilities in its annual facilities report; 
     requiring NSF to report on education programs carried out 
     through the research directorates' programs; requiring NSF to 
     report on the success rates and distribution of awards by 
     type of institution under the Research in Undergraduate 
     Institutions program; and requiring NSF to provide an annual 
     plan for all its STEM education activities (sec. 315).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.

[[Page 22342]]




                 Administrative amendments (sec. 7015)

       The House bill contained a provision changing from annual 
     to triannual the Inspector General's audit requirement for 
     assessing the compliance of the National Science Board with 
     the Government in Sunshine Act; authorizing the NSB to employ 
     individuals in rotator positions; and authorizing up to 3 
     Waterman awards in any year (sec. 316).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


               national science board reports (sec. 7016)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring certain NSB 
     reports to be submitted directly to Congress (sec. 317).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


     program fraud civil remedies act of 1986 amendment (sec. 7017)

       The Senate amendment contained no provision.
       The House bill contained no provision.
       The Conferees agree to include a provision amending the 
     Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA) to include NSF. 
     This provision will authorize the agency to recover funds and 
     assess penalties under PFCRA's provisions.


          meeting critical national science needs (sec. 7018)

       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     give priority in making research awards to proposals that 
     assist in meeting critical national needs by advancing 
     physical or natural science, technology, engineering, 
     mathematics, or national competitiveness or innovation and 
     specifying that the provision does not inhibit NSF's support 
     for other areas of research that are within the agency's 
     mandate or change the core mission of NSF (sec. 4006).
       The House recedes with an amendment to add social sciences 
     to the list of priority areas for making research awards and 
     to add safety and security as areas of critical national 
     needs.
       The conferees cite the National Academies ``Rising Above 
     the Gathering Storm Report'' on which this Act is based in 
     calling attention to the unique contribution of research in 
     the social sciences, which have ``increased understanding of 
     the nature of competent performance and the principles of 
     knowledge organization that underlie people's abilities to 
     solve problems in a wide variety of fields, including 
     mathematics and science.'' The conferees further agree with 
     the statement in the report that ``special investment in 
     physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and information 
     sciences does not mean that there should be a disinvestment 
     in such important fields as the life sciences or the social 
     sciences.'' It is the intent of the conferees to ensure 
     support for research in areas that will address the critical 
     national needs identified in the ``Gathering Storm'' report. 
     The conferees do not intend the language contained in 
     subsections (a) and (b) of this provision to in any way 
     devalue the contributions of other fields or to signal any 
     desire on the part of the conferees to disinvest in any field 
     currently supported by the Foundation, as is made clear in 
     subsection (c).


          research on innovation and inventiveness (sec. 7019)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing NSF to 
     support research on the process of innovation and the 
     teaching of inventiveness as part of its research programs on 
     science policy and the science of learning (sec. 207).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                    cyberinfrastructure (sec. 7020)

       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     develop a plan that describes the status of broadband access 
     for scientific research purposes for institutions in EPSCoR-
     eligible jurisdictions (sec. 4010).
       The House recedes with amendment to expand the report to 
     include all rural areas and minority-serving institutions.


       pilot program of grants for new investigators (sec. 7021)

       The House bill contained a provision establishing a pilot 
     program of one-year seed grants for new investigators whose 
     research proposals are rated ``excellent'' or ``very good'' 
     but who are nevertheless not funded, specifying that grants 
     are to support the eligible individuals in generating 
     additional data and performing additional analysis to enable 
     them to submit strengthened proposals to NSF. The provision 
     also required the National Science Board to evaluate the 
     program and report to Congress within 3 years with any 
     recommendations regarding the pilot program (sec. 306).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment authorizing such seed 
     grants only for new investigators whose initial, unsuccessful 
     proposals are rated ``excellent'' and requiring the Board's 
     report to Congress to state explicitly whether the pilot 
     program should be continued or terminated.


           broader impacts merit review criterion (sec. 7022)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring NSF, in 
     applying its ``broader impacts'' criterion in evaluating 
     research proposals, to give special consideration to 
     proposals involving partnerships with industry and to 
     encourage proposals that involve partnerships with industry, 
     including cost-sharing by industrial partners (sec. 307).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment specifying that NSF 
     must consider as appropriate, among other types of possible 
     activities for meeting its broader impacts criterion, 
     proposals involving partnerships with industry and deleting 
     language in the House bill on encouraging proposals involving 
     industry partnerships.
       The conferees affirm that the primary mission of NSF is to 
     support discovery research, research that asks questions 
     about how the world works before any particular problem or 
     application has been identified. In specifying that research 
     proposals involving partnerships with industry should be 
     considered as appropriate for meeting the requirements of the 
     ``broader impacts'' proposal review criterion, the conferees 
     do not intend to de-value other appropriate activities, such 
     as promoting learning or broadening participation in STEM 
     fields. The conferees simply point out that industry interest 
     and involvement in proposed basic research projects is one 
     indication of the potential value of the research and may 
     arise in areas important to innovation and technological 
     competitiveness, such as nanotechnology or information 
     technology.


                         donations (sec. 7023)

       The House bill contained a provision authorizing NSF to 
     accept private funds for specific prize competitions (sec. 
     314).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with amendment to ensure that prizes are 
     for ``basic research''.


         high-performance computing and networking (sec. 7024)

       The House bill contained a provision amending the High-
     Performance Computing Act of 1991 to clarify the program's 
     goals and content; to require a regularly updated plan for 
     the development and deployment of high-end computing systems; 
     and to reestablish a dedicated external advisory committee 
     for the interagency program and specify its responsibilities 
     (sec. 501 and 502).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision authorizing a 
     communications research grant program; establishing a board 
     within the NSF to oversee the research program; authorizing 
     university-based research centers; and authorizing 
     appropriations for the program (sec. 4011).
       The conference agreement accepts the House amendments to 
     the 1991 Act with minor language changes. The Senate 
     provision is replaced with a requirement for the interagency 
     program carried out under the 1991 Act to support 
     communications research in areas designated by section 4011 
     and to report to Congress annually on the funding allocated 
     to these areas. NSF is directed to increase funding for these 
     research areas in proportion to appropriations received for 
     its research and related activities account. The House 
     recedes on the centers program, and the Senate recedes on 
     creation of the new board.


  science, technology, engineering, and mathematics talent expansion 
                          program (sec. 7025)

       The House bill contained a provision amending the NSF STEM 
     Talent Expansion Program (STEP) to create centers for 
     improvement of undergraduate education in STEM fields, 
     specifying that centers may support activities to help train 
     faculty and graduate students to be more effective teachers 
     and to develop more effective educational materials and 
     methods targeted for undergraduate instruction (sec. 125).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision amending the 
     STEP Program to establish outreach programs for middle and 
     high school students and teachers to expand their exposure to 
     engineering and technology; provide summer internships for 
     STEM undergraduate students; facilitate hiring of STEM 
     faculty; and provide programs that bridge the transition to 
     college for students from underrepresented groups (sec. 
     4005).
       The conference agreement amends the STEP Program to 
     establish a grant program to create up to 5 centers for the 
     improvement of undergraduate STEM education. It also amends 
     the current program to make the changes included in the 
     Senate amendment, except the provision regarding hiring of 
     faculty.


              laboratory science pilot program (sec. 7026)

       The House bill contained a provision establishing a 
     ``Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science'' (PALS) 
     program at NSF to determine how best to integrate laboratory 
     experiences with STEM classroom instruction in secondary 
     schools. The provision specified that the pilot program 
     should support teacher training, development of instructional 
     programs, and acquisition and maintenance

[[Page 22343]]

     of equipment. The provision required a 50 percent cost-share 
     from non-Federal sources (sec. 128).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision establishing a 
     program that is similar to that in the House bill, except 
     that it included a sunset provision that would terminate the 
     program after FY 2011 and required a 70 percent cost-share 
     from non-Federal sources (sec. 4015).
       The Senate recedes with an amendment requiring a 60 percent 
     cost-share from non-Federal sources and including a provision 
     to sunset the program after FY 2010.


    study on laboratory equipment donations for schools (sec. 7027)

       The House bill contained a provision directing NSF to 
     report to Congress on the extent to which institutions of 
     higher education are donating used laboratory equipment to 
     schools (sec. 129).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment to extend the study on 
     donations of equipment to include other private sector 
     entities.


 mathematics and Science Education Partnerships amendments (sec. 7028)

       The House bill contained a provision amending the Math and 
     Science Partnerships program (sec. 121), authorizing the 
     development of master's degree programs for in-service 
     teachers, after school and summer programs, mentoring 
     programs for teachers and students involved in STEM college-
     preparatory courses, and development of curriculum tools for 
     teaching innovation. The provision also amended the program 
     by setting award size limits and requiring the identification 
     and reporting of model projects ready for wider replication. 
     An additional provision required NSF to develop a master's 
     degree program for in-service teachers through the Math and 
     Science Partnerships program (sec. 123).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment striking the 
     authorization for the master's degree program for teachers, 
     the limits on award size, and the requirement for 
     identification and reporting of model programs. The House 
     recedes on the section 123 provision.
       The conferees strongly support the creation of master's 
     degree programs for in-service teachers to improve content 
     knowledge in science, technology, engineering and mathematics 
     and include a provision to fund such programs in section 6114 
     of this bill.


  national science foundation teacher institutes for the 21st Century 
                              (sec. 7029)

       The House bill contained a provision directing NSF to 
     establish a grant program to support teacher institutes and 
     authorizing grantees under the Teacher Institutes for the 
     21st Century program to carry out summer teacher institutes 
     (sec. 122).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision authorizing the 
     Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at NSF to 
     provide professional development for math and science 
     teachers in high-need schools (sec. 4014).
       The House recedes with an amendment to specify what 
     comprise ``high-need subjects'' and to clarify how priorities 
     are established for the institutes.


          robert noyce teacher scholarship program (sec. 7030)

       The House bill contained a provision stating as a policy 
     objective the education of 10,000 highly qualified K-12 
     science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 
     teachers each year (sec. 113). The bill also amended and 
     expanded the NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program as follows 
     (sec. 114): required collaboration between science and 
     education faculty to establish STEM teacher education 
     programs, required early classroom experiences for teachers 
     in training, increased scholarships and stipends to at least 
     $10,000 per year, and allowed for up to 3 years of 
     scholarship support, beginning with the sophomore year. 
     Further, it replaced the requirement for Noyce Scholars to 
     serve their teaching obligation in high-need schools with an 
     incentive for teaching in such schools; changed from 4 to 5 
     the number of years within which Noyce Scholars must graduate 
     with certification to teach; and created a new partnership 
     program for attracting STEM professionals to teaching careers 
     and provides for salary supplements for such individuals, 
     from non-Federal sources through the partnership, during the 
     period of their teaching obligation.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision amending and 
     expanding the NSF Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program in a way 
     similar to the House bill, except: it established NSF 
     Teaching Fellowships for attracting accomplished STEM 
     professionals to teaching and NSF Master Teaching Fellowships 
     for creating master teachers from among current exemplary 
     STEM teachers having master's degrees (in each case providing 
     salary supplements for the teaching obligation period); 
     required a 50 percent cost share from non-Federal funds for 
     all types of Noyce awards; required that teaching obligations 
     be served in high-need schools; and limited scholarships to 2 
     years (sec. 4012).
       The conference agreement amends and expands the Noyce 
     program: requires collaboration between science and education 
     faculty to establish STEM teacher education programs, 
     requires early classroom experiences for teachers in 
     training, increases scholarships and stipends to at least 
     $10,000 per year, and allows for up to 3 years of scholarship 
     support, beginning with the junior year. In addition it 
     retains the requirement for Noyce Scholars to serve their 
     teaching obligation in high-need schools; changes from 4 to 5 
     the number of years within which Noyce Scholars must graduate 
     with certification to teach; and creates a new partnership 
     program for attracting STEM professionals to teaching careers 
     (NSF Teaching Fellows) and for preparing master teachers (NSF 
     Master Teaching Fellows). The agreement specifies that annual 
     scholarship, stipend, and fellowship awards may be granted on 
     a pro-rated basis to students in school part time and that 
     scholarship and stipend recipients' service obligation is 
     based on the number of full annual scholarships or stipends 
     received, regardless of the number of years over which such 
     amounts are pro-rated. For the two fellowship programs, the 
     agreement requires 50 percent cost sharing from non-federal 
     sources and the provision for salary supplements for fellows 
     during the period of their teaching obligation. The House 
     recedes on the section 113 provision.
       The agreement also clarifies the process for repayment in 
     the event that scholarship, stipend, or fellowship recipients 
     fail to maintain good status in the program or fail to meet 
     their service requirements. The conferees intend that the 
     Director consult with the Secretary of Education in 
     developing policies regarding the effective enforcement of 
     the service requirement under this section. The conferees 
     note that the changes made in the system of repayment 
     collection are intended to clarify such system but do not 
     presume the creation of an entirely new system of repayment 
     collection.
       The conferees anticipate that the Noyce program will grow 
     to become a major source of effective STEM teachers, which is 
     the reason for the large increases in authorizations of 
     appropriations provided for the program. The conferees have 
     required that teachers educated through the Noyce program 
     carry out their teaching obligations in high-need schools 
     because survey results have documented that such schools have 
     the highest percentages of poorly qualified STEM teachers on 
     their faculties. This requirement is appropriate during the 
     period of initial growth of the Noyce program but the 
     conferees intend for this national program to benefit all 
     students. As the scale of the program grows and the numbers 
     of teachers educated under the program increases 
     substantially, the conferees expect this policy to be 
     reviewed in 2 years and when the program is next reauthorized 
     to ensure that all children have equal access to high-quality 
     teachers with strong subject matter knowledge.
       The conferees note that eligibility for awards under the 
     Noyce program includes 2-year colleges and that such 
     institutions are specifically included among the institutions 
     that may form partnerships for carrying out the NSF Teaching 
     Fellowship and NSF Master Teaching Fellowship programs. The 
     conferees urge NSF, in soliciting applications for awards 
     under the Noyce program, to encourage participation by 2-year 
     institutions.


                 encouraging participation (sec. 7031)

       The House bill contained had no similar provision.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision establishing at 
     2-year colleges a mentoring program to increase the 
     participation of women in STEM fields, including recruiting 
     and training of mentors.
       The House recedes with an amendment to place the program 
     within the existing NSF Advanced Technological Education 
     program.


     National Academy of Sciences report on diversity in science, 
       technology, engineering and mathematics fields (sec. 7032)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a 
     report on barriers to and strategies for increasing the 
     participation of underrepresented minorities in STEM fields 
     (sec. 318).
       The Senate amendment contained a provision with a similar 
     requirement as part of a study that the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy is required to conduct through the NAS 
     (sec. 1102).
       The Senate recedes.


    Hispanic-serving institutions undergraduate program (sec. 7033)

       The House bill contained a provision establishing a program 
     to improve STEM undergraduate education at Hispanic-serving 
     institutions through activities that may include improved 
     courses and curriculum, faculty development, and support for 
     research experiences for undergraduates (sec. 320).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


       Professional science master's degree programs (sec. 7034)

       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The Senate amendment contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     award grants to facilitate the creation or improvement of 
     Professional Science Master's degree programs at institutions 
     of higher education (sec. 4004).

[[Page 22344]]

       The House recedes with an amendment that clarifies that 
     such programs may include linkages in the program between 
     institutions of higher education and industry and requires 
     such programs to describe how they will produce individuals 
     for the workforce in high need fields. The conferees intend 
     that the term ``high need fields'' take into account needs on 
     a state, regional and national basis.


Sense of Congress on communications training for scientists (sec. 7035)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring NSF to 
     provide supplements, on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, 
     to holders of IGERT grants to train graduate students in the 
     communication of the substance and importance of their 
     research to non-scientist audiences and to report to Congress 
     on how the funds are used (sec. 321).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes with an amendment to transform the 
     provision to a Sense of Congress statement that such 
     communications training should be part of the activities 
     carried out using IGERT grants. The report to Congress on how 
     IGERT grants are used for communications training is 
     retained.


               Major research instrumentation (sec. 7036)

       The House bill contained a provision setting a minimum and 
     maximum award amounts for major research instrumentation 
     (MRI) grants, specifying that MRI funds may be used for 
     operations and maintenance, and requiring cost-sharing by 
     grantees (sec. 303(d)).
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.


                     Limit on proposals (sec. 7037)

       The House bill contained a provision requiring the Director 
     allow submission of a full proposal for each pre-proposal 
     that is determined to have merit and requiring a review and 
     assessment of Foundation policies regarding the imposition of 
     limitations on the numbers of proposals that may be submitted 
     by an institution of higher education.
       The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.
       The Senate recedes.

                     TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS


    Collection of Data Relating to Trade in Services (Section 8001)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 5001) 
     that established a five year program within the Bureau of 
     Economic Analysis to collect and study data relating to 
     export and import services.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment that 
     would have the Secretary of Commerce acting through the 
     Director of the Bureau of Economic Analysis to prepare a 
     report to Congress, no later than January 31, 2008 on the 
     feasibility, cost and potential benefits of a program to 
     collect and study data relating to the export and import of 
     services.


Sense of the Senate Regarding Small Business Growth and Capital Markets 
                             (section 8002)

       The Senate amendment contained a sense of the Senate 
     (section 5002) that Securities and Exchange Commission and 
     the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board should 
     promulgate final rules implementing section 404 of the 
     Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262).
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate provision.


   Government Accountability Office Review of Activities, Grants and 
                        Programs (section 8003)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 5003) 
     that required no later than 3 years after date of enactment 
     that the Comptroller General of the United States examine 
     each interim report submitted to the Congress under the Act 
     and assess or evaluate the effectiveness of the new or 
     expanded activities under the Act and include recommendations 
     to improve the effectiveness of activities under the Act 
     including termination.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment that 
     selects a representative sample of new or expanded activities 
     required to be carried out under the Act and includes such 
     recommendations as the Comptroller General determines 
     appropriate to ensure effectiveness of, or improvements to 
     the programs and activities, including termination.


  Sense of the Senate Regarding Anti-Competitive Tax Policy (section 
                                 8004)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 5004) 
     that notwithstanding any other provision of law, would 
     prohibit federal funds to any organization or entity that 
     advocates against tax competition or United States tax 
     competitiveness. The amendment notes that advocating for 
     effective tax information or advocating for effective tax 
     transfer, and advocating for income tax treaties is not 
     considered to be advocating against tax competition or the 
     United States' tax competitiveness.
       The House had no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment that it 
     is a sense of the Senate that Federal funds should not be 
     provided to any organization or entity that advocates against 
     United States tax policy that is internationally competitive.


    Study of the Provision of Online Degree Programs (section 8005)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 5005) 
     that would require the Secretary of Commerce to enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     feasibility study on creating a national, free online degree 
     program that would enable all individuals described under 
     section 484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1091(a)(5)) who wish to pursue a degree in a field of 
     strategic importance to the United States and where expertise 
     is in demand such as mathematics, science and foreign 
     languages.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate with an amendment that the 
     Secretary of Education shall enter into an arrangement with 
     the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study and 
     provide a report to the Secretary, Secretary of Commerce and 
     Congress on the mechanisms and support needed for an 
     institution of higher education or nonprofit organization to 
     develop and maintain a program to provide free access to 
     online educational content as part of a degree program, 
     especially in science, technology, engineering and 
     mathematics or foreign language without using Federal funds 
     including funds provided under title IV of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070).


      Sense of the Senate Regarding Deemed Exports (section 8006)

       The Senate amendment contained a sense of the Senate that 
     the Deemed Export Advisory Committee of the Department of 
     Commerce develop recommendations for improving current 
     controls on deemed exports and that the President and the 
     Congress should consider the recommendations of the Committee 
     in developing and implementing export control policies.
       The House bill contained no similar provision.
       The House recedes to the Senate provision.


 Accountability and Transparency of Activities Authorized by this Act 
                             (section 8008)

       The Senate amendment contained a provision (section 1504) 
     that would have required the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Commerce to conduct routine independent, 
     publicly available reviews of activities carried out with 
     grants and other financial assistance made available by the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, NOAA. The provision would have prohibited 
     NOAA funds under a grant or contract to be used by the person 
     who receives the grant or contract, including any 
     subcontractor, for a banquet or conference, other than a 
     conference relating to the training or a routine meeting with 
     officers or employees of the Administration to discuss an 
     ongoing project. The provision would also require that each 
     person who receives funds from the NOAA Administrator through 
     a grant or contract shall submit to the Administrator a 
     certification stating that none of such funds will be made 
     available through a subcontract in any other manner to 
     another person who has a financial interest or other conflict 
     with the person who received such funds from the 
     Administrator.
       The House bill contains no similar provision.
       The House recedes with an amendment specifying that, 360 
     days after enactment of the Act, a grant or contract funded 
     by amounts authorized under the Act may not be used to defray 
     the costs of a banquet or conference not directly and 
     programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant 
     or contract was awarded where a directly and programmatically 
     related banquet or conference includes a banquet or 
     conference held in connection with planning, training, 
     assessment, review, or other routine purposes related to a 
     project funded by the grant or contract. The amendment also 
     requires that any person awarded a grant or contract funded 
     by amounts authorized by this Act shall submit a statement to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the 
     Secretary of Education, the Administrator, or the Director, 
     as appropriate, certifying that no funds derived from the 
     grant or contract will be made available through a 
     subcontract or in any other manner to another person who has 
     a financial interest or other conflict of interest in the 
     person awarded the grant or contract, unless previously 
     disclosed and approved in the process of entering into a 
     contract or awarding a grant. The amendment does not apply to 
     sections 6201 and 6203 which contain separate conflict of 
     interest provisions.
     From the Committee on Science and Technology, for 
     consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     Bart Gordon,
     Daniel Lipinski,
     Brian Baird,
     David Wu,
     Nick Lampson,
     Mark Udall,
     Gabrielle Giffords,

[[Page 22345]]

     Jerry McNerney,
     Vernon J. Ehlers,
     From the Committee on Education and Labor, for consideration 
     of Division C of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
     committed to conference:
     George Miller,
     Rush Holt,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     Jeff Bingaman,
     Daniel K. Inouye,
     Edward Kennedy,
     Joseph Lieberman,
     Barbara A. Mikulski,
     John F. Kerry,
     Bill Nelson,
     Pete V. Domenici,
     Ted Stevens,
     Michael B. Enzi,
     Lamar Alexander,
     John Ensign,
     Norm Coleman,
                               Managers on the Part of the Senate.

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to recognize the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for 1 minute. Pending that, I 
would note that, as a former insurance commissioner, he understands 
that the endorsement of the National Association of Insurance 
Commissions is necessary to prevent fraud in the Medicare Advantage 
program.
  Mr. POMEROY. I cannot get out of my mind a picture that appeared in a 
newspaper a few months ago of a young boy with a toothache. The 
horrible story running alongside this picture was that this young 
fellow later contracted a brain infection from the tooth infection, and 
he later died. Because his family couldn't afford the tooth extraction, 
this young fellow lost his life. We don't have any more urgent national 
priority than making sure our children have access to the health care 
they need.
  There is another feature of this bill as well. It's rural health 
care. If we don't pass this bill, there are very steep cuts slated for 
doctors of hospitals practicing in our rural areas.
  It's hard keeping essential health services available for kids, for 
seniors, for everyone else in these rural areas. We have got to stop 
these cuts, help our kids, keep rural medicine thriving. Pass this 
bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Member from New Jersey, Congressman Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate, we 
have heard a vote against this bill is a vote against the children, a 
vote against the poor, a vote against those who need the help most; and 
had this legislation merely reauthorized the current law, the arguments 
might have had an element of truth to them. But with this unconstrained 
growth in a welfare entitlement bill that this expansion has become, 
what we do know is that this bill now undermines the health care of 
millions of uninsured children and insured children and does so at the 
expense of American seniors.
  Supporters of this bill would say that by no means is this a back 
door to a mandatory, socialized, government-run health care system. I 
say, not the back door, but, as Paul Ryan might say, it's a front-door 
approach to a socialized, government-run health care system. Also, it 
opens the windows and the garage door as well.
  This bill does not set a cap on the annual income levels of the 
families it covers, it does not include an asset test to ensure that 
millionaires are not eligible, and it expands the program to cover 
childless adults.
  It is entirely conceivable, and, actually, it probably will occur, 
that the States can enroll as many people in this program as local 
politics will make expedient. A benchmark figure that has been bandied 
about is 300 percent. They want to enroll families up to 300 percent 
above the poverty level.
  Just what would that system look like? According to the Census 
Bureau, and I just got these numbers a little while ago, of the 300 
million or so people in this country, 48.3 percent, or roughly 145 
million people, live at or below the 300 percent of the Federal poverty 
level. So we're now considering a new entitlement program for nearly 
half of the entire population of this country. And if you add to that 
number the 44 million people who are currently enrolled in Medicare, 
what does that mean? That means, with this bill, almost two-thirds of 
the entire population of this country will be on a government-run, 
socialized health care system, two-thirds paid for by one-third.
  Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This proposal is a large step 
towards a single-payer, Washington-run State health care system.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I call up the next speaker, I would 
like to point out that this bill will save 12 million kids from losing 
their health insurance and that it will prevent New Jersey from having 
a $200 billion shortfall in their SCHIP program.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise very proudly in strong support 
of H.R. 3162, the CHAMP Act.
  As policymakers, we have an obligation to make sure that children who 
are in the program do not lose their coverage and that those who are 
eligible for coverage but are not enrolled receive that care.
  Millions of low-income children and seniors are depending on us to 
pass a bill so they can receive health care. The CHAMP Act will provide 
health care to 11 million poor children, reduce health care disparities 
in communities of color, and protect senior citizens who rightfully 
need access to their physicians.
  Insured children are more likely to receive cost-effective, 
preventative services and are healthier, which leads to greater success 
in school and later on in life.
  Although programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid have decreased the 
number of uninsured children, the lack of funding over the last 10 
years and outreach efforts have left millions of children who are 
eligible from receiving this care.
  More than 80 percent of uninsured African American and 70 percent of 
uninsured Latino children are eligible currently for public coverage 
but are not currently enrolled. In my district alone, 18,000 children 
go uninsured. The bill ensures that these children will receive that 
health care coverage.
  Some would argue that this bill is a vote on immigration. I'm sorry, 
but they are absolutely wrong. The bill restores State's options to 
provide the coverage that they need; and the bill ensures that citizens 
who have lost their birth certificates and other identification are not 
immediately denied care, like the more than 11,000 children in Virginia 
and 14,000 children in Kansas who have lost their coverage.
  The bill helps one-third of Asian and Pacific Islander American 
seniors who live in linguistic isolation understand health care.
  The bill does not provide services, and I underscore, does not 
provide services to undocumented immigrants. Those who say that are 
blatantly wrong.
  I urge support of the bill. Let's move on. Let's do the right thing 
for our children. Vote for the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time 
I still control?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas controls 10\1/2\ 
minutes of time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to recapitulate the debate as I see it today and 
start off, as I've already said, with what the Republicans are for.
  We are for reauthorization of the SCHIP program. This program has 
been in existence for 10 years. It is a block grant program between the 
Federal Government and the States where we spend approximately $5 
billion each year to help States provide health care and health 
insurance for low-income and near-low-income children in their States. 
Some States have received waivers to provide health insurance for 
adults and for children that are not really in the low income.
  We, on the Republican side, support reauthorization of the 
straightforward SCHIP program.

                              {time}  1615

  We believe that SCHIP should be for children. A Republican 
substitute, which was not made in order at the

[[Page 22346]]

Rules Committee last evening, would limit SCHIP to children; that is, 
individuals in this country that are under 19 years of age or under.
  We believe that SCHIP should be for low-income and near low-income 
children. The Republican substitute, again, allowed SCHIP eligibility 
for up to 200 percent of poverty. We believe that SCHIP should be for 
citizens of the United States and legal residents of the United States 
who have been here at least 5 years.
  We believe that SCHIP should be funded without cutting senior 
citizens' health care, so the Republican substitute had no cuts in 
Medicare for our senior citizens. We also believe that we should fund 
SCHIP without tax increases. The Republican substitute had no tax 
increases to fund our SCHIP reauthorization.
  The problems with the pending bill before us have become almost too 
numerous to mention. But just to go through some of them, first of all, 
the pending bill changes SCHIP from a block grant program for a limited 
duration of time to an open-ended entitlement. It has authorized such 
sums, and there is no time limit on the bill before us.
  It removes the limitation on income at the Federal level. If a State 
chose to certify that millionaires were eligible for SCHIP, as far as 
we can tell, there is no restriction on covering millionaires, if a 
State chooses to make that certification.
  There are tax increases in the Democratic-sponsored bill. There is a 
tobacco tax increase that CBO scores at least $52 billion. And there is 
a cut in Medicare that CBO scores over a 10-year period at $157 
billion.
  While there is disagreement among my friends on the majority side 
about this requirement, there are sections of the pending bill that 
removes the requirement that was put in place several years ago that 
States have to certify the citizenship of eligible citizens for SCHIP.
  Of the 465-page bill that was produced in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee last week, three-fourths of that bill does not deal with 
children. The Democratic bill is not just about the children. According 
to the CBO score that we just received today, the pending bill before 
us in the SCHIP program, by expanding eligibility requirements, would 
add an additional 1.1 million children, and by adding enrollment within 
existing eligibility, another 1 million.
  The SCHIP bill that the Democrats are putting before us, according to 
the CBO, adds 2.1 million children in the SCHIP categories, so that all 
the other money and all the other things that they are doing, it is not 
about the children. It is about a lot of other things.
  So, I have great respect for the people that are trying to 
reauthorize SCHIP. I know that at some time this fall, some time in 
September or maybe in October, we will have a bipartisan effort to 
reauthorize and send to the President an SCHIP bill that he will sign. 
But this is not that bill. This bill won't come up in the Senate. This 
bill won't come up in conference between the House and the Senate in 
all probability. This bill will be voted on one time, and that is 
sometime this evening. And then it will just sit there.
  So I would rather, as Chairman Dingell and I talked about back in 
November, the day after the election when I called to congratulate him 
on becoming the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I 
would have rather we spent this spring working on a bipartisan basis to 
come to an agreement on what we could agree on and bring before this 
body a bipartisan bill on SCHIP. That has not happened.
  This bill was presented to the Energy and Commerce Committee at 11:36 
last Tuesday evening and the markup was scheduled the next day at 10 
a.m. It was presented to the Rules Committee this morning at 12:30 a.m. 
It was reported out of the Rules Committee at approximately 2:30 a.m. 
this morning with no amendments and with self-executing changes that 
nobody had seen, until we had time to look at it this morning.
  There have been no amendments on either side; not just on our side, 
but on their side. So the only people that really know what is in the 
bill, and the only people that really have input into the bill, are 
those people on the majority side that are working behind the scenes in 
the dark of night to craft this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we vote ``no'' on the bill. I hope we vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit. I hope eventually we will get in a 
bipartisan mode, work with our friends on the other side of the body, 
work with the President of the United States, and send to the President 
some time this fall a bipartisan SCHIP reauthorization bill that is 
just about the children.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Democratic majority will make claims that they 
support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and, by implication, that 
Republicans do not. I, for one, fully support reauthorizing the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. I also believe we should ensure 
that the program is covering the population it was intended to serve, 
and that's low-income children who don't have health insurance. It 
isn't for adults or for bureaucrats who think adults should pretend to 
be children. It isn't for men and women making $100,000 salaries. And 
it shouldn't be an incentive to pull families out of private health 
insurance coverage and into a public welfare program.
  States have used the gaping loopholes in the current SCHIP program to 
expand coverage to include adults and people with the kinds of salaries 
that are still a dream to most working people. Our friends on the 
majority think those are blessings, not problems, and that explains why 
they've written legislation that makes the list of blessings longer 
instead of shorter. Their bill is the first giant leap towards 
government-run, universal health care since Hillarycare collapsed under 
the weight of its own bureaucracy and deception. More bureaucracy? 
They're for it. More welfare? They're for it. Rationing health care? 
They're for it. A blank check? They're for it. In reality, the check 
isn't exactly blank. The CBO indicates that the cost of this Democratic 
welfare bill will top $200 billion, and that's only for Federal 
taxpayers. The States' share of SCHIP will cost the state taxpayers 
another $300 billion.
  The majority would spend hundreds of billions of dollars saying that 
they are trying to cover low-income children who don't have insurance. 
That's not what CBO says. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
of the newly eligible individuals, 60 percent already had private 
health insurance coverage.
  Democrats say they are not raising the eligibility levels for SCHIP 
in this bill. They fail to mention that they allow states to determine 
income and they also do away with the block- grant nature of the 
program by providing states swollen Federal matching funds, even for 
families making above $200,000 a year. Now, some will say I've got it 
all wrong, but if I'm wrong and they're right, show me. I challenge my 
friends on the majority to point to the place in the bill where that 
would be prohibited. Further evidence that this bill is not about low-
income children is that their bill actually allows for bonus payments 
to states if they eliminate asset tests. It looks like they do want 
welfare for the rich, and the richer, the better. I ask, should a 
millionaire's child be on SCHIP or Medicaid? I don't think the American 
people believe so, but the majority's bill encourages it.
  Yesterday, on the floor some members spoke about how this bill would 
pay for services for illegal immigrants. With no true way to refute 
that assertion the majority, in the managers' amendment that was 
released after midnight this morning, added a new section that states 
that no Federal funding can go towards paying for care for illegal 
immigrants. That was a nice restatement of current law, but it does not 
change the fact that this bill eliminates the requirement that States 
verify a person's citizenship before they are enrolled. If we don't 
verify citizenship, this new section is meaningless. The bill even 
eliminates the 5-year waiting period that legal immigrants must wait 
before being enrolled in Medicaid, effectively inviting more illegal 
immigration.
  During the morning session, member after member of the majority rose 
to say that this bill is about children. I ask my colleagues to show me 
where in this bill limits this Children's Health Program to children. 
They can't, because the bill will continue the discredited practice of 
siphoning off money from children's health care to buy health care for 
adults. We had amendments filed at the Rules Committee to ensure that 
SCHIP dollars go toward children, not adults, but these amendments were 
banned.
  The majority also says this isn't kids versus senior citizens, but 
Democrats pay for their enormous expansion by cutting $200 billion

[[Page 22347]]

from Medicare. The Democratic bill makes a particular target of the 
senior citizens who picked Medicare Advantage, and takes over $150 
billion away from them. That means more than 8 million of our seniors 
will have their choice in health care coverage sharply restricted. This 
bill disproportionately harms rural and low-income Medicare 
beneficiaries in particular since it cuts payments in these areas so 
drastically that plans will be driven out of these markets.
  The draconian cuts that the Democrats expect the Medicare Advantage 
program to take will obliterate the benefit. Again, no wonder the 
Democrats kept this bill away from the public eye. It is hard to 
explain to seniors why you are cutting their benefits.
  These plans are an important option for low-income and minority 
beneficiaries--57 percent of enrolled beneficiaries have incomes less 
than $30,000. These plans can reduce cost-sharing relative to 
traditional Medicare. These plans also offer better access to care--
more than 80 percent of plans provide coverage for hospital stays 
beyond the traditional Medicare benefit, and more than 75 percent cover 
routine eye and hearing tests. Over 98 percent of beneficiaries can 
enroll in a plan offering preventive dental benefits.
  These are our most vulnerable seniors. Yes, the Democrats would cut 
their benefits to pay for the higher income children and adults. They 
made this decision with no legislative hearings and developing the bill 
behind closed doors. My friends on the majority claim that they have 
had seven hearings on this. I would like to set the record straight 
that the Energy and Commerce Committee held one hearing on SCHIP back 
in February to discuss the general program, and did not discuss 
anything that is incorporated in this bill. They did not even invite 
the people who administer SCHIP at the Department of Health and Human 
Services to testify.
  This bill was written in secret, delivered at midnight, and then 
rewritten from 1 to 3 a.m. this morning.
  We have had little time to examine this bill, and we have found 
glaring weaknesses, I urge all members to be very cautious about what 
you are voting for because the rhetoric of the authors of the bill 
doesn't match the substance. The majority adjourned the Full Committee 
markup without disposing of a single amendment or reporting the bill. 
The rules Committee allowed no amendments in order. We have had more 
Committee process in this Congress on bills naming post offices.
  It should come as no surprise that the majority wants to ram this 
through with no public process provided and no changes allowed. They 
don't want people to know what's in it, and they certainly don't want 
people to change it. They claim that they have to do this because the 
program will expire. They have had 8 months to reauthorize the program 
since the day that Chairman Dingell and I agreed that SCHIP was to be a 
high priority in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Where have the 
Democrats been? They claim that this is of the highest priority, but 
yet they sat on it until they could create an artificial crisis and 
then blame Republicans for daring to read their bill. I question why 
they would treat the reauthorization of SCHIP as a last-minute concern.
  I feel it's important to note that SCHIP is only part of the 
Democrats' bill, which also is laden with attacks on Medicare and 
Medicaid. The legislation pits children against the elderly. It was 
brought here today out of the night, when no one was looking.
  I urge Members to vote against this bad bill so we can reauthorize 
this program in a responsible, transparent, and open way that the 
powerful Democrat leadership promised to conduct the business of the 
Nation.

                        PRELIMINARY CBO ESTIMATE OF CHANGES SCHIP AND MEDICAID ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN UNDER H.R. 3162, THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND MEDICARE PROTECTION ACT
                                 [All figures are average monthly enrollment, in millions of individuals. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   SCHIPa                                         Medicaidb                           SCHIP/Medicaid total
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Enrollees    Reduction    Reduction             Enrollees    Reduction    Reduction             Reduction    Reduction
                                                                 moved to      in the      in other    Total     moved to      in the      in other    Total      in the      in other    Total
                                                                  SCHIP      uninsured    coveragec               SCHIP      uninsured    coveragec             uninsured    coveragec
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2012:
CBO's baseline projections...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........      3.3  ...........  ...........  ...........  .......  ...........  ...........     28.3
    Effect of providing funding to maintain current SCHIP              0.6          0.8          0.5      1.9         -0.6         n.a.         n.a.     -0.6          0.8          0.5      1.3
     programs................................................
    Effect of additional SCHIP funding and other provisions:
        Additional enrollment within existing eligibility             n.a.          0.6          0.4      1.1         n.a.          3.1          0.8      3.9          3.8          1.2      5.0
         groupsd.............................................
        Expansion of SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility to new            n.a.          0.5          0.5      1.0         n.a.            0          0.2      0.2          0.5          0.7      1.2
         populations.........................................
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.............................................         n.a.          1.1          0.9      2.1         n.a.          3.1          1.0      4.1          4.2          1.9      6.2
                                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total proposed changes...................................          0.6          1.9          1.5      4.0         -0.6          3.1          1.0      3.5          5.0          2.4      7.5
Estimated enrollment under proposal..........................  ...........  ...........  ...........      7.3  ...........  ...........  ...........     28.4  ...........  ...........     35.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These estimates are based on the bill as ordered reported by the Committee on Ways and Means on July 27, 2007, and modified by the amendments in the legislative language RULES--005,
  (dated August 1,2007, at 12:25 AM)
aThe figures in this table include the program's adult enrollees, who account for less than 10 percent of total SCHIP enrollment.
bThe figures in this table do not include children who receive Medicaid because they are disabled. The figures for ``additional enrollment within existing eligibility groups'' include about
  120,000 adults who would gain eligibility under section 801 of the bill.
c``Other coverage'' is largely private coverage, but also includes about 200,000 legal immigrant children who now receive coverage under state-funded programs.
dFor simplicity of display, the Medicaid figures in this line include the additional children enrolled as a side effect of expansions of SCHIP eligibility.
n.a. = not applicable

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that 
my 4 minutes be controlled by Mr. McCrery of Louisiana.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) 
now controls 49 minutes, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
controls 27.5 minutes, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) 
controls 29.5 minutes.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I will defer to my good friend from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the ranking member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, said earlier this afternoon, we in the minority 
want to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program. Our motion 
to recommit, which we will offer later today, will do that.
  SCHIP should be about a bipartisan program. We think it should focus 
on low-income children. That was the concept when both parties agreed 
to create this program back in 1997. But the bill that is on the floor 
today loses sight of that focus, and, therefore, we cannot support it.
  We could support it with significant changes. Unfortunately, the 
Rules Committee did not allow us the opportunity to offer amendments to 
change the bill, so we are left to our only device as the minority, and 
that is a motion to recommit. So that motion will act as kind of a sum 
of our amendments that we would have offered and hoped to have passed, 
to put the bill in a form that we hope will pass in a bipartisan 
manner.
  The bill that is before us today, though, without amendment raises 
taxes by at least $54 billion. We believe it raises those taxes to fund 
a massive expansion of government-controlled health care. This is not 
just about helping low-income children. This bill today seems to be 
spending government funds to lower middle-class, upper middle-class, 
even wealthy, perhaps, families to opt out of private health coverage 
and go to government health coverage.
  I regret that we have not been able to work together in a bipartisan 
fashion on this issue. Perhaps when this motion to recommit comes up, 
we will have enough converts to adopt it, bring it right back to the 
floor of the House, and we will have a bipartisan bill. Or perhaps if 
this bill passes and something like it comes back to us in the

[[Page 22348]]

form of a conference report and the President vetoes it and we sustain 
the veto, then we will have a chance to operate on a bipartisan basis 
and reauthorize this program in a timely manner. I hope so.
  But this bill before us today, in addition to having a substantial 
increase on the tobacco tax, they try to hide, at least it appeared 
that the majority tried to hide, a secret tax increase on health 
insurance plans.
  When it came before the Ways and Means Committee, we did have a 
markup. We did have the opportunity to explore this bill, at least the 
part that was in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee. We 
discovered this tax increase. It wasn't in the Joint Tax score of the 
bill. It wasn't listed as a revenue raiser in their report. We asked 
CBO. They couldn't tell us about it, but we discovered it in the fine 
print. It is a tax on health insurance policies.
  Well, what is that going to do? It is going to raise the cost of 
private health insurance. Maybe that is what the majority wants, to 
raise the cost of private health insurance, to drive even more people 
from private insurance into government health care.
  This new tax is going to generate money sufficient to accumulate to 
about a $3 billion pot of money over the next 10 years. That is a 
substantial sum of money. And, as we have seen from past experience, a 
tax like this, while it may not be big at first, it is awfully hard to 
get rid of, and it is awfully easy to increase.
  This legislation also cuts Medicare funding by about $200 billion. It 
effectively eliminates the Medicare Advantage program. Now, I know the 
majority is going to say no, no, no, it doesn't cut Medicare by $20 
billion. We add back some Medicare benefits, so the net is not nearly 
that much.
  But for the people whose programs are going to be cut, they see it as 
a cut. They don't understand this ``net'' thing. Medicare Advantage is 
going to be cut substantially, and Medicare Advantage programs will go 
away in most rural parts of this country and in a great many inner-city 
areas serving low-income populations. This bill would effectively 
eliminate options for millions of seniors who have depended on Medicare 
Advantage to get better benefits and lower costs for their health care.
  In addition, the bill cuts $7.2 billion in home health care benefits 
and $6.5 billion in nursing home care benefits. These are cuts that are 
real. They are going to be felt by people utilizing those services.
  These cuts are not necessary. I want to stress, these cuts are not 
necessary to cover needy children. The majority has deliberately chosen 
to reduce Medicare funding for some of our neediest seniors in order to 
expand SCHIP to cover anyone up to the age of 21, including, I have 
heard here today, people up to 300 percent of poverty, 400 percent of 
poverty.
  I would tell my colleagues that have said that, they are wrong. This 
bill doesn't say you can go up to 300 percent or 400 percent of 
poverty. It says you can go anywhere you want to. You can cover 
anybody. If a State chooses under this bill, they can not only choose 
to cover people of unlimited income, $100,000, $150,000, $200,000. They 
are entitled to the money.
  There is also a bonus program in this bill that says if you get a new 
enrollee, a new child, maybe he comes from having private insurance, 
maybe he doesn't, but if he is new to this program, you are going to 
get a bonus, which means you are going to get an even higher Federal 
share to fund that new enrollee.
  The State can waive the income eligibility as high as they want. So 
we create a new entitlement program that guarantees States they can get 
as much money as they want to cover anybody they want under their 
government health care program. That is what this bill is all about. 
That is why the minority is intent on stopping its passage today and 
getting a better alternative for reauthorization for low-income 
children.
  This bill is about expanding government health care. Nothing more, 
nothing less. The minority's motion to recommit will reauthorize the 
SCHIP program in its bipartisan form. I urge all of us to wait until 
that motion comes up, vote for that, and then we will truly have a good 
program for low-income children in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond briefly to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, just to suggest that AHIP, representing America's 
Health Insurance Plans, wrote to us recognizing ``the ambitious effort 
will require significant resources. We believe that comparative 
effective research should be carried out as a public-private 
partnership, with funding from public sources and support from private 
sources, including health insurance plans, employers and 
manufacturers.'' And also to suggest that any recognition of children 
above the previously stated levels had to be done with waivers from the 
Bush administration to Governors requesting it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just in brief response to my good friend 
from California, our understanding of the provisions of this bill and 
provisions of the law would allow a State to present a State plan 
amendment to the administration that is not subject to approval. They 
have to approve it. So it is not up to the administration to approve 
that. The States can do that at their own will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of self-congratulations, at 
least on one side of this Chamber. Let me congratulate some who have 
spoken here for what appears to this Member to be a pretty breath-
taking lack of consistency. My good friend from Fremont Hills has 
pointed the finger to this side and said we Republicans, we don't care 
about children.
  I would remind my chairman, Mr. Speaker, that the children's health 
program was created by a Republican majority. The gentleman points out 
that this bill today is funded, as the gentleman is nodding, as that 
bill was funded. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago and 2 days 
on July 30, rollcall vote no. 345, on this floor, on the conference 
report creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, I was proud to 
be one of 346 ``aye'' votes. There were 85 ``no'' votes. The gentleman 
from California was a ``no'' vote. The chairman of the Ways and Means 
Committee was a ``no'' vote. I find that a bit interesting. Because, 
today, the gentleman from California talks about this being the 
identical bill. This is not the identical bill.
  As my friend from Louisiana has said, we would love to reauthorize 
the program for needy children. But should we allow a family in New 
York making $80,000 a year free health care, free to them, but paid for 
by 15,000 constituents I am privileged to represent who would have 
their vision care or dental benefits or oxygen services cut, and the 
savings then given to that couple making $80,000 in New York City?
  One-half of the new enrollees under the majority's bill, those new 
enrollees would be people who already have health insurance coverage. 
There is, as the gentleman pointed out, a brand new, per capita tax on 
every health plan in America that raises $2 billion. There are rifle-
shot reimbursements for hospitals in order, presumably, to sway 
undecided Members from Michigan and New York and Tennessee.
  And can anyone really defend the children's health program for 
childless adults, childless adults now being able to qualify for the 
children's health insurance program?
  Needy children, absolutely. Well-to-do adults, I suggest no, 
certainly not at the expense of cuts to senior citizens. We can do 
better. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield myself 15 seconds to point out to my dear friend 
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) that it

[[Page 22349]]

is the administration which gives waivers to cover parents and adults. 
The States do not have the authority to do so, and they must get the 
authority from the Federal Government, and it is from the Department of 
HHS that these kinds of waivers come, not elsewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, 9 million children in this country lack health insurance 
coverage, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that 91 percent of 
voters support extending to SCHIP coverage to 5 million more children. 
That is 5 million more children according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, and that Governors from both sides of the aisle are supporting 
this legislation across the country.
  The real surprise is that our President has threatened to veto this 
bill, a bill to cover children and to improve Medicare for our Nation's 
seniors and for people with disabilities. My question is, why are the 
President and so many of our colleagues saying ``no'' to basic health 
care to children, for adequate payments to doctors, for protecting 
Medicare?
  In yesterday's New York Times, I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on 
the head when he said that President Bush must fear the intent of this 
bill, which is to cover more children, because he fears that it 
actually might work. That if America sees government helping children, 
they will wonder why we can't do the same for everyone.
  The President said he opposes expanding children's health care 
because it will hurt private insurance companies. Astounding. Forget 
uninsured kids. The President is the champion of insurance companies.
  And people across the aisle are saying it is really about seniors 
when they are talking about the Medicare Advantage programs. But let's 
be clear. The Medicare Advantage HMOs are reaping overpayments of up to 
40 percent. The overpayments are being subsidized by 80 percent of the 
seniors and disabled people who are not in Medicare Advantage plans 
through higher part B premiums.
  I want to urge the former Speaker of the House to cease giving 
patently false information about the Illinois SCHIP program which 
insures far more children than their parents.
  Let's be on the side of children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Perhaps if we had had a hearing on this bill, we could have 
discovered what the truth is about this discussion of waivers and State 
plan amendments.
  But our appreciation of the law is that this is not a waiver. I'm not 
talking about a waiver so it does not have to be approved by the 
administration. I am talking about a State plan amendment that is 
simply presented to the administration and it can contain what is known 
as an income disregard. The attorneys with CMS tell us that the 
administration does not have the discretion to turn down an income 
disregard that is presented by a State.
  What an income disregard means, in essence, is a State can cover kids 
from families as rich as they want. And that is our understanding of 
the law. It is too bad we didn't have, or at least the Energy and 
Commerce Committee didn't have, a full-blown hearing on this provision 
or other provisions of the bill so we could have explored that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in 1997, I voted ``yes'' to 
create the Children's Health Insurance Program. I was proud a 
Republican Congress put this plan into place, and I support 
reauthorization of this program, but I oppose this bill before us.
  Why? This bill contains big tax increases. What is interesting, when 
we want to make health insurance more affordable, they put a new $2 
billion tax, they call it a per capita tax, on health insurance 
policies, causing them to be more expensive.
  Then there are some big Medicare cuts, in fact, almost $200 billion 
in Medicare cuts, probably the biggest cut in Medicare in the history 
of the program. They want to expand the program, but they want to pay 
for it on the backs of senior citizens by cutting Medicare. So you 
wonder who gets hurt when you cut Medicare to pay for the expansion of 
this program.
  If you just take the $7.6 billion in cuts to home health care, you 
think of that elderly woman that many of us have met. We have been in 
her home. She is an elderly woman with an easy chair by the window, by 
the television. She has a tray or table there. It is filled with pill 
bottles. She is homebound. She watches the world go by. And if she is 
lucky, she has a cat or a dog for a pet and a companion. But, for her, 
home health care is important, because not only is it contact with the 
outside world, but home health care allows her to live in her home in 
dignity even though she is homebound.
  This plan today that is going to be voted on includes a $7.6 billion 
cut in home health care. So if you vote ``yes'' for this legislation, I 
hope you keep in mind that elderly woman stuck at home, homebound, who 
is dependent on home health care; and today she will suffer when this 
House passes this bill. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I just make a comment that not all committees 
are so blessed with ranking members who are so cooperative, and perhaps 
there might have been hearings in other committees if that were the 
case.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), and 
Mr. Neal recognizes that the American Academy of Pediatrics has said in 
their letter that they want to stand with us on this important 
legislation, and they will work for its passage.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think there is one 
acknowledgment that we all ought to come to very quickly, and it goes 
like this: The wealthy, the healthy and the strong have had a great run 
of it for the last 6 years.
  Think of that terror that overcomes that family with that child who 
needs health care. Think of that child who died because he had not 
gotten to a dentist in America in the year 2007. Think of what we are 
doing today, advancing an opportunity for health care for all members 
of the American family.
  My friend, Mr. McCrery, said if we had had an opportunity to vet this 
issue. Let me remind the audience, the Republicans required us to read 
the bill. The Ways and Means Committee spent 6 hours reading the bill. 
To argue that somehow there was not an opportunity to vet the issue 
when we read the bill is akin to setting the fire and calling the fire 
department. That is the argument we are being asked to embrace.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It ought to have bipartisan 
support. Use the model of the National Governors Association. That is a 
bipartisan organization.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, it is apparent to me from the 
misunderstandings apparent in this Chamber on this bill that perhaps we 
should have read the whole bill in greater detail. Maybe we would know 
more about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
millions of seniors who will be hurt by this bill. In my home State of 
Kentucky, over 73,000 seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, 
as well as all 19,000 of Kentucky's retired teachers. Each and every 
one of these seniors will have their benefits cut as a result of this 
bill, and some will find themselves without any Medicare Advantage 
options at all.
  It is unconscionable to me that this body would even consider robbing 
seniors by cutting $197 billion out of the Medicare trust fund to give 
to families making $80,000, or even more, free health insurance, many 
of whom already have coverage.
  This bill also cuts home health, hospitals, skilled nursing 
facilities and dialysis centers. It is clear that this bill harms many 
of our Nation's most vulnerable population. This bill should be

[[Page 22350]]

about providing poor children with health care, but it rations our 
Nation's health care, taking from seniors and working-class families to 
shift Americans from private health insurance into a big, liberal, tax-
and-spend government program. Folks, they're back.
  I urge my colleagues to stand by their seniors and defeat this bill. 
Let's get back to helping poor children, not a Michael-Moore-endorsed 
health care system.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), I would like to point out, in 
spite of what has been said by some of my Republican colleagues, this 
is not an entitlement bill. It does, however, protect 11 million kids.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Michigan for 
yielding.
  This bill is important to children. It was important to our 
legislature. It was important to our governor. That is why they passed 
it this session.
  But I want to tell you why health insurance for children is so 
important by telling you about Katelyn, a 6-year-old from Corvallis. 
Katelyn's hardworking parents make too much money to qualify for SCHIP 
under current Oregon eligibility levels but far too little to afford 
the $520-a-month premium for insurance through her father's employer.

                              {time}  1645

  Katelyn was ill for several days and her parents had been trying all 
night to help her stop coughing. Without insurance, the couple had no 
doctor.
  However, the county health department offered pediatric services for 
low-income children every Monday at reduced costs. So Katelyn's parents 
decided to wait and take her to the clinic on Monday, 3 days later. By 
Sunday, Katelyn was worse. Through tears, Katelyn complained that her 
sides hurt.
  When she was able to get to the doctor on Monday, Katelyn was 
diagnosed with pneumonia. With insurance, Katelyn's parents could have 
taken her right away to the doctor. Instead, she suffered for days.
  This story could have had dire consequences. It is why SCHIP is 
critically important. The CHAMP Act will provide Oregon with the 
resources they need to expand health insurance coverage to more 
children, and hopefully, stories like Katelyn will rarely exist.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who helped create the CHIP bill. 
I can't say he was a midwife for it, but he was there at its inception 
and was instrumental in negotiating it.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, in 2002 when I ran for Congress, I met 
Dolores Sweeney. She works full time in an insurance company, but for 
years she and her three children did not have health insurance until 
SCHIP. Her children are enrolled in the health care program.
  She did right by her family. She worked full-time, had three 
children. She's trying to be both a good worker and a good parent, and 
SCHIP allowed her to do both of those and do them well.
  I just talked to her the other day. She has a 19-year-old now and a 
14-year-old and a 12-year-old. This bill did right by her because her 
children are three success stories out of the 6 million who did right.
  So we stare at the 11 million children and ask, whose parents work 
full-time, that are too wealthy for Medicaid, yet cannot afford private 
insurance, are we just going to throw up our hands to them? Dolores 
Sweeney and the other parents, they will get the same health insurance 
that we ourselves will get and our children get. And the question 
before us will be, are we better than these 11 million children?
  You know, Dick Cheney gets a checkup every other day. Don't America's 
kids deserve a visit to the doctor, I ask you.
  And also I just want to say something to my colleagues who now say 
they're for SCHIP. I was there when President Clinton proposed it. 
Speaker Gingrich was against it. You were against it before you became 
for it. I appreciate your conversion, but you originally were opposed 
to it.
  When President Clinton said that, you said you opposed it. Then you 
said only pediatric care. Then you agreed to pediatric care, and then 
eye and dental visits which is what President Clinton proposed, and I 
do appreciate that you're for it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded that comments must 
be made through the Chair.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, Republicans were opposed to this bill 
before they were for this bill, and what has happened is that pediatric 
care and the eye and dental care that is in this bill was a principle 
that President Clinton had and there would be no agreement on a 
balanced budget until those kids had that bill.
  You said then it was an entitlement program. Now you have Governors, 
Senators of both parties, who are for this. The American Medical 
Association is for this. Pediatric care is for this. AARP is for this.
  And the ultimate question to those children who don't have health 
care, this time we leave no child behind and give these children the 
health care they deserve and the parents work full time and do right by 
their children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, in a continuing dialogue with the 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, at least 
in the manager's amendment presented to the Ways and Means Committee 
during markup on page 10, this is under section 101 of our bill, it 
states: if a State's expenditures, under this title, exceed the total 
amount with allotments available, and if the average number of children 
enrolled under the State plan exceeds its target average number of such 
enrollees, the allotment under this section shall be increased. Not 
may, shall. That is an entitlement to the States for as much money as 
they want for this program. It is no wonder, I would say to my good 
friend from Illinois, that the Governors are for this. Duh.
  And with that, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of 
the committee, Mr. Cantor.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are again reminded their remarks 
should be addressed through the Chair.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I rise in opposition 
to this bill.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to some of the remarks that were 
just made about somehow the Republicans are against insuring poor 
children and offering them access to health care.
  I can tell you one thing, this Republican was not in this body when 
President Clinton was in office. So I could never have been against 
this program before I'm for it. So I take issue with that.
  I am for, as I believe most of my colleagues are for, a program that 
provides access to health care for poor children, but what we have here 
is a 400 percent increase in the SCHIP price tag because what the 
majority has done has increased eligibility to the 400 percent level 
over poverty. In many areas of this country, we're well in excess of 
families who are making $100,000 a year. These are children, 90 percent 
of whom already have health care coverage.
  So what that means is the price that we pay for this type of 
expansion is a dangerous lurch forward toward a Washington-based, 
bureaucratic-controlled health care system. Which medicines will we 
get? Which surgeries will be available? And when? And when? Which 
disease is worth treating? These are the vital choices that right now 
American families are able to make, but frankly, the majority wants the 
government to make.
  But how do they pay for this? They pay for this largely by cutting 
Medicare. That's what we're about here, choosing to cut Medicare, cut 
seniors' ability to have a choice under the Medicare program so we can 
provide access to insurance for children whose parents make over 
$100,000 a year. That just doesn't make any sense.

[[Page 22351]]

  Now, secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would say as my colleagues before me, 
another way that this bill is funded is a brand-new tax on health 
insurance for all Americans that have health insurance policies.
  Again, the bill creates a health care competitiveness-affected 
research trust fund. That's another attempt basically to allow perhaps, 
if not run right, a government bureaucrat to dictate which therapies a 
physician can use.
  The bottom line, this bill is misguided. We need to take a much 
better look at this, and frankly, the last point I was going to make, 
Mr. Speaker, is this bill makes it up to the States, optional, whether 
to require documentation as to anyone who is legal who wants to receive 
benefits under this. This is another attempt, Mr. Speaker, at allowing 
our SCHIP benefits to go to illegal immigrants, something that I don't 
believe the American public is in favor of.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to an extremely valuable and 
respected member of the Commerce Committee, my good friend from Utah 
(Mr. Matheson) 2 minutes.
  Mr. MATHESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My wife and I are very fortunate. We have two wonderful little boys. 
Their names are William and Harris, and they're really fortunate 
because they have access to health care because, as a Congressman, I 
have access to the Federal employee health insurance program. And 
that's how it is for all of us as Members of Congress. See, we have 
health insurance and our kids have health insurance.
  This debate isn't about us, and as we get caught up in these 
discussions, this rhetoric about process and concerns about the way 
this bill has come to the floor, I think we're losing sight about who 
this issue is really about because we've got 11 million kids in this 
country who are involved in households where they make enough money 
they don't qualify for Medicare. How do we get them access to health 
care?
  The CHIP program's done a great job in the past 10 years, and we've 
got about 6 million of them covered, but there are 5 million kids out 
there who still aren't.
  That's what this debate is about, and I think when you have something 
sometimes you take it for granted, and all of us take for granted the 
fact that we have health insurance.
  Now, let me tell you why I don't take this for granted because, in my 
household, my wife happens to be a pediatrician, and she works at a 
children's hospital in Salt Lake City. She tells me the stories about 
kids who come into that hospital who have not had access to preventive 
care, who have health problems that escalated into far more serious 
circumstances because they didn't have access to health care, and I 
hear those stories all the time.
  That's what we ought to be focused on in this debate. That's what 
this debate is about. Vote for this bill. Let's do the right thing for 
our country's children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana has 30 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. And what about the majority?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 25\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 21\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. I think, Mr. Speaker, in order to kind of even out the 
remaining time, I will yield to my colleagues in the majority if that's 
okay.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and he's a gentleman who 
understands that most of us in Congress whose children are insured are 
insured by a government-run, taxpayer-funded health insurance plan 
which we like quite well.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, actually, I'm not. I rely on my wife.
  Mr. Speaker, the same framework that our friends have been 
complaining about on the other side of the aisle is a State block grant 
program has been retained. It's successful, but underfunded.
  Their complaints of enhanced programs ring hollow when you examine 
them. I heard my friend the distinguished minority whip come to the 
floor and talking about his opposition to higher income levels, and I 
find some irony in that because his State is one of them, Missouri 
where there was a request by his son, the Republican Governor, for a 
waiver from the Republican Bush administration which has been granted 
that allows a level 3 times higher than the poverty level.
  They don't feel comfortable with the requests that are coming from 
the State level for the innovation. However, that's what it was about 
in the first place.
  This program is not about putting Medicare Advantage at risk. It's 
being adjusted. This bill helps with reform. I am pleased that 157 
counties in 27 States are being rewarded with an efficiency bonus. My 
State's medical system is strengthened by helping kids.
  I urge all to vote for this bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who understands that the National 
Rural Health Association has endorsed the 2007 CHAMP Act as critical to 
rural children and seniors across the Nation.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, last fall, my 8-year-old son Matt, while he was 
sleeping, fell off the top of his bunkbed, broke his clavicle. As Tawni 
and I were driving to the emergency room to get treatment to this kid 
in excruciating pain, I thought of the numerous parents throughout 
America who fear the financial consequences of taking care of their 
child in an emergency or if they had an ear infection or an abscessed 
tooth or an asthma attack because they didn't have adequate health care 
coverage for that child. That is wrong. That is unacceptable. And we 
change that today.
  The CHAMP Act expands health coverage to 5 million more children, and 
with the reforms we make under the Medicare system, we extend the 
solvency of Medicare for three additional years, unlike the Republican-
passed Medicare reform bill passed just a few years ago that called for 
the largest expansion of entitlement funding in over 40 years, with no 
ability to pay for it.
  We pay for this bill with a modest increase in the cigarette tax, 
which is also the best thing we can do to prevent these kids from being 
addicted to that poison and incurring smoking-related illness with 
associated life-long health costs.
  I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
of the gentleman from Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CHAMP Act of 2007.
  I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues won't stand up to the 
HMOs and won't stand up for healthy children. In the words of Dr. 
Martin Luther King, ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' The 
Republicans just don't get it. Delay is not debate. Health care delayed 
is health care denied.
  There is no power like the power of a made-up mind; and, early on, 
the Republicans in the Commerce Committee markup made up their mind to 
forestall health care for our children. Then, last night and this 
morning, on this very floor, they made up their mind to stall health 
care for 12 million uninsured children.
  Now it remains up to us, the Democrats in this House, to make up our 
minds and to install health care for children, for those 11 million 
children and low-income pregnant women. Now is the time. There is no 
other time like this time, so now, most definitely, now is the right 
time.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill for America's babies. We 
must champion health care coverage for 11

[[Page 22352]]

million children. They need us. They depend on us. They need this 
health care coverage.
  We must pass the CHAMP Act of 2007. We must put our poor children in 
the winner's circle.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
majority whip, Mr. Clyburn.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3162, 
the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007.
  I want to commend Chairs Rangel, Dingell, Stark and Pallone for 
working with all of our caucuses in drafting this piece of legislation. 
I also rise to explain why I and many of my colleagues are unequivocal 
on the need for Congress to cover all eligible kids.
  There is an old judicial axiom that says ``Justice delayed is justice 
denied.'' The same is true for health care, and there is no better 
example on how health care delay is health care denied than the story 
of Devante Johnson from Houston, Texas. Thirteen-year-old Devante 
Johnson from Houston, Texas, had advanced kidney cancer and could not 
afford to be without health care coverage. But, last year, the Johnson 
family spent 4 desperate months uninsured while his mother tried to 
renew his Medicare coverage.
  For years, Devante and his two brothers were covered by Medicaid. 
Texas families who qualify for Medicaid or CHIP are required to renew 
their coverage every 6 months. Devante's mother, Tamika, had tried to 
get a head start by sending their paperwork 2 months before Medicaid 
was set to expire.
  That application sat for 6 weeks until it was processed and then 
transferred to CHIP, because an employee believed the family no longer 
qualified for Medicaid. At that point, the paperwork got lost in the 
system.
  For 4 months, Devante went without health insurance as employees 
unsuccessfully attempted to reinstate his coverage. As a result, he 
could no longer receive regular treatment and had to rely on clinical 
trials for care. Meanwhile, his tumors grew.
  It wasn't until the State representative intervened that Devante's 
coverage was immediately reinstated. But it was too late. Devante 
Johnson died on March 1, 2007.
  I want you to look at him. He has to mean something to you. For, in 
the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., ``There is nothing more dangerous 
than sincere ignorance and conscious stupidity.''
  We cannot allow this to continue. Support the Devantes of our great 
country and give health care to all of our children.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LINDER. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, about 2 years ago, the Government Accountability Office 
brought before the Ways and Means Committee a study that said if we 
continue to tax at the current percentage of the economy and continue 
to spend in discretionary spending at the current percentage of the 
economy that just 33 years from today the entire Federal revenue stream 
will be insufficient to just pay the interest on the debt.
  I know the Democrats will say raise taxes. In 100 percent of the time 
in the last 60 times that we have raised taxes, we have slowed the 
economy and slowed revenues.
  This Congress will not reduce spending. So what is their solution to 
our dilemma? The problems are, as the GAO said, three entitlement 
programs, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. They propose to give 
us another one, with no caps, expanding coverage to illegal immigrants, 
by the language from the CBO, expanding coverage to adults with no 
children, by the definition of their act, and allowing the States to 
lift the ceiling on eligibility entirely.
  This is a back-door or front-door entrance for Hillary care, national 
health care. You will recall that in that program if a doctor treated a 
patient for free outside the system, they are liable for criminal 
fines. That isn't in this bill, yet.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding, also 
for his outstanding leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I operate from a very 
simple premise, and that is this, that if America is the greatest 
country in the world, then all of our children should have health 
insurance.
  It's that simple. This bill does that. It covers 5 million additional 
children of the working poor; and it gives them health care, dental 
care and access to mental care health services. That's what's needed in 
this country.
  It's amazing to listen to the scare tactics of Republicans. It's 
almost amusing.
  First, they start talking about illegal aliens. No, that's not what 
this bill is about. They said, well you are going to kill our private 
insurance. These are working poor people. They don't have insurance.
  They said, well, it's $100,000 families. No, it's the existing 
eligibility limit. Then they say, well, you are going to create a 
massive new entitlement program. No, it's a grant program with bonuses 
for States that do a good job of insuring more people.
  Finally, they resort to Hillary care. We are all supposed to be 
scared.
  We are taking this issue very seriously, because we understand that 
there are working poor people in America that work every day. Half of 
them are women. They work in the service industries, they work in labor 
jobs, and those jobs do not offer health insurance. That's why we are 
here.
  We are here because when they don't have health insurance. Their 
children don't get screenings. Their children don't get check-ups. They 
can't get treated for asthma. When their children are in severe pain, 
they go to the emergency room, and that costs more money.
  I will give you example from my district. Deamonte Driver, he had a 
toothache, tooth decay. It would have cost $80. He didn't get it. The 
tooth became infected. The infection traveled to his brain.
  Two surgeries costing $250,000 were attempted to save his life. They 
were unsuccessful. Deamonte Driver died. We need to prevent these types 
of tragedies in America.
  I am appalled when I think about it, that if a third-world Communist 
country like Cuba can offer health insurance to the families of factory 
workers, we have to be able to do it here in America, the greatest 
country in the world.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize our next speaker, I want 
to point out two things. Number one, there has been a couple of 
references to this child who died because of a tooth problem. According 
to the Washington Post story, I don't know this, but according to the 
Washington Post story, this child was actually on Medicaid. He was 
covered by Medicaid. But because so few dentists in that State accepted 
Medicaid patients because of the poor quality of the Medicaid program, 
this child didn't get access. But he was covered.
  I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion we are having on 
SCHIP.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways 
and Means committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate is really puzzling. If this was a status quo 
bill, if this was the same law that we already have in place, no new 
people, then why does it cost $130 billion in more money? Why does it 
cost so much more?
  This bill goes way beyond insuring low-income children. If this was 
all about just giving health insurance to uninsured low-income 
children, no problem. You would have a near unanimous vote out of here. 
That's not what this bill does.
  They say this bill doesn't have those income limits. This bill has no 
income

[[Page 22353]]

limits. This bill says to the States, give it to whomever you want, no 
asset test, no income limits. That's why this test costs so much money.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is saying in analyzing this 
bill that they will push 2.4 million kids off of private insurance onto 
government health care, not my statistics, the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  They are already acknowledging that this is more about insuring low-
income, uninsured kids. This is really about putting people on 
government health care, especially those who even have health insurance 
today.
  My friends, our constituents, the U.S. taxpayer, don't want to pay 
for health care that's already being paid for by someone else. But that 
is what this bill does. This bill creates an enormous budget mess.
  I find it kind of ironic that the majority that could not find $1 
worth of entitlement savings in their budget comes to this floor with 
$200 billion of cuts to Medicare to pay for expanding this new program. 
When it came time to reducing the deficit and keeping taxes low, no 
savings to be found. Now, hey, $200 billion in Medicare cuts, cut 3 
million seniors off the Medicare Advantage program to grow a new 
entitlement.
  Yes, this is a new entitlement program, a new entitlement for States. 
It gives them a never-ending spigot of new money. But what's so, so 
critical, what's so hypocritical about this bill is, after cranking up 
spending for 5 years, after putting 5 million children on health care, 
kicking 2.4 million off of private health insurance, what do they do to 
conform with their PAYGO rules? What do they do to shoehorn this huge 
program into their budget? They just kick everybody off. They just 
rescind the program. They just turn the spigot money off.
  Does anybody believe that after putting 5 million people on health 
insurance we are just going to take it away from them in 2014? No, 
we're not.
  So this whole thing really is a bug sham. What they are saying is, 
with this legislation, we want to give 5 million people health 
insurance for kids, no matter what income limit. But, in 2014, we are 
taking it away from them. That's crazy. That's not budgeting. That's 
creating a new program, a new entitlement, and not paying for it.
  This puts our fiscal house, which is already messed up, in serious 
jeopardy.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, one of the great falsehoods I have heard 
today, unfortunately, is this attempt by one side of the aisle who is 
against trying to get kids health insurance here keep saying somehow we 
are raising the eligibility to those folks who are hanging out at the 
country club. That is simply not true. That is bogus. We are 
maintaining the same levels of eligibility in America that exist today, 
yesterday and tomorrow in this bill.
  What we are doing is simply allowing our State governments, our local 
governments, the ones that I know many of my Republican friends believe 
are effective and more efficient than the Federal Government, to 
fulfill their desire to reach these kids who are eligible today, but 
the Federal Government is not actually reaching to provide this 
insurance.
  Now, where is the criminality in that in that? Where is the 
inefficiency in that? We have simply said federally that children of a 
certain income level should have health insurance, and we are simply 
saying those same children of the same exact economic considerations 
are now going to actually get it. That's all we are doing.
  I want to mention another thing we are doing here. We have 11 States 
that have really been ahead of the Federal Government in providing 
health insurance for their kids. As a result, for a decade now, they 
have been punished in that they haven't been able to use the same 
resources to reach the kid they have already insured.
  We fix that, 100 percent fix today. The States, if you are from the 
States of Washington, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode 
Island, Minnesota, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont and Tennessee, do 
not vote against this bill, because it finally, finally restores this 
inequity that finally we will be able to get fair treatment for your 
States and your children.
  So, today, we have got a fair bill all the way around.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished ranking member of 
the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, control the 
remainder of the time for the minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in reluctant 
opposition to H.R. 3162.
  Yesterday, I joined my colleague, the gentlelady from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) in the introduction of a bill which embodied the Senate 
version of SCHIP reauthorization. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor; I fully support that legislation.
  Unlike the bill we are debating today, the Senate version is far less 
pernicious and does not raid low-income seniors to pay for an expansion 
of coverage for middle-class families.
  Proposed Medicare cuts in this legislation could have a devastating 
impact on access to Medicare Advantage plans. The seniors that use 
these plans, if they didn't experience an outright loss of coverage, 
would, at minimum, experience higher premiums, benefit cuts, or both.
  According to an April 2007 study by Emory University researchers Ken 
Thorpe and Adam Atherly, 3 million people would lose their access to MA 
coverage if Congress sets MA payments at the same level as payments for 
traditional Medicare.
  Moving from the macro numbers to the practical effects of seniors in 
my district, it causes even more concern. Over 15,000 seniors in Butler 
County, Pennsylvania would experience a 15 percent cut in their plan's 
reimbursement. Nearly 15,000 seniors in Erie County would experience a 
29 percent cut, and over 8,000 seniors in Mercer County would be 
impacted by a 17 percent cut in their plan's reimbursement should this 
bill be passed.
  This blatant raid on seniors' pocketbooks contained in this bill is 
enough to warrant a vote in opposition. But, Mr. Speaker, the most 
troubling factor in this bill is that this raid on seniors is being 
used to pay, in many cases, for families with incomes as high as over 
$82,000 a year. At a time when so many seniors are tightening their 
belts on fixed incomes, raiding their pocketbooks to pay for health 
care for middle-class households is simply not right.
  I have been a supporter of SCHIP from the beginning. I have trumpeted 
its success. But this SCHIP reauthorization has been hijacked by people 
who have a different agenda. We will have another vote on this when it 
comes back from the other Chamber and from conference. I am voting 
``no'' on this wrongheaded approach on a very important issue.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to recognize the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for 1\1/2\ minutes, and, 
pending that, point out that he recognizes that the hospitals and 
physicians in Pennsylvania overwhelmingly endorse this bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, we could certainly slow the aging process 
down if it had to work its way through Congress.
  This year, 6 million children will have access to quality affordable 
health insurance because of the program we know as the SCHIP. These 
children are in working families with parents who either can't afford 
insurance or hold jobs that lack health care benefits. We have an 
opportunity today.
  In New Jersey, we have over 100,000 of eligible kids who aren't 
enrolled in

[[Page 22354]]

New Jersey alone. Are we going to do the same thing on health care that 
we did to those kids in Head Start? So many eligible, not enough 
resources, wrongheaded priorities?
  Contrary to what my friends on the other side said, the Ways and 
Means Committee has also worked to protect the integrity and solvency 
of Medicare and to approve the benefits for all beneficiaries within 
this bill.
  The fully paid for CHAMP Act protects Medicare from privatization, 
promotes fiscal responsibility, you have got to read the bill, by 
reducing overpayments to private plans. I see nothing wrong with that. 
Adding 3 years to the Medicare trust fund solvency, I think that is a 
home run. Limiting premium increases, two home runs, and improving 
access and benefits for all Medicare participants.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill needs everyone's support in here. It should be 
and will be bipartisan.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 22\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California has 19 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from New Jersey has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am happy to yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished lady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the CHAMP Act, and I want to tell you why. This 
bill will ensure continued coverage for the 39,000 kids already covered 
by SCHIP in my State of Nevada, while providing resources to reach the 
70,000 children currently eligible but that remain uninsured because 
there is not enough money.
  This bill also makes needed updates and improvements to Medicare to 
ensure that our seniors receive preventative services, mental health 
care, and physical speech and occupational therapies that they need. 
Almost 98,000 low-income seniors in Nevada will benefit from 
improvements in Medicare savings programs and low-income subsidy 
programs as well.
  Passing this bill is also necessary to ensure access to physicians 
for Medicare patients. The CHAMP Act restores funding necessary to 
reimburse the doctors for their services.
  My district has the fastest growing senior population in the United 
States. It is essential that these seniors have access to their doctors 
under the Medicare program. This bill ensures they will.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished lady from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), who understands 
that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare 
has overwhelmingly endorsed the 2007 CHAMP Act.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly in strong support of the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  As someone who helped to create one of the first CHIP programs in the 
country in Pennsylvania in 1992, I know what a difference it has made 
in the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of children in 
Pennsylvania. And since 1997, it has made a difference in the lives of 
6 million children across this country.
  Today, we build on the success of CHIP. It is a public-private, 
Federal-State partnership and secures access to coverage for 11 million 
children of hardworking American families.
  At a time of rising health care costs for working families and 
increasing numbers of uninsured children, today we have an answer for 
American families. The action we take today will sustain health 
coverage for 6 million children currently enrolled, and will make 
available affordable coverage for an additional 5 million American 
children.
  This is an extraordinary step forward in ensuring access to health 
coverage for American children. It is simply not good enough to say you 
support improving access to health coverage for children and then vote 
``no.'' Rather, vote with children of this country and their parents. I 
urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at this time to recognize the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute, who 
understands well how private health insurance companies have 
overprofited from their overpayment.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud Mr. Stark, 
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Pallone for their outstanding 
leadership in bringing this bill before us today.
  I turn to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say to 
them, do not remain frozen in the ice of your own indifference towards 
the needs of children in this country.
  It is imperative that we pass this bill. It is imperative not because 
of the statistics and the numbers, but because these are our children 
and our kids. That you find the time and the money to blindly put 
forward into reconstruction efforts in Iraq, but not the time, not the 
effort to make sure that kids in our own country receive the necessary 
funding that they need.
  It is written that the difference between CHAMP and CHUMP is ``U.'' 
Do not become the vote that turns away the children in this country.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their 
remarks through the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Tiberi.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill 
today.
  I support the Children's Health Insurance Program. The original goal 
was worthy, Mr. Speaker: Cover poor children. Unfortunately this bill 
does much more than that. It expands the program to more adults and to 
children of middle-class parents who may already have insurance, and 
funds this expansion through relying on tobacco taxes that are going to 
bring in less revenues through the years, including tax increases on 
private health care plans, cuts to community hospitals, nursing homes, 
home health care providers, and, yes, cuts to Medicare beneficiaries.
  Democrats are cutting Medicare, specifically the Medicare Advantage 
program. Seniors in my district have been writing and calling me, and I 
have been talking to them.
  One said to me, ``The quality of our health coverage is greatly 
improved through Medicare Advantage.'' Another said, ``I cannot afford 
higher out-of-pocket costs. I get preventative care. I also get some 
dental coverage and eye care that I would not be entitled to under 
original Medicare.'' And, lastly, ``Please, in the name of decency, do 
not vote to change my health care.''
  Mr. Speaker, over 13,000 of my constituents benefit from Medicare 
Advantage. I will not vote to cut their benefits today. I will not, Mr. 
Speaker, support this bill which pits grandparents versus their 
grandkids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) 2 minutes.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CHAMP Act, 
and our chairmen who have worked so hard to craft this bill deserve 
great credit. It is a very strong measure.
  There are many reasons to support this bill, but chief among them is 
the fact that this bill will provide health care coverage for an 
additional 5 million low income children, bringing the total to 11 
million insured infants and children covered under SCHIP. This 
represents real progress at reducing America's 46.6 million uninsured 
people, and I am proud to support this progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also proud to note that the CHAMP Act does not pit 
children against seniors, as has been suggested by many of the 
Republicans, but instead works to improve health care for both children 
and seniors.
  The bill includes many investments in Medicare that will directly 
benefit

[[Page 22355]]

the health of our seniors. The bill includes a physician fix so that 
our doctors will not be subjected to the harsh 10 percent scheduled cut 
in reimbursement, and, providing this fix will ensure that 
beneficiaries have continued access to their physicians.
  In addition, this bill provides many more protections to Medicare 
beneficiaries by expanding and improving the programs which ensure that 
Medicare remains affordable to those with lower income. The CHAMP Act 
also expands access to preventative benefits and mental health benefits 
for all Medicare seniors.
  But back to my first point. If this Congress stands for anything, it 
should stand for children, for providing them with comprehensive health 
care, for giving them the support and care they need for a healthy 
life.
  I am reminded of the first day of this session when Speaker Pelosi 
invited all the children to join her at the podium. This Congress 
should be judged based on how we protect our Nation's children. That is 
this vote.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished lady from Ohio (Ms. Tubbs Jones). And, pending that, I 
suggest that she understands that the American Nurses Association has 
expressed their undying support for the Children's Health and Medicare 
Protection Act.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. And for the 
Record, I want to compliment the Chair, Mr. Rangel; the ranking member, 
Mr. Stark; and the staff of the Ways and Means Committee for all of 
their hard work, because I was one of those at the table battling on 
behalf of a whole lot of people.
  This piece of legislation will be critically important to children. 
But while expanding access to health care for children is my key focus, 
I remain watchful of the provisions that could have adversely affected 
persons with end-stage renal disease. I'm pleased that there are 
provisions in the bill that will help measure and, hopefully, reduce 
racial and ethnic disparities in kidney care, bolster the health and 
health care of our low-income seniors and protect our Nation's 
hardworking health providers.
  As I have said many times before, the CHAMP Act is an example of a 
socially responsible and medically appropriate health policy that will 
improve the health and well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable 
residents.
  I call upon all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this 
legislation.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must observe that if Members 
yielding time in debate also include extensive comments, the Chair may 
have to charge the time consumed by such remarks against that Member's 
time for debate.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chairmen Dingell, 
Rangel, Pallone and Stark for their bold leadership in bringing this 
legislation to the House floor. As Congressman for the 15th poorest 
district in the Nation, a district where 50 percent of the children 
qualify for SCHIP, I enthusiastically support passage.
  The CHAMP Act of 2007 reflects what should be our Nation's 
priorities. It is the duty of Congress to keep the promise of our 
Constitution, to provide for the general welfare of our people. What 
better way, Mr. Speaker, to keep that promise than to guarantee that 
our children are afforded adequate health insurance.
  The sad fact is that a majority of uninsured children are minority, 
including 1.4 million black children and 3.4 million Hispanic children. 
In my State of North Carolina, 195,000 children are eligible but not 
enrolled in the program. We have a moral obligation to ensure all 
children who are unable to afford insurance have that insurance. To do 
less would be shameful.
  Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the gentleman for giving me 
this time and also expressing disappointment with my Republican friends 
who have engaged in nothing but obstructionism and filibuster as we 
have struggled to bring this legislation to the floor.
  You insisted on reading a 495-page bill, consuming 18 hours of our 
committee time. You have made your adjournment motions this week, and 
you have wrongfully suggested that we want to insure illegal aliens. 
That's wrong. And then you accuse us of taking Medicare benefits from 
our seniors; and then you use that worn out phrase, ``tax increase''.
  The American people have figured it out. You are doing every 
conceivable thing to prevent giving insurance coverage to 5 million 
children of the working poor.
  My friends, you are wrong.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as quickly as I can, I would like to 
recognize the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for 1\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I've listened to a lot of allegations, Mr. 
Speaker, that the Democratic Party, the party that crafted Medicare and 
Social Security and Medicaid, is somehow cutting health care benefits. 
I don't want this debate to end without putting a few simple facts in 
perspective.
  There is one party in this Chamber that said to 13 million working 
class families on Medicaid for the first time, you have to make a co-
pay for your kids to go to the doctor.
  There is one party in this Chamber that, 4 years ago, in the Medicare 
Modernization Act, tucked in the fine print of the bill a requirement 
of guaranteed Medicare cuts in the next several years.
  There is one party in this Chamber that passed the prescription drug 
bill that contained a massive doughnut hole for seniors which allowed 
them to lose their coverage for a period of time.
  There's one party in this Chamber that has sent five budgets, just in 
my tenure, to the floor of the Congress cutting Medicaid benefits.
  There is one party in this Chamber that has proposed to cut, that has 
passed a guaranteed 10 percent cut for reimbursements for doctors, set 
to go into effect beginning on January 1.
  It is the Republican party.
  Let there be no debate, Mr. Speaker. There is one party that has its 
bona fides on the question of health care. It is the party that is 
moving today a bill that will provide universal coverage for all 
children who need it.
  It is shameful for this debate to have been twisted and distorted in 
the manner that it has.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 
21 minutes. The gentleman from California has 13\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the CHAMP 
Act. The message of this bill is, Washington knows best.
  I recently received a letter from one of my over 4,500 seniors in my 
district who could lose their Medicare Advantage benefits under this 
bill. Kathleen Lopez of Marysville, California, writes, ``I chose a 
Medicare Advantage plan because I receive Social Security benefits less 
than $700 net per month. This plan encourages preventive care, has some 
vision and dental coverage. This type of plan eliminates costly monthly 
expenses for health coverage.''
  In addition to slashing Medicare Advantage, this bill contains 
massive expansion of SCHIP that takes kids from middle-class and even 
upper-class families off private insurance and puts them into a 
government-paid program.
  All of us support reauthorization of SCHIP. Everyone supports health 
care for low-income children. But what we are debating here today is 
whether to turn this successful anti-poverty program into an open-ended 
entitlement with effectively no limits on eligibility.

[[Page 22356]]

  Mr. Speaker, we have a choice. We can move towards a 21st century 
patient-centered health care system driven by competition and 
innovation, or we can go backwards towards a system of socialized 
medicine like the one that the Canadian doctors come here to escape.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction. I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm delighted to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, we all pay the price when 46 million 
Americans, 9 million of them children, have no health insurance. We all 
have a responsibility, a moral responsibility to make sure that our 
most vulnerable get the health care coverage they need.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program is perhaps the best 
social policy success story of the last decade. At a time when most 
Americans want to see this program reach more of the 6 million children 
who are eligible but still uninsured, the administration's proposal 
would result in hundreds of thousands of children losing their 
coverage. That is the wrong direction and the wrong choice for our 
country.
  The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act will take us in the 
right direction, reaching children most in need, while improving 
Medicare for 44 million seniors and people with disabilities.
  This is about embracing our Nation's most serious challenge, a 
challenge the Federal government has the ability, the capacity, the 
resources and the moral obligation to help us meet.
  We all have a stake in solving this crisis. No one, not even the 
President, should be able to undermine the great promise of a healthy 
future for our kids.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Children's 
Health and Medicare Protection Act. This bill provides health care to 
those who most need it, our children. That's what this bill is about.
  The CHAMP Act means that the coverage of almost 50,000 children 
enrolled in Iowa's CHIP Program, called the Hawkeye program, will be 
secured. This bill also provides essential funding for the State to 
reach the almost 30,000 children who are eligible for the program but 
remain uninsured.
  In addition, the CHAMP Act would provide the State of Iowa with a new 
option to cover an additional 47,000 children who are aging out of 
Medicare and CHIP.
  No child should go without health care. No child should go without 
regular checkups, preventive care and treatment of illnesses. The CHAMP 
Act serves as a crucial health care safety net for low-income, 
uninsured children. That's what it's all about. And I urge my 
colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to 
a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the Record, there is only one 
party that fought hard to make sure our seniors had life-saving drugs, 
even though our colleagues across the aisle had 8 years of the White 
House and control of the Senate and never brought a bill to the floor 
to help our seniors with their medicines.
  And I'd point out that while many lobbyists in Washington support 
this bill, I've not heard from one hospital, not one nurse, not one 
physician, not one senior who supports this bill.
  380,000, that's how many Texas elderly will likely lose their 
personal Medicare plan as a result of this bill. 107,000, that's how 
many seniors in the Houston-Beaumont-Huntsville region will see serious 
cuts in their Medicare Advantage plan, or be forced into other plans 
with less health care coverage as a result of $50 billion of 
unnecessary and drastic Medicare cuts.
  This is kid care versus Medicare. And only in the poisonous 
environment of Washington do politicians pit children against their 
grandparents. It is a cynical and a false choice that will leave many 
seniors stranded without the health care plan that fits their needs.
  I, like others, support covering more children for health insurance, 
but not at the expense of elderly.
  I sit on the committee charged with preserving Medicare, keeping 
seniors healthy; and these Medicare Advantage plans are the preferred 
plan for many of our Texas elderly. They're especially critical to our 
rural and low-income and minority seniors because they provide a 
comprehensive plan with medicines and emphasis on prevention.
  I also believe that before Congress expands CHIP to higher-income 
families, it should first help the children of low-income families 
which the program was designed to serve. Maybe we should subsidize the 
coverage for the bank president's kids, but shouldn't we first help the 
health care for the bank teller's kids?
  Texas, like many States, barely covers half of the children already 
eligible for this; and, as a Congress, our goal should be to cover the 
children of working poor first.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm privileged to yield 1 
minute to the Delegate from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. I'm proud to be here, Mr. Speaker, to stand in 
strong support of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 
2007.
  We also have additional champs in Chairmen Dingell, Rangel, Stark and 
Pallone, as well as the Speaker and the Democratic leadership.
  Today, we're fulfilling a commitment we made on the first day of this 
Congress to take care of America's children. By passing H.R. 3162, we 
will take the first step to insuring the 6 million low-income, now 
uninsured children in this country, including many who are racial and 
ethnic minorities; and we'll be investing in a healthier future for 
them and our country by ensuring they get comprehensive care.

                              {time}  1745

  In CHAMP we also fulfill a commitment to our seniors and persons with 
disabilities, especially those of low income, to remove some of the 
remaining barriers to Medicare. This bill helps children and seniors.
  And we are beginning to help bring provider payments in line with the 
rising cost of providing medical care as well as to start the reform 
this country needs. This legislation is not only good for our children, 
our seniors, and our disabled, it is good for our country.
  If we only extended CHIP, as our Republican colleagues suggested, it 
would cause 800,000 children to lose coverage. We can't do that.
  Support this bill. Reject the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have heard a lot of generosity on the floor today, Mr. Speaker. 
People can always be generous with other people's money. And it seems 
that the new majority back in power has already gone the way of the old 
Democratic majority and, in fairness, along the way of mistakes that we 
made.
  I was one of the Republicans that opposed our effort to vastly expand 
Medicare with the prescription drug entitlement. I think voters 
actually put some of us on the pavement because, with an $8 trillion 
national debt, they are tired of reckless and runaway spending in 
Washington, D.C.
  This bill is a massive increase in the government's role in health 
care. It makes millions of middle-class families eligible for 
government insurance, many of which are already covered under private 
plans. I don't think taxpayers should be required to pay for government 
insurance for the children of parents who earn up to $80,000 a year. 
And we do this at the expense of seniors, cutting into the Medicare 
Advantage program.
  And I would say to you American taxpayers should not have to support 
a system that provides health insurance coverage for illegal 
immigrants. This legislation allows funding of illegal immigrants in 
health care. It cuts health

[[Page 22357]]

care for millions of senior citizens in the Medicare Advantage program. 
It provides government insurance for higher-income families, and it 
drastically expands the role of the government in America's health care 
system.
  It just seems to me this new majority does well when it reminds the 
American people that we have a moral obligation to come to terms with 
an $8 trillion national debt. The next time I hear one of those 
speeches on the floor, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I run to the 
floor to remind people of a $47 billion middle-class entitlement that 
passed the Congress today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the CHAMP Act, to oppose middle-class 
entitlements.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on the other hand unlike the 
minority, I rise to champion the CHAMP Act. Let me thank Chairman 
Stark, let me thank Mr. Dingell, and Mr. Rangel for providing the 
threesome who understood that our children are in need!
  Mr. Speaker, it is a crisis. The CHIPS is getting ready to expire. I 
am very glad that we did something monumental in 1997 by implementing a 
program to help America's children-- CHIP. Five million children will 
be added. It will make it a total of 11 million children. Also seniors 
will have their choice of hospitals an doctors and they will be able to 
get all of their benefits under Medicare.
  We will follow the current immigration law so the argument regarding 
undocumented immigrants is unfounded. But a sick person is a sick 
person, a sick baby is a sick baby, and Texas needs dollars, and 
America needs this health coverage.
  At the same time, I look forward to working with the committee so 
that our doctor-owned hospitals in rural and underserved areas will be 
able to get a waiver so that they can continue to serve in those areas. 
But I am proud that we are providing more benefits, not fewer benefits, 
and we are providing more dollars for the State of Texas' most neediest 
residents--children and seniors--they need good health care now.
  I urge my colleagues to support the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Health 
and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 (CHAMP Act). I would like to thank 
my colleague Mr. Dingell for introducing this legislation, and for his 
leadership, together with that of Mr. Rangel, in shepherding this 
legislation through both the Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means 
Committees.
  This important legislation commits $50 billion to reauthorize and 
improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and it 
also makes critical investments in Medicare to protect the health care 
available to our Nation's senior citizens. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this excellent bill.
  Mr. Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan 
support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children 
in our country without access to health care. It serves the children of 
working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but 
who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents 
hold jobs without health care benefits.
  Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative 
treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to 
receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily 
treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must 
instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health 
implications for these children, and it creates additional financial 
burdens on their families, communities, and the entire Nation.
  This year alone, 6 million children are receiving health care as a 
result of SCHIP. However, funding for this visionary program expires 
September 30. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of 
children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance. 
President Bush has employed rhetoric in support of this program while 
on the campaign trail, stating in 2004 that ``In a new term, we will 
lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are 
eligible but not signed up for government health insurance programs.'' 
Unfortunately, however, in practice both the Administration and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in Congress have proposed 
significant cuts in the program. If these are approved, millions of 
children will lose health coverage.
  As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few 
goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to 
health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child 
through SCHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a 
working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to 
be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, 
millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our 
already tenuous healthcare safety net.
  Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to 
make health care even more available to America's children. The 
majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, 
either through SCHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our 
commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both 
increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This 
legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to 
reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make 
more children eligible.
  In my home State of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 
293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the 
previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible 
children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas 
Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June to, among other things, 
create a community outreach campaign for SCHIP.
  In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this 
legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken 
payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and 
people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who 
provide healthcare to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in 
their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further 
reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed 
by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients 
that they serve.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that senior citizens and individuals with 
disabilities deserve access to quality and affordable healthcare. 
Currently, there are 35 million seniors without private health plans, 
and, at current rates, the Medicare Trust Fund will be depleted early 
because of excess payments to HMOs. This legislation reverses 
Republican efforts to privatize Medicare, and it ensures that seniors 
will have access to the doctor of their choice.
  This is extremely important legislation providing for the health 
coverage of 11 million low-income children, as well as protecting the 
health services available to senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities. I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at what I have heard from the 
other side of the aisle: disingenuous talk about great deficit; the 
deficit caused by the Republican majority's work or lack of work over 
the last 12 years; giving tax breaks to the rich while sending our 
troops to a war that has cost us half a trillion dollars and 
approaching a trillion dollars. That is where the deficit has come 
from, and this disingenuous talk is shocking to hear.
  And the admission that they are against giving children of middle-
class families health care. The Republican party, Mr. Speaker, used to 
say they cared about the middle class. Now they say they don't want to 
give health benefits to their children. That is amazing. And doctors, 
who used to be one of their main interest groups, would get 
reimbursement that they are entitled so that they can continue to 
participate in Medicare under this plan, and they oppose that.
  I would ask you to look at the wall and Daniel Webster, who says, 
engraved in stone here: Do something of monumental proportions. Do 
something that generations will remember, something great.
  That is what this bill will do. I am happy to be here in support of 
the CHAMP bill. Hubert Humphrey was a champion of children, and I am 
happy to stand here for him.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

[[Page 22358]]


  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a bill that should have 
bipartisan support, it is this SCHIP bill. All of us support health 
care for children.
  But the problem that we have in this process is that this is a bill 
that really did not receive the full vent of the Congress. And so here 
we find ourselves on the floor debating a bill that is going to be a 
dramatic change and expansion of government health care.
  The original SCHIP program was designed for 250 percent of the 
poverty level and above. This bill removes that limit so that States 
can do whatever they want to.
  Today there are 700,000 adults on the Children's Health Program. This 
bill is going to greatly expand the number of adults on the program. 
There even are incentives so that children will leave their parents' 
health plan and go to the government health plan, and in doing so, 
since children are generally a healthy group, the private health plan 
premiums are going to increase in cost. They are also imposing a fee on 
every private health plan in America, every self-insured health plan in 
America.
  In addition to that, they are going to lower the reimbursement for 
the Medicare Advantage program, which is particularly strong in rural 
areas, which will hurt the seniors on the Medicare Advantage program.
  So the bottom line, and philosophically we are not questioning 
anyone's motives, but there should be a full debate on this. This is 
dramatically expanding government health care and diminishing private 
health care. And that is what this debate is really all about.
  And I would say this: We need a strong private health system. That 
has been the tradition in America. And last year, for example, the MD 
Anderson Cancer Center in Texas spent more money on research and 
development in health care and health needs and curing diseases than 
all of the entities in the Canadian health plan. That is why we are 
upset about this program. Not that we don't want to cover children.
  I thank the gentleman for his generosity of time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield for the purpose of 
making a unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CHAMP Act and the 
reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or 
SCHIP.
  This bill will cover the nearly 11 million children who fall into the 
gap between Medicaid and private insurance.
  Not only will the CHAMP Act provide health insurance for millions of 
additional children, but also the peace of mind for millions of 
families who work hard to provide all of life's essentials for their 
families.
  For my state of Oregon the passage of the CHAMP Act means many of the 
107,000 uninsured children will have access to health care.
  And while the legislation before us today is a suitable and necessary 
short-term solution, the long-term need remains: America is falling 
short of our moral obligation to provide all children with access to 
health care.
  Access to health care is not only a struggle for those with the 
lowest incomes; it now also is a struggle for those we have 
traditionally considered middle-class, and therefore should be able to 
afford health insurance.
  Since 1965 Medicare has ensured our Nation's senior citizens have 
access to health care. That success should be extended to cover our 
youngest citizens. I am developing new legislation will do just that.
  My MediKids legislation would provide access to comprehensive health 
care for all children and expecting mothers. Every child would be 
automatically enrolled at birth. But parents would retain the right to 
choose to enroll their children in private plans or others such as 
SCHIP or Medicaid.
  MediKids also would act as a safety net. If parents have a lapse in 
other insurance, a common concern and constant worry among many 
families, MediKids would provide coverage.
  America has the best health care in the world, but fewer and fewer 
families can actually afford it. We should not make our children, and 
their parents, wait any longer.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation before us, but to 
continue to work toward a long-term solution for today's and tomorrow's 
youngest citizens.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am delighted to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle say that this bill is a move towards 
government-run health care that will cause seniors to lose their 
Medicare.
  I would suggest to my colleagues who complain inaccurately that 
Medicare beneficiaries will lose coverage under this bill that, if my 
colleagues are so worried about that, they should consider the 
implications of doctors refusing to see Medicare patients, which is 
exactly what could happen if we don't pass this bill and fix physician 
reimbursement.
  SCHIP is a State block grant program and will remain so under this 
bill. Nearly every State contracts out the SCHIP program to private 
insurers. That is far from a government-run program.
  These are children who live in families where the head of household 
works but they don't make enough money to afford health insurance. 
These are families that work hard and play by the rules but still can't 
afford health care for their kids. That is what we are talking about 
here today, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill protects and strengthens the Medicare trust fund and 
invests in our children, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I would like to make one point perfectly clear. Republicans 
support health care for low-income children. We support reauthorizing 
the program we passed in 1997. And that shouldn't come as a surprise to 
anyone. After all, it was the Republican majority that created the 
State Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did it in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Today, sadly, we do not have a bipartisan bill before us. When we 
talk about insuring the Nation's needy children, we should talk about 
it in a bipartisan way. And if the majority had crafted a bill that was 
just about helping low-income children, we would stand here today ready 
to overwhelmingly approve that legislation.
  Unfortunately, this bill doesn't focus on low-income children. 
Instead, it draws scarce resources away from these needy children in 
order to take a giant leap toward universal, government-controlled 
health care.
  Worst of all, this dramatic step comes at the expense of Medicare, 
seniors' health insurance, in order to give middle-class and even upper 
middle-class families a new Federal health benefit.
  These are not minor cuts in senior health care. The majority's bill 
cuts or eliminates many Medicare benefits and services: $157 billion in 
cuts to Medicare Advantage, which are health plans that offer 
additional benefits to low-income seniors like disease management, 
vision, dental, and hearing benefits, and improves the quality of care 
they receive; billions in cuts to hospitals; billions in cuts to home 
health care services, to wheelchairs, to patient rehab facilities, to 
nursing homes, to dialysis patients, and to oxygen treatment. And 
because of a new insurance tax on every insured American, health costs 
to seniors and all Americans will go up.
  I don't know about you, but I can't look a 75-year-old widow in the 
eye in my district and honestly ask her to give up her benefits so that 
a 45-year-old couple making $80,000 a year or more with a 21-year-old 
can receive government health care.
  This bill did not have to be this way. It should not be this way. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I urge the majority 
to bring us back a bill that focuses on helping low-income children. 
That is a bill we can all support.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from 
California for yielding.
  We talked a lot about how this bill is great for kids. I want to join 
Mr. Altmire in talking about this bill is great for seniors as well.
  Four years ago this House passed an expansion of the Medicare program 
to

[[Page 22359]]

cover drugs. It should have done it a long time ago. The problem was 
when you finally did it under Republican control, it ended up 
benefiting the drug companies and insurance companies and really being 
a burden for many senior citizens. That ends in large part today with 
the passage of this bill.
  The underlying CHAMP Act today is going to finally allow seniors to 
be able to switch their plans when the plans change the drugs that they 
cover. It is going to begin to remove the doughnut hole, especially for 
the most vulnerable Medicare recipients out there. And it is finally 
going to get rid of those burdensome late penalties for the lowest of 
income seniors.
  This bill is undoubtedly a great bill for kids. This bill is also 
going to be a great step forward for the millions of seniors around 
this country who have been struggling with the Medicare part D program 
for the last 4 years.
  I thank the gentleman for his work on this bill.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to a bill that is more about politics than 
children's health insurance. The so-called CHAMP Act represents a 
missed opportunity to expand SCHIP in a focused manner to help provide 
health care to our Nation's neediest kids.
  I'm extremely disappointed that this bill raises taxes and cuts 
Medicare to expand the program well beyond its original intent. This 
bill would cut Medicare benefits to more than 45,000 of my constituents 
who rely on their Medicare Advantage plans for services and benefits 
they otherwise could not afford.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to, instead, support the motion to 
recommit, which will extend the SCHIP program and stop scheduled 
Medicare physician payment cuts without raising taxes or cutting 
Medicare.
  I will oppose this bill if the motion to recommit fails because I 
oppose politicizing an issue that should be above the partisan 
differences that too often divide us.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am delighted to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) and to 
note that he provided extraordinary leadership in the creation of a 
program of this type in Georgia. He is entitled to speak, I think, with 
real wisdom. We thank you.
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 
Dingell, for his courtesies.
  This is, indeed, our finest hour of opportunity, and I urge my 
Republican friends not to blow this.
  Now, I have come to this well because I come from Georgia, a State 
that is in dire need of this bill being passed. We have nearly 300,000 
children who are affected by this program. And I want to take just a 
minute because there is so much I want to say I have only a minute to 
say it.
  There are so many reasons that the Republicans have used to try to 
come up against this bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why 
you are not standing forefront in favor of getting health care for our 
children. But perhaps the most devious one of all that you use is to 
try to fight the immigration fight on this bill.
  In this law, it clearly states, ``No Federal funding for illegal 
aliens.'' Nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals 
who are not legal residents. Gentlemen, that is a false, false horse to 
ride.
  Vote for the children. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yesterday, we passed lobby reform legislation that deals with 
earmarks, gives Members certain notice. You have to put your name next 
to it. There is certain transparency and accountability, some of which 
is good.
  I should note, with this legislation, in the middle of the night last 
night we did the equivalent of earmarking on an authorization bill. We, 
in the middle of the night, designated some 25 hospitals, giving them a 
different designation, which will save those hospitals millions and 
millions of dollars. That's the equivalent of appropriation earmarks in 
an authorization bill, done without debate, without notice. We're 
getting it now.
  And there is a process within the executive branch to deal with this. 
We have circumvented that process and said we're going to do it 
legislatively. That is simply not right and certainly not in keeping 
with the spirit of legislation that was passed just yesterday.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
respond to my distinguished friend from Arizona.
  And I have to admit, in honesty, that there are earmarks in this 
bill. There are 11 million earmarks, six million children whose names 
we now have and five million children to be added to the bill. And I'm 
proud to say those earmarks are in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. I want to compliment my colleague on his concern about 
earmarks; and I hate to see your record and credibility shattered 
merely because many Members, Republicans and Democrats, did not want 
certain hospitals to suffer the cuts, as has been recommended by this 
administration. And where we could and where there appeared to be some 
doubt, I gave my word to the members of the Ways and Means Committee, 
as did Mr. McCrery, that Pete Stark and I would be taking a look at 
each and every one of them. But it would be a tremendous stretch of 
anyone's imagination to call that an earmark.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate, and I haven't heard 
of any way that this is going to be paid for, the 130 something billion 
dollars over 10 years, except for 45 cent a pack increase in the tax on 
tobacco. So while I heard some Members over there talking about this is 
going to be a deterrent to people smoking, you better hope a bunch of 
people start smoking because you're going to have to sell a ton of 
cigarettes to come up with $132 billion. But then the closer you look 
at it, you find out that this is, again, smoke and mirrors from this 
majority in Congress.
  What this is going to do in 2011 is actually cut doctors' pay 12 
percent. Now, if anybody really believes in this room that we're going 
to cut doctors' pay by 10 or 12 percent, they're kidding themselves. 
This is another gimmick, more smoke and mirrors, more illusion for the 
people of this country.
  The people of this country are smarter than that. When they recognize 
what this is, then I think that the majority is going to find out that 
they do not want the CHUMP bill passed.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. It's been said that it is how we treat the least of these 
that we will be judged. I think about my own four children, Francis and 
Chip and Cameron and Chandler. I think about the night I spent at the 
Children's Hospital all night long with my daughter because she 
suffered from dehydration. It's wonderful that she has insurance and we 
can provide for the best coverage at the best Children's Hospital, I 
think, anywhere in the world. But this bill is about helping all of our 
children, the six million that will continue to have coverage and the 
five million that we're adding.
  The AMA, the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve and Protect 
Social Security, the Children's Defense Fund, all of these entities 
that represent these interests have lined up on behalf of this bill. 
And we need to line up this House on the right side of history.
  I want to commend the chairmen, Rangel and Dingell and Pallone and

[[Page 22360]]

Stark, for their work and ask for a unanimous vote on behalf of the 
CHAMP Act.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, what a fascinating debate it is that we 
are having; and I thank the gentleman for yielding a few moments of 
time.
  You know, we're beginning to hear from some of the nearly 54,000 
Medicare beneficiaries that we have in our district because they have 
figured out that this is going to be financed on their back; and we 
have nearly 9,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries that are in our 
district. Our Congressional Budget Office estimates are telling us that 
this looks like it's going to end up costing us over $11 million in our 
district.
  Now, we know that we're going to see the tax on private insurance. 
We've heard from some of our individuals who are questioning why in the 
world are you putting a tax, you've got a tax on everything, why are 
you taxing our health insurance benefits?
  We're hearing from our tobacco farmers and our friends in the 
agriculture community that are quite upset about cigarette and cigar 
and tobacco taxes there. And as the gentleman from Georgia just said, 
this grand plan basically says, seniors, we need you to smoke more so 
that you can help pay for this plan to expand SCHIP to middle- and 
upper-income families.
  And being a mother, I can tell you that a 25-year-old probably is a 
little bit offended to be called a child, because 25-year-olds are 
adults. They are young adults, and they are working, and they do not 
need to be on those programs.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield as much 
time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me extend an olive leaf to my friends on the 
Republican side, because it just wouldn't be fair for you to be going 
home thinking that people will be talking about politics and process 
when the bottom line is: Where were you when this government, as big as 
it is, wanted to protect 11 million kids in health insurance? That's 
going to really be the bottom line.
  And if you think that government is really so big that $50 billion is 
just too much money to invest in these little kids, then kind of think 
about what you're willing to invest in Afghanistan, in Baghdad, in 
improving its schools and its hospitals.
  And think of what we get back. Just think of what we get back in 
preventing these kids from getting diseases and illnesses that would 
not only cost us billions of dollars in health care, but the lost 
competition, the inability to learn and to be productive. What a heck 
of an investment this is, even for our United States Government, to be 
concerned with 11 million Americans becoming healthy, better educated 
and competitive.
  This is not a question of Democrats being so dumb, so stupid, so 
apolitical that we want to hurt our own folks. Unlike children, they 
vote. And every organization that has dedicated themselves to older 
Americans for health services have endorsed this: the hospitals, the 
doctors, the nurses, the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the 
gentiles. People who are concerned about human lives are concerned that 
we do these things.
  What do you think we are? We were born yesterday? No. I don't know 
what the President intends to do, but you can't hurt this President 
anymore. You don't have to do this to yourselves. Just think about your 
explanations: The bill wasn't ready; it didn't come out of committee. I 
don't know. How are you going to pay for it in 2012? Or maybe some of 
you youngsters have to think about it. But just think about how many 
people are going to get health care between now and 2012 before we look 
at the President's tax cuts. Somehow they kind of broke it off at 2010. 
So it's not the first time people had these creative ideas.
  But let me suggest this to you: This bill expires on September 30. 
Now, I don't know whether they have town hall meetings on the other 
side or not, Steny, but I would hate to be at one of them when they 
explain why there is not going to be insurance for these six million, 
and additional five. I hate for them to say how they were reading the 
bill because they didn't participate.
  These are things that we can improve upon. And Mr. McCrery and I work 
every day to see whether we can do a better job on communication. But 
don't you let our lack of communication interfere with having coverage 
for 11 million kids who deserve better than what we've given them in 
terms of the debates and the discussion on this historical piece of 
legislation.
  So we have the opportunity to join with hundreds of Americans that 
are concerned about our young people, our old people, a better America. 
Our educators, our teachers want to do this. I cannot think of anything 
that's more important for our national security and our national 
defense than investing in these young people who carry the torch of 
freedom for the generations that follow us.
  But if you don't do this, if they find themselves without health 
care, if their parents cannot be productive on the job because they're 
worried about their kids and not being able to get to a clinic, if they 
can't enjoy the preventive care that you enjoy and I enjoy and our 
children and grandchildren enjoy, you explain it, that we weren't 
talking to each other, we didn't cooperate, and the program just 
expired.
  No. I don't want you to go that way. I don't even think the President 
wants to go that way. I want you to think about the bottom line: 11 
million kids, an improved Medicare system, $15 billion helping citizens 
or older that don't have the funds to get insurance, 5 billion for 
those in the rural areas that don't have access to health care. This is 
what we're doing.
  You may not have liked the roadmap, but you can't walk away from what 
we've done. You can never say anything that's wrong about helping 
children. So let us try to think about how we end this up, because come 
this November people will be asking the questions. I don't think it's 
going to be on process. I don't think it's going to be how long you 
kept us up at night. I don't think it's going to be how many 
parliamentary maneuvers we had. I don't think it's whether we missed 
our Easter recess. Did you let this program expire and were you there 
when the children called on you?
  I hope we can count on your vote.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, everyone who is about to vote for this 
bill needs to read it.
  Mr. Speaker, on page 3 of the bill, on the bottom of the page, each 
State is going to conduct its own audit of eligibility of people that 
they are providing federally funded health insurance for.
  Now, we know already the State of California has said they want to 
provide health insurance coverage to all children in the State, 
regardless of whether they are here legally or not. But they can't do 
that. California cannot extend health insurance to people who are 
undocumented, because Federal law currently requires that you must 
prove you are here legally or that you are a citizen under existing 
law. But this bill repeals that verification requirement. The bill 
specifically allows each State ``shall audit itself.''
  Under State law, States can use any verification method they wish to 
determine whether or not somebody is a citizen or they are here 
legally. Obviously, this law repeals the verification requirement and 
allows the State to provide health insurance coverage to people who are 
here illegally or undocumented aliens. In fact, there is no way to even 
verify their income level.
  This is an open-ended faucet that the States are going to be able to 
tap into the Federal treasury. This is a creation of ``HillaryCare'' 
where everyone in this Nation under the age of 25, we are going to kick 
seniors off of Medicaid and Medicare and allow States to sign up people 
who are undocumented aliens for the first time in this Nation's 
history, at a time of record debt, record deficit, and at a time the 
taxpayers cannot afford it.

[[Page 22361]]

  Mr. Speaker, this spendthrift majority is going to bankrupt this 
Nation.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I take this opportunity before we have 
closing remarks to thank the ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee and the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee for their 
comity during all of our discussions and the hearings in the past.
  I also want to take the chance and take the time to thank our staff, 
Cybele Bjorklund; Debbie Curtis; Deb Mizeur; Jennifer Friedman; Chad 
Shearer; Dr. Gene Rich, one of the most overpaid physicians in the 
country; Drew Dawson; Dana Sun, our intern from the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology; Karen McAfee; Ed Grossman; Jessica Shapiro; 
Mark Miller and the MedPAC staff.
  I would also like to thank Chuck Clapton, Joelle Oishi and Dan Elling 
from the minority staff.
  I would like to thank also the staff of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee: Bridgett Taylor, Amy Hall, Yvette Fontenot, Heather Foster, 
and Christie Houlihan. All of these people contributed to work to see 
that we could be as fair and as equitable as we could in drafting this 
bill. I think they can all be proud of both the work and their efforts 
to see that this bill was fair and equitable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time remains to the 
different Members?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds 
remaining, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 4\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my extraordinarily generous 
friend from Michigan, for whom I have not only great respect but great 
affection as well. I want to thank him for his more than half a century 
of leadership on issues of health care in America, on extending health 
care and insurance to every American, to ensuring that in this great 
country of ours every American has the opportunity to receive the 
extraordinary quality health care that we have available in this great 
country.
  I also want to thank my good friend, the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, who has for so many years fought the 
good fight. As he said on this floor, this is an opportunity for us to 
extend to children the benefits of health care. I want to mention the 
President's intent as well.
  I want to thank my friend from California, Pete Stark, who has been 
the Chair of this subcommittee and who has been so faithful.
  And I want to thank Mr. McCrery and the ranking member of this 
subcommittee. I understand we may have a difference of view, but we are 
working together now, as the American people expect us to do.
  I said on this floor last night that we would have a robust debate on 
this important legislation, the Children's Health and Medicare 
Protection Act. I think we have had that robust debate.
  While we may disagree on elements of this bill, I believe that 
virtually all of us agree that it is unacceptable and, indeed, immoral 
that millions of children in the wealthiest Nation on the face of the 
Earth do not have health insurance. That is unlike every industrialized 
nation in the world, other than ourselves.
  This historic legislation addresses this national challenge, building 
upon the successes of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
which received strong bipartisan support in the Republican-led Congress 
in 1997 and which was signed into law by a Democratic President, 
President Clinton.
  Under this bill, 11 million American children, six million who 
currently are covered under SCHIP and an additional five million 
children who currently lack health insurance, will have access to 
quality, affordable health insurance. It seems to me that is why so 
many of us serve in this body, to ensure that our people have that 
access.
  Let us be clear. Contrary to the claims of some, including, sadly, at 
this point in time, President Bush, this legislation does not expand 
the SCHIP program. Let me repeat that. This legislation does not expand 
the SCHIP program. Instead, this legislation provides the resources 
needed to enroll children who are eligible under existing law but who 
are currently not enrolled. Let me reiterate. The CHAMP Act maintains 
current law regarding eligibility for SCHIP.
  Furthermore, this legislation ensures seniors access to the doctors 
of their choice by stopping a scheduled 10 percent payment cut to 
doctors. It phases out overpayments to private plans.
  My friends on the other side, of course, want to make sure that the 
government is very careful in its expenditure of funds, and it urges us 
to adopt the practices of the private sector, which are driven by 
competition on price. However, in this case, we have mandated by law 
that the competitors receive 100 percent reimbursement while the 
competitors that are favored receive 111 to 130-plus percent. That is a 
little bit like the prescription drug bill where we can't negotiate for 
price.
  This bill maintains competition and access, and in so doing, the bill 
would extend Medicare solvency by 3 years, while protecting seniors and 
people from disabilities from having to pay higher monthly premiums. In 
addition, my friends, this bill improves Medicare by, among other 
things, providing new preventive benefits.
  I must note, Mr. Speaker, that nearly 3 years ago, in the middle of a 
presidential campaign, President Bush said the following, and I quote. 
And this, by the way, was at the 2004 Republican national convention 
when President Bush was seeking the votes of Americans throughout this 
country to be reelected President.
  This is what he said: ``America's children must have a healthy start 
in life,'' to which clearly all of us as we watched the television 
said, Amen. ``In a new term,'' he said, ``we will lead an aggressive 
effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not 
signed up for government health insurance programs.''
  Mr. President, that is what we are doing this afternoon.
  But now, unfortunately, a mere 36 months later, the President is 
threatening to veto legislation that does precisely what he said he 
wanted to do in 2004 as he was running for President and seeking the 
votes in that convention.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to the claims of the President and other 
opponents of this bill, it does not constitute a government takeover of 
health care. That is a straw man. That is a shibboleth. That is not 
accurate. In fact, three-fourths of the children in the SCHIP program 
receive care today through private insurance plans that contract with 
the States.
  Nor is the bill fiscally irresponsible. A curious claim, I would say, 
coming from the President and congressional Republicans whose policies 
added more than $3 trillion to the debt. I got a letter just a few days 
ago, maybe you got it as well, Mr. McCrery, from Secretary Paulson. He 
said, ``you know, we are running up against the debt limit.''
  Does anybody here know in the 4 years preceding this Bush 
administration's policies how many times we raised the debt? Not once. 
But we have raised it five times in the last 6 years, if we raise it 
again.
  So when we talk about fiscal responsibility, it is fiscally 
responsible to invest in the health care of our children, because they 
will be healthier citizens, more productive citizens, and we will have 
a better, more economically viable country. In fact, the Democratic 
majority has taken pains to pay for this legislation and abide by pay-
as-you-go budget rules which provided for 4 years of surplus 
immediately preceding this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, the question before the Members 
of this body really is this: Do you support reauthorizing this critical 
program and providing health insurance to eligible

[[Page 22362]]

children, eligible children, eligible children, or not? I urge my 
colleagues, vote to provide health care for our children. Vote to 
improve and protect Medicare. Vote for the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of children and 
older Americans this afternoon because I have supported and initiated 
many legislative efforts in this House to provide health care benefits 
to both groups.
  Yet I must oppose this legislation today because the process under 
which we are considering it is a disservice to young and old alike. We 
have before us a major expansion of a Federal entitlement program, a 
$54 billion tax increase, and the largest cut in the history of the 
Medicare program under a procedure that allows no member--Republican or 
Democrat--to offer an amendment to improve this bill. This is the 
people's House, and yet only a handful of our 435 members have had a 
chance to write this legislation. Two major committees--Ways and Means 
and Energy and Commerce--had primary jurisdiction over this matter, but 
the Energy and Commerce Committee did not even hold public hearings on 
this important issue.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was established 
with my support in 1997 through a bipartisan effort of this Congress. 
It has been an unqualified success in providing life-saving medical 
care to children throughout our Nation. The SCHIP program in Florida 
now covers children in families with annual incomes of up to 200 
percent of the poverty level. In the 10th Congressional District I have 
the privilege to represent, 21,779 families, or 34 percent of all 
families with children under the age of 18, are already eligible for 
Medicaid or SCHIP.
  While we could have extended the current, very successful program and 
modified it to make some program improvements in the coverage of those 
children who have no insurance, those who wrote this legislation seek 
to expand the program to include children who come from families that 
already have health insurance. Children from families with incomes as 
high as $82,000 could become eligible for health care benefits. And the 
authors of this legislation pay for this new coverage by cutting 
Medicare benefits upon which thousands of seniors in my district rely 
on for their health care needs. It is estimated that these cuts total 
upwards of $194 billion over the next 10 years.
  This would cut funding for the 42,843 seniors in my district who are 
currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Program.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' hospital and inpatient 
care by $2.7 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' inpatient rehabilitation 
services by $6.6 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' skilled nursing 
facilities by $6.5 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for seniors' home health care services 
by $7.2 billion.
  This legislation cuts payments for those of all ages with End Stage 
Renal Disease by $3.6 billion.
  This legislation would impede the mobility of seniors by making them 
wait a full month to receive Medicare coverage for a motorized 
wheelchair.
  And this legislation would reduce the amount of time seniors can 
receive Medicare coverage of home oxygen equipment from 36 to 13 
months.
  Mr. Speaker, my district is home to All Children's Hospital in St. 
Petersburg, Florida. My wife Beverly and I have spent countless hours 
there with children and their families, as well as with their doctors 
and medical staff. You can be sure we understand the special needs of 
children, particularly those without health insurance coverage. The 
program we established 10 years ago was a major improvement in 
expanding the health care options of children. It also provided 
important reassurance for their parents.
  There is no doubt that we could have improved this legislation by 
working together. Republicans and Democrats alike support providing 
health care coverage for children and seniors. Instead, this 
reauthorization of what was a major bipartisan health care initiative 
has been rewritten with the input and ideas of just a select few 
members without the opportunity of amendment by all the members of this 
House.
  In fact, the last changes to this legislation were made at 3 this 
morning. Those changes even wrote into this bill specific program carve 
outs for 36 hospitals identified by name or location. None are in 
Florida. How were those hospitals selected?
  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to providing health care for young or old 
alike we should work together in a bipartisan manner to create the best 
program possible. The best ideas do not reside in just one committee or 
one political party. We should all have the opportunity to contribute 
to this legislation, to debate amendments, and to vote on those 
amendments. A majority of members, not a majority party, should 
determine what is best for the American people.
  While I will vote against this legislation today in large part 
because of the procedure under which it is being considered and my 
concern about the negative impact it will have on older Americans, it 
is my hope that when it returns from the Senate and a conference 
between the House and Senate, it will be something that I can support, 
that the majority of my colleagues can support, and most importantly 
that Americans of all ages can support.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear, the Democrat majority will soon ram through 
this Congress the single largest step in Washington-controlled, 
bureaucratized, rationed, socialized health care. And they are going to 
do it all under the guise of helping the neediest of our children. But 
by passing this bill, they are threatening the quality, the access and 
the choice of health care for all children in America. It is a sad day 
indeed for our children's physical health. It is a sad day for their 
fiscal health.
  We all know, Mr. Speaker, that Medicaid is the program for the 
neediest of our children, and we know that SCHIP today is providing for 
the health care of those low-income working parents.
  This is about something else. This is about taking adults off of 
private health care and putting them on public health care. It is about 
creating a new permanent entitlement, no matter what the majority may 
say. There will be no income limit on SCHIP eligibility, no sunset of 
the program, no annual allotment for the States. It shifts children 
participating in private insurance that their parents have chosen to 
that run by the government.
  In creating a new entitlement, we are on the verge of leaving the 
next generation with a lower standard of living. Defeat this program.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe here we have two remaining 
speakers. As I understand the practices of the House, it is, of course, 
the right of the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to close.
  I am the only speaker other than our Speaker who wishes to speak and 
from whom we wish to hear. I would ask first my colleagues on the 
minority side how many more speakers they have.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I just have one speaker remaining, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members to close in 
the following order: the gentleman from California, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), and then the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. I would ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak 
but that our Speaker be able to close for this side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Reserving the right to object, if I can inquire 
of the gentleman, are there only two speakers?
  Mr. STARK. I will be glad to yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may reserve 
the \1/2\ minute to recognize the Speaker if he wishes.
  Mr. STARK. I would like to do that if I may.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The Chair will note that the gentleman from California will yield his 
\1/2\ minute to the Speaker. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) 
has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman from Michigan so desires, I would defer 
to

[[Page 22363]]

him and allow him to speak now, then I will have my remarks, and then 
the Speaker will close.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will be first 
recognized to close. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) will be 
next recognized to close. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
will be recognized to close. Mr. Dingell can reserve 1 minute at the 
end of his time to recognize the Speaker to close if he wishes.
  Mr. DINGELL. That is my unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In that case the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Stark) has 30 seconds.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized 
for 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I think this has been a good debate today. 
It has been a good debate in part because I believe a number of Members 
on both sides of the aisle have learned things about this legislation 
that they didn't know before this debate. I think there are enough 
questions that were raised today about exactly what is and is not in 
this bill to warrant this House taking more time to get it right.
  The motion to recommit that we will offer in just a few minutes will 
give this House that opportunity because we in the motion to recommit 
ask the committee to report back forthwith, which means that this House 
can today pass what is in our motion to recommit. And in that motion to 
recommit we will reauthorize the current SCHIP program for 1 year, and 
we will do a fix for the doctors' reimbursement for 1 year. That will 
allow this House to give the appropriate amount of time to discover 
what is and what is not in this legislation that the majority has 
presented us today and figure out, perhaps in a bipartisan way, the 
best manner in which to proceed on a long-term basis with the SCHIP 
program.
  I would ask those fiscal conservatives in the majority, some of whom 
have in good conscience complained about some of the actions of the 
former majority, there are signs in the hall talking about the national 
debt, and I ask those Members to think before they vote for this bill. 
Do they really want to establish a new entitlement program that is 
open-ended in this country, that is not properly funded? It is funded 
with a tobacco tax. That is going to be a decreasing source of revenue 
for this country, not increasing. It is funded with changes to the 
Medicare program, cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. That is not 
going to have long- lasting consequences? So, really, I want those 
people who are concerned about the deficit and concerned about the debt 
to think before they vote for this bill.
  We are giving you an opportunity in the motion to recommit to sustain 
the SCHIP program, do what you've talked about doing, fix the doctors' 
reimbursement for a year, and give us more time to talk back and forth 
a little bit and explore the consequences of some of the provisions 
that are in this bill that we think would do injury to the fitness of 
this country, and we think that we can work together to provide a 
better way for insuring children in this country, not the way that is 
in this bill.
  I believe that this bill is fiscally irresponsible. It is too bad we 
didn't have fuller hearings and fuller opportunities in committees, in 
both the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, to explore some of the particulars that the majority decided 
to put into this bill and just informed the House about within the last 
24 hours or so.
  Had we had that opportunity, I believe Members with goodwill on both 
sides of the aisle could have worked out what I believe would have been 
a much, much better bill than what I perceive to be a hastily put 
together bill that is before us today.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that every Member 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the legislation now before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes, and I yield the 
balance of the time to our distinguished Speaker for purposes of 
closing.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had a good debate. I believe the Members have 
become understanding of not only the situation but of the legislation 
before us.
  I want to particularly commend the staff of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee: Amy Hall, Yvette Fonteno, Christie Houlihan, Heather Foster, 
Jessica McNiece and Bridgett Taylor, who all did a superb job on behalf 
of the Congress.
  I also want to thank Cybele Bjorklund, Deb Mizeur, Jennifer Friedman, 
Chad Shearer, Brian Biles, Bobby Clark, Debbie Curtis, Ed Grossman and 
Jessica Shapiro from the Ways and Means Committee staff. Their really 
valuable contribution did much to make this possible.
  I want to commend my colleagues on the minority side, Mr. Camp and 
Mr. McCrery and Mr. Barton, and my special friend, Mr. Stark, and the 
distinguished Chairman Rangel for the superb job they have done. I also 
thank the subcommittee chairman in the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
Mr. Pallone, for his outstanding job.
  The legislation before us is really very simple. The issues before us 
are not procedure. Rather, they are: Are we going to take care of our 
kids?
  For this Congress, this is perhaps the greatest opportunity we will 
have. We have three responsibilities to the country and to our kids: 
See that they are properly nourished, see that they are properly 
educated, and see to it that they have the health that they need so 
they can be meaningful contributors to the future of this country. It 
is not only a humanitarian and compassionate concern of this country, 
it is the future of the country.
  I know the President has indicated that he thinks that this is bad 
legislation. I grieve that he has come to that conclusion. He has no 
reason to do so.
  First of all, we have the pay-fors. We have taken care of the cost of 
this. We are seeing to it that, first of all, a modest tax on tobacco 
comes into play.
  Second, we are seeing to it that HMOs that are getting as much as 30 
percent more than other HMOs are going to get 100 percent of what other 
HMOs get, no more, no less. We are not taking anything away from senior 
citizens. I think we are just taking it out of the pocket of a few 
people who have too much in the HMO business.
  Having said that, let's look to see who supports this legislation. I 
think that tells us as much or more as anything we can get. The NAACP, 
the AMA, the different health organizations, the hospital associations, 
the National Rural Health Association, the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the Children's Defense Fund, and the 
National Governor's Association whose meeting I attended last weekend 
in Traverse City where a major concern was how are we going to provide 
them the means that they desperately need to provide for the health 
care for the children under CHIP? That was on the lips, the mind, and 
in the heart of every one of the governors who spoke there.
  I would observe that the Catholic Health Association also speaks to 
this because they have a concern that this is the best way we can take 
care of the children and we can see to it that we give a decent right 
to life to every American.
  I would offer to my colleagues, any or all of them, a list of those 
who do, the organizations who are supportive of this legislation; and I 
point out that you will find almost every organization that cares about 
kids or health or the well-being of our young people as supporters of 
this bill, including the great American labor organizations, the AFL-
CIO and the UAW. That should speak clearly to us of the needs.
  I would point out that there are a number of misunderstandings that

[[Page 22364]]

have been stated here. It has been said this is going to raise costs 
and it is going to raise the amount that is paid to individual 
recipients. Not so. This is a program which is going to be governed by 
the costs which were fixed when the legislation was first offered and 
first introduced and first put into law under the leadership of, for 
example, Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. So it is not fiscally 
irresponsible.
  The legislation is going to do something else. It is not going to 
take care of illegals, nor is it going to engage in any weird 
practices. If there are waivers given, and they can be given, they will 
be given in the same fashion as they were given before, and that is by 
this administration saying this is something that is justified, 
justifiable and proper and which will help kids. I will note that they 
have not been overly generous in giving those particular waivers.
  So what we have a chance to do today, Mr. Speaker, and my friends and 
colleagues, is to take care of the kids, to support those who are least 
able to look to their own well-being and who are most defenseless and 
to suit them best for a healthy, growing adult life so they may 
contribute to a better, richer, stronger and safer America.
  We are doing something else. We are seeing to it that we are 
compassionate, and we may best be judged by that because, in doing 
that, we are best looked at by being those who really care for those 
who have the least.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the CHAMP legislation. It is good. 
It is in the public interest.
  I now yield to the distinguished Speaker. Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California, the 
distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as I rise here today, something after 6:30 
p.m., I was reminded as I listened to the presentations of a poem that 
most of us memorized when we were young by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

     Between the dark and the daylight,
     When the night is beginning to lower,
     Comes a pause in the day's occupations,
     That is known as the Children's Hour.

  That's this time of day. This is the children's hour. Because of the 
leadership of so many of our colleagues, we are able to meet our moral 
obligation to our children. It isn't a pause in our occupation. It is 
our mission, this moral obligation that we have to the future.
  When I was sworn in as Speaker, I was surrounded by children. It was 
very exhilarating, and I called the House of Representatives to order 
on behalf of all of America's children, establishing this Chamber as 
the champion for our children and for the future.
  Our legislation is called CHAMP because it does just that. It 
champions quality health care for America's children and for our 
seniors, strengthening families. It is just one way in which this new 
direction Congress is putting health care and particularly the needs of 
our children at the top of the Nation's agenda.
  With the passage of this legislation, the new-direction Congress will 
ensure that 11 million of America's children receive health care 
coverage, and seniors will receive improved benefits under Medicare.
  I want to join those of my colleagues who have expressed their 
appreciation for the exceptional leadership of our chairmen of the full 
committees and the subcommittees and the ranking members of the full 
committees and the subcommittees for the honest debate that we are 
having about this legislation today.

                              {time}  1845

  I think it's important to note, because it's history, that our 
distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
Dingell, when he was a new Member of Congress gaveled down the Medicare 
bill. That's his family tradition, looking out for health care for all 
Americans. His father was a leader on that subject in this Congress, 
and imagine that he as a young Member, well still a young Member, but a 
younger Member of Congress, gaveled down Medicare. And today, he is in 
the lead on this legislation that will strengthen Medicare for 
America's seniors.
  And at the same time, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rangel. Between 
the two of them, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Dingell, they had 22 hearings on 
the subject of SCHIP. So this Congress has had a thorough review of 
this subject, and this excellent legislation is the product of that.
  I was inspired by your speech, Mr. Rangel. You persuaded me, not 
persuaded me to vote for the bill. I always intended to do that, but 
persuaded me that it was possible that we might have a strong 
bipartisan support for this bill because it is so much the right thing 
to do.
  I thank Congressman Stark and Congressman Pallone, Chairs of the 
appropriate subcommittees of their committees, for their leadership, 
their intense knowledge of this subject, the judgment they were able to 
bring on decisions that we had to make about what would be in this 
bill. Thank you, Mr. Stark and Mr. Pallone, and thank you again, Mr. 
Rangel.
  And I thank again Mr. McCrery for his, again, comity and the dignity 
and the knowledge that he brings to this debate. Thank you, Mr. 
McCrery.
  And to all of the staff on both sides of the aisle, thank you for 
your hard work on this. Their efforts will help millions of American 
children and seniors live better lives.
  SCHIP, created by a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, 
signed into law by President Clinton, SCHIP has dramatically reduced 
the number of poor, uninsured children in America. The legislation 
before us today will improve SCHIP and the lives of millions of working 
families in America by improving coverage for all 6 million children 
currently insured under SCHIP and by extending that coverage to 5 
million additional children. Those children will receive dental care 
and, thanks to Congressman Patrick Kennedy, mental health services.
  Dental care, we so take it for granted for our own children, but 
after this legislation is passed, no more will we have the Demonte 
Driver where we have to have a situation like that where a child will 
die because he had an abscessed tooth that turned into a brain 
infection. We're all familiar with the details of that sad story. 
Today, we are doing something about it.
  Let us be clear, most SCHIP beneficiaries receive their coverage 
through private managed care plans, not through the government.
  And let us be clear, as the chairman just pointed out, this 
legislation is paid for; no new deficit spending, no heaping mountain 
of debt on these children to pay for the health care they so rightly 
deserve.
  In addition to providing coverage to children, the CHAMP Act also, as 
we know, strengthens and improves Medicare for every senior by 
eliminating coinsurance requirements and deductibles for preventive 
care. Imagine that, for preventive care, how important that is. The 
legislation reduces copayments and provides for mental health parity, 
and many more seniors will no longer face the doughnut hole. Remember 
our old friend, the doughnut hole. Well, many more seniors will no 
longer face the doughnut hole in the prescription drug benefit. We do 
all of this and more for seniors and, I repeat, with pay-as-you-go 
budget rules and extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years.
  By passing the CHAMP Act, the New Direction Congress is keeping our 
promise to seniors on Medicare and meeting our obligation to our 
future, our children. Again, and it is paid for. I can't say that 
enough.
  The distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee read 
a long list. There are pages and pages. I would submit them for the 
Record, except it would be very expensive to print. There are so many 
names that are endorsing this legislation. They range from the 
Children's Defense Fund, as was mentioned, the Catholic Hospitals 
Association, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
Medicare, the old, the young, everyone

[[Page 22365]]

across the board, all the health organizations that administer to the 
needs of our children and our seniors.
  I just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as Pearl Buck said, ``If our 
American way of life fails the child, it fails us all.'' With this 
CHAMP Act, we are not going to fail America's children. We are 
championing them and their grandparents.
  This legislation has fiscal soundness. It has a values base, and it 
should have the support of everyone in this body.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CHAMP 
Act, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  The CHAMP Act reauthorizes and improves the very successful State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Created in 1997 by Congress 
with broad bipartisan support, the SCHIP program currently covers 6 
million children who otherwise would have no access to health 
insurance. Despite its many successes, there are still more than five 
million children who are eligible for SCHIP, but not yet enrolled in 
the program. This bill seeks to cover those vulnerable children.
  Unfortunately, President Bush's proposal seeks to turn back the clock 
and take us in the wrong direction. The President has proposed funding 
SCHIP at a rate that does not even take into account any increases for 
inflation or population growth. Under the President's proposal, more 
than 1.5 million children will lose SCHIP coverage and many States, 
including Maryland, will continue to face funding shortfalls. Indeed, 
the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has confirmed that 
the President's proposal would be too little to keep covering the 
children who are currently enrolled in SCHIP.
  In contrast to President Bush's proposal, this bill will extend 
coverage to an additional 5 million children who are currently eligible 
for SCHIP but are not yet enrolled. I am also pleased that the bill 
provides for guaranteed dental coverage in SCHIP--good oral health care 
is integral to the health of children and no child should have to 
suffer because they cannot access adequate dental care. No family 
should have to suffer the loss of a child because they lack access to 
dental care, as happened in the tragic case of Deamonte Driver, a 12-
year old Marylander who died earlier this year when an infection from 
an untreated abscessed tooth spread to his brain. I am also pleased 
that this bill provides important mental health coverage for children.
  The reauthorization and improvement of SCHIP will benefit the 
approximately 136,000 children who are currently enrolled in Maryland's 
CHIP program and prevent Maryland from facing further funding 
shortfalls in its SCHIP allotment as has been the case in recent years. 
The CHAMP Act will also provide essential funding to Maryland to enroll 
68,000 children in families with incomes under 200 percent of the 
federal poverty level who remain uninsured. It will also provide 
Maryland with a new option to cover more than 65,000 children who are 
aging out of Medicaid and SCHIP. And because of the bill, Maryland will 
have an increase in its SCHIP allotment of $99.7 million from last 
year, allowing it room to reach additional eligible but uninsured 
children.
  Not so long ago, President Bush promised to expand coverage of SCHIP 
to include eligible children who are not yet enrolled. In his September 
2004 speech to the Republican National Convention, the President 
stated--and I am quoting here, ``America's children must also have a 
healthy start in life. In the new term, we will lead an aggressive 
effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible but not 
signed up for the government's health insurance programs. We will not 
allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between these 
children and the health care they need.''
  Now, the President has reversed course. In his July 10, 2007, speech 
in Cleveland, Ohio, he forgot his 2004 pledge and stated, ``I mean, 
people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to 
an emergency room.''
  I hope the President will reconsider his position and help Congress 
provide health insurance to 11 million children who are one of the most 
vulnerable segments of our society.
  In addition to reauthorizing SCHIP, the CHAMP Act makes improvements 
in Medicare that will strengthen that important program. The 
legislation reduces overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, which are 
paid, according to non-partisan CBO and other independent entities 
analysis, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in 
traditional Medicare. This will increase Medicare's solvency by two 
years. In addition, the legislation prevents the impending physician 
reimbursement cuts and provides positive updates in 2008 and 2009. 
Also, the bill will increase Medicare beneficiaries' access to 
preventive services by eliminating co-payments and deductibles for 
current and future preventive benefits and authorizing Medicare to add 
additional preventive services.
  The CHAMP Act also increases the tobacco tax by 45 cents to a total 
of 84 cents. Increasing the tobacco tax will save billions in health 
costs and is one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use, 
especially among children. In short, raising the tobacco tax will 
prevent thousands of children from starting to smoke and the proceeds 
of the tax will be used to expand health coverage for children. That is 
a win-win result.
  Mr. Speaker, the clock is ticking. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for this much needed legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. I know that this was not 
an easy piece of legislation to put together and I appreciate the hard 
work of my colleagues on the Committees on Rules, Energy & Commerce and 
Ways & Means.
  This bill is an important step in addressing the health care crisis 
faced by millions of families. Access to affordable insurance and 
quality preventive care is critical to the well-being and security of 
all Americans. The CHAMP Act will ensure that all eligible children are 
afforded the opportunity to enroll in State Children's Health Insurance 
Programs and takes important steps to improve efficiency and secure the 
solvency of the Medicare program, relied on by so many of our seniors.
  The State Children's Health Insurance Program SCHIP, known as RIte 
Care in Rhode Island, has made health insurance a reality for over 
12,000 children in my home State this year--the majority of them in 
families where one or more adult is part of the workforce. It is a 
critical component of health care delivery in Rhode Island, as it is 
across the country. I am so honored to be part of a Congress that is 
taking steps to ensure that all children who are eligible for this 
program are able to participate. By reauthorizing the SCHIP program, we 
renew our national commitment to achieving the goal of insuring all 
children whose parents cannot afford private health insurance coverage.
  This bill also contains important components for Medicare 
beneficiaries. The elimination of overpayments to private plans that 
participate in Medicare delivery is a necessary step to increasing 
efficiency of this program. This action will go a long way in 
preventing premium increases for Medicare beneficiaries and will 
strengthen Medicare's finances for the future. While we still have work 
to do in improving certain aspects of the Medicare program--
particularly the prescription drug benefit--this bill will ease the 
process for seniors who wish to change their prescription drug plan, 
and it will increase access to preventive services, saving lives and 
money.
  Finally, I would also note that this legislation contains a fix to 
the scheduled 10 percent cut in physician payments under Medicare. I am 
pleased to support this fix and look forward to working with my 
colleagues to craft a permanent solution to the flawed funding formula 
that continues to recommend such cuts. We cannot offer high quality 
health care to our Nation's seniors if health care providers cannot 
afford to see Medicare patients.
  I am pleased that this Congress has made access to health care a 
priority, particularly for our Nation's children and seniors. I urge 
all my colleagues to vote in favor of the CHAMP Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, which 
represents the agreement between the House and Senate on the ``Honest 
Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007,'' which the House passed in 
May 2007. With the adoption of this legislation, we begin to make good 
on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of 
corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.
  It is critically important that we adopt the reforms contained in 
H.R. 3162 because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in 
Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, 
and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq 
for Administration cronies.
  The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw 
during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those 
involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, 
several congressional staff members and a former congressman pleaded 
guilty to conspiring to commit fraud--accepting all-expense-paid trips 
to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert 
tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients.
  But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the 
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes 
were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into 
signed conference reports in the dead of night.

[[Page 22366]]

  The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of 
running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats 
picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exit polls indicated that 74 
percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very 
important issue in their choice at the polls.
  Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one 
of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is 
why, as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate given the 
new majority by the voters, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics 
reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the 
Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress 
of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, Federal lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry, and 
spending to influence members of Congress and executive branch 
officials has increased greatly in the last decade. While the Lobbying 
Disclosure Act of 1995, LDA, is one of the main laws to promote 
transparency and accountability in the federal lobbying industry and 
represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the laws regulating 
lobbying practices in 50 years prior to 1995, it falls far short of a 
complete solution, as even recognized by its staunchest supporters, 
during congressional hearings on the issue.
  The need for further reform was highlighted by a major study of the 
federal lobbying industry published in April 2006 by the Center for 
Public Integrity, which found that since 1998, lobbyists have spent 
nearly $13 billion to influence members of Congress and other federal 
officials on legislation and regulations. The same study found that in 
2003 alone, lobbyists spent $2.4 billion, with expenditures for 2004 
estimated to grow to at least $3 billion. This is roughly twice as much 
as the already vast amount that was spent on federal political 
campaigns in the same time period.
  The LDA contains a number of measures to help prevent inappropriate 
influence in the lobbying arena and promote sunshine on lobbying 
activities. However, according to the Center's study, compliance with 
these requirements has been less than exemplary.
  For example, the report found: during the last six years, 49 out of 
the top 50 lobbying firms have failed to file one or more of the 
required forms; nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are 
missing; almost 300 individuals, companies, or associates have lobbied 
without being registered; more than 2,000 initial registrations were 
filed after the legal deadline; and in more than 2,000 instances, 
lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all.
  Under the LDA, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
must notify in writing any lobbyist or lobbying firm of noncompliance 
with registration and reporting requirements, and they must also notify 
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of the noncompliance if 
the lobbyist or lobbying firm fails to respond within 60 days of its 
notification. It appears that until very recently, however, these cases 
of noncompliance were not being referred to the Department of Justice 
for enforcement. It is also clear that the infractions that are 
actually being investigated by the Secretary or the Clerk do not 
coincide with the extent of noncompliance, and it is entirely unknown 
whether enforcement actions are being effectively pursued by the 
Department of Justice. Clearly, further reform is needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and her team 
for the excellent work in preparing this lobbying reform package. The 
reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for 
persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents 
in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying 
and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House 
and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two 
versions.
  Mr Speaker, I support H.R. 3162 because it closes the ``Revolving 
Door,'' requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities, 
provides tougher enforcement of lobbying restrictions, and requires 
increased disclosure.
  H.R. 3162 closes the ``Revolving Door'' by retaining the current one-
year ban on lobbying by former members and senior staff and requires 
them to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 
three days of engaging in any negotiations or reaching any agreements 
regarding future employment or salary. The members' notification will 
be publicly disclosed.
  The bill also requires members and senior staff to recuse themselves 
during negotiations regarding future employment from any matter in 
which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also ends the ``K Street Project,'' 
made notorious during the 12 years of Republican control of Congress. 
Members and senior staff are prohibited from influencing employment 
decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. 
Violators of this provision will be fined or imprisoned for a term of 
up to 15 years.
  Second, H.R. 3162 requires full public disclosure of lobbying 
activities by strengthening lobbying disclosure requirements. It does 
this by mandating quarterly, rather than semiannual, disclosure of 
lobbying reports. It covers more lobbyists by reducing the contribution 
thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 in income from lobbying activities and 
from $20,000 to $10,000 in total lobbying expenses. It also reduces the 
contribution threshold of any organization other than client that 
contributes to lobbying activities to $5000, $10,000 under current law.
  Third, the legislation increases disclosure of lobbyists' 
contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, 
including contributions to members' charities, to pay the cost of 
events or entities honoring members, contributions intended to pay the 
cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions disclosed under FECA 
relating to reports by conduits.
  Fourth, the bill requires the House Clerk to provide public Internet 
access to lobbying reports within 48 hours of electronic filing and 
requires that the lobbyist/employing firm provide a certification or 
disclosure report attesting that it did not violate House/Senate gift 
ban rules. And it makes it a violation of the LDA for a lobbyist to 
provide a gift or travel to a member/officer or employee of Congress 
with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House/Senate 
rules.
  Transparency is increased by the requirements in the bill that 
lobbyists to disclose past Executive and Congressional employment and 
that lobbying reports be filed electronically and maintained in a 
searchable, downloadable database. For good reason, the bill also 
requires disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions but 
expressly exempts 501(c) and 527 organizations.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3162 increases civil penalties for 
violation of the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $200,000 and adds 
a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to 
comply. Finally, the bill requires members to prohibit their staff from 
having any official contact with the member's spouse who is a 
registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by such an individual 
and establishes a public database of member Travel and Personal 
Financial Disclosure Forms.
  Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that at the beginning of 
this new 110th Congress, the Members of this House, along with all of 
the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald 
R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to 
heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the 
Presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, 
our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, 
President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will 
be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment 
to the national interest.
  This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public 
confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the 
most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most transparent Congress 
in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the 
needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special 
interests. To do that, we can start by adopting by H.R. 3162.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong 
support of the CHAMP Act. The CHAMP Act is another achievement that the 
Democratic Congress can point to that is fulfilling the needs of the 
American people.
  In my home State of Florida, KidCare--Florida's CHIP program--covered 
303,595 children in 2006, but 718,603 children remain uninsured. The 
CHAMP Act could provide Florida with approximately $2.54 billion in new 
federal funding and an opportunity to get more children covered. States 
like Florida need to step up to the plate and fund their CHIP program 
to the fullest extent.
  The CHAMP Act would provide continued health insurance to six million 
children already covered and add an additional five million children 
who currently lack health insurance nationwide. That alone should be 
enough to vote for this bill, but the Republicans continue to play 
political games.
  Fortunately, the Republicans have no ground to stand on this bill and 
they know it. They are trapped in a corner crying about tax increases 
instead of supporting health care for five million children. Let me 
tell you, this is why your party is no longer in control--you've 
stopped listening to the people.

[[Page 22367]]

  Opponents also say this is a fiscally irresponsible bill. Let me say 
that your party doesn't understand fiscal responsibility. The 
Republican party has run up the largest deficits in history and they 
call this bill fiscally irresponsible. We have spent over $600 billion 
on the President's war in Iraq and we can't spend less than $3.50 a day 
to cover a child through CHIP. Seventy-six percent of Americans believe 
that access to health insurance is more important than cutting taxes.
  This bill will be one of the most important healthcare issues this 
Congress will deal with and the American public will know who voted for 
it. The number of uninsured children in the country is an 
embarrassment. The Democrats are making the American public a priority 
again and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and 
vote for the children.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, today's CHAMP bill is one of the best pieces 
of legislation the house has considered in a decade. It illustrates the 
difference between how this Congress writes legislation and how the 
Republican Congress wrote bills; today's bill favors children, the 
Republican bill favored insurance companies.
  This bill will provide health care to 11 million kids--five million 
who currently lack health insurance and six million who are currently 
covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP--by 
reauthorizing and improving SCHIP. In Texas, more than 120,000 will 
benefit.
  This bill also reverses the Republican drive to privatize Medicare 
and strengthens Medicare to: ensure beneficiaries' access to their 
doctors; expand preventive benefits, mental health services and 
physical, occupational and speech therapies; reduce costs for seniors 
and people with disabilities with low incomes; protect consumers; and 
extend policies that protect access to health care in rural 
communities.
  Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. This 
year, six million children have health care because of SCHIP. The 
program has worked well in Texas. This is an excellent investment for 
this Nation given that health care costs without insurance would be 
much more expensive.
  The funding for SCHIP expires September 30. If Congress does not act, 
these six million children will no longer have access to quality, 
affordable health insurance. These children are in working families 
with parents who either cannot afford insurance or hold jobs that lack 
health care benefits.
  The President highlighted his support for SCHIP while running for re-
election in 2004, yet the Bush Administration and our Republican 
colleagues propose underfunding the program significantly, which would 
cause millions of children to lose coverage.
  The CHAMP Act protects Medicare from privatization and promotes 
fiscal responsibility by reducing overpayments to private plans. 
Current overpayments to private plans cost taxpayers tens of billions 
of dollars. According to nonpartisan analysts, private plans are paid, 
on average, 12 percent more than traditional Medicare--and overpayments 
to certain plans exceed 50 percent.
  These overpayments are the result of a decade-long campaign by 
President Bush and Republicans in Congress to privatize Medicare by 
undermining traditional Medicare and promoting private insurance. 
Republicans believe that the greater the number of beneficiaries 
enrolled in private plans, the easier it will be to privatize Medicare.
  The CHAMP Act guarantees seniors and people with disabilities can 
continue to see their doctors by preventing scheduled physician payment 
cuts from taking place.
  The CHAMP Act extends expiring provisions that, if left unchanged, 
would negatively affect rural beneficiaries' access to physicians, 
hospitals, home health, ambulances, and lab services--all of which are 
important to south Texas.
  The bill also adds important consumer protections to Medicare. It 
provides States with the authority to regulate private plans' marketing 
abuses and increases penalties for violations, enables all 
beneficiaries to switch Part D plans if plans alter their formulas. 
This empowers low-income beneficiaries to change plans at any time. It 
also requires greater quality reporting to ensure patients are getting 
the best care available.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill--and I encourage 
the President to do the right thing and sign it, our children and their 
grandparents are waiting.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act). This 
legislation will reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program, ensuring that millions of children receive the care they need, 
and will protect Medicare for America's seniors.
  Even though I support this legislation, I rise today with a heavy 
heart. It is nothing short of a disgrace that here, in the wealthiest 
country on earth, eight million children lack health insurance 
coverage. We ought to be ashamed that we are having this debate at all.
  I am absolutely stunned that Congressional Republicans and the 
President are opposing this legislation, particularly in light of the 
fact that the President used CHIP as part of his campaign platform in 
2004. Talk about shock and awe! I am shocked beyond belief that they 
can stand before the American people with straight faces and refuse 
health care for children. I am in awe of the gall required to base the 
denial of these vital, life-saving services on an ideological talking 
point. Madam Speaker, the ideology of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle has not provided health care for these children yet. It is 
impossible for any serious person to believe that if this legislation 
is defeated the Republican ideology will suddenly start working its 
magic and provide health care for these children whose parents can't 
afford to buy it in the open market.
  In my years fighting for universal health care, we have often said, 
``Covering children is easy. How could anyone publicly refuse to 
support coverage for children?'' It was coverage for adults that was 
always perceived as the real challenge.
  But today, the Republicans have stooped lower than even I thought was 
possible. Not only are they saying ``We can't afford to give our 
children health care.'' This is the same party, by the way, that finds 
money for tax cuts for the rich, that finds money to fund a disaster of 
a war. Many times more money than what is needed to cover these 
children, in fact.
  Not only are the Republicans admitting that they prioritize tax cuts 
for the wealthy and feeding the military industrial complex over 
insuring our children. They are now standing before the American people 
and saying ``It is not our job to guarantee health insurance coverage 
for America's children.'' They are refusing to make that promise. 
Instead, they propose that our children's health should be subject to 
the ups and downs of the stock market, that it should depend on their 
parents' employment status, or how much they have in a bank account. It 
is utterly beyond conception how the Republicans can possibly think 
these ideas will be accepted by the American people. But I will leave 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to face the repercussions 
of this folly next November.
  Let me move on to a more positive subject: the bill under 
consideration today, which we will pass over these shameful objections. 
The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act, also known as the 
CHAMP Act, reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP) and protects coverage for 6 million children, including 89,257 
in Michigan, while extending health care coverage to another 5 million 
low-income children. All told, this bill will ensure essential health 
care coverage for 11 million of our most vulnerable children.
  The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act also makes needed 
fixes to the Medicare program. It stops a 10 percent payment cut to 
doctors, thereby ensuring that I, we seniors will continue to have 
access to the doctors of their choice. It encourages seniors to seek 
preventive health benefits by eliminating co-payments and deductibles 
for these services. The bill protects low-income seniors by expanding 
and improving programs that help keep Medicare affordable for those 
with lower incomes. It stops overpayments to HMOs that are draining 
money away from health care and into their profit margins. And it also 
shores up Medicare's finances by extending the solvency of the Medicare 
Trust Fund by two years.
  Failing to pass this legislation would have real consequences for 
children and seniors. If the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
is not reauthorized by September 30th, 2007, millions of children could 
lose their health insurance. Seniors will lose access to their doctors 
and pay higher Medicare premiums to subsidize overpayments to HMOs. I 
find it quite interesting that we haven't heard these so-called 
fiscally responsible Republicans lamenting the fact that their friends 
in the HMO industry are overbilling our government to line their 
pockets. It seems that fiscal responsibility only applies when poor 
children are on the receiving end.
  Let's defeat the sham S-CHIP bill offered by Representatives Barton, 
Shimkus and Blackburn that would leave millions of children without 
health care while slashing Medicare and harming our seniors. Let's tell 
the White House and Congressional Republicans that it's time to stop 
playing political games. Let's tell them it's time to work together to 
ensure more children across the country have the high-quality medical 
care they deserve and strengthen Medicare for our seniors. They

[[Page 22368]]

might not be able to understand that it's the right thing to do, but 
the American people certainly will.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
bill.
  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``of all the forms of inequality, 
injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' The CHAMP 
Act addresses many problems that we currently have in our health care 
system. It does not end health care inequality, but it will increase 
coverage for low income children, and it will stave off payment cuts 
for hardworking physicians, while increasing choices for seniors and 
strengthening traditional Medicare.
  I believe that health care should be a right, not a privilege, and 
this act is a step in the right direction. The Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) is set to expire on September 30, 2007. This 
year, six million children have health care because of CHIP. If 
Congress does not act, these six million will no longer have access to 
quality, affordable health insurance. This legislation also provides 
coverage for an additional 5 million children who currently qualify but 
who are not yet enrolled under CHIP. These children are in working 
families with parents who either can't afford insurance or have jobs 
that lack health care benefits.
  Despite claims by some, this bill does nothing to ``expand'' the CHIP 
program. Instead, it maintains current eligibility requirements for 
CHIP. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for 
coverage--but better outreach and adequate funding are needed to 
identify and enroll them. This bill gives states the tools and 
incentives necessary to reach millions of uninsured children who are 
eligible for, but not enrolled in, the program.
  It has been said that the CHAMP Act creates an entitlement for 
illegal immigrants. But in fact the CHAMP Act does not change existing 
law, which states that undocumented immigrants are not eligible for 
CHIP or regular Medicaid. And the CHAMP Act explicitly states that it 
provides no federal funding for Medicaid or CHIP for undocumented 
immigrants and requires audits of all State programs to ensure that 
federal funds are not being spent on undocumented children.
  The CHAMP Act will protect and improve Medicare by increasing fiscal 
responsibility and ensuring access to doctors for seniors and those 
with disabilities. Currently experts agree that Medicare Advantage (MA) 
plans receive, on average, 12 percent more than the cost of care in 
traditional Medicare. Overpayments to certain plans can exceed 50 
percent. By phasing out these overpayments over the next four years the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that billions of dollars will be 
saved each year. While, increasing the solvency of Medicare and 
simultaneously reversing the catastrophic 10% payment cuts to 
physicians who serve Medicare patients. By reducing overpayments to 
Medicare Advantage plans, wasteful spending will be reduced while 
increasing patient access to physicians.
  Medicare Advantage plans originally sought to give beneficiaries more 
choices at a lower cost. However, overpayments to MA plans do not 
increase benefits but rather pay for the administrative costs, 
marketing costs and profits for private plans. The CHAMP Act levels the 
playing field by decreasing premiums for those enrolled in traditional 
Medicare.
  By curbing the overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, this 
legislation decreases the cost for preventative health services for 
seniors, eliminating co-payments and deductibles for these vital 
services while saving lives and money. Further, this bill includes $3 
billion for the rural health care safety net. This ensures access to 
quality care for those in rural America.
  The health of our children is vital to the success of our society. 
The CHAMP act will raise the federal tobacco tax by 45 cents. According 
to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 45-cent increase means that 
1,381,000 fewer children will take up smoking. Adults, too, would be 
less likely to smoke, which means fewer smoking-related illnesses and 
lower health costs. Estimates are that this tobacco tax increase will 
result in long-term health savings of $32.4 billion and 669,000 fewer 
smoking related deaths.
  The CHAMP Act has the support of the American Medical Association, 
American Association of Retired Persons, Catholic Health Association, 
National Rural Health Association, American Hospital Association, 
Federation of American Hospitals, American Nurses Association, Families 
USA, National Partnership for Women and Families, Children's Defense 
Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security & Medicare.
  I am proud to vote for this bill that seeks to protect those that are 
most vulnerable in our society by increasing health insurance coverage 
for low-income children and protecting and improving coverage for those 
enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule. 
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe we must ensure access to quality and 
affordable health care; this has been a top priority for me as eastern 
Washington's Representative in this House. I wholeheartedly support 
renewing the SCHIP program, which was originally created under 
Republican control of Congress in a bipartisan fashion. Ensuring health 
care for low income children who need it the most should be our 
priority.
  I also wholeheartedly support access to health care for seniors--but 
unfortunately, because of partisan politics, a vote for this proposal 
is a vote to kick over 157,000 seniors off their Medicare advantage 
plans in Washington state.
  Further, if this rule and this bill pass the House today, two 
hospitals in my district, North Valley Hospital in Tonasket and Mid-
Valley Hospital in Omak, would be forced to close their doors to our 
community.
  These hospitals were started by concerned physicians who banded 
together to provide health care in a remote region that is largely 
comprised of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. This bill forces 
these doctors to sell their ``share'' of the hospital--which is less 
than 1 percent a piece--because it incorrectly assumes they are 
unethically self-referring patients.
  That may be a problem in other parts of the country but not in 
Okanogan County. These two hospitals are the closest hospitals within 
5,000 square miles and serve the county's 40,000 residents. There has 
to be a better way to prohibit unethical practices. Shutting down the 
only vehicle for health care delivery is not the answer, which is why I 
cosponsored an amendment to this rule that would have allowed these 
hospitals to continue to serve all residents--from kids to seniors--in 
Okanogan County. Unfortunately, this amendment was not allowed under 
the Democratic leadership.
  Not only does this bill devastate the already delicate rural health 
care infrastructure in parts of eastern Washington, but it cuts deep in 
the pocket of seniors in order to pay for a runaway expansion of this 
children's health program that covers a 25-year-old adult.
  Proponents of this bill might argue that it is necessary to kick 
seniors off of their Medicare plans in order to cover poor children. I 
would then ask them: do you consider a family of four making $82,000 
dollars a year, a poor family? That is who we are covering here.
  In eastern Washington alone, over 10,000 seniors would lose their 
choice in Medicare coverage to pay for this reckless expansion. They 
will be forced to find and pay out of pocket for their own prescription 
drug plans, pay for rapidly increased premiums, lose direct senior 
services, and have a harder time finding a primary care doctor because 
most prefer the Medicare Advantage payment rate.
  Meanwhile, this rule and the underlying bill will make it easier for 
illegal immigrants to get health care--funded on the backs of middle 
class families and small businesses. Not only do this bill and the 
underlying rule slash $193 billion from seniors' health care, but its 
stealth tax increases will draw off money from every American with a 
health insurance plan. This rule endangers seniors in my community--Mr. 
Speaker, we can and must do better.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3162. Last 
night, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee that would require 
states to report their plan to target the lowest income families for 
enrollment first and to report their plan to avoid displacing private 
insurance coverage that families already enjoy. Unfortunately, the 
Majority does not want to encourage states to work to cover the 
neediest children first.
  Many low income families in hurricane damaged areas of my own 
district remain eligible but not enrolled in SCHIP. According to the 
State of Louisiana, more than 68,000 children in families that make 
less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level remained eligible 
but unenrolled in SCHIP as of May 2007.
  Instead of targeting sufficient outreach to low income families, the 
bill wastes scarce outreach dollars by encouraging states like New York 
to enroll families making more than $82,000 who already have insurance. 
Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that half of the 
children in families making 300 percent above the federal poverty level 
who currently have private insurance could be pushed out of that 
coverage and onto new government programs.
  The bill also harms rural seniors who will be harmed by cuts to 
Medicare Advantage. Don't forget that more than 2,000 seniors in 
Calcasieu Parish lost coverage after Washington's last cuts to that 
program, and now Washington is poised to do it again.

[[Page 22369]]

  Scarce federal tax dollars should be used to target the neediest 
children first. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr, Speaker, as co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional 
Diabetes Caucus, one of the largest House Caucuses-with over 250 
members, I want to highlight the increased investment in diabetes 
research included in the ``Children's Health and Medicare Protection 
Act,'' As the single most costly chronic disease in the United States, 
diabetes places a tremendous economic burden on our country, costing 
more than $132 billion annually and accounting for one out of every 
three Medicare dollars.
  Diabetes inflicts an enormous personal toll on individuals and their 
families. Individuals with diabetes have more than twice the prevalence 
of disability from amputation, loss of vision, and other serious 
complications such as stroke, kidney failure and heart disease. Even 
with continuous and vigilant management, patients are still susceptible 
to developing serious, long-term complications.
  Absent a significant federal investment in conquering this disease, 
the personal and economic toll of diabetes will continue to grow. It is 
estimated that one out of every three children who are born in the year 
2000 will develop diabetes during their lifetime.
  Despite this alarming trend, real advances are being made and 
tremendous research opportunities exist, in large part due to the 
Special Statutory Funding Program for Type 1 Diabetes Research which 
was originally created as a provision of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program in 1997. This program has produced tangible results 
that are improving people's lives today as we continue towards our 
ultimate goal of a cure. However, unless this program is reauthorized, 
there will be a 35% reduction in federal support for type 1 diabetes 
research.
  Chairman Dingell, I want to thank you for including a one year 
extension at current funding levels for this program. I know that 
difficult choices had to be made to accomplish multiple goals within a 
tight budget, and his support for this critical program is greatly 
appreciated.
  It is important to note, however, that because the program has 
previously provided continuity of funding over multiple years, the 
National Institutes of Health has been able to support longer-term, 
innovative research projects that have led to significant advances. 
Such efforts would not be continued if the program was not extended for 
multiple years.
  I am committed to continuing my work with Chairman John Dingell and 
the rest of my colleagues on this issue to ensure that we can 
adequately fund this program in upcoming years.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 3162, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation. 
Twenty-five percent of Texas kids have no health insurance.
  The Texas state legislature has done a great disservice to these 
children, and they are working to remedy the problems but have a long 
way to go.
  The Federal Government can help by expanding SCHIP so that States can 
enroll more kids into the program. These are children of the working 
poor.
  I support generous expansion of this program.
  Children with health insurance are more likely to be up to date on 
immunizations and to receive treatment for sore throats, ear aches and 
other illnesses.
  Good health means fewer sick days and better school performance--and 
less burden on our emergency rooms.
  I urge my colleagues to avoid delay in passing this bill, that is 
critical for the health of so many children.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the House Ways and Means Democrats 
have put our nose to the grindstone and produced a well-balanced piece 
of legislation that will ultimately provide necessary and much improved 
care for both children and seniors.
  Along with providing health care to 11 million children, including 
five million who currently lack health insurance, it eliminates pending 
physician cuts in 2008 and 2009 and enacts a positive .5 percent 
increase in both years, providing for stability in reimbursement and 
ensuring that beneficiaries can continue to see the doctor of their 
choice. Additionally, the legislation expands preventive benefits 
including mental health services and physical, occupational and speech 
therapies, and reduces costs for seniors, people with disabilities and 
low incomes.
  Some of the most encouraging provisions of this legislation relate to 
health disparities. The legislation provides both incentives and 
instructions to our national health care providers on addressing the 
critical and debilitating phenomenon of health care disparities in the 
minority community. For the first time we identify, codify and target 
health care disparities with a goal toward eradicating these problems. 
Additionally, the bill proposes significant changes to the treatment of 
patients in End Stage Renal Disease and I have proposed a study on its 
impact on the African American community. Through this study we will 
learn how best to provide this most critical service to some of the 
nation's most vulnerable patients.
  I am pleased that we were able to secure a Medicare waiver for the 
Ireland Cancer Center of University Hospital Health Systems that will 
allow them to provide immediate care to Medicare patients upon 
operation.
  While I do have some concerns regarding provisions regarding wheel-
chair access, oxygen and imaging services, I am confident that as we 
move toward enhancing our healthcare systems that these issues will be 
adequately addressed.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CHAMP Act.
  I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program--or SCHIP as it is commonly called. In my State of Illinois, 
there are approximately 167,000 low-income children who are enrolled in 
the program. Many of these children are in families where their parents 
work hard each month to make ends meet. And for many of these families, 
SCHIP is the safety net they need when they cannot afford private 
health insurance.
  I support reauthorization of the SCHIP Program when the goals of the 
reauthorization are to cover low- to moderate-income children that do 
not already have health insurance. However, I cannot support 
legislation that will provide government-sponsored insurance for 
higher-income families at the expense of seniors.
  The legislation we are considering today would allow States to cover 
children and adults well above the poverty level. A little-know 
provision in current law known as ``income disregard'' allows States to 
determine what is and is not income for the purposes of determining 
eligibility. This loophole allows States to provide SCHIP coverage to a 
family of four making more than $72,000 a year, or 350 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. While $72,000 a year may not get you on the 
cover of Forbes magazine, it is a level that most Americans would agree 
is above poverty.
  For families with private health insurance making $72,000 a year, 
this legislation would provide them with an incentive to shift from 
their private insurance to the Government program. And who can blame 
them? But I don't think that the taxpayers in my district would support 
a bill that shifts individuals from private insurance to Government 
programs.
  To expand coverage to middle-income families, the legislation would 
cut coverage to seniors in the Medicare Advantage program. In my 
district, there are more than 5,000 seniors who are enrolled in 
Medicare Advantage plans. I often hear about the additional benefits 
that these individuals enjoy that are otherwise unavailable or 
available at a much higher cost.
  We should not be forced to choose between seniors and children--
particularly when the majority does not allow the minority to properly 
review the legislation, debate it in the committee or on the floor, or 
allow amendments and alternative ideas to be considered.
  I support reauthorizing the SCHIP program when that legislation is 
focused on the most vulnerable population--the population the program 
was intended to help--poor children. But I cannot support legislation 
that will eliminate coverage for senior in order to provide coverage to 
middle-income adults and children--many of whom already have health 
insurance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.
  The United States has the highest gross domestic product in the 
world. We have the most advanced technology, the strongest research 
program, and for some, the best medicine in the world.
  But last year, 18,000 Americans died because they were uninsured and 
did not have access to health care. Many of them were children.
  Providing health care for poor children used to be a bipartisan 
issue. But today the Republicans say that they philosophically object 
to this bill claiming that it is a massive expansion of Government-run 
healthcare.
  But this bill does not change the structure of the program that the 
Republicans voted for in 1997. The only explanation is that they 
philosophically object to spending the $50 billion necessary to find 
and give healthcare to all 11 million poor, eligible children. What 
kind of philosophy is that?

[[Page 22370]]

  President Bush used to talk about compassionate conservatism, but 
this debate has exposed a Republican Party that is neither 
compassionate nor conservative.
  Instead, we are seeing some on the other side of the aisle choosing 
corporations over children. They demand that we continue Federal 
subsidies for their friends in the big, for-profit, insurance 
companies, while denying uninsured children the healthcare they need.
  If you kick these Republicans in the heart, you'll break your toe.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this critical children's health bill.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a good bill that will 
help provide needed health insurance for 5 million more low-income 
children, that helps us reduce health disparities, equalizes payments 
under Medicare to allied health professions, acknowleges the role of 
schools in health care service delivery and protects senior citizens 
from deceptive and aggressive marketing tactics by private Medicare 
sales people. I applaud the inclusion of health information technology 
in this bill. I have a draft bill in this area related to connecting 
medically underserved communities to reduce health disparities and I 
believe this bill could further that process.
  I applaud this bill for making a number of efforts to collect racial 
and ethnic health data. Numerous groups including the Rand Corporation, 
the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Kaiser Family Foundation and 
others have stressed that efforts to reduce and eliminate racial and 
ethnic health disparities cannot proceed without comprehensive data 
collection.
  I am pleased that this bill creates payment fixes under Medicare for 
a number of allied health professions, including midwives and marriage 
and family therapists. I had hoped a similar provision for physicians' 
assistants could have been included. However, this bill can address the 
ability of physicians to delegate hospice care to physicians' 
assistants without any further cost considerations.
  I am particularly pleased that the overall tone of the bill is to 
help children improve their lives and their health by offering a 
guaranteed dental benefit and helping States enroll and retain more 
eligible children, including the children of legal immigrants. I am 
fully supportive of the idea of allowing ``qualifying States'' to use 
their CHIP allotments for Medicaid if that will cover more kids.
  I believe that the attempt to categorize this bill as cutting 
Medicare is nothing more than a sham. Thousands of seniors who need 
part ``D'' assistance will benefit from easier enrollement procedures. 
Almost 550,000 seniors in my State will be protected on limitations to 
out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. Companies have for 3 years 
overcharged Medicare from 19 to 70 percent and have told seniors that 
cutting these over payments will cut their benefits. That is simply not 
true. It is not necessary to choose between funding health care for 
children and health care for seniors. This legislation does both.
  Urban and rural districts will benefit from the proactive approach in 
this bill to reach out to ``hard-to-reach'' communities to spread the 
word about enrolling in SCHIP. That makes good sense and is supported 
by a wide range of groups in our community, including the National 
Medical Association.
  My city, State and many stakeholder groups are also fully supportive 
of simplifying the applications process and speeding up and 
streamlining eligibility determinations. In addition, States like New 
York that fund SCHIP beyond 200 percent of Federal poverty levels are 
appreciative of the ability to earn bonus payments available to States 
that have implemented 5 of 7 practices that would increase outreach, 
enrollment, and retention efforts.
  In addition, I am supportive of the option to enroll children who 
would otherwise age out of Medicaid or CHIP.
  The majority tried very hard to include all medically necessary 
services, but cost factors did not make that fully possible. Indeed, I 
am appreciative that you were able to include dental and mental health 
services in this bill as a State mandate because these services are 
predictors of good health status. In fact when these services are not 
readily available it can be tragic. We witnessed the unfortunate demise 
of young Deamonte Driver in Maryland from a tooth abscess this past 
winter, preventable by extracting a tooth at the cost of about $80. 
Instead, he suffered a brain infection that cost the system $250,000 in 
surgery bills and Deamonte his life because he could not receive 
treatment in time. This bill will help avoid these types of tragedies.
  I am very supportive of the creation of the Children's Access Payment 
and Equity Commission because I believe that with a good balance of 
commissioners, including those from medically underserved communities, 
we can more closely monitor access to care from these communities.
  Other features of this bill that I fully support include: coverage of 
pregnant women; the increase for allowable resources for asset testing; 
continuous enrollment and the encouragement of culturally appropriate 
enrollment and retention practices.
  I do, however, have a number of concerns. I am very concerned that 
New York's public hospital system stands to lose up to $350 million if 
the moratorium on intergovernment tax transfers is not extended. In 
addition, our State and city will lose even more than that if we 
eliminate graduate medical education payments. I hope that we can work 
together to prevent this tragedy, not rust for my own State and city, 
but for others as well.
  I am still concerned that we need to give a date certain to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin an additional compendia 
to support coverage of off-label uses of cancer drugs.
  I am concerned that the freeze on payments to the home health 
industry will continue to have negative effects in my State and city.
  I am also concerned that Medicare beneficiaries will not receive all 
of the necessary treatments available to them. Further, I would prefer 
they have the broadest formulary coverage so that seniors are not 
forced to switch to other medications which are not rated as 
therapeutic equivalents.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I rise to express my opposition to the bill 
before us. As a physician who still sees patients I find this piece of 
legislation to be completely unacceptable and extremely irresponsible.
  The Democrat majority--under the guise of providing insurance to 
uninsured lower-income children--has chosen to expand the State 
Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) far beyond its original 
intent of insuring low-income children. What is worse, they've chosen 
to pay for it by cutting benefits for Seniors and other Medicare 
beneficiaries by more than $157 billion.
  They have rushed this 500-page bill to the House floor without first 
allowing the committees of jurisdiction to fully debate and amend the 
bill. They introduced their bill last night just before midnight. 
Shortly after midnight, they added a 45-page amendment. This morning 
they made this available to Members of the House. Now they have only 
allowed two hours of debate and denied Members of Congress any 
opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, they are brazenly 
complaining that by giving Members time to read the bill, it would 
unnecessarily delay moving this bill forward.
  What is so offensive about suggesting that Members of Congress have 
an opportunity to read the bill before being asked to vote on it? Why 
the rush? Why the secrecy? Why are they shutting down the legislative 
process and rushing this bill through before anyone can read it?
  It is because they don't want the American people to know what they 
are doing until it is too late. And they don't want Members of Congress 
to know what they are voting on and what the true effects of the 
legislation will be.
  They don't want the 780,000 seniors in the state of Florida--
including over 40,000 seniors in my congressional district--to know 
that their Medicare benefits will be cut in order to provide health 
insurance to non-U.S. citizens, including illegal immigrants, and 
millions of children who already have health coverage.
  They don't want 8 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage 
plans across this Nation to know that their benefits are being cut so 
that the SCHIP program can be expanded to subsidize health care 
benefits for adults in states like New Jersey, some with annual incomes 
of $80,000 per year.
  They want to hide from America's seniors the fact that Medicare 
benefits are being cut in order to subsidize health care benefits to a 
new group of ``children'' who happen to be between 18 and 25 years of 
age.
  They don't want seniors to know that budget experts in Congress 
estimate that nearly one-half of the children who will be signed up to 
the SCHIP program after this bill passes--using money that is being cut 
from Medicare--are simply dropping their private health care coverage 
in order to get the federal subsidy under the SCHIP program.
  Earlier this year, I was troubled by the fact that Democrats planned 
to significantly expand the SCHIP program and I offered an amendment in 
the House Appropriations Committee that would have focused the program 
so that states would first be required to ensure that all children in 
homes earning below 200 percent of the poverty level were covered. My 
amendment was rejected by the Democrat majority in that Committee who 
said they opposed it because my amendment would focus the program on 
serving uninsured children. They made it clear that they had no intent 
of focusing this program on lower income children, but rather planned 
to expand the program to those

[[Page 22371]]

well above the poverty level and to include adults and non-citizens.
  What else is in this bill that they are trying to hide from the 
American people?
  They repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship 
in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to 
fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector 
General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 
46 states allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they 
were citizens. The IG found that 27 states never sought to verify that 
enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion.
  The bill provides a bonus payment to states that choose not to 
implement an asset test for those enrolling in SCHIP. In other words, a 
family could hold assets of as much as $1 million (a house, car, mutual 
fund) but could still qualify for SCHIP if their income for that year 
fell within the amount allowed for SCHIP enrollment. For example, a 
family of four living in a $1 million home in New York with an annual 
income of $80,000 could qualify for enrollment in SCHIP. And if New 
York does this--they get a bonus!
  It is my understanding that this 500-plus-page bill imposes a tax on 
private health insurance. Certainly, they want to hide that from the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that they don't want the American people to 
know that they are creating a massive new entitlement program just at 
the time when the financial strains of the Social Security and Medicare 
entitlements are being stretched as Baby Boomers retire. They are 
putting this Nation on a path to bankruptcy by creating a huge new 
entitlement program that they have no way of sustaining long-term. This 
is the wrong time to be saddling the American taxpayers with a gigantic 
new program.
  Additionally, I am concerned that this bill fails to secure the 
senior's long-term access to quality physicians. The 1997 Budget Act (a 
bill I voted against) created a formula that has resulted in payment to 
doctors being cut. As a result, today some doctors (typically the best 
doctors with the busiest practices) are starting to refuse to see new 
Medicare patients. This SCHIP bill does not fix this problem. It 
provides doctors with a 1 percent increase over 2 years then cuts 
doctor reimbursement by 12 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in 2011, or 
23 percent over 2 years. The effect of these cuts could be devastating 
with many doctors facing the possibility of losing money when they see 
Medicare patients. The result will be seniors will not be able to see a 
doctor.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on about the additional cuts to Medicare, 
including cuts to the following Medicare benefits: home health, end 
stage renal disease, oxygen therapy, imaging services, dialysis, and 
skilled nursing facilities.
  By cutting Medicare and spending the money elsewhere, this bill will 
make the challenge of securing the long-term solvency of Medicare even 
more difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Democrat leaders have 
chosen to pit health care benefits for America's senior citizens 
against those of children. There is a better way. Had the Democrat 
leadership chosen to consider this bill under the regular legislative 
process, we could have worked through this in a bipartisan manner. 
Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has chosen to put politics before 
prudence. This bill goes far beyond the bill passed by the Senate, and 
the President has vowed to veto the House bill. This bill should be 
sent back to committee and debated in regular order. America's seniors, 
uninsured children, and the American taxpayer deserve better.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to the 
Children's Health and Medicare Preservation Act. I fully support the 
goals of this legislation--to provide healthcare to millions of 
uninsured children, to improve Medicare benefits for our seniors, and 
to help rural areas provide healthcare. Unfortunately, however, I 
cannot support legislation that unfairly impacts the second district 
and all of North Carolina with the burdens of this cost.
  I have been a long-time supporter of the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and I am proud that the Budget Committee 
on which I serve authorized the increase reflected in this bill. I 
support reauthorizing and strengthening SCHIP, without which nearly six 
million children will lose access to healthcare. In North Carolina, NC 
Health Choice provides cost-effective and high-quality health services 
to 250,000 at-risk children. An additional 180,000 uninsured children 
in North Carolina are eligible for coverage, and the $50 billion in the 
budget I helped write would enable more of these children to be 
covered.
  It is also vital that we enable physicians to provide health 
services, in SCHIP, Medicaid, .and in Medicare. This legislation 
implements a 2-year fix that enables doctors to continue their 
participation in the program without going bankrupt. Without this fix, 
North Carolina physicians will lose $460 million for the care of 
elderly and disabled patients over the next 2 years, and face a 1.6 
percent geographic cut above the baseline reductions in other parts of 
the country. I appreciate Medicare physicians who have made many 
sacrifices to continue to cover the Medicare population, and without a 
fix this year doctors may start dropping out and refuse to see Medicare 
patients. We must maintain our commitment to universal coverage for our 
Nation's seniors and people with disabilities. This legislation takes a 
positive step in that direction.
  There are many other positive provisions in this legislation: Fixes 
that strengthen the Medicare Trust Fund, provide more access to 
preventative care, and provide lower premiums for many seniors; 
extensions for important rural health care initiatives that ensure 
access to care for people across the country, especially in the second 
district of North Carolina; support for the Special Diabetes Programs, 
which provide essential funding for research and innovative diabetes 
prevention activities for thousands of children in communities 
throughout the country; provides parity for mental health coverage 
under Medicare; the list goes on and on. I understand what these 
improvements mean to the people of North Carolina, and I wholeheartedly 
support them.
  These provisions have a cost, however, and as important as these 
priorities are we also must value the principle of fairness. I do not 
support smoking, and I have never smoked, but this bill is not fair to 
those who grow or use tobacco. The cigarette tax is regressive; falling 
hardest on those who can least afford it. Although it is a national 
tax, it also unevenly impacts the country, with North Carolina and a 
few other states footing the bill for the benefits the CHAMP Act seeks 
to deliver. North Carolina's citizens pay over four percent of the 
costs of this legislation while receiving about two percent of the 
benefit.
  Researchers at North Carolina State University estimate that North 
Carolina's economy would lose at least $540 million a year through the 
tax's indirect impact as well. North Carolina's tobacco farmers grow a 
legal crop. These hard working farm families have suffered greatly from 
transformations in the global economy. Because my district is the 
second largest tobacco producing district in the country, H.R. 3162 
disproportionately affects my constituents who work hard to be able to 
pay their bills and provide a better life for their children. This just 
doesn't pass the fairness test.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I could support this bill for all of its laudable 
goals. I join with my colleagues in my desire to provide healthcare for 
children, strengthen Medicare and protect it from privatization, and 
improve health services for rural communities, diabetes patients, and 
others. When we are able to do so without placing undue burden on North 
Carolina's farmers and low-income families, I will gladly vote in favor 
of doing so. With the current funding mechanism, however, I cannot 
support this bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have attacked a 
provision in the CHAMP Act that would allow states flexibility in how 
they verify the citizenship of the American children applying for or 
renewing coverage under Medicaid, claiming that language in the 2005 
Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) that imposed harsher citizenship 
verification requirements on state Medicaid programs is the only 
barrier protecting taxpayer dollars from being spent on healthcare for 
illegal immigrants.
  Empirical evidence from the first nine months of the implementation 
of this rule demonstrates, in fact, that the new requirements have 
denied tens of thousands of American children access to health care.
  In my own state of Virginia, this draconian requirement has adversely 
affected thousands of U.S. citizen children, children who are among the 
most medically vulnerable in the state. In the first nine months of 
implementation, there was a net decline of more than 11,000 children 
enrolled in Medicaid. Had growth in enrollment continued at the same 
rate it had during the previous 2 years, the state would have seen a 
net increase of 9,000 poor children, suggesting that overall, at least 
20,000 have been denied access to health coverage.
  Among those who do receive coverage, the average wait time for 
processing has increased from sixteen days to four to six months.
  Twenty-one other states also reported declines in enrollment since 
the implementation of the DRA, including a net decline of 14,000 
children in Kansas.
  While the DRA's requirements have unfortunately limited access to 
care for so many low-

[[Page 22372]]

income U.S. citizen children, they also have imposed enormous 
administrative costs on the states, our financial partners in this 
program. In Virginia, the number of ``pending'' cases awaiting further 
documentation skyrocketed from about 50 per month to 4000. The DRA 
requirements have made measures to increase the efficiency of the 
Medicaid application process (including mail-in, phone and online 
applications) impossible.
  The DRA requirements don't seem to be succeeding in fulfilling its 
objective: in the first nine months of implementation, six states spent 
$17 million implementing the DRA requirements, but only identified 
eight undocumented immigrants out of a total of 3.6 million Medicaid 
beneficiaries.
  In addition, enrollment has fallen significantly in these states 
among white and African-American children, while enrollment among 
Latino children has increased--which would not be occurring if the 
provision were affecting undocumented immigrants, 78% of whom are from 
Mexico, Central America or South America, according to the Pew Hispanic 
Center.
  The DRA requirements imposed substantial bureaucratic costs on the 
states, but have produced almost no cost savings. Instead, millions of 
dollars spent implementing the DRA requirements have served only to 
deny care to tens of thousands of American children.
  The costs of care denied to low-income U.S. citizen children are 
passed on to taxpayers in the form of uncompensated emergency room 
visits and costs to treat the infectious diseases that these children 
may contract and unknowingly pass on while awaiting access to 
treatment.
  The debate about CHAMP should be about the public health and 
improving the health of our children. Attacks on this provision come 
from Members who are grasping at straws, trying to come up with reasons 
to oppose this bill, which takes monumental steps to improve the health 
of low-income children in this country.
  In a recent survey, 90 percent of parents applying for Medicaid for 
their children indicated that they have no other health coverage 
available. Allowing state flexibility in citizenship verification is 
sound public health policy that would enable thousands of American 
children access to vital health services to help them live better, 
healthier, and more productive lives. Because Medicaid is now the 
single largest cost to state taxpayers, we ought to make a concerted 
effort to support state flexibility.
  State flexibility is widely supported. Twenty-four Senators signed 
letters to Chairman Baucus asking him to include this measure in the 
Senate's bipartisan SCHIP bill, and fifty-one other House Members 
joined me in requesting that Chairman Dingell include this provision in 
the bill. I urge your support of this landmark legislation to protect 
the health of our most vulnerable low-income children, and your support 
of state flexibility in citizenship verification.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the ``CHAMP 
Act.'' I do support averting the 10 percent cut in physician payments 
scheduled for next year, and I am pleased that the bill reforms the 
Medicare geographic cost payments index for California and holds rural 
counties harmless through 2010--although I would have preferred to see 
a permanent fix so that the physicians I represent do not face the 
prospect of a 5 to 7 percent cut a few years down the road.
  However, I am very troubled by the overall thrust of the CHAMP Act, 
which is to expand big government health care at the expense of 
competition and consumer choice. This bill would effectively destroy 
the Medicare Advantage program, especially in rural areas like the 
district I represent.
  I would like to read to my colleagues from a letter I received just 
the other day from one of my constituents, Kathleen Lopez of 
Marysville, California. Kathleen writes, ``I chose a Medicare Advantage 
plan because I receive Social Security benefits less than $700 net per 
month; our annual income hovers around $20 thousand. This plan 
encourages preventive care, has Plan D Medicare, has some vision and 
dental coverage. . . . This type of plan eliminates costly monthly 
expenses for health coverage as well as prescription drug coverage.'' 
Over 4,500 other senior citizens in my district are receiving similar 
benefits. Most--if not all--of them will lose their benefits under this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does this bill sharply reduce incentives for 
Medicare Advantage plans to offer coverage to low-income rural seniors 
like Kathleen Lopez, it also imposes new constraints and regulations to 
prevent Medicare Advantage plans from offering better deals. The 
message of this bill is ``Washington knows best.'' Instead of promoting 
competition and choice, we are going to push everybody into a one-size-
fits-all plan.
  That message is reinforced with the massive expansion of SCHIP that 
takes kids from middle-class and possibly even upper-class families off 
private insurance and puts them into a government program. Mr. Speaker, 
all of us support reauthorizing SCHIP. Everyone supports providing 
health care for low income children. But let us be clear: That is not 
the question we are discussing today. What we are debating is whether 
to turn SCHIP into a massive new entitlement under which every child in 
America--even if their families are well-off, even if they already have 
good health coverage--can become eligible for health care provided by 
the Federal Government.
  Don't be fooled--this bill is the first step toward the Federal 
Government taking over health care. Some members who were closely 
involved in writing this bill have even openly stated their support for 
creating a government-run health care system and literally banning 
market-driven health care providers. We have a decision before us: We 
can move toward a 21st-century, patient-centered health care system 
driven by competition, choice, and innovation. Or we can go backwards 
toward a system of socialized medicine, like the ones that are 
crumbling in Europe or the one that Canadian doctors come to our 
country to escape.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill goes in the wrong direction, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this legislation wasted an 
opportunity to reauthorize a bipartisan health care program for low-
income children. I support SCHIP and would welcome its renewal and 
improvement. But this House is abandoning its mission of providing 
needed health care coverage for low-income children who otherwise would 
go without, and instead enrolling millions of middle class families--
even adults--with income upwards of $80,000, some who already have 
private insurance, in this government-run health care plan.
  Why are we pushing our middle class into government health care when 
there are so many low-income kids who still need help? And why are we 
asking seniors to pay for it? In Ohio, 70 percent of uninsured children 
who are currently eligible for SCHIP are not enrolled in the program. 
Congress should work to cover these children before it pursues this 
overly ambitious and costly entitlement expansion on the backs of our 
senior citizens.
  In my district, some 13,000 seniors would be dropped from their 
Medicare plan to pay for this bill. Additionally, many of the services 
seniors rely on most will be cut under this bill--from cuts to skilled 
nursing facilities, to oxygen, to wheelchairs, to home health care. 
This is simply unnecessary and unfair.
  I have devoted much of my career in the House to giving a voice to 
children and promoting programs to help them. It is therefore truly 
unfortunate and disappointing that the Democrat majority has rushed 
this bill to the floor, with no Republican input and no chance of 
improving it through the amendment process. And, I regret, that due to 
this unnecessary over-reaching, one-sided legislative process, I was 
compelled to oppose this irresponsible bill. We can do better. Our kids 
and our seniors deserve better.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that provides needed health 
care coverage to millions of children across this nation. It is vital 
to our nation's children and is in need of expansion in order to cover 
all eligible uninsured children.
  In fact, this February I joined many of my colleagues in sending a 
letter to the Budget Committee requesting that the fiscal year 2008 
budget include sufficient funding to maintain existing SCHIP caseloads, 
as well as make reauthorization of the program a high priority.
  Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 3162 takes the wrong approach and 
goes beyond what is necessary to cover uninsured children in America. 
Furthermore, the legislation puts seniors in my district at risk by 
making cuts to the Medicare Program. By trying to do too much in this 
bill, we have shifted our focus from helping our nation's children and 
now have a bill that has become mired in controversy.
  I believe the Senate's stand-alone reauthorization legislation is a 
more reasonable approach. It focuses solely on strengthening SCHIP by 
implementing measures to expand the enrollment of low-income children 
as well as to improve the quality of health care that children in the 
program receive.
  House passage today is not the final step in the legislative process, 
of course. While I cannot support the bill before us today, I hope that 
when a conference report is brought before us, it will be a reasonable 
compromise that provides needed expansion of SCHIP without the 
troublesome provisions of this bill. We need to reauthorize and 
strengthen this important and necessary program.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 3162, the

[[Page 22373]]

Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP Act).
  This important legislation will provide health care to 11 million 
children by reauthorizing and strengthening the Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP).
  Insuring America's children is an affordable goal. It costs less than 
$3.50 a day--about the cost of a Starbucks Frappuccino--to cover a 
child through CHIP. Certainly we can all agree that this is an 
investment worth making.
  In addition to providing health coverage to children, this bill 
strengthens Medicare to ensure beneficiaries have access to their 
doctors and improves benefits to cover preventative and mental health 
services.
  This bill lays the groundwork for a long-term solution to the 
physician payment system.
  Medicare physician payment rates are set to be cut by 10 percent in 
2008 and a 5 percent cut each year thereafter under current law. This 
bill eliminates pending cuts and enacts a .5 percent increase in both 
2008 and 2009.
  Congress has a responsibility to protect our children's access to 
affordable health care and strengthen Medicare for patients and 
physicians.
  This bill accomplishes both these goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, since its inception in 1997, I 
have been a steadfast proponent of SCHIP. This was perhaps most evident 
in January of this year when PeachCare, Georgia's SCHIP funded program, 
faced a $131 million shortfall. I hosted a bi-partisan delegation of 
Georgia lawmakers and public health officials who came to Washington to 
persuade the House leadership to fix the problem. In May, Congress 
approved and the President signed into law legislation which eliminated 
this shortfall faced by Georgia and other states.
  While my support of children's health care has never been in 
question, my vote today in favor of the bill was a difficult choice. 
I'm very uncomfortable with voting for any excise tax, especially one 
as regressive as a tobacco tax. The CHAMP Act presents a dilemma: 
improve access to health insurance for our youngest and most vulnerable 
citizens, or oppose the legislation to avoid causing harm to the many 
retailers and employees whose livelihoods depend upon the sale of 
tobacco, as well as the state and local governments that depend upon 
revenues generated from tobacco sales.
  This is not a perfect bill. But let us not let the ``perfect'' be the 
enemy of the ``good.'' This bill will ensure our children grow up 
healthy and strong, save millions of dollars for the taxpayers who pick 
up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms, strengthen access to 
health care in rural America, and protect our nation's seniors by 
giving them the healthcare they deserve
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to R.R. 3162. 
First, I fully support reauthorizing the SCHIP program and preserving 
this important program intended to provide health insurance to low-
income children.
  Having said that, I cannot support a bill that robs America's seniors 
of their Medicare benefits in order to give taxpayer-financed health 
care to illegal immigrants. The bill before us eliminates requirements 
that applicants show proof of citizenship, potentially allowing 
millions of illegal immigrants access to Medicaid and SCHIP.
  Furthermore, there is no requirement to ensure that eligible children 
from low-income families are enrolled before expanding coverage to 
children from middle-class or wealthier families. No limits on income 
eligibility are included, allowing a virtually open-ended expansion of 
the program to children that already have private health insurance. 
Meanwhile, 70 percent of uninsured children are already eligible for 
Medicaid or SCHIP and most of these are in the low-income category. The 
original intent of SCHIP was to cover low-income children, and we need 
to give these kids priority.
  To pay for the expansion of SCHIP, Democrats are cutting over $157 
billion from Medicare Advantage, which provides enhanced benefits like 
prescription drug, vision and dental coverage, as well as lower out-of-
pocket costs, for almost 51,000 Iowa seniors. This will result in a 
reduction of benefits for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and 
an increase in their costs. These drastic cuts will even force 3 
million current beneficiaries out of the program.
  Pitting grandparents against their grandchildren is simply wrong. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Let's go back to the drawing 
board to produce a more responsible bill focused on providing health 
insurance to children from low-income families.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, and the need 
for this program to be reauthorized. But, unfortunately, I must also 
state my opposition to the proposals that we have before us on the 
floor today.
  Since its enactment in 1997, SCHIP has been a tremendous success. 
SCHIP has been adopted in one form or another in every state across the 
nation. In my own state of California, we have enacted a combination of 
the SCHIP and Medicaid program to optimize coverage in the state. This 
program is better known as Healthy Families and currently provides 
coverage to more than 800,000 children. I strongly support the coverage 
that currently exists in California and voice my continued commitment 
to maintaining that coverage.
  I was heartened to see the bipartisan compromise that emerged from 
the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee 
earlier this month and that is currently being debated on the Senate 
floor. This legislation ensures that states will have adequate federal 
funding to continue their existing programs, while allowing others to 
expand coverage to more children. The bill also allows states to cover 
pregnant women and includes provisions to transition childless adults 
into Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
this bill will lead to the coverage of three and a half million new 
children. And all this was done at $15 billion less than the SCHIP 
portion of the proposal that we have before us today. While I recognize 
that the Senate proposal is still a work in progress, I am supportive 
of many of the principles laid forth in this legislation and appreciate 
the flexibility with which states are allowed to continue operating 
this program.
  This CHAMP Act that is before us includes many provisions that are 
positive and attempt to address some very real and very serious 
problems facing the health care community. I know that my own state 
would benefit greatly from the Adult Day Health Care Services provision 
within the bill and would allow California and 7 other states to 
continue operating their long standing and successful programs. There 
are provisions that will amend Medicare Part D to aid patients relying 
on the AIDS Drug Assistance Program or ADAP to pay for their drugs. 
Perhaps most importantly, this legislation also includes a two year 
update for payments to physicians under the Medicare fee schedule. If 
current law is allowed to move forward doctors will be forced to absorb 
a nearly 10% cut in reimbursements. As the daughter of a doctor, I am 
sympathetic to this cause and have been supportive of efforts to stave 
off devastating cuts that have been pending in years past. I strongly 
believe that the problems we face as a result of the Sustainable Growth 
Rate (SGR) deserve our full and careful attention. I do not, however, 
believe that this is the vehicle to do so.
  While I support many, if not most of the provisions in this bill, I 
have a responsibility to vote for programs and policies that are 
necessary for the public and affordable for the taxpayer. This bill is 
typical of what we have come to expect from a Congress that refuses to 
put limits on what they are willing to support and ask the taxpayers to 
fund.
  I joined with several of my colleagues in co-sponsoring H.R. 3269, 
the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, 
which was introduced by Representative Heather Wilson yesterday 
afternoon. I am proud to have co-sponsored this legislation that will 
do what needs to be done in an affordable and responsible manner. It 
would be a tragedy if this bill, that has bipartisan support in the 
Senate, were to lose and so many important projects pushed off track 
because this Congress refuses to deal with everyday realities of 
taxpayers struggling to make ends meet. I am deeply disappointed in the 
decision made by my colleagues on the Rules Committee to not only allow 
rejection of this amendment but every other amendment that may have 
helped to improve and reign in this irresponsible bill.
  To help pay for the obscene $90 billion price tag of this 
legislation, cuts have been proposed to hospital payments, inpatient 
rehabilitation services, skilled nursing facilities, and home health 
care services to name a few. I am very alarmed that a lion's share of 
these cutbacks will be felt by Medicare Advantage and the 8 million 
Medicare beneficiaries currently enrolled. In Riverside County alone, 
nearly 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have chosen to participate 
in a Medicare Advantage plan, more than 100,000 seniors. The bill that 
we have before us today will put each of us in the position of having 
to choose between children and seniors.
  As I have often stated, SCHIP must be reauthorized; 6.6 million 
children who are currently enrolled will find their coverage 
jeopardized if Congress does not act. We have long known that September 
30th was looming and instead of acting, the leadership of the various 
Committee's of jurisdiction have chosen to

[[Page 22374]]

wait until the 11th hour, and not just act on SCHIP, but to create a 
veritable Christmas tree of major health care policy reforms with no 
legislative hearings. We can and should act on behalf of SCHIP. I 
encourage my colleagues in the House to follow the example of the 
Senate and consider a bill that is clean and focused and allows members 
to vote their conscience on coverage for children.
  I will not be voting for the CHAMP Act today for these reasons. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come together 
during Conference, put aside partisanship, put aside a grab bag of 
legislation and bring back a bill that is truly for our children.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. The CHAMP Act makes 
crucial investments in children's health, preventive care, rural 
providers, and improved services for Medicare beneficiaries. I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Over the past several months, this Congress has debated how best to 
resolve serious problems facing this country's healthcare system: how 
do we provide responsible, reasonable healthcare coverage to children 
of working families? How do we modernize the benefits package provided 
to seniors under Medicare? How do we ensure that physicians and other 
providers caring for these seniors are paid fairly under Medicare? And 
finally, how do we accomplish all of these goals while at the same time 
adhering to the responsible budgeting rules this Congress has adopted 
for itself through pay-as-you-go budgeting rules?
  As a member of the Ways and Means Committee faced with these issues, 
I can tell you that it has not been easy. I do not believe, however, 
that our constituents elected us to come to Washington and make the 
easy decisions. We are here to govern, to balance competing and often 
equally deserving interests, and to arrive at a solution that we think 
is best for this country. I believe the CHAMP Act accomplishes all of 
these goals.
  This legislation will expand health care coverage to some 5 million 
new children across the country, allowing them to receive the vital 
preventive care that we know is essential for a healthy future. The 
CHAMP Act pays for this new investment through an increase in the 
federal tobacco tax, a move that itself will improve the health of our 
children by making cigarettes more expensive to buy. The forty-five 
cent tobacco tax increase included in this bill will reduce youth 
smoking rates by almost seven percent and will result in significant 
future savings in healthcare costs.
  The CHAMP Act also invests in this country's seniors by eliminating 
cost-sharing for preventive services under Medicare. This move will 
allow seniors to get essential services--such as check-ups, cancer and 
diabetes screenings, and flu and pneumonia vaccines--for no out-of-
pocket costs.
  We know that in order to improve seniors' quality of life and to 
prevent and detect life-threatening diseases, we must make this 
investment in prevention and primary care. I am proud of this important 
advance.
  Lastly, this legislation ensures that rural healthcare providers are 
paid fairly for the services they provide to seniors. The Medicare 
program provides a vital healthcare safety net for seniors living in 
rural areas. The CHAMP Act ensures that this level of care can continue 
by providing fair payments to physicians, ambulance providers, home 
health agencies, and other practitioners who care for the more than 9 
million seniors living in rural areas.
  The CHAMP Act is the right choice for Wisconsin and the right choice 
for this country.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. This bill invests $50 
billion in our children and our seniors. The minority has had no 
objections to spending half a trillion dollars in Iraq but objects to 
$50 billion over 5 years for our children and seniors? Where are their 
priorities?
  Passing this bill will mean that 5 million more children who are 
already eligible for SCHIP will be enrolled. That will bring the total 
number of children covered by SCHIP to 11 million. Passing this bill 
will mean a real investment for our children, our seniors, and, indeed, 
our Nation.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the CHAMP Act.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's 
children, a strong and secure Medicare program, and for passage of the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, CHAMP Act, H.R. 
3162.
  More than 6.6 million children today have health insurance because of 
the creation a decade ago of the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program SCHIP. However, these children will lose their access to good, 
affordable health insurance if the Congress does not act to reauthorize 
the SCHIP program by September 30, 2007.
  Today, the House will vote on the CHAMP Act, H.R. 3162, which will 
reauthorize and expand the SCHIP program to ensure even more children 
have access to the health care their parents cannot afford or who work 
in jobs that do not provide health care benefits. The CHAMP Act will 
provide 11 million children with health care, by expanding SCHIP to 
include an additional 5 million children who currently have no health 
insurance.
  The CHAMP Act also provides the tools needed and creates incentives 
for States to reach the millions of children who are eligible but not 
currently enrolled in the SCHIP program. The bill ensures that children 
have 12 months of continuous eligibility, so their parents do not 
frequently have to complete a complex renewal process. Additionally, 
dental coverage and parity for mental health will also be provided to 
children under the CHAMP Act.
  According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, more than 44 
million Americans lack health care coverage, including more than 14 
percent of New Jersey's residents. Many of these Americans are 
children. It is simply unconscionable that in our country millions of 
children are uninsured.
  The SCHIP program is strongly supported by our Nation's governors who 
have managed the State-run programs over the past decade and understand 
that SCHIP allows States to cover low-income children who lack health 
insurance in families of the working poor.
  New Jersey uses its SCHIP funds to run a program called FamilyCare. 
Our State is a leader in extending FamilyCare eligibility and currently 
125,000 children as well as 85,000 low income-parents are enrolled in 
New Jersey's program. Without SCHIP all of these residents of New 
Jersey would again be uninsured.
  The CHAMP Act will allow States, like New Jersey, to continue set 
income eligibility for the SCHIP program. Because the cost of living is 
so high in New Jersey, it is important that our State has the 
flexibility needed to establish realistic eligibility guidelines.
  Additionally, the CHAMP Act will allow New Jersey to continue to 
enroll parents along with their children. According to research by the 
Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences, one highly 
effective way of boosting coverage among low-income children is to 
broaden health insurance to their parents. Currently, New Jersey is one 
of nine States that covers low-income parents.
  Because the new Democratic majority is committed to balanced budgets 
and opposed to deficit spending, this bill pays for this historic 
commitment to our Nation's children with an appropriate increase in the 
Federal tobacco tax and reductions to the overpayments that have been 
paid to the privately run Medicare Advantage plans. Contrary to their 
euphemistic name, these plans have not been so advantageous for our 
Nation's seniors.
  According to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, the 45 cent-per-pack 
increase in the tobacco tax that is included in the CHAMP Act will 
result in 1,381,000 less children who will become smokers. This will 
improve their health and result in long-term healthcare savings of 
$32.4 billion, 669,000 fewer smoking related deaths and 171,800 fewer 
newborn children harmed by smoking over the next 5 years.
  Further, by reducing overpayments to the privately run Medicare 
Advantage plans, the CHAMP Act increases Medicare's solvency, and helps 
protect Medicare beneficiaries from higher premiums.
  For our Nation's seniors the CHAMP Act makes much needed improvements 
to Medicare. I am pleased the CHAMP Act contains a provision I wrote 
when I introduced the Helping Fill the Medicare Rx Gap Act, H.R. 2058, 
to include costs incurred by AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, ADAPs, in 
calculating a Medicare Part D beneficiary's true out-of-pocket, Troop, 
costs. Medicare Part D pays 75 percent of a beneficiary's drug costs 
until their expenses reach $2,400. Part D then stops paying and 
individual beneficiaries must pay for all of their drugs until total 
expenses reach $5,451. This leaves a coverage gap of $3,051--the 
``donut hole.'' ``True out-of-pocket'' costs, Troop in the donut hole 
determine when a beneficiary becomes eligible for catastrophic 
coverage.
  Individuals suffering from HIV and AIDS need help. By including ADAP 
costs in calculating out-of-pocket expenses, we make them eligible 
sooner for help with their prescription drugs and we fix a loophole in 
Medicare Part D that discriminates against HIV and AIDS victims.
  Additionally, under this bill the Medicare Part D late enrollment 
penalty for beneficiaries eligible for the Low-Income Subsidy program 
is eliminated and our Nation's seniors will be allowed to change their 
Part D plan during the year to meet their prescription needs. It also

[[Page 22375]]

reduces the discriminatory copayments that Medicare charged for mental 
health services to the standard 20 percent copayment and adds 
additional mental health providers to Medicare so services are more 
easily available. Under this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries will 
have increased access to preventative services. The CHAMP Act also 
ensures that seniors have access to world class doctors by blocking a 
devastating cut in Medicare physician payments over the next 2 years.
  The CHAMP Act is supported by the AARP, the American Medical 
Association, the Catholic Health Association, the National Rural Health 
Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses 
Association, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women and 
Families, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, and 
the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. All of 
these organizations understand that the CHAMP Act will ensure more 
American children have health insurance and that Medicare remains 
strong for decades to come.
  There are 11 million reasons to vote for this bill, each one a child 
who will move out of the ranks of the uninsured with the health care 
provided in the CHAMP Act. Medicare beneficiaries will also see 
important improvements to their benefits. A measure of a Nation's 
greatness is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. By making 
health insurance available for 11 million children, we live up to our 
moral obligation to keep children healthy and we make our society 
stronger. The CHAMP Act is historic legislation and I implore the 
President to drop his objections to this bill and join us in ensuring 
more Americans are healthy.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and 
underlying bill, the CHAMP Act. I want to thank our leadership for 
their vision and commitment in bringing this critical legislation 
before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, as one of the primary authors of California's version of 
children's health insurance, the Healthy Families Act, I know this bill 
will help reverse the neglect and devastation to our health care system 
that has been inflicted over the last dozen years.
  The CHAMP Act will finally provide much needed care for the 5 million 
uninsured children across this Nation.
  The CHAMP Act will finally allow millions of seniors the access to 
affordable, quality health care that the Bush administration's Medicare 
cuts have denied.
  Finally, while I remain opposed to scientifically unsound abstinence-
only programs I support the CHAMP Act's acknowledgment that these 
programs in their current form are not serving the needs of our young 
people who deserve access to medically-accurate, life-saving 
comprehensive sex education.
  Mr. Speaker, as important a step forward as this bill is, our goal 
must remain providing universal health care to all Americans. The 
future of our Nation depends on it.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about promises and 
responsibility. It is about the promise of an American childhood. It is 
about our responsibility to protect the health and well-being of those 
who grow up in the world's most prosperous Nation.
  It is about the promise of a better world for our children and 
grandchildren. We have a responsibility to create a healthcare system 
that is fair, equitable, and affordable for all Americans, regardless 
of their income.
  Mr. Speaker, the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act 
delivers on these promises and fulfills these responsibilities. It 
revitalizes and expands one of the most successful and cost-effective 
health initiatives we have: the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program.
  SCHIP is a model for how government programs should work. It has 
saved money for taxpayers by helping children avoid costly hospital and 
emergency room trips. It has made states equal partners in the 
program's administration, giving them flexibility and a stake in the 
outcome. Most critically, it has provided six million kids with health 
care that they would not otherwise have.
  Because of SCHIP, six million American kids are healthier and more 
vibrant. Six million young lives are better because of this program. 
Isn't this what good government is supposed to accomplish?
  There is still more for us to do, though. Millions of children in our 
country cannot go to a doctor when they feel sick. In my hometown of 
Sacramento, 17,000 kids cannot get the medicines they need until they 
go to an emergency room. This is unacceptable to me, Madam Speaker. It 
should be unacceptable to every single Member of Congress.
  When I cast my vote for this bill today, it will be a vote for the 
future of our country. It will be an investment in the children who are 
the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before this House today as a colleague, but also 
as a proud grandmother. My two beautiful grandchildren are named Anna 
and Robby, and most of what I do here in Congress is colored by how it 
will affect them and their generation.
  Anna and Robby are fortunate in that they have stable, reliable 
health insurance. Millions of their peers are not so lucky.
  I am confident that if we all do so, we will see that voting ``Yes'' 
on the CHAMP Act is not only the right thing to do. It is the smart 
thing to do. It will secure our country's future by providing 
healthcare for the millions of American kids who literally are our 
country's future.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Children's Health 
and Medicare Protection Act. This is a landmark measure which touches 
on many aspects of our national health care system. It forestalls a 
potentially devastating cut to physician payments through Medicare that 
would imperil our senior's access to their doctors. It also expands 
assistance to our lowest income seniors so they get the help they need 
to afford life-saving medication.
  But most important, the bill we are debating today will extend the 
life changing benefit of health insurance to five million more American 
children. That means five million parents who won't have to bring their 
child to the emergency room because they're running a fever. Five 
million parents who can take their child to a dentist if their teeth 
hurt. Five million parents who can take care of their children in a way 
we all take for granted--that when they're sick, they can go to the 
doctor.
  SCHIP has been an incredible success story, extending the benefits of 
health care to six million children, about 750,000 in California alone. 
These are children whose families have incomes that are too high to 
qualify for Medicaid, but who do not receive health insurance through 
their employment and can't afford it on their own. SCHIP is based on a 
simple premise: Insuring kids is the right thing to do. And it's much 
cheaper to insure a child, who is relatively healthy, than an adult or 
a senior citizen. The experience of the 10 years since SCHIP was 
originally created proves the wisdom of providing health insurance for 
children.
  In addition to reauthorizing the program, this bill improves SCHIP by 
creating new incentives to seek out millions of children around the 
nation who are eligible but not enrolled. It includes a group of seven 
best practices, developed and implemented in states, that should be 
followed to get kids into the program and keep them there. That's the 
right approach. In the past, I've called for a simplified enrollment 
system so that families applying for a range of means-tested benefits, 
such as subsidized school lunches, can automatically apply for SCHIP. 
We accomplish that with this bill, and it will mean that more kids who 
are eligible will get enrolled and stay enrolled for a benefit that 
they are entitled.
  The Committee on the Budget has certified that this legislation 
complies with the PAYGO rules we set earlier this year to ensure fiscal 
discipline. It pays for these important reforms to children's health 
and Medicare by an increase in the tax on cigarettes a provision that I 
hope will help discourage youth smoking. And it cuts back on subsidies 
to privately run Medicare plans. Contrary to the statements of the 
minority, we are not cutting one dime from Medicare. In fact, this bill 
today will extend the lifespan of the Medicare Trust Fund.
  A vote for this bill is a vote for an America that takes care of its 
children. In the richest Nation in the history of the world, it is 
simply wrong that millions of children, our most vulnerable citizens, 
go without basic access to health care. With a ``yes'' vote, five 
million more children will enjoy the benefits of a healthy future and a 
real chance in life. I urge a ''yes'' vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today applaud the action 
of the House of Representatives in standing up for our children. H.R. 
3162--Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 provides 
needed additional funding for the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) nationally, and in my State, it will allow the 
continuation of the successful PeachCare program currently serving 
270,000 children.
  Early on, I advocated for the full reauthorization of SCHIP, at a 
minimum, so that childhood healthcare is not compromised. This bill 
accomplishes that and even expands the program. However, this 
particular bill also forces cuts to Medicare Part C, a program in which 
over 8,000 seniors in my district are enrolled.
  I have heard from these seniors in person, through the mail, on the 
phone, and over fax about their support for this program and the 
difference it has made in their lives. I wish there were another option 
for House consideration today that would enable this program to 
continue in its current state. While I am supporting this legislation 
today to expand SCHIP,

[[Page 22376]]

I want to assure the seniors from the 4th district that their words 
have not fallen on deaf ears.
  I believe Congress will have an opportunity to take another look at 
this legislation after conferencing with the Senate, and I hope the 
package presented will take care of those in greatest need at both the 
dawn and dusk of their lives.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the millions of children 
without health insurance, and the millions of seniors who need the 
added Medicare benefits in this bill, I rise in support of HR 3162, the 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007.
  Because the CHAMP Act will have such a huge impact on improving the 
health and well-being of millions of America's children and seniors, it 
is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation this 
Congress will pass.
  As a mother and grandmother, I believe one of our country's greatest 
responsibilities is to ensure the health and well-being of our 
children. The CHAMP Act honors that responsibility by providing states 
with $50 billion in new funds to provide an additional 5.1 million 
children with health care coverage.
  The bill also provides comprehensive Early and Periodic Screening, 
Diagnostic, and Treatment health services to all infants, children, and 
adolescents enrolled in Medicaid. These services, weakened by a 
Republican-controlled Congress in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006, 
will help ensure vulnerable children have health problems diagnosed 
early and avoid more complex and costly treatment.
  In addition, the CHAMP Act establishes a pediatric health care 
quality measurement program which will provide a long-overdue federal 
investment in quality and performance measurements. The grants made 
available to States will improve the delivery of health care services 
to children under Medicaid and SCHIP.
  As a daughter, I have watched with concern the health challenges my 
parents have faced as they aged. Luckily, they have had the resources 
to receive the care and medication they have needed.
  Sadly, this is not the case for a vast majority of seniors such as 
those in my congressional district. While they face many of the same 
health challenges that my parents experienced, they struggle every day 
to make ends meet, often unable to afford their costly medications.
  The CHAMP Act helps these seniors by extending the solvency of the 
Medicare Trust Fund, and simplifying and expanding the existing 
programs designed to help low-income Medicare beneficiaries pay for 
Medicare premiums and prescription drugs.
  Of great importance is also the fact that this bill encourages 
wellness by extending badly needed preventive and therapeutic services. 
The CHAMP Act eliminates co-payments and deductibles for current and 
future evidence-based preventive benefits, gives parity to mental 
health services by reducing the 50 percent co-payment on outpatient 
mental health treatment, and ensures our seniors have access to 
physical, occupational, and speech therapies.
  The CHAMP Act also extends agreements with the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services to allow states, including my home state of 
California, to continue providing services to our most vulnerable 
seniors through adult day care health programs.
  As a Latina and a Member of Congress who represents a large 
multicultural constituency, I am also concerned about the barriers that 
prevent minorities from enrolling in Medicaid and SCHIP. For example in 
the Latino community, barriers such as the lack of culturally sensitive 
outreach efforts have resulted in keeping more than 70 percent of 
eligible Latino children uninsured.
  The CHAMP Act addresses this deficiency by encouraging culturally 
appropriate enrollment and retention practices. The bill funds 
translation and interpretation services for families where English is 
not the primary language and authorizes community health workers to 
provide outreach services.
  Finally, the CHAMP Act restores the states' option to cover legal 
immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women in SCHIP or 
Medicaid. It also amends the requirements for documentation of 
citizenship to allow a reasonable amount of time for families to gather 
the necessary papers and information.
  As a proud American who cherishes the values upon which our country 
was founded, I believe this bill takes a giant step forward in honoring 
our moral imperative to ensure that age, race and income do not 
determine the health status of our children, seniors, and citizens with 
disabilities.
  With the expansion of SCHIP coverage to millions of children, and the 
additional benefits made available to Medicare beneficiaries, the CHAMP 
Act may well be the most important pro-life bill the 110th Congress 
will pass in 2007.
  I commend Chairman Dingell from the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
and Chairman Rangel from the Ways and Means Committee, as well as the 
dedicated staff members who have invested so much time and effort to 
craft this very important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to vote for its passage today, to honor our 
commitment to our children, our seniors and our citizens with 
disabilities, and to offer them the promise of a healthier tomorrow.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regard to H.R. 3162, The 
Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007, and in 
particular with regard to Section 502, ``Payment Inpatient 
Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Services.''
  Section 502 takes critically important steps towards ensuring that 
Medicare beneficiaries have access to medically necessary inpatient 
rehabilitation in an appropriate treatment setting by permanently 
extending the 60 percent compliance threshold and by retaining co-
morbidities in these provisions. Section 502 prevents further negative 
impacts from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) 70 
Percent Rule policy, which since the Rule's implementation, has 
deprived more than 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries access to inpatient 
rehabilitation care despite their meeting medical necessity standards. 
I strongly support this permanent extension of the 60 percent 
compliance threshold.
  Section 502 also provides for a permanent extension in co-morbidities 
policy in ascertaining compliance with the rule. An estimated seven 
percent of the inpatient rehabilitation cases obtain eligibility 
through co-morbidities. Reversing this policy would adversely impact 
both beneficiaries and providers. CMS, in promulgating its Final Rule 
for the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) Prospective Payment 
System (PPS) which will be published in the Federal Register on August 
7, 2007, has determined that effective July 1, 2008, co-morbidities may 
no longer be used to determine whether a provider meets the compliance 
threshold. The importance of Section 502 is particularly urgent in 
light of this recent regulatory action.
  I urge the House to take a firm stance when conferencing with respect 
to the inpatient rehabilitation provisions of Section 502. More than 
half of the House has joined as co-sponsors of H.R. 1459, which I--
along with my Colleagues Mr. Hulshof of Missouri, Mrs. Lowey of New 
York, and Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey--introduced to ensure that the 60 
percent compliance threshold is made permanent and that the co-
morbidities provision is extended. I take seriously the trust that has 
been placed in me by these other 221 House co-sponsors, and I ask that 
the Conferees do the same.
  I also ask that the House safeguard the important provisions of H.R. 
3162 that will yield critically important new information and data by 
requiring the Secretary to report on beneficiaries' access to medically 
necessary rehabilitative care and variation in that care across 
treatment settings. The reporting requirements also call for 
consideration of patients' length of stay and the frequency of 
readmission in evaluating cost effectiveness for an entire episode of 
care. These requirements accurately reflect the information necessary 
for educated decision-making, and we commend their inclusion in Section 
502.
  There are two issues related to the legislation which I respectfully 
request our colleagues consider in any future conference negotiations. 
The House bill currently fails to fix Local Coverage Determinations 
(LCD) and medical necessity criteria issues which have become apparent 
in various areas throughout the country. We should not deliver a bill 
that addresses the compliance threshold but fails to deal with the 
simultaneous problems apparent in large areas of the country--where 
Medicare Fiscal Intermediaries are imposing narrow and restrictive 
interpretations which further limit access to medically necessary 
rehabilitation care and disregard physician judgments. I appreciate the 
commitment to addressing these issues demonstrated in Committee. As CMS 
and its contractors persist in imposing oversight requirements on the 
inpatient rehabilitation field which are far in excess of those imposed 
on any other health care sector under Medicare, a more reasonable 
approach is needed. Congress should codify Ruling 85-2, as called for 
in H.R. 1459. I appreciate that Chairman Stark has shown his 
willingness to continue working towards a resolution of our concerns.
  In addition, we strongly believe that Section 502 moves in precisely 
the wrong direction in making radical changes to payment rates for hip 
and knee replacement and hip fracture cases. We believe neither CMS nor 
Congress

[[Page 22377]]

has the clinical data and comparative research necessary either on 
which to base this policy or to understand the impact of this decision. 
We should support accurate payments by the Medicare program that are 
based on sound analysis, clinical evidence, and aligned with the actual 
cost of providing high quality care. Instead, Section 502 uses the 
average per-stay skilled nursing facility payment rate as a baseline 
for calculating repayment in the inpatient rehabilitation context. 
Inpatient rehabilitation is fundamentally different and clinically more 
advanced than skilled nursing care. For patients requiring medical 
rehabilitation, these settings are not interchangeable. Therefore, the 
payments should not be interchangeable. Paying inpatient rehabilitation 
providers a lower amount bases on the rate for nursing facilities is 
contrary to the principles of pay-for-performance.
  Finally, we believe that the overall changes in payment rates called 
for in Section 502 results in a disproportionate financial impact for 
the rehabilitation hospital sector. Inpatient medical rehabilitation 
accounts for $6 billion in annual Medicare spending out of a total 
estimated $437 billion in 2007. Scoring by the Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) confirms that payments to the sector will be reduced by 
$2.4 billion over a 5-year period, and $6.6 billion over 10 years. In 
other words, inpatient rehabilitation hospital reductions represent 41 
percent of Part A spending cuts currently in the bill for a sector that 
represents a mere 1.4 percent of total Medicare spending. Inflicting 41 
percent of the Part A spending cuts on this sector appears to be 
disproportionate.
  In addition, it should be noted that the rehab hospital sector has 
already absorbed substantial cuts as a result of the phased 
implementation of the 75 Percent Rule policy. Data from the Centers 
from Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) confirm that rehabilitation 
providers experienced cuts of at least $300 million in the first year 
of implementation alone.
  The Department of Health and Human Services and CMS initiated the 75 
Percent Rule without direction from Congress, and have moved forward 
with the policy in an unbridled way. It is imperative that this 
Congress take the necessary steps to protect patient access to 
inpatient rehabilitation hospital-level services. A final bill must be 
more reasonable for the rehabilitation sector and fairer to Medicare 
beneficiaries.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to retain the 
60 percent compliance threshold and co-morbidities and address the 
remaining problematic issues relating to local coverage determinations 
and medical necessity criteria, and our payment policies for hip and 
knee conditions, as the legislative process moves forward.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the 
``Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007'' (CHAMP or 
H.R. 3162) and would like to take this opportunity to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. 
John Dingell for the inclusion of my State Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP) small employer buy-in proposal. He is a good friend and an 
invaluable leader in providing adequate health insurance to all of 
America's children.
  Today, it is estimated that of the 9.4 million uninsured children, 7 
million of them are eligible for SCHIP, but are not enrolled. 
Furthermore, approximately 37 percent of the 6.6 million children 
currently enrolled in SCHIP have parents who work in businesses with 
fewer than 100 employees. Due to the high cost of health insurance in 
the private small group and individual market, many of these parents do 
not have access to affordable health insurance for themselves. To help 
cover these parents and enroll the 7 million uninsured children 
eligible for SCHIP, I believe that one viable solution is for Congress 
to provide small employers access to buy into a public health care 
program, such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
  With the support of Chairman Dingell, the CHAMP Act does just that--
it establishes a demonstration program for up to 10 States to offer 
employers and their employees the option to buy into a State's 
children' health insurance program.
  In order for a State to participate in the demonstration program it 
may not impose a waiting list, enrollment cap, or any other enrollment 
limitation on low-income children at or below 200 percent of the 
Federal poverty level (FPL). As for the employer qualifications, 50 
percent of his or her workforce must comprise of full-time employees 
with family incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. 
Furthermore, eligible employees must have at least one eligible SCHIP 
child in their family.
  If an employer agrees to participate, the program requires the 
employer to make a contribution no less than 50 percent of the premium 
toward the family coverage. The employee is required to make a 
contribution no greater than 5 percent of their entire income of the 
premium toward family coverage. The SCHIP funds used to cover the 
eligible children are the only allowable SCHIP funds that may be 
applied toward the family coverage. At the State's discretion, any 
remaining cost of the family coverage may be covered by the employer or 
the State. Specifically, the State may use its own funds or apply an 
access fee to the employer for utilizing the purchasing pooling power 
of their children's health care program.
  As the CHAMP Act moves to conference, I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will view this demonstration as one viable solution 
to addressing the health care crisis. Again, I thank Chairman Dingell 
for his outstanding leadership and support. At the end of the day, I am 
confident we will accomplish our goal of insuring as many children as 
possible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 594, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Granger

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. GRANGER. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order. After the 
motion is read, I will know whether to insist on the point of order or 
not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Granger moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3162, to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendments:
       Amend title I to read as follows:

TITLE I--EXTENSION OF STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP)

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF SCHIP.

       Section 2104(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10); 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) for fiscal year 2008, $5,000,000,000.''.

     SEC. 102. ADDITIONAL ALLOTMENTS TO ADDRESS SCHIP FUNDING 
                   SHORTFALLS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008.

       Section 2104 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397dd) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Amounts To Eliminate Fiscal Year 2008 Funding 
     Shortfalls.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     paragraph (4), the Secretary shall allot to each shortfall 
     State described in paragraph (2) such amount as the Secretary 
     determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall described 
     in such paragraph for the State for fiscal year 2008.
       ``(2) Shortfall state described.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), a shortfall State described in this paragraph is a State 
     with a State child health plan approved under this title for 
     which the Secretary estimates, on the basis of the most 
     recent data available to the Secretary as of a date 
     (specified by the Secretary) during fiscal year 2008, that 
     the projected Federal expenditures under such plan for the 
     State for fiscal year 2008 will exceed the sum of--
       ``(A) the amount of the State's allotments for each of 
     fiscal years 2006 and 2007 that will not be expended by the 
     end of fiscal year 2007;
       ``(B) the amount of the State's allotment for fiscal year 
     2008; and
       ``(C) the amounts, if any, that are to be redistributed to 
     the State during fiscal year 2008 in accordance with 
     subsection (f).
       ``(3) Proration rule.--If the amount available under 
     paragraph (4) is less than the total amount of the estimated 
     shortfalls determined by the Secretary under paragraph (1), 
     the amount of the estimated shortfall for each shortfall 
     State determined under such paragraph shall be reduced 
     proportionally.
       ``(4) Appropriation; allotment authority.--For the purpose 
     of providing additional allotments to shortfall States under 
     this subsection, there is appropriated, out of any funds in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as are 
     necessary for fiscal year 2008, but not to exceed 
     $1,500,000,000.''.

[[Page 22378]]



     SEC. 103. OPTION FOR QUALIFYING STATES TO RECEIVE THE 
                   ENHANCED PORTION OF THE CHIP MATCHING RATE FOR 
                   MEDICAID COVERAGE OF CERTAIN CHILDREN.

       Section 2105(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397ee(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (4),'' after ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Option for allotments for fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.--
       ``(A) Payment of enhanced portion of matching rate for 
     certain expenditures.--In the case of expenditures described 
     in subparagraph (B), a qualifying State (as defined in 
     paragraph (2)) may elect to be paid from the State's 
     allotment made under section 2104 for any of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2012 (insofar as the allotment is available to 
     the State under subsections (e) and (i) of such section) an 
     amount each quarter equal to the additional amount that would 
     have been paid to the State under title XIX with respect to 
     such expenditures if the enhanced FMAP (as determined under 
     subsection (b)) had been substituted for the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage (as defined in section 1905(b)).
       ``(B) Expenditures described.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A), the expenditures described in this subparagraph are 
     expenditures made after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph and during the period in which funds are available 
     to the qualifying State for use under subparagraph (A), for 
     the provision of medical assistance to individuals residing 
     in the State who are eligible for medical assistance under 
     the State plan under title XIX or under a waiver of such plan 
     and who have not attained age 19, and whose family income 
     equals or exceeds 133 percent of the poverty line but does 
     not exceed the Medicaid applicable income level.''.

     SEC. 104. MAINTAINING LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR ALIENS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as changing the 
     limitations imposed under title IV of the Personal 
     Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
     1996 on eligibility of aliens for medical or child health 
     assistance benefits.

     SEC. 105. MAINTAINING CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed as changing the 
     citizenship documentation requirements under the Medicaid 
     program under title XIX of the Social Security Act, as 
     originally provided under the amendments made by section 6036 
     of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and as subsequently 
     amended.

     SEC. 106. BIPARTISAN AND OPEN, TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under title XXI of the 
     Social Security Act should be reauthorized and reformed 
     through a bipartisan, open, fiscally responsible process.
       In title II, strike all section but sections 201 and 202.
       Amend title III to read as follows:

                  TITLE III--PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE

     SEC. 301. UPDATE FOR PHYSICIANS' SERVICES FOR 2008.

       (a) Update for 2006.--Section 1848(d) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``and (6)'' and inserting ``, (6), and 
     (8)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Update for 2008.--The update to the single conversion 
     factor established in paragraph (1)(C) for 2008 is 0 
     percent.''.
       (b) Treatment.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     not be treated as a change in law for purposes of applying 
     section 1848(f)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-4(f)(2)(D)) and, for purposes of calculating the per 
     capita rate of growth in expenditures under section 1853 of 
     such Act for 2009 and subsequent years, such rate of growth 
     in expenditures shall be calculated as if such amendments had 
     not been enacted. In carrying out the previous sentence, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make such 
     calculation for 2009 in conjunction with the promulgation of 
     the physician fee schedule under section 1848 of such Act for 
     that year and shall use such calculation for subsequent years 
     in computing payment rates under part C of title XVIII of 
     such Act.

     SEC. 302. FIXING PHYSICIAN SGR PROBLEM.

       It is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     Congress should permanently fix the problem of the physician 
     fee schedule update under section 1848 of the Social Security 
     Act being tied to a sustainable growth rate (SGR).
       In title IV, strike all sections but sections 431 and 432.
       In title V, strike all section but sections 504, 505, 508, 
     and 509.
       In the matter inserted by section 601(a), strike ``2009'' 
     and insert ``2008''.
       In subtitle A of title VI, strike all sections but sections 
     601, 605, and 611.
       In subtitle C of title VI, strike sections 635 through 639.
       Strike subtitle D of title VI.
       In title VII, strike all sections but sections 702, 705, 
     706, and 707.
       Strike title VIII.
       Strike title IX.
       Strike section 1002.
  Ms. GRANGER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  Mr. STARK. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. DINGELL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. STARK. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. STARK (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to 
maintain his reservation?
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit corrects a Democrat 
bill that will do great harm to America's seniors and working class. 
It's also the only chance that the minority's been given in this 
disappointing process to amend the bill before us today. This is not 
the House that was promised in November.
  My motion to recommit reauthorizes the SCHIP program for 1 year and 
provides States with the resources they need to be able to continue to 
provide needed health care coverage for children. The SCHIP program is 
a good program. It insures mental care is available to children who are 
needy but who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

                              {time}  1900

  Currently, approximately 6.7 million children receive health care 
through the SCHIP program, which is broadly supported.
  Let there be no doubt, Republicans support SCHIP, because we were 
instrumental in its creation 10 years ago. We don't support the 
reckless underlying bill that raises taxes and cuts Medicare by $200 
billion, taking health care away from some of our neediest seniors.
  The underlying bill is the first step to government-controlled health 
care and takes America in the wrong direction. It's the most blatant 
attempt to expand government-run health care we have seen since 
HillaryCare. It takes a sensible, bipartisan program aimed at helping 
low-income children and turns it into a monster that will suck millions 
of middle-class Americans into government-run health care. The bill 
would create a massive new entitlement with totally inadequate funding. 
At a time when we already face a $40 trillion unfunded obligation for 
Medicare and Social Security over the next 75 years, that's the exact 
opposite of responsible public policy.
  The Democrat bill takes SCHIP far beyond what it was intended to do 
by reversing the existing status that does not allow adults to be 
enrolled. The Democrats not only allow States to enroll childless 
adults but also eliminates a requirement for illegal immigrants to wait 
5 years before receiving welfare benefits. The Republican motion to 
recommit continues current law enforcing the 5-year wait.
  The bill in its current form also eliminates verification of 
citizenship status. This means that persons who come here illegally 
could be provided SCHIP because we don't want to ask the right 
questions.
  Taking benefits from seniors to expand government-run health care to

[[Page 22379]]

adults and illegal immigrants is unconscionable. Our motion to recommit 
keeps the 5-year wait for SCHIP. It also maintains the standards to 
verify citizenship. This motion requires citizenship documentation 
verification for eligibility for SCHIP and welfare benefits.
  While taking care of our children, Republicans also value our seniors 
and have taken care in providing Medicare benefits. Medicare Advantage 
is a critical source of comprehensive medical coverage for over 8 
million individuals. It provides coverage for seniors, and a recent 
bipartisan poll this year found that 90 percent of enrollees are 
satisfied with their Medicare plans.
  The underlying bill cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans and 
cuts Medicare payments to Medicare providers, including hospitals, 
nursing homes and home health agencies.
  The cuts proposed by the Democrats in Medicare will result in nearly 
3.2 million seniors losing their Medicare Advantage coverage. We would 
be providing coverage for children whose parents make $100,000 a year 
on the backs of seniors and the Medicare coverage they chose. This 
would be the largest cut of Medicare in history.
  In my district, 17,279 Medicare Advantage enrollees will lose their 
benefits if the Democrat CHAMP Act passes. This motion to recommit 
protects our seniors by eliminating the Medicare cuts in the bill.
  Perhaps most alarming in this bill is the establishment of a new 
mandatory tax on private health insurance plans. While Republicans have 
been trying to level the playing field and eliminate the uninsured, 
this bill places a tax on health care plans, except those provided by 
the government.
  The Democrat bill raises taxes by $54 billion in an attempt to lure 
middle-class families to opt out of private coverage by establishing a 
new mandatory tax on private health insurance plans. Our motion to 
recommit eliminates the Democrats' new tax on America's health 
insurance plans.
  In addition to eliminating the Medicare cuts in the Democrat bill, 
the motion to recommit maintains Medicare changes that improve services 
for Medicare beneficiaries.
  These changes will ensure improved service in rural areas, an 
extension of the therapy cap, special needs plans, and demonstration 
projects on end stage renal disease services.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit that will 
protect our seniors, prevent massive tax increases, and reauthorize the 
current SCHIP program.
  If the motion to recommit passes, the House will be able to vote on a 
bill that protects America's seniors and hard working citizens while 
also providing health care for our neediest children.
  If the motion fails, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against 
the Democrat CHAMP Act.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 11 million children in our 
Nation and their families, I rise in opposition to this ill-advised 
motion to recommit.
  Unbelievably, this motion would only reauthorize the children's 
health insurance program for only 1 year, only 1 year. So what we have 
here is the same Members of Congress who fought passionately to 
guarantee a permanent $220,000 tax break for people making over $1 
million a year are saying right now we should only guarantee health 
care for children from low-income working families for 1 year.
  What's fair about that? Think about it. Permanent tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 1 percent, but only a 1-year extension of health care for 
children of low-income working families. Is that the new face of 
passionate conservatism?
  If my Republican colleagues actually think for one moment that this 
proposal to cut millions of children short reflects American family 
values, it is clear proof just how out of touch they have become with 
the values and priorities of hard-working American families.
  Let me clear up one myth, the myth that this motion is somehow about 
keeping illegal immigrants from receiving SCHIP insurance. The truth is 
that under present law and in this reauthorization, illegal immigrants 
do not qualify for SCHIP benefits, period.
  This is nothing more than an overused, worn-out, divisive fear-driven 
tactic with no basis in fact. It's a transparent fig leaf to hide the 
real purpose of this motion, which is to take care of the powerful 
special interests who put their profits above the interest of 11 
million American children.
  We have a very clear choice before us right now. The motion to 
recommit continued the sound bite politics of the past, the politics of 
fear, and the politics of catering to powerful special interests. In 
contrast, we can vote for a new day, a new politics. We can vote to put 
the interests of the 11 million children and the families who love them 
above the special interest of the powerful insurance companies, who 
sometimes care more about their huge profits at taxpayers' expense and 
helping so many children.
  The choice is clear: Either vote for our children, 11 million of 
them, or vote to take care of a handful of well-heeled special 
interests who support this motion to recommit.
  This choice is about real people, people such as Jamie Jones. Listen 
to her words with me spoken 3 years ago after the Texas legislature had 
cut off CHIP insurance for her child.
  ``I am Jamie Jones. I am 28 years old.
  ``I live in Teague, Texas. I have a little girl that's three, Bailey.
  ``Two years ago in March, my husband was killed in a house fire. She 
was put on CHIPS, and I knew no matter what happened, she was going to 
be ok.
  ``And then about 6 months ago she was denied. I haven't changed, I 
haven't gotten a raise at work--she was just denied.
  ``There are so many people out there who work so hard. I do not want 
Welfare, I just want good insurance for my child.
  ``And I am working hard. Yeah, I could quit my job tomorrow and she 
would be set--but I am not going to do that.
  ``And there are a lot of people out there who are not going to do 
that. And why that group has to get hurt--I don't know.
  ``Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her why she is 
not good enough to be taken care of.''
  Tonight we have a chance to do something right and good. We can say 
to Jamie Jones and her little daughter Bailey that we value them and 
millions of other working Americans like them.
  By opposing this motion to recommit and by voting for this bill, we 
can turn the politics of the past into the politics of hope, hope for 
11 million American children. Let us at long last put the interest of 
our children above the politics of special interests. It is the right 
thing to do. The time is now. Our children are waiting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202, 
nays 226, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 786]

                               YEAS--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle

[[Page 22380]]


     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Johnson, Sam
     Sessions


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes are remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1929

  Ms. HOOLEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GOODE, GALLEGLY, FRELINGHUYSEN, JOHNSON of Illinois, and 
MARSHALL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 787]

                               YEAS--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert

[[Page 22381]]


     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Johnson, Sam


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1937

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________