[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 22484-22500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2272) to invest in innovation 
through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of 
the United States.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 602, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 1, 2007, at page 22294.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request, and also to thank him for his help on this bill we are 
going to be taking up.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to 
applaud the work of Chairman Gordon, the conferees and the staff for 
getting us to this historic place in time on behalf of this COMPETES 
Act, which will make a great difference in America's economy in the 
future.
  The issue of competitiveness has been at the top of our agenda since 
November 2005 when the House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker 
Pelosi, unveiled the Innovation Agenda.
  The Innovation Agenda, which was developed in consultation with the 
business community, is aimed at keeping America competitive in our ever 
growing global economy.
  In addition to the work by the Speaker, the Committee on Education 
and Labor focused the first hearings of this Congress on how to address 
the challenges posed by the middle class squeeze.
  Through the Innovation Agenda and through our hearings, a common 
denominator was the desire by the business community to engage in ways 
to create a more innovative workforce that is better prepared to enter 
the growing high tech industry.
  This conference bill meets this objective through partnerships that 
will engage the business community with higher education to create 
programs that will educate and train individuals to meet the industry's 
needs.
  Additionally, I am particularly pleased that the conference bill 
addresses another key goal of the Innovation Agenda, which is to ensure 
a highly qualified teacher is in every classroom.
  The new programs in the National Science Foundation and the 
Department of Education, modeled after the successful UTEACH and 
CalTEACH programs, will go a long way to better preparing teachers for 
the classroom.
  I am also pleased to see a true vision for education in this bill 
with programs that encourage math education, ensuring access to 
advanced placement/IB courses, and the creation of P-16 councils which 
will help states better understand where students start and where they 
need to go.
  Again, I applaud the work of the conferees. I look forward to 
continue working on securing funding for these valuable programs.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we have had differences of opinion, 
differences of policy and differences concerning procedure for the last 
couple of days. You have that at the end of a session before you go 
into a work period, and I am afraid we are going to have some more, and 
that is unfortunate. But we have an opportunity, at least for the next 
hour, to have a little window of civility, a little window to work 
together on a bill, a conference report that is bipartisan and 
bicameral. It is a competitiveness bill. It is a bill that is going to 
make America a better place for all of our kids and grandkids. I want 
to take just a little time to tell you about it.
  This bill is a compilation of five bills that we passed out of the 
Science Committee on a bipartisan basis that came to the House floor, 
none of which received more than 23 votes against them. Then we piled 
them all together as a suspension and it passed unanimously.
  Lamar Alexander in the Senate did yeoman's work by going to the 
Senators and getting 70 cosponsors. It passed in the Senate 88-8. Truly 
this is a bipartisan, bicameral bill.
  The reason is, it is a good bill that is going to help manufacturers 
and businesses, it is going to help workers, it is going to help 
teachers, it is going to help students, to be able to help America to 
be in the lead in the world in terms of manufacturing, research, 
technology and innovation.
  Again, I want to tell you how this bill came about. Three years ago, 
Sherry Boehlert, then the chairman of the Science Committee; Lamar 
Alexander, who was chairman of the Science Committee in the Senate; 
myself and Jeff Bingaman, we all asked the National Academies to do a 
report on the competitiveness of America in the 21st Century. It was a 
sobering report.
  Norm Augustine, the former chairman of Lockheed, Craig Barrett, the 
chairman of Intel, and several noted scholars and other business 
individuals came together and said America was on a losing track, which 
meant that my 6-year-old daughter, many of your children and 
grandchildren, these two children right here, could be the first 
generation of Americans to inherit a national standard of living less 
than their parents, a complete reversal of the American dream. That is 
why so many of us came together to try to do something.
  This is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. This 
simply is a compilation of the recommendations of the report ``Rising 
Above the Gathering Storm.''
  Let me tell you a little bit about this bill. It really composes 
three general areas.
  The first is they said we have got to lead the world in terms of our 
science and our research, our innovation. So this bill is an 
authorization that is going to double over the next 7 years the 
National Science Foundation, the

[[Page 22485]]

Office of Science and the Department of Energy, as well as the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology.
  Let me remind you, because I know there are some folks who are going 
to say this is going to be too much money. This is an authorization. My 
friend from Tennessee and the other appropriators will determine 
whether it is going to be too much. We will work together to make that 
determination. This is a responsible, I think, 7-year increase.
  Then they came back to us and they said that American manufacturers 
and American workers have to work at a higher skill level. There are 7 
billion people in the world right now, and half of them make less than 
$2 a day. We don't want to compete like that. We can't compete like 
that. So that means if they are making one widget in India or China, we 
have got to make 50 widgets here in America. And we need to be not only 
making the widgets, we need to be inventing the widget maker and 
manufacturing that widget maker here in this country.
  If we are going to do that, then whether you are a high school 
graduate, a junior college graduate, a college graduate, you have got 
to work at a higher level, which means you are going to have to have 
science and math skills.
  But the report tells us we are not doing very well in that area. As a 
matter of fact, right now, only Cyprus and South Africa have lower 
scores than we do in the science and math areas.

                              {time}  1630

  So what do we do about this? Well, they looked around and tried to 
figure out what the problem is. Are Americans just not as smart? No, 
that is not the problem. Do we need maybe smaller classrooms or more 
equipment? Those things would help. But the real problem is this, and 
listen to this: The fact is 67 percent of the teachers that teach in 
middle school in this country have neither a major nor a certification 
to teach math. And 87 percent of the physical science teachers in this 
country have neither a certification nor a major to teach those 
subjects. So it is very difficult to teach or inspire if you haven't 
had an opportunity to really understand those courses. This is not a 
slur to those good teachers. I want to give you a personal story.
  My father was a farmer. World War II comes along. He enlists, comes 
back, and he wants to be even a better farmer. So he takes advantage of 
the GI bill and goes to college at Middle Tennessee State University. 
He gets a degree in agriculture. Well, a few years later I come along 
and my mother had to give up her job. She was working at a high school 
cafeteria. So my father applied to be a teacher in addition to being a 
farmer. He was the last person hired to teach at Smyrna High School in 
my home county. So since he was the last person hired, you might 
imagine, he was assigned to teach high school science and to coach 
girls basketball. I am not sure which he knew the least about, which 
really wasn't fair to him or his students.
  And so we want to take care of those good smart people, those good 
smart teachers, and help them do a better job. So we are going to bring 
those kinds of teachers during the summer and, with stipends, allow 
them to get their certifications, hopefully AP, IB. Hopefully they will 
get a master's.
  We are also going to have a whole new corps of teachers. We want to 
provide competitive scholarships for 10,000 students a year that will 
go into math, science and education and agree to teach for 5 years. And 
5 years is important, because we find that half the teachers quit 
teaching in the first 5 years. We have to get them over that hump.
  Next they said, and this may sound familiar, they said that America 
needs to be energy independent. This was before we started talking 
about the price of oil going up. This was before that. They gave us a 
way to do that. They suggested we look at the Department of Defense, 
DARPA, for a model. There is something in the Department of Defense 
called DARPA. It is an advanced research operation that takes high 
risk, high rewards. It is where the Internet was discovered and 
developed, and it is where stealth technology was developed.
  They said this is a proven model. Take it over to the Department of 
Energy and set up a high-risk, high-reward agency there, but have very 
narrow management. Have a few employees and let them manage programs. 
Take the seven or eight most cutting-edge types of technologies, those 
that can really jump us ahead, and let's crash on them. Let's bring in 
the national labs, the private sector, the public sector and our 
universities, and let's make some real breakthroughs. Now, if one 
doesn't work, fine; pull the plug. But let's not be afraid to fail 
because we have to make these types of jumps in technology so we can 
have not only energy independence, but we will also have new jobs and 
new exports for America.
  That is what we did. We brought all of these things together, and 
that is why we have a bipartisan, bicameral bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the conference report on H.R. 
2272, the COMPETES Act. This legislation is based on President Bush's 
American Competitiveness Initiative and is aimed at improving our 
competitive edge throughout science, technology and engineering, math 
education, research and innovation. I supported this legislation when 
passed by a voice vote in the House 3 months ago because we needed to 
take the steps to ensure our future competitiveness.
  There are several good things in the conference agreement. I am 
pleased that H.R. 1868, the Technology Innovation and Manufacturing 
Stimulation Act of 2007, which I am an original cosponsor of, formed 
the basis of the NIST provisions in the House bill. In addition, the 
House bill includes language for manufacturing grant programs that have 
passed the House three times. Finally, our bill authorized the 
Technology Innovation Program.
  I wish to thank Chairman Gordon and thank Dr. Ehlers and Dr. Gingrey, 
who contributed their expertise to the NIST provisions.
  I would also like to mention the High Performance Computing Act 
language of Mrs. Biggert that is included in the House bill. I also 
thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his protection of the bill legally 
throughout the course. These excellent provisions have been retained in 
this conference report.
  In regard to NASA, the House bill contains important provisions to 
address the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, directing 
NASA to be a full participant in any interagency effort to promote 
innovation and competitiveness through basic scientific research and 
development and promotion of science, technology and engineering and 
mathematics education.
  While these and other programs move us in the right direction, I have 
serious concerns about other provisions in the conference report, and 
tried in committee and in conference to address these concerns. I had 
the honor of serving as a conferee and met informally with the two 
Senators and Chairman Bart Gordon in an effort to work out our 
differences.
  When we met with the entire conference committee on the Senate side, 
we were given only 1 hour to meet with the entire conference and come 
with the final agreement.
  Our concerns, unfortunately, were not addressed, and I, along with 
most of the House Republican conferees, did not sign the conference 
agreement.
  First and foremost was the cost. The House passed a $24 billion bill 
that roughly mirrored the President's ACI initiative and even increased 
the budget in many areas. However, the conference report goes way 
beyond that amount to authorize $43.3 billion in spending. That is 
close to $20 billion over the House-passed bill.
  Finally, I think the report includes the creation of an Advanced 
Research Projects Agency--Energy, called ARPA-E. I remain opposed to 
establishing an unnecessary bureaucracy at

[[Page 22486]]

DOE that the agency itself does not want and does not support. I share 
concerns with some of the Department of Energy education provisions. I 
believe new programs in this bill go way beyond where DOE and our 
national laboratories should be involved.
  At the end of the day, however, it is difficult for me on final 
passage to refuse to support a bill that contains many provisions good 
for my district, good for my State, and I think good for the Nation and 
that advances some of the President's American Competitiveness 
Initiative.
  I will support a motion to recommit, however, that contains the same 
provisions that I offered in a motion to instruct that passed the House 
just 2 days ago. I will reluctantly vote ``aye'' to pass this bill on 
to the President for his signature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my friend 
and ranking member for the work that he did in bringing this bill 
before us today. I also want to thank him on all of the good things 
that he said about this bill. It sounds like we almost got him.
  We did have a conference, and when you have a conference, you have to 
make compromises. This is probably not a perfect bill, but as Dr. 
Ehlers said earlier, he has never seen that perfect bill. But I will 
remind everyone that every Senator, Democrat and Republican, signed the 
conference report, and it was bipartisanly signed in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. I was pleased 
to have served on the conference committee that produced this 
conference report, and it is the result of a 6 months or more longer 
process that began on the House side with a series of bills in the 
Science and Technology Committee.
  I especially want to recognize the leadership of Chairman Gordon and 
Ranking Member Hall, and on the subcommittee which I chair, Dr. 
Gingrey, for their leadership and cooperation in producing this bill, 
and also the very hardworking staff who helped produce this bill. I 
frequently said that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to be on 
the Science Committee, but you need to be a rocket scientist to be on 
the Science Committee staff.
  These many bills were ultimately packaged into H.R. 2272, which 
reflect a bipartisan consensus in the House on the immediate actions 
and funding we need to keep American innovation strong.
  The conference agreement before us today preserves the key provisions 
of H.R. 2272 and lays the foundation for benefits that will be reaped 
by our children: good jobs, strong economic competitiveness, and a 
better quality of life.
  I want to talk specifically about title III of the conference 
agreement, which reauthorizes the activities of the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST's mission is to promote 
innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement 
science, standards and technology. The new technologies that are 
producing global winners in the 21st century, including nanotechnology, 
advanced manufacturing and information systems, rely on tools developed 
by NIST to measure, evaluate and standardize. These tools are enabling 
U.S. companies to innovate and remain competitive, which is why NIST's 
mission has never been more urgent than it is today.
  This conference agreement puts NIST's budget on a 10-year path to 
doubling as an investment in the future of American innovation. It 
substantially increases the NIST lab budget to enable it to expand its 
work in new technical areas, and it funds the completion of current 
laboratory construction projects in both Boulder and Gaithersburg.
  Title III also places the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, 
on a 10-year path to doubling. The MEP is a proven and highly 
successful public-private partnership that provides technical 
assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve their 
productivity and competitiveness. A fully funded MEP will go far to 
reinvigorate our manufacturing sector, which has lost almost 3 million 
jobs since 2001.
  Title III also responds to changes in global competition by 
establishing the new Technology Innovation Program, TIP, to replace the 
old Advanced Technology Program. TIP will help small, high-tech firms 
with big ideas cross the technologic valley of death by providing them 
with limited cost-shared funding to develop technologies that address 
critical national needs either alone or in joint ventures.
  If you support American jobs, maintaining our economic 
competitiveness and a high standard of living, you should support the 
conference report on H.R. 2272.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), a conferee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
conference report. While I applaud the overall goal of this legislation 
to ensure that America remains competitive in a global economy, 
particularly in the areas of math and science, research and education, 
several provisions included in the report remain of concern to me and 
should be of concern to the entire House.
  The conference report authorizes $43.3 billion over 3 years. I 
appreciate that the conferees were willing to compromise by bringing 
the overall funding closer to the House version, but this agreement 
remains $20 billion above the House-passed level.
  Members of this Chamber spoke in favor of the lower level of $24 
billion when the House overwhelmingly passed the motion to instruct 
earlier this week. How soon we forget.
  It is not fiscally responsible to pass a conference report that 
nearly doubles the House-passed authorization. We need to foster 
American science and mathematics innovation, but we shouldn't be 
breaking the bank to do so. I am afraid this bill will be another 
example of congressional over-promising and heightening expectations 
because the appropriators will never come close to funding these 
amounts.
  Roughly half of the spending authorization included in the 21st 
Century Competitiveness Act conference report is designated for the 
National Science Foundation.

                              {time}  1645

  When I was chairman of this committee, I fought to increase funding 
for the NSF because I recognized that this agency is the foundation for 
new advances in medicine and technology. When the House passed H.R. 
2272, we included language to double the NSF's budget over a 10-year 
period, a goal I support, thereby meeting the President's American 
Competitiveness Initiative's goal.
  But the conference report goes well above and beyond this initiative, 
adding billions of dollars to the bill's final price tag. Finding ways 
to save is never a fun task, but given that our Federal deficit is 
expanding by the minute, increasing the NSF budget well above double 
over 10 years is not in our Nation's best financial interests.
  If the economy is wrecked due to deficit spending and inability to 
manage the national debt, all of the good things that the sponsors of 
this legislation hope will come about will end up being ruined because 
the economy is not able to sustain what we propose here.
  I'm also disappointed to see that the grants promoting coal-to-
liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing research were not 
included in the conference report. Language passed by the House would 
have given priority to grants to expand domestic energy production 
through coal-to-liquids and nuclear reprocessing research. With energy 
prices in constant flux, now more than ever we must find ways to reduce 
our dependence on foreign energy and encourage energy production here 
at home, also a keystone to continued economic prosperity.
  A comprehensive, balanced energy policy is necessary to improve and 
sustain America's energy infrastructure.

[[Page 22487]]

It's regrettable that the conference report does not reflect this 
objective.
  For these reasons, I am opposed to this report. I will support the 
motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand my 
friend from Wisconsin's concerns. In the House, we did pass a 10-year 
doubling of the National Science Foundation. In the Senate, they passed 
an authorization for 5 years. Seven was a compromise, I think a 
reasonable compromise, and I remind everyone that we're in a pay-as-
you-go budget, and the appropriators know they have to pay for what 
they appropriate. So I think that was a good and fair compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley), a very valued member of the Science Committee.
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gordon for giving me a 
chance to speak on this important legislation. I applaud your 
leadership and that of your subcommittee Chairs on these issues and for 
the expediency by which this conference report was put together.
  America's greatest resource for innovation resides within our 
classrooms in Oregon and across this country. We must give our students 
more opportunities to be highly trained in math and science and 
technology so they can turn ideas into innovation.
  Too many of our family wage jobs go overseas and too many of our 
children are falling behind their international counterparts in math 
and science achievement. With this legislation, we've taken bold steps 
to increase America's global competitiveness and to ensure that we have 
a robust, world-class science and technology workforce here in America.
  The key to the United States maintaining its position at the 
forefront of global innovation and technology is to get more students 
interested in the science and math fields. This legislation does just 
that.
  I urge the passage of this conference report.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  We've heard a lot of discussion, pro and con, on this bill. It is a 
good bill. Now, it spends more money than I would like. It actually 
lists more money than we will ever spend. This is an authorization 
bill; it is not an appropriations bill. And I know from 14 years of 
trying to get the appropriators to spend more money on science research 
that they will not appropriate anywhere near the money that we are 
authorizing in this bill. So, please don't think because it's a bigger 
bill than we expected that it's actually going to result in those 
expenditures.
  Let me also comment about the investment aspect. I get tired of the 
word ``investment'' here. Everyone says we're going to invest money in 
this, we're going to invest in that, when actually we are just spending 
money. But this is a bill where we're clearly investing money, and 
there is a return on the investment in this money, because we are 
investing in research with a return on it.
  When I first came to the Congress I was commissioned by Chairman 
Sensenbrenner and by Speaker Gingrich to write a report on where we 
should be going in science in this country. I did so and I examined 
this investment issue. I tried to pin it down.
  There are lots of expert estimates on the return on investment on 
scientific research. The lowest figure I found was 25 percent annual 
return. The biggest number I found was 4,000 percent annual return. 
Take your pick between, but it's better than any other investment you 
can do. There is substantial return on science investment.
  Let me give you one example. Years ago, when I was a graduate 
student, a friend of mine, Charles Townes, now a Nobel Prize winner, 
developed a laser. We all knew the principles of it. We knew he would 
likely succeed at some point. He operated with government funding, 
through a research contract. I don't know the exact amount, but I doubt 
if it was a great deal more than $10 million in the dollars of that 
day. He did develop the laser.
  Today, the laser has created a 
multi-, multi-, multibillion dollar industry. The clothes you are 
wearing were cut out with lasers. Many of you have had laser surgery in 
hospitals or in doctors' offices. Every pipeline laid in this country 
is laid with directional laser beams. Every ceiling hung in this 
country and throughout the world is hung with the use of lasers.
  The first laser I had cost about $1,000. I used it for research in 
the lab. Today, for $15.00 I can buy an equivalent laser in the gift 
shop in the Longworth building to use as a pointer. All of that, this 
multibillions of dollars simply from a $10 million Federal grant. That 
is the type of return we're talking about here.
  This bill is a blueprint for the direction we want to go. We will by 
no means do all the projects in here. We will by no means invest all 
the money that is authorized here. Science is a progressive field. We 
will do the research. We'll find what pays off, and what doesn't pay 
off. This progressive process of science will allow us to efficiently 
allocate our resources as we determine the results.
  Now, there are some things in this bill I don't think are that good. 
ARPA-E receives a lot of mention. I don't know if it will work. It 
worked fantastically in the Defense Department when we did it there. 
Will it work here? We don't know. We'll find out. If not, we kill the 
project.
  We spent a lot of money here in the first years the Republicans took 
over this majority in doubling the investment in the National 
Institutes of Health. The amount of money we put into the National 
Institutes of Health alone during that period is greater than the total 
sum of money authorized in this bill. We put it in. It has paid off. 
Better health products, better analytical techniques to determine 
illness, to find cures. Very rarely, if you do the science carefully 
and it's peer-reviewed, very rarely do you find out that it is a bad 
investment.
  Another aspect, we are losing out to other nations in international 
competition. We are losing out in science and math education. We're 
losing out in innovation. We're losing out, obviously, in manufacturing 
because of outsourcing.
  If you look at the proof of that, simply examine the scores of our 
students in 12th grade classes in math and science in international 
tests across the entire world. Where do we come out? You've heard 
Chairman Gordon mention some of that a little while ago, but we are not 
proud of the results.
  In physics, we are last of the developed countries in our student 
scores in 12th grade physics. We are second from the last to all 
developed nations in the scores for mathematics in 12th grade. We are 
about fifth from the bottom in general science, just a composite of 
science subject. In the PITA studies which were completed recently in 
mathematics comparing students in developed nations, the United States 
was last out of 21 nations.
  We cannot compete in this world if we don't improve. We have to teach 
our students better. We have to train our teachers better. We have to 
train the teachers coming out of college so that they can teach in the 
high schools. We have to train the teachers who are already teaching, 
who from my experience I know want to teach better, but they have never 
been properly taught science and math or how to teach it. That again is 
part of this bill.
  America is based on competition. We are a competitive Nation. We 
survive on competition. We thrive on it. Give us a chance. Give our 
kids a chance by properly training them to be able to do the scientific 
research and the technical work that this world needs.
  We have to conquer this manufacturing problem we have now. We talk 
about jobs going overseas because there are cheaper wages. I have 
talked to manufacturers. I have a manufacturing district. That's not 
it. They're going overseas to get the talent, not to get the cheap 
salaries.
  With our cutback on H-1B visas, many of my manufacturers are being

[[Page 22488]]

forced to go abroad to get the work done. I don't like it. They don't 
like it. And if we do the job right, we will once again bring those 
jobs back to this country.
  Finally, I just want to mention the huge number of endorsements this 
bill has received. The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it and is 
scoring it. The National Association of Manufacturers has endorsed and 
is scoring it. And I've a list here and Chairman Gordon has also handed 
out a list of some 30 different scientific organizations supporting 
this bill.
  This is not a fly-by-night bill. It may be more expensive than we 
want, but we won't spend all the money, I can guarantee that, because 
the research will be thriftily done and through a progressive 
scientific method of handing the money out and doing the research step 
by step.
  This conference report represents the culmination of years of work by 
many people. Expert reports from the National Academies, Business 
Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers and Business Higher 
Education Forum--just to name a few--kept telling Congress that the 
federal government must increase its investment in basic research and 
in science and math education, and must ensure that the funds it 
invests are spent on programs that will keep the U.S. competitive in 
the global economy. These reports had an enormous impact on the White 
House's thinking about competitiveness, and resulted in the President's 
introduction of the ``American Competitiveness Initiative.'' Congress 
has responded to the recommendations about precisely what steps the 
government should take in the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 
before us.
  Beginning in 2006, the President's American Competitiveness 
Initiative (ACI), launched a three-pronged approach to competitiveness 
by strengthening research at the National Science Foundation, the 
Office of Science at the Department of Energy, and the laboratories and 
construction of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST). This bill fully supports the ACI-requested improvements as well 
as strengthens programs focused on teacher training and education in 
science, technology, engineering and math.
  The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007 also includes some new 
ideas, such as the establishment of a DARPA-like agency at the 
Department of Energy. While I have been skeptical of this idea, it did 
originate with the experts at the National Academies, and, if it is 
able to achieve its goals of overcoming some of the great technology 
hurdles needed to solve our energy problems, it would be revolutionary. 
The conference committee recommended $300 million to get this idea off 
the ground, a much lower amount than was originally proposed.
  Last but not least, the bill also addresses the long-term problems 
facing our nation's manufacturers by broadening and strengthening 
manufacturing extension services and reviving manufacturing innovation 
through collaborative research and development. Although manufacturing 
has experienced tremendous technological gains over the last few years, 
international competition has exacted a toll on our nation's 
manufacturers. There is no evidence that these pressures are likely to 
go away, but this bill takes steps to help our manufacturing workforce 
grow and innovate.
  It is clear that our nation is at a crossroads. The U.S. will either 
invest in innovation or witness the gradual erosion of our economic 
position and, quite possibly, the quality of life to which Americans 
have become accustomed. I recognize that many of my colleagues are 
concerned that this bill spends more than $40 billion dollars over the 
next three years. If there is ever an investment that will guarantee an 
economic return, this is it. To quote from the executive summary of the 
National Academy of Science (NAS) report, Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future:

       Having reviewed trends in the United States and abroad, the 
     committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and 
     technical building blocks of our economic leadership are 
     eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering 
     strength . . . [W]e are worried about the future prosperity 
     of the United States . . . We fear the abruptness with which 
     a lead in science and technology can be lost--and the 
     difficulty of recovering a lead once lost.

  Science and technology are the fundamental movers of our economy, and 
if we want to remain globally competitive, this bill is the sure fire 
way to guarantee results. The dividends paid by training scientists, 
engineers, and teachers will multiply throughout all sectors of our 
economy.
  I want to thank Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall for working 
on all of the bills that have become a part of the 21st Century 
Competitiveness Act. I hope my colleagues will support this investment 
in our nation's future.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I want to concur with the 
eloquent remarks of Mr. Ehlers. He's a great addition to our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, would you report on the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the vice 
chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Lipinski.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I'd first like to thank Chairman Gordon 
for all his work on this bill and also Ranking Member Hall.
  As vice chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, as an 
engineer, as a former professor, and just as an American who's 
concerned about our future, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 
2272.
  Today, America faces an enormous challenge. Two years ago, the 
National Academies warned us of a gathering storm that threatened our 
Nation in the 21st century. Their report told us that without immediate 
action the U.S. could lose its competitive technological edge in the 
world, meaning a dimmed future for our Nation. This bill will give us 
the jolt that we need to keep America in the lead, increasing our 
support for American researchers, scientists, engineers, educators and, 
most importantly, students, all of whom will turn their ideas into 
innovative new technologies which will advance our economy and ensure a 
brighter future for our Nation.
  Dr. Ehlers very eloquently talked about how important investment is 
and what a great investment this bill is. As a former educator and 
researcher, I understand the immense value of investing in our future 
but especially in our children's education.
  This bill provides $150 million for K-12 science, technology, 
engineering and math education, ensuring that American children won't 
be left behind as the world moves forward with new technology. These 
critical investments will create and equip thousands of new teachers 
and give current teachers the skills they need in order to be effective 
teachers of science and math.
  The Competitiveness Act also creates an Advanced Research Projects 
Agency for Energy, which will invest in high-risk, high-reward R&D to 
help us overcome the technological barriers in the development of new 
energy technologies. These revolutionary new technologies will play a 
major role in securing our national energy security and protecting our 
environment.
  And, finally, increasing NSF funding is a great advance and 
investment, and I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Dr. Gingrey, the 
gentleman from Georgia and a conferee.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was on the floor earlier today railing against the 
rule on this conference report, and I voted against the rule. The 
reason I did that is because I thought the rule and the bill, in fact, 
were rushed to the floor and didn't follow regular order. I thought it 
was appropriate that I voted against the rule.
  But I am here today to tell you that I am going to vote for this 
conference report.
  As a member of the Science Committee, and as a conferee, I am very 
proud of the work that has come through the Science Committee. I 
commend Chairman Gordon. I have been enjoyed being on the Science 
Committee. This is my second term serving on the Science Committee, 
first with Chairman Boehlert and now with Bart Gordon and serving with 
David Wu on the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. I think we do 
great work on the Science Committee.
  Now, I typically associate myself with the more conservative, 
fiscally

[[Page 22489]]

conservative members of the Republican conference. I know that some of 
my colleagues are going to vote against this conference report because 
they are concerned with the level of authorized spending, and they are 
maybe going to be a little surprised that I am voting in favor of it.
  My good friend back in Georgia, Joe McCutchen from Ellijay, Joe from 
Ellijay, I bet you Joe is watching right now cringing that I am going 
to vote for this bill that increases spending. It does authorize more 
spending than I am comfortable with, but I am very, very hopeful that 
when we get to the point of appropriating, I will be standing here 
asking, probably, for 1 or 2 percent cut in the amount of money that's 
appropriated, as I have done on most every spending bill that has been 
brought before the 110th Congress.
  But I think this is one of those situations where it's better that we 
spend a little too much than not quite enough, because we are at war in 
this country on an economic level. We are in an economic war.
  We are also in a shooting war, and we all know that. Every Member on 
both sides of aisle is committed to funding and supporting our troops, 
give them the equipment and what they need to win.
  Well, this is the same situation, the analogy is we need to give our 
soldiers, in this economic war, the equipment that they need to win. 
These soldiers are our students, particularly at the K-12 level. That's 
why it is important that we support this conference report.
  I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will understand that. 
I hope that I will not lose my brand as being a strong fiscal 
conservative.
  Now, it was mentioned earlier that there are some score cards going 
around, and I will do pretty well on some of them, and I will do rather 
poorly on others. But we can't always worry about score cards. Like I 
say, in this situation, you got both sides kind of tugging at you one 
way or another. You have to, in the final analysis, do the right thing.
  We have members on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, I 
think there are five Ph.D.s, Dr. Baird, Dr. Ehlers, Dr. Bartlett, Dr. 
McNerney, Professor Lipinski, Dr. Gingrey. I am not a Ph.D. I am as 
much a doctor of art as I am a scientist. This is some serious 
business, as has already been stated. It's important for us to 
understand that.
  We can remain to our fiscal conservative principles, but in a 
situation like this, let's give our kids a chance to compete so we can 
win this global war, this economic war we are in. I am going to support 
this conference report. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I thank my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 
for not only his support for this bill but his very active, passionate 
work on the Science Committee. He is a valued member.
  Also let me point out that I think the endorsements of this bill, by 
the National Chamber of Commerce, by the National Association of 
Manufacturers, by Business Roundtable indicate very well that this bill 
very much is in the economic scope.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a valued member of the Science 
Committee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me express my appreciation to 
Mr. Gordon and Mr. Hall, Dr. Gingrey, Dr. Ehlers and others who have 
been active on the other side and shown interest, not just recently, 
but over the years.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the Science and Technology 
Committee have held numerous hearings and markups to prepare the 
legislation that is before us today in the form of a conference report. 
Today this bill authorizes $33 billion over fiscal years 2008-2010.
  You know, I grew up with my father saying nothing is free, and you 
get what you pay for. If you invest, you will get a return, and that's 
just where we are. We are in need of stimulating our teachers and our 
students to specialize in these areas so that we can be competitive in 
the world.
  We have allowed ourselves to get behind, we are investing less than 
almost any other developed country, and we must step up to the plate 
now, the time has come. It will help to prepare thousands of new 
teachers and provide teachers with better materials and skills through 
our expanded Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and through the Math and 
Science Partnerships Program.
  In my district are the number one and number two public schools in 
the Nation, as Newsweek says. Texas Instruments has invested numerous 
dollars, thousands, in that school, and it is very good. We put out 
some of the best students in the Nation from our schools, but it only 
has about 20 to 25 percent of the students that need all of this. It is 
needed across the Nation. We are not going to get it until we provide 
for it. We will not get competitive until we do this.
  So I would say please support the conference committee for H.R. 2272. 
It only provides what we need, and we cannot get it for free.
  I know that we have spent a lot of money on this war, a lot more than 
they are asking for in here; but we have got to take care of this 
Nation.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11 minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, upon conclusion of this debate, I will be 
offering the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit will require the House conferees to adopt the 
House position, which was supported in a motion to instruct conferees 
on this floor only 2 days ago by a vote of 258-167, 69 of them being 
Democrats, including nine Science Committee Democrats.
  For fiscal conservatives, this would require the conferees to insist 
on the overall House authorization level, which is $20 billion less. 
For the second part of this motion, it would require the House 
conferees to again support the previously adopted House position with 
regard to giving priority grants to expand domestic energy production 
through the use of coal-to-liquid technology and advanced nuclear 
reprocessing.
  Again, this was the exact motion to recommit of 2 days ago.
  I have heard the debate of my friends: if we want to have a blueprint 
to where we want to go, we want to go for energy security. We are going 
to take up a bill on the House floor in a day or two that has no energy 
production. So how are we going to go advance science research, the 
next generation, if we don't have priority grants in nuclear 
reprocessing and coal-to-liquid technology?
  We heard the debate. We know that people want to go to coal-to-liquid 
technologies, but we don't know if it's going to work. We don't know if 
we can sequester. We don't know if we can refine it less than the 
barrel of crude oil. That's what this energy is for. Energy security.
  Let's get our best minds on this, but the conference report pulled it 
out. That's why I will offer the motion to recommit.
  Two things on coal-to-liquid, I could talk about nuclear reprocessing 
all day. It should be in this bill. But I want to focus on coal-to-
liquid technology, economic security, national security.
  Look what coal-to-liquid does, are 80,000 barrels, 1,000 new jobs, 
2,500 to 5,000 construction jobs, 15 million tons of coal per year, up 
to 500 coal mining jobs in one coal-to-liquid refinery.
  Talk about national security? Here's national security for you. Are 
you tired of our reliance on imported crude oil from the Middle East? 
If you are tired of it, then you go to coal-to-liquid technologies. You 
take our coal that's under our ground. You move it up to a refinery 
that's not on the gulf coast, that's in the Midwest, or wherever there 
are coal fields in this country, you refine it, you put it in our 
pipelines, and as this shows, you know where it goes? To our jet 
fighter planes, to our jet cargo planes.
  The Department of Defense is crying for us to provide jet fuel for 
them through this technology. But, no, we can't do it.

[[Page 22490]]

  Here you got a science bill, you want to give grants to help us move 
in the next generation, you pull out nuclear reprocessing, and you pull 
out coal-to-liquid technology. You are going to bring to the bill an 
energy bill with no energy. That's why I am moving this motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friend from 
Illinois that there is nothing, nothing in this bill that says that the 
Department of Energy, the Office of Science, or RPE cannot do research 
on coal-to-liquid. Nothing in this bill stops that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Science, Mr. Lampson from Texas.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Chairman Gordon, for your time and also for 
your great leadership on the Science Committee. All of us on the 
committee are doing great work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support the America COMPETES Act and to 
be a conferee on this important legislation. We are now showing that we 
are dedicated to investing in America's future.
  More specifically, we are investing in students and teachers and 
businesses and hardworking Americans to keep our great Nation the 
leader in the sciences. This bill, the product of hard work and 
bipartisan efforts, is inspired, some might say, by the National 
Academies' report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which raised 
the alarm that America could lose its competitive edge in sciences and 
academics unless we, the Congress, acted quickly.
  Well, we have acted, and this package of key bills addresses numerous 
areas, including stronger support for National Science Foundation and 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology, funding for more 
teachers in undergraduate education in science and engineering. 
Academics, industry and our economy all depend on strong Federal 
support.
  By authorizing billions for our research and education programs, 
technology, career and academic development programs, we ensure that 
America sets the gold standard in these various fields.
  I, of course, know the importance of this funding firsthand, having 
been a former teacher. My colleagues know how much of an advocate I am 
for NASA with the Johnson Space Center being in my district.
  I am proud to represent many of the Nation's best and brightest minds 
who continue to turn our dreams of further scientific knowledge and 
technological advancement into reality.
  It's not just talking about space travel. The energy industry plays a 
significant presence in my district, and the future of alternative 
fuels and higher fuel efficiency and stronger and more reliable 
infrastructure depends on training the energy experts of tomorrow.
  Well, the Texas Medical Center, also located in southeast Texas, is a 
leader in cutting-edge health care and technology and needs future 
health care providers who have a strong science background. Therefore, 
I know that the America COMPETES Act, by supporting both academics and 
science, will be a boon to southeast Texas for our Nation.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the minority leader, Mr. 
Boehner, for 1 minute.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding, and 
say to my colleagues, the issue of competitiveness is an important 
issue in America. We are competing with countries all over the world 
and, as a result, real competition brings out the best in all of us.
  When I look at the bill that we have before us, it really shows me 
everything that is wrong with Washington. This bill left the House with 
a $23 billion authorization. It comes back with a $43 billion 
authorization, creating 40 new programs.
  Now, these are well-intentioned programs. I am sure there are some 
very good things in this bill. But when you begin to think about 40 new 
programs that are being authorized, there is no spending available for 
these. We authorize all kinds of bills, but then we have to go find the 
money to pay for them.
  We know what the appropriations process is like, and I will just 
point out one tiny example. There are 208 math and science programs 
that are operated by 13 Federal agencies; 208 math and science 
programs, 13 different agencies. And guess what we do in this bill. We 
create five or six new ones.
  Now, I have been trying to get my arms around this for about the last 
5 years. Why can't we find a way to take these programs and the money 
that we are spending on them and try to do some coordinated approach 
that really will produce more math and science majors? That is not what 
we do. We just keep adding new programs. It happened last year. It is 
going to happen again this year.
  It just reminds me of the old adage: If you throw enough mud against 
the wall, some of it is sure to stick. In Washington, that adage has 
been turned around: If you throw enough money at the wall, some of it 
is bound to stick. But at the end of the day I don't think that is what 
the American taxpayers want us to do. I think they want us to do things 
that pass the straight-face test. And adding five more or six more math 
and science programs to the 208 that we have makes no sense to me at 
this time.
  If we are serious about competitiveness and serious about allowing 
our manufacturers and our companies, our software companies and others 
in our country to be able to compete, let's look at the regulatory 
burden that we put on our companies that doesn't exist around the 
world. We regulate things until it can't hardly breathe, and we wonder 
why our companies can't compete as well around the world.
  Why don't we talk about extending and making permanent the tax cuts, 
giving companies in America certainty about the reasons to invest in 
the American economy, reasons to invest in their own future? And if we 
were to make those tax cuts permanent, people would have some feeling 
and some certainty about what the tax regime is going to be in our 
country so that we can in fact allow them to put greater investment 
here.
  What about tort reform? Nowhere in the world do our companies get 
beat up by the courts and the trial lawyers and no place any more than 
here in America. If we want to be able to compete around the world, if 
we want to bring the cost of doing business down, why don't we do 
something about tort reform?
  Let's talk about expanding free trade and markets around the world. 
We have got three or four trade bills that are laying around here 
languishing for countries in Central and South America. Again, we want 
to be competitive, but why don't we help work with countries around the 
world to reduce those barriers so that we have more markets for our 
companies to go out and compete in?
  And, at the end of the day, if we are serious about being able to 
compete in a worldwide market, we have got to do something about 
educating our children. I think most of us that are here today know 
that we educate about half of America's kids. Maybe a little more than 
half get a high school diploma. Some of them can't read it. But the 
fact is that we have never been serious in this country about providing 
all of America's children a chance for a decent education.
  And that doesn't mean that Washington has to drive all of it. But we 
as a country, as a Nation, need to get serious about finding ways to 
give every person in this country a chance at a good education. Because 
if we educate more of America's kids, we will have more math teachers, 
we will have more scientists, we will have more engineers, we will have 
more teachers. But we can't do that if we don't get serious about 
improving our schools and making sure that all kids have a chance.
  This bill creates a lot of Washington bureaucracies and a lot of 
Washington bureaucrats, and the only thing competitive about this bill 
will be the competition for office space created by all the new 
bureaucrats that will be employed as a result of this bill.

[[Page 22491]]

  I know there are some good things in this bill, and I know my 
colleagues worked hard at it. But at the end of the day, this looks too 
much to me like Washington as usual and, as a result, I am unable to 
support this bill.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I know the minority leader is 
very sincere about his concerns here. I wish I had the time to address 
them one by one.
  Let me just quickly remind everyone that we look at this bill, the 
American Chamber of Commerce thinks it is a good investment, the 
National Association of Manufacturers thinks it is a good investment, 
the Business Roundtable thinks it is a good business. Virtually every 
business major in America thinks this is a good investment. All the 
universities and research agencies thinks it is a good investment. But 
there can be sincere differences of opinion.
  Mr. Speaker, could you report to me the time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes of those 
to my friend and colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Ms. 
Eshoo.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member, the 
chairman of the House Science and Space Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans of my generation and my parents' generation as 
well have always accepted it as an article of faith that the United 
States of America would lead the world in innovation, in ingenuity, and 
in invention. And, no matter what the challenge would be, that we as a 
Nation would rise to that test, we would meet the competition, and we 
would come out on top.
  It was true in the 1930s, when President Roosevelt responded to the 
concerns of scientists in our country about the Nazi government and 
what they might develop with the Manhattan Project. It was true in 
1961, when America awoke to the fact that a Soviet cosmonaut had been 
launched into space, and President Kennedy responded by saying as a 
Nation we have to commit ourselves to achieving the goal that, before 
the decade was out, that we would land a man on the moon and return him 
safely to Earth. And we did when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 
1969 and took a giant leap for mankind.
  We know that there is a gathering storm when it comes to innovation 
and competition for our country, and that is what this legislation 
directs itself to.
  We have to perform. We have to produce more scientists, more 
mathematicians, educate our children, invest in science, and research. 
That is what this bill is about.
  I have an optimistic view of America. I don't share the somewhat 
depressed view that the distinguished minority leader offered. We can, 
we have in the past, we will in the future. This legislation today 
helps to lay the groundwork for our sure economic footing so that the 
21st century is an American century.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him 
for his leadership. I know of no other Member who is kinder or wiser 
than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), and I appreciate that.
  I also appreciate the earlier comments of the gentleman from Georgia 
who sits beside me. I want to assure, Mr. Speaker, all the people of 
Georgia that he is one of the great leaders of fiscal conservativism in 
this body, and his fellow fiscal conservatives understand if he is 
wrong once a year.
  I somewhat reluctantly rise in opposition to this conference report. 
The goals contained within this conference report are very lofty goals. 
I know that many good things could be done with this money and that 
there are many good programs contained within it. But I have to ask a 
most inconvenient question, which I frequently find myself asking on 
this House floor: How are you going to pay for it?
  Mr. Speaker, we continue to run deficit, which means now, by 
definition, when you are running a deficit, the first money is coming 
from raiding the Social Security Trust Fund. Is this program worth 
that?
  I have Members coming to the floor to decry, well, we are borrowing 
money from China. Well, if you are floating T-bills and they are buying 
that debt, yes, then you are borrowing money from China. Is this worth 
borrowing money from China?
  We know within the budget resolution passed by the Democrat majority, 
it contains the single largest tax increase in American history, which, 
over the course of 5 years, can amount to a $3,000 per American family 
tax burden. Is that where we are going to take the money from?
  Mr. Speaker, there are already 10,000 Federal programs spread across 
600 agencies; and since I have been here for almost 5 years, we are 
adding them at an alarming rate, and I see very few go away. How are we 
going to pay for it?
  We are on the road right now to leave the next generation with a 
lower standard of living if we don't correct our spending ways. Let's 
get rid of some of the old programs before we add some new programs, no 
matter how worthy they may be.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report for the America COMPETES Act. I am pleased that the 
new Democratic majority in Congress is providing this new direction for 
our country.
  As an active member of the New Democratic Coalition, I support this 
bill that will help ensure our Nation's global economic competitiveness 
through investment in math, science, engineering, and technological 
education and a renewed commitment to basic research.
  As a former member of the House Committee on Science, I have worked 
for years working with the committee to get here. I want to thank them 
for this piece of legislation. I want to congratulate Chairman Bart 
Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall and the staff of the Science 
Committee for their hard work in producing this outstanding product.
  As a former State school chief now serving in Congress, I am pleased 
that this bill will invest in 25,000 new teachers through professional 
development, Summer Institute training, graduate education assistance, 
and NSF scholarships. The bill also broadens the participation of 
minorities and women in science and engineering fields at all levels 
from kindergarten to advanced researchers. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act.
  I am pleased that the new Democratic Majority in Congress is 
providing a new direction for our country. As an active Member of the 
New Democrats' Coalition, I support this bill that will help ensure our 
nation's global economic competitiveness through investment in math, 
science, engineering, and technology education and a renewed commitment 
to basic research.
  As a former Member of the House Committee on Science, I have worked 
for many years to pass legislation to encourage innovators and develop 
the most valuable workforce in the world. I want to congratulate 
Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member Ralph Hall and the staff of the 
Science Committee for their hard work in producing this outstanding 
product.
  As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I am 
pleased that this bill will invest in 25,000 new teachers through 
professional development, summer training institutes, graduate 
education assistance, and NSF scholarships. The bill also broadens the 
participation of minorities and women in science and engineering fields 
at all levels from kindergarten students to advanced researchers.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the authors of this legislation for their 
success on this fine product, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting to pass it.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. I yield Zach Wamp, the gentleman from Tennessee, 2 
minutes.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, 
and I thank the leadership from Tennessee

[[Page 22492]]

for the role they played in formulating this bill. The chairman of the 
Science Committee, Mr. Gordon, and Senator Lamar Alexander listened.
  If being fiscally conservative means turning a deaf ear to the 
leaders of our extraordinary free enterprise system, like the Augustine 
participants who recommended these solutions, then we are being penny 
wise and pound foolish as fiscal conservatives. If we do not invest, 
you will not balance the budget again.
  I was here in 1995 when the budget wasn't balanced, and then it 
became balanced. Not by cutting spending but by rightly slowing the 
growth of spending and restraining government spending. But we balanced 
the budget with a dynamic growth economy.
  The chairman of the Science Committee pointed out that the Internet 
itself came out of a DARPA investment through programs like this, and 
it was telecommunications that gave the United States this dynamic 
global economy where revenues soared. If we want to lead the world in 
energy technologies, you had better invest now.
  This is not a social program transferring wealth from one to the 
other. This is an investment in the next generation. This reaps the 
highest return of investments we make in the Federal Government, and 
this is an authorization. I am an appropriator. We might not be able to 
appropriate all this money, but the authorization allows us to try 
every year as the priorities come to the committee.
  What is important? Is it important to invest in the next generation? 
You bet it is. Are we falling behind? You bet we are. Are we going to 
do something about it? We had better. And you can't vote ``no'' all the 
time. All year, I have come down here at the committee and on the floor 
and voted to restrain spending or even cut spending. Not now. Not on 
this. It is too important. This is a generational legacy.
  I am proud of what we are doing in our national laboratories, and we 
need to stoke that fire and allow this country to be all that it can 
be.
  Vote ``yes'' on this conference report in a bipartisan way and say to 
the next generation we are going to lead the world.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I say to my friend from Tennessee, ``Well 
said.''
  And now I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the great Speaker of the 
House of Representatives (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What an exciting day for the Congress. Some of you are too young to 
know this, but you have read about it in the history books. Mr. Hall 
and I remember when President Kennedy came forward and said that he was 
going to inaugurate a program that would send a man to the moon and 
back, safely, within 10 years.
  Now, for those of you who weren't born yet, you have read about it in 
history, you have to know that sending a man to the moon as an idea was 
such an impossibility. It would be almost like a magician cutting 
somebody in half and then putting them together again.

                              {time}  1730

  How could this possibly happen, that somebody would go into the sky, 
to the moon and come back?
  At the time that he did that, it was a remarkable lift to the 
American people because it had followed upon Sputnik, as many of you 
know or have read in the history books and some of us remember. When he 
did that, President Kennedy made the following statement. He said, 
``The vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we are first, and 
therefore, we intend to be first. Our leadership in science and in 
industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to 
ourselves as well as others all require us to make this effort,'' 
hearkening back to our Founders, those magnificent, courageous, 
optimistic, confident people, and President Kennedy referenced our vows 
to their great work.
  This is our innovation agenda which is reflected in the legislation 
before us today. In answering President Kennedy's call, at that time, 
to put a man on the Moon, America unleashed unprecedented technological 
advances that built the world's most vibrant economy. The talent, 
intellect and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people that made 
this country the leader is being seriously challenged today by other 
countries. Americans must continue to innovate in order to create new, 
thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at 
home and a better future for the next generation.
  The distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee 
and the distinguished ranking member, in bringing this bill to the 
floor today, are giving us our opportunity at our time to meet the 
challenge for the future. Today Congress has the opportunity to make a 
decision for the future.
  Nearly 2 years ago, House Democrats created our innovation agenda in 
a very bipartisan way, which guarantees our national security and our 
economic prosperity, expands markets for American products, and asserts 
our leadership throughout the world in the decades to come. Already 
this year the New Direction Congress has led the way in promoting 
innovation and investments in education, science, research and 
development.
  Today, with the COMPETES Act, we have bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation that implements much of the innovation agenda. Again, I 
want to recognize the extraordinary leadership of Chairman Bart Gordon 
and the Science and Technology Committee and the ranking member for 
their leadership on this conference report. Chairman Gordon has 
energized this committee, ensuring that our Nation will continue to be 
the world leader in education, innovation and economic growth.
  The COMPETES Act focuses on four key areas, as has been referenced: 
education, research and development, energy independence, and small 
business.
  In education, the COMPETES Act recognized that America's greatest 
resources for innovation are in the classrooms across this country. 
This legislation invests in creating the most highly qualified teachers 
and training the next generations of scientists, mathematicians and 
engineers through public-private partnerships. This bill also takes 
steps to ensure that future innovators reflect the diversity of our 
country.
  What I love about this bill and this legislation is that it's market-
oriented, public-private entrepreneurial partnerships to keep us number 
one.
  We know that innovation begins in the classroom and that scientific 
research provides the foundation for innovation and future 
technologies. The COMPETES Act makes a sustained commitment to research 
and development by putting us on a path to doubling funding for the 
National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Standards 
and Technology and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
  I heard Congressman Wamp with great enthusiasm talk about the ARPA--
Energy. I'm excited about it as well. To help achieve energy 
independence, the COMPETES Act focuses on energy research and 
innovation by creating a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for 
Energy, ARPA-E.
  Mr. Chairman, I know your enthusiasm for that issue for a long time, 
and congratulations on bringing it to fulfillment here. This initiative 
will provide talent and resources for high-risk, high-reward energy 
research and technology development and attract investment for the next 
generation of revolutionary technologies.
  And finally, the COMPETES Act recognizes that small businesses are 
often the catalyst for technological innovation and the backbone of the 
strong economy. It puts us on a path to doubling the funding for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and creates a new initiative, the 
Technology Innovation Program, to support high-risk, high-reward, pre-
competitive technology for small and medium-sized companies.
  Because this bill is a decision in favor of future jobs and future 
economic strength, it's earned the endorsement of the Chamber of 
Commerce, many university presidents,

[[Page 22493]]

ITI, TechNet, and the National Association of Manufacturers, among 
others.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. 
And before I close, I want to acknowledge the great leadership of 
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman 
George Miller, who is the Chair of our Policy Committee, for the work 
they did bringing people together, Democrats and Republicans, 
entrepreneurs, high tech, biotech, academics, people in the work force, 
students, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, all to come to bear, all 
over the country. Meetings were held all over the country to put 
together the innovation agenda which is reflected in this legislation. 
Mr. Baird had an event in Washington State. As I look around, I could 
name so many Members who had events in their States. In doing so today, 
in passing this bill, we will assert our global economic leadership, 
create new business ventures and jobs, and give future generations the 
opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
  I began my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by quoting President Kennedy, who 
was an inspiration to so many of us of a certain generation who are 
active in public service today.
  He hearkened back to our Founders and our vows to our Nation, and I 
want to hearken back to that place too, because our Founders were among 
the earliest American entrepreneurs. They were magnificent disrupters. 
They thought new and fresh and different ways. They came together. 
Imagine the confidence. They came together, declared their independence 
from the greatest naval power in existence at the time, did so in a 
declaration that asserted the equality of all people, and then went 
forward to win the Revolutionary War, write a Constitution that made us 
the freest people in the world. Thank heavens they made it amendable so 
that we could even become freer. And when they did so, they designed 
the Great Seal of the United States. And on it, it's in your pocket. 
You're carrying it around if you don't know it. It's on the dollar 
bill. And on that great seal it says, ``Novus Ordo Seclorum.''
  These people, with all that revolutionary spirit, with all that 
disruption of the status quo, had so much confidence in what they were 
doing, so much faith in themselves, faith in this country to be and 
faith in God that they said that what they were establishing was for 
the centuries, for the ages, ``seclorum.'' Those of you who know Latin 
know that that means ``forever.'' And it was that optimism, that 
confidence that built America. And it is in that spirit of disruption, 
of change, of doing something different, of having a big goal of 
aspiring to greatness, that we, as President Kennedy said, do honor the 
vows of our Nation. And this legislation is very much in their pioneer 
and entrepreneurial spirit.
  I thank you again, Chairman Gordon, for your tremendous leadership.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to thank the 
Speaker. I thank Bart Gordon, the very capable Dr. Baird, who has given 
good advice and good leadership.
  I want to especially, though, point out the work of a highly talented 
and dedicated staffer who will be leaving the committee next week to 
join the ranks in the Senate. Amy Carroll, we thank you for your hard 
work and dedication as a public servant for our Nation.
  Also want to thank Dr. Lesslee Gilbert; our counsel, Margaret 
Caravelli; Attorney Katy Crooks; Mele Williams for her good work; Ed 
Feddeman; Elizabeth Stack, our energy advisor. And as has been pointed 
out by Dr. Gingrey and by Dr. Ehlers, this is an authorization, and 
this culminates a work of a program that started 3 years ago, and it's 
a good program.
  I thank Representative Hensarling for his warning and his admonition, 
his pointing out the cost, and of course, the minority leader's 
position, I respect that.
  But I would say this, that we fought the soaring cost at every 
hedgerow. We fought the new agency created within DOD against their 
wishes as best we could. We took a position, as we all met together for 
the conference committee. And at the end of the day, I have to say that 
this is a good program for a deserving generation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a new but 
valued member of our committee, Mr. McNerney from California.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
for his diligent work in passing the conference report on the America 
COMPETES Act. This is an important day for the Congress, it's important 
for the educators, and it's important for the students across this 
great land.
  When the National Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering 
Storm,'' was presented to Congress, it painted a sobering picture of 
how dependent America's economy is on an educated public and how easily 
we could fall behind the rest of the world. Thankfully, the report also 
provides specific recommendations on how to increase educational 
achievement, which is the backbone of our economy.
  As a mathematician and an engineer, I understand clearly the 
advantage of having a STEM education. This COMPETES Act will spur the 
creation of high-quality jobs and ensure that American companies won't 
have to look overseas for talented employees.
  Again, I thank the chairman. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to one of our 
very able subcommittee chairmen, Mr. Baird.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Subcommittee on Research and 
Education, as a scientist, as an educator, and perhaps most importantly 
of all, as a parent, I commend this legislation. I'm very proud to 
support it fervently.
  I want to focus in particular on some of the sections of the bill 
that we authored along with my dear friend, Dr. Ehlers, on the Science 
Committee. I especially want to commend Ranking Member Hall and Mr. 
Gordon for his great leadership.
  Title VII of this bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation 
and is based on legislation authored by Mr. Ehlers and myself. This 
title includes some very exciting provisions. It helps ensure the 
strength and vitality of basic research at U.S. colleges. It 
strengthens and expands K-12 science, technology and math education. It 
provides additional support for new investigators to help keep the best 
and brightest in the STEM pipeline. It strengthens STEM programs for 2-
year institutions. It focuses attention on interdisciplinary research, 
and to stretch our Federal dollars, it encourages university and 
industry partnerships to make every dollar go further. It expands the 
range of state-of-the-art research tools supported by the foundations. 
It requires NSF grantees to train their students in responsible and 
ethical conduct. It specifically recognizes the importance of social 
science to our Nation's security and competitiveness. And it 
acknowledges the increasing importance of service science to our 
Nation's competitiveness.
  Finally, it includes needed improvements to planning and coordination 
for the major Federal interagency research program in information 
technology.

                              {time}  1745

  I am grateful to all the committee members and to our staff: Chuck 
Atkins, Jim Wilson; Dahlia Sokolov; Alisa Ferguson; Lewis Finkel; 
Hilary Cain on my own staff; and soon to depart but with much 
gratitude, Marc Korman on my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation was founded by scientists. We don't talk 
about that often enough. But Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were 
passionate about science. They would be proud of what we are doing 
today.
  In the Dome of this magnificent Capitol, if you look up and see the 
great picture of the Apotheosis of Washington, he is surrounded by 
images in many cases representing the science

[[Page 22494]]

and engineering achievements of this great Nation.
  For the sake of our future, for the sake of our children, for the 
sake of our economy and our security, pass this good bill.
  I commend all those who participated in making it a success.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Gordon, Chairman 
Baird, and all of my staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hall earlier in the 
presentation said that he was going to have a motion to recommit on 
coal to liquid. Let me just remind all of my colleagues there is not 
one word, not one single word, in this bill that would stop any 
investment, any research in coal to liquid.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you to the Democratic and 
Republican Members that attended all those meetings where we could 
develop this good bill. I want to say thank you to subcommittee 
Chairmen Baird, Lampson, Udall, and Wu; Ranking Members Ehlers, Inglis, 
Feeney, and Gingrey for their effort in putting this bill together.
  Let me also say we have 70 Democratic and Republican staff members 
that have worked on this bill, and that is basically what we have been 
doing for the last few months. I would like to thank every one of them 
personally, but there is not going to be the time. So let me just say 
thanks to Chuck Atkins, our chief of Staff; Leslie Gilbert; and Mr. 
Hall's chief of staff for all the work they have put together. I hope 
that the staff's thank you is seeing this bill enacted, seeing the good 
work that is going to come from this, knowing that their kids and 
grandkids are going to live in a better America. I don't know a better 
thank you.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker I reluctantly rise today in opposition to 
the America COMPETES Act of 2007, H.R. 2272. I am a firm supporter of 
education and innovation in the fields of science, technology, 
engineering and math. Unfortunately, I cannot endorse a bill that 
creates 40 new programs and spends tens of billions of dollars.
  I devote a great amount of my time working on manufacturing issues. 
The congressional district I represent has over 2,500 industries. 
Manufacturing has several components, one of which is getting workers 
with adequate skills to be machinists, plus having an adequate supply 
of engineers and others involved in that aspect of manufacturing. At 
present I am involved in trying to solve workforce problems, which in 
turn, in many cases, depend upon people who have a good understanding 
of science, tech, engineering and math. I am a member of the Council on 
Competitiveness, a co-chair of the Manufacturing Caucus, and Chairman 
of the Republican Policy Committee Task Force on Manufacturing. As 
previous Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I held 
countless hearings on competitiveness. I travel this country and 
overseas studying machine tools, manufacturing efficiencies, global 
supply chains, manufacturing financing, IP protection, export controls, 
etc. I've also lectured extensively on America's need to be globally 
competitive.
  In a good faith effort by both parties to make America more 
competitive, I believe we may be sliding a slope very few realize even 
exists. For example, this bill forgives student loans for individuals 
who teach math and science. While this is a noble idea, this sets the 
precedent for other vocations to receive loan forgiveness. When will we 
draw the line? Will we forgive loans for firefighters, policemen, 
Federal Government employees, doctors, and lawyers? Who decides which 
profession deserves preferential treatment? Extending the years of loan 
payment or perhaps reducing interest rates on critical professions in 
underserved areas may be a consideration, but loan forgiveness can put 
us on the road to ``free'' federal education for everybody. The price 
tag is unimaginable.
  Furthermore, today's bill is a composite of five different bills 
which have already passed the House. Attaching these bills together is 
not prudent legislation because it forces a Member of Congress to vote 
for or against the entire package even though he may have been in favor 
of a more modest approach. For example, I voted in favor of the 
authorizations for the National Science Foundation (H.R. 1867) and the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology (H.R. 1868)--two 
agencies whose missions are vital to America's competitiveness. In 
addition, a third bill, H.R. 1068, updating research goals of the 
National High-Performance Computing Program, is also worthy and 
actually passed on a voice vote. However, these three bills were 
combined with: H.R. 362, 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and 
Math Scholarship Act and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and 
Engineering Research Act. These two latter bills forced me to 
reluctantly vote against the whole package--especially since this 
combined bill contains $20.3 billion more than the five original bills 
and creates forty new science, tech, engineering and math (STEM) 
programs. I find this to be particularly wasteful when considering the 
fact that scores of current programs have not been found to be 
effective as evidenced in three separate studies by the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), the US Department of Education (DOE), and 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
  The GAO in October, 2005, issued a report stating that in fiscal year 
2004 there were over 207 different science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) programs spending approximately $2.8 billion 
annually spread throughout 13 agencies. Only half of the programs have 
been internally evaluated, with the reporting agencies stating the 
programs were effective and met established goals of attracting more 
students to study STEM courses, but, GAO added, ``some programs that 
have not been evaluated have operated for many years.'' These agencies 
made suggestions to GAO, but GAO concluded that before adopting any 
suggestions ``it is important to know the extent to which existing STEM 
education programs are appropriately targeted'' so as to make the best 
use of available federal resources. The purpose of GAO is to determine 
whether taxpayers' money is being spent wisely. GAO's language 
indicates there is no basis to make that conclusion because too many 
programs simply have never been evaluated for efficiency.
  The second study--a Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council 
conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in May of 2007--showed 
115 evaluations were submitted for 105 STEM programs and only ten 
evaluations were found to be ``scientifically rigorous.'' The report 
went on to say that, ``[b]ased on the 115 evaluations, the ACC's review 
that despite decades of significant federal investment in science and 
math education, there is a general dearth of evidence of effective 
practices and activities in STEM education (emphasis original).''
  The third study was conducted by the OMB through a Program Assessment 
Rating Tool (PART) Analysis of 88 programs within the Department of 
Education and only four were proven to be effective. Among those 
programs whose results were not demonstrated was the Department of 
Education Mathematics and Science Partnership program. This program 
provides grants to state and local education agencies to improve 
student's academic achievement in math and sciences. The program was 
not found to be well managed, and it did not establish performance 
measures.
  On the basis of the information provided by GAO, DOE, and OMB, I am 
surprised that we are considering the creation of 40 additional STEM 
programs. We should be evaluating and consolidating all existing STEM 
programs, and save money at the same time. Instead, the House of 
Representatives is adding more programs and spending tens of billions 
more.
  While I continue to remain a firm supporter of U.S. industry and 
competitiveness, I believe that there are better ways to accomplish 
this than spending billions of dollars on new and unproven programs 
while hundreds of programs continue with little or no accountability. 
That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Motion to 
Recommit, which still spends too much money, but as opposed to the 
combined bill reduces the overall spending of the combined bill by 
$20.3 billion.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns 
about the final conference report on H.R. 2272.
  There are many good provision in the bill, and as a medical doctor, I 
share the goal of increasing participation in math and science 
education and in fostering research in these critical areas. In 
particular, I applaud funding for the National Science Foundation.
  However, I am concerned about the level of increase that is in this 
bill for the National Science Foundation--amounting to a 12 percent 
increase in each of the next 4 years. The NSF bill that the House 
approved earlier this year, and which I voted for, provided about an 8 
percent annual increase for NSF. I was concerned over the fact that 
because NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) compete for the same pot of money, increasing NSF by more than 
this amount might cause problems for our national space program. Now 
that the bill has come back from the Senate and the House-Senate

[[Page 22495]]

Conference Committee with a 13 percent annual increase for NSF each 
year through 2011, I am very concerned about the threat this poses to 
our human space flight program.
  While this bill says that it is the sense of the Congress that NASA 
should be funded at the 2005 authorization level in FY08, the Democrat 
Majority could not even accomplish this goal for FY07 when the new 
Democrat leadership cut over a half a billion dollars for the space 
exploration account and funded NASA at only $16.2 billion--$1.7 billion 
below the authorized level. In addition, the House-passed Commerce 
State Justice Appropriations Bill for FY 2008 actually funded NASA at 
$17.6 billion--$1.2 billion below the authorized level. So, while H.R. 
2272 includes nice rhetoric about fully funding NASA, the authors of 
H.R. 2272 know that such rhetoric is empty.
  Additionally, I am concerned that the bill creates 40 new federal 
programs, 20 more than were in the House-passed version. Many of these 
new programs are duplicative of over 200 existing federal science, 
technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs and will siphon money 
away from research in order to fund bloated bureaucracies.
  My belief is that there is no program that inspires interest and 
study in math and the sciences like our nation's space program. So 
recognition of this fact should follow with adequate and fair funding 
levels. This bill jeopardizes that and, unfortunately, I cannot support 
it.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on the ``Water Resources Development Act of 2007,'' 
and in particular Section 1001, which authorizes approximately $712 
million for the Craney Island Eastward Expansion in Norfolk Harbor at a 
Federal cost share of 50 percent, or approximately $356 million. The 
Virginia Port Authority's Eastward Expansion is a project of national 
significance and is vital to the efficient movement of goods for our 
country.
  At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of those 
individuals whose strong commitment and tireless efforts made Section 
1001 possible. First and foremost, I would like to recognize my 
distinguished leader of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Ranking Member John Mica for once again delivering on 
his promise to support the needs of his Committee members on issues of 
importance to them and their districts; also, Congressman Richard 
Baker, Ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, for his leadership and legislative expertise without which 
WRDA would have once again gone unauthorized; and Senator John Warner, 
Craney Island's champion and the Commonwealth of Virginia's leader in 
the Senate; for his steadfast dedication to seeing this vision to 
fruition.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to two other 
individuals, not Members of Congress, but without whom we would not be 
here today. As Governor of Virginia and then Senator, George Allen 
always supported the expansion of Craney Island, recognizing its impact 
not only on the Commonwealth but the Nation. Robert ``Bobby'' Bray, who 
retired this year after 29 years as Executive Director of the Virginia 
Port Authority, always saw the Craney Island Eastward Expansion not 
only as a major port development project but also as an opportunity to 
enhance the quality of life for all Americans. To these and countless 
others, on behalf of the 2nd District of Virginia, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, and our Nation, I extend my sincere gratitude.
  The Eastward Expansion of Craney Island is truly a matter of national 
significance. When complete, this landmark project will provide 
capacity for additional material dredged to maintain navigability of 
the region's shipping channels in addition to providing land on which 
to build a much-needed fourth marine terminal in Hampton Roads.
  In 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution that 
directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a study of Craney 
Island. The study has been completed and the Eastward Expansion of 
Craney Island was recommended as the best alternative. Initially, the 
project costs considered for Federal participation comprised only the 
design and construction of the dredged material placement site, known 
as the Eastward Expansion. At that time, the Federal cost share for the 
project was identified as approximately 4 percent, and the Virginia 
Port Authority share as approximately 96 percent. It is important to 
note that the cost of the marine terminal construction (approximately 
$1.6 billion) will be solely the responsibility of the Virginia Port 
Authority.
  Because the Corps had been constrained by policies that did not take 
into account the unique dual nature of the Craney Island Project, the 
initial plan formulation and cost share were determined based only on 
the Federal interest in the least cost for dredge material placement 
only part of the authorization to conduct the study. This method of 
determining the cost share did not take into account the substantial 
National transportation savings benefits associated with the port 
construction on the Eastward Expansion of Craney Island, which is the 
second part of the study authorization.
  This Craney Island Marine Terminal will provide national economic 
development benefits of nearly $6 billion in transportation savings. 
The Port of Virginia is a major international gateway to the Midwest. 
In fact, more than 55 percent of the cargo handled by the Port 
originates in or is destined for locations outside the Commonwealth. 
More than 3,000 companies outside Virginia use the Port because of the 
cost-effective and reliable movement of freight to and from the Port of 
Virginia.
  Container traffic in Hampton Roads is projected to triple by 2030 and 
will exceed the Port's capacity by 2011. Without the additional 
capacity created by a new marine terminal at Craney Island, cargo that 
would otherwise use the Port of Virginia will be rerouted to other 
ports, resulting in freight moving over longer distances at a higher 
cost. This increase will generate a total of $6 billion in additional 
transportation costs when applied to the amount of cargo that would be 
rerouted to other ports over a 50-year period.
  However, with a new marine terminal at Craney Island, this additional 
$6 billion cost is avoided and becomes an origin-to-destination cost 
savings to the Nation in terms of maintaining the efficient, low-cost 
transportation afforded through the Port of Virginia.
  The Eastward Expansion of Craney Island also meets National Defense 
needs. The ability of the United States to respond to military 
contingencies requires the availability of adequate U.S. commercial 
port facilities. The Port of Virginia is one of 14 port facilities 
designated by the Department of Defense as a strategic port through 
which military deployments are conducted. The Port of Virginia is 
expected to be able to make its facilities available to the military 
within 48 hours of written notification. When complete, the Craney 
Island project will provide additional capacity to meet military 
logistical needs and ensure the safe, secure, and smooth flow of 
military cargo through the Port of Virginia while minimizing commercial 
cargo disruptions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Virginia Port Authority has been working for many 
years in partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a 
plan for the Eastward Expansion of Craney Island. By authorizing the 
Federal cost share at 50 percent, the WRDA Conference Report 
acknowledges the importance of expanding Craney Island to both Hampton 
Roads and to the entire Nation. I am grateful the Congress has 
supported this endeavor. And, I look forward to seeing the same support 
from the President.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  I am pleased that the new Democratic Majority in Congress is 
providing a new direction for our country through common sense 
legislation. As an active Member of the New Democrats' Coalition, I 
support this bill that will help ensure our nation's global economic 
competitiveness through investment in math, science, engineering, and 
technology education and a renewed commitment to basic research.
  The conference report on H.R. 2272 is a bipartisan measure to 
implement an Innovation Agenda boldly responds to the global economic 
challenges identified in the 2005 National Academy of Science report, 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' As a former member of the House 
Committee on Science, I have worked for many years to pass legislation 
to encourage innovators and develop the most valuable workforce in the 
world. I want to congratulate Chairman Bart Gordon and Ranking Member 
Ralph Hall and the staff of the Science Committee for their hard work 
in producing this outstanding product.
  As the only former state schools chief serving in Congress, I am 
pleased that this bill will invest in 25,000 new teachers through 
professional development, summer training institutes, graduate 
education assistance, and National Science Foundation scholarships. It 
ensures more highly qualified teachers in the classroom, in the fields 
of mathematics, science, engineering, technology and critical foreign 
languages.
  H.R. 2272 establishes a public-private partnership with the business 
community and institutions of higher education to develop efforts to 
educate and train mathematicians, scientists and engineers to meet the 
workforce demands of the business community. The bill expands access to 
Advanced Placement and

[[Page 22496]]

International Baccalaureate classes and increases the number of 
qualified AP/IB teachers. The conference report enhances the ability of 
states to build more competitive workforces to meet the challenges of 
recruiting and retaining students in innovative fields.
  The bill also broadens the participation of minorities and women in 
science and engineering fields at all levels from kindergarten students 
to advanced researchers. The bill focuses on small business innovation 
by doubling funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and 
creates a new Technology Innovation Program for small and medium-sized 
companies. Finally, this legislation creates a ground-breaking 
initiative, the Advanced Research Projects for Energy (ARPA-E), modeled 
after DARPA that has brought us such innovations as the Internet, to 
provide talent and resources for high-risk, high-reward energy and 
research and technology development, and to help attract investment for 
the next generation of revolutionary technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the authors of this legislation for their 
success on this fine product, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting to pass it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, the National Academies released 
a report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Its authors, a team of 
scientists, academic leaders, and business executives, gave Congress a 
strong warning--unless we take comprehensive action, America will lose 
its competitive edge in the world economy.
  Today, I am proud to join my colleagues in a bipartisan effort to 
respond to that call to action with the 21st Century Competitiveness 
Act. This bill addresses this century's challenges with new investments 
in education, research, and small businesses. It is a comprehensive way 
to ensure that America remains at the forefront of discovery and 
innovation.
  We recognize the need to foster student potential and encourage them 
to enter the fields of science, math, technology and engineering. This 
bill invests in 25,000 new teachers, helping them pay for school and 
training them to enter our nation's classrooms and engage students in 
math and science. It increases the number of teachers who can teach 
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes and push our 
students to work with more challenging curricula. It puts new science 
and math teachers in high-needs schools so we can reach more students. 
And it establishes public-private partnerships so business and 
community leaders can identify high-needs fields and help students 
pursue innovative careers.
  We recognize the need to push the boundaries of current research, 
explore new ideas, and foster innovation. This bill puts us on a path 
to double funding for our research institutions--the National Science 
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science. Our scientists at these 
institutions are engaged in remarkable, ground-breaking work, and we 
must redouble our support to ensure that America continues to be a 
leader in scientific advances. This bill will also provide grants to 
young researchers at the early stages of their careers to allow them to 
pursue their ideas and encourage them to continue their study in U.S. 
institutions. And, recognizing the importance of research into new 
energy technology as we work to combat global warming and reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, this bill creates a new Advanced Research 
Projects Agency for Energy.
  Finally, we recognize the importance of small businesses and 
entrepreneurial success in the development of our economy. This bill 
will double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership over 10 
years and will create a Technology Innovation Program to support 
revolutionary technology development at small and medium sized 
companies.
  Mr. Speaker, we must take proactive steps to secure America's place 
in an era of global economic and scientific competition. This bill, by 
increasing the number of students entering STEM fields and stimulating 
exciting research at our national scientific institutions and in our 
business community, will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 21st Century 
Competitiveness Act of 2007. Taking most of its content from the 
National Academies Report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' H.R. 
2272 is the compilation of an ambitious legislative portfolio that will 
fulfill the Innovation Agenda. I was proud to help craft the Innovation 
Agenda, on which our nation is dependent for its future prosperity, and 
to serve on the conference committee of H.R. 2272.
  As a scientist and educator, I have had the opportunity to work at 
several stages of our Nation's science research pipeline. This bill 
contains sound strategies for addressing our lagging competitiveness at 
every stage of this pipeline, from K-12 education to research and 
development. Such a comprehensive approach is badly needed. H.R. 2272 
creates programs for training teachers and for encouraging students to 
enter into fields where there is national need. It sets us on a 
necessary path to doubling our investment in the National Science 
Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology. To ensure we are 
harnessing all available talent, this bill encourages underrepresented 
students to enter science and technology. It ensures that we do not 
lose talent at the early career bottleneck that follows completion of a 
terminal research-based degree.
  I am also pleased that the two initiatives that I have championed in 
the House of Representatives have made it into the conference report. 
The first is the Foreign Language Partnership, which is a competitive 
grant program to enable institutions of higher education and local 
educational agencies working in partnership to establish articulated 
programs of study in critical foreign languages so that students from 
the elementary through postsecondary level can advance their knowledge 
successfully and achieve higher levels of proficiency in a critical 
foreign language.
  The second is State P-16 Councils--that is, primary school through 
college. The bill authorizes 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.
  This bill will make us not only successful, but also a nation more 
worthy of success. It gives students with financial need better access 
to science and technology careers, empowering them to improve their 
lives and contribute to society. It makes necessary investments in 
energy research that will give our children a world we are proud for 
them to inherit.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. Without its 
reforms, we will continue to lose our global lead in science, 
technology, and quality of life.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. I rise in strong support of the Conference Report on 
H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act.
  There has been a steady drumbeat across the country to call the 
nation to action to renew its leadership in the Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. The National Academies of 
Science Report, ``Rising above the Gathering Storm'' has become the 
rallying cry that Sputnik was a generation ago.
  Today, with the passage of this conference report, the 110th Congress 
answers the call.
  The America COMPETES Act ensures that American students, teachers, 
businesses, and workers are prepared to continue leading the world in 
innovation, research, and technology well into the future. It takes a 
comprehensive approach with investments in education, research and 
development. It moves us towards energy independence and harnesses the 
potential of small businesses to drive innovation.
  The American COMPETES Act recognizes that America needs to draw on 
all of its talent--especially a growing population of minority students 
who continue to be under-represented in the STEM fields.
  According to the U.S. Census, 39 percent of the population under the 
age of 18 is a racial or ethnic minority. That percentage is on a path 
to pass 50 percent by the year 2050, Yet, in 2000, only 4.4 percent of 
the science and engineering jobs were held by African Americans and 
only 3.4 percent by Hispanics. Women constitute over half of the 
postsecondary students in the nation, but represent a little more than 
one-quarter of our science and engineering workforce.
  The America COMPETES Act tackles these disparities head on. 
Throughout the legislation, there is an emphasis on increasing the 
numbers of minorities and women in the STEM fields and on expanding the 
minority-serving institutions' participation in education, research and 
development.
  The America COMPETES Act makes strategic investments in improving the 
STEM pipeline through education.
  This legislation invests in 25,000 new teachers through professional 
development, summer training institutes, graduate education assistance, 
and scholarships through NSF's Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program and 
Math and Science Partnerships Program. In exchange for their 
scholarship, these teachers go to our highest need schools.
  The America COMPETES Act includes provisions modeled after the 
successful U-Teach program at the University of Texas where students 
earn degrees in the STEM fields and

[[Page 22497]]

teaching certificates at the same time. These newly minted teachers are 
placed, mentored, and supported in the schools where they are needed 
the most.
  This legislation expands access to Advanced Placement and 
International Baccalaureate programs. It also establishes P-16 councils 
to coordinate education and workforce goals with industry and community 
leaders, and to identify the challenges of recruiting and retaining 
students in innovative fields.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation addresses a quiet 
crisis in our high need high schools--the lack of quality laboratory 
science opportunities.
  The National Research Council's report on America's High School Labs 
found that experience in high school labs was poor for most students 
and practically non-existent for students in low-income or minority 
communities. We will never produce enough STEM professionals if we do 
not address this issue.
  I am very pleased that the legislation before us today includes the 
provisions of my bill, H.R. 524 Partnerships for Access to Laboratory 
Science Act. This legislation will establish a pilot program that will 
partner high need school districts with colleges and universities, and 
the private sector to improve high school laboratories. Through these 
pilots, we will be able to develop models and test effective practices 
for improving laboratory science in high need schools. We will leverage 
resources from the local community and the private sector, and build on 
our base of knowledge of what works in teaching science.
  The America COMPETES Act is about our vision for the future of this 
country. It is about our belief in this nation's unlimited potential 
and our willingness to invest in it.
  I would like to commend Chairman Gordon, Chairman Miller and all of 
the members of the conference committee for their excellent work.
  I urge my colleague to unanimously pass this legislation.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2272, the 
America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in 
Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act. We have recently 
learned that in the coming years, children in India and China may be 
better prepared for the jobs of the future than our own children here 
in the United States: Further, the 2005 National Academies report, 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'', emphasized the United States 
could lose its competitive edge without immediate action being taken. 
In response to these alarming reports, Congress has shifted focus to 
strengthening our science technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) fields.
  Today, H.R. 2272, legislation to ensure that the students, teachers, 
and workers will not be left behind as the world moves forward in new 
technology development and innovation, is being considered. The bill 
authorizes funding for programs to create more qualified teachers in 
science and math fields and to support scientific research and 
innovation through the National Science Foundation, the Department of 
Energy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  I believe our teachers are the cornerstone to leading future 
generations in STEM fields and I believe we must give them the proper 
resources to meet this goal. This legislation stands to create and 
equip thousands of new teachers and give current teachers the content 
and instructional skills they need in order to teach science and 
mathematics.
  The legislation authorizes a total of $22 billion over fiscal years 
2008-2010 for research, education, and other programs at the National 
Science Foundation; $2.65 billion for the research labs, the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and other activities at the 
National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST); and $17 billion 
for programs at the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Speaker, we must set policies that ensure the United States will 
remain competitive in the future. I support this legislation and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. Speaker, there is much to be excited about in H.R. 
2272, the America COMPETES Act, a bill that endeavors to maintain 
America's preeminence in math and science. It doubles funding for the 
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It establishes a number of 
initiatives to encourage diversity in energy choices and participation. 
It also establishes a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, 
ARPA-E, to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers 
in the development of energy technologies.
  However, the directive of ARPA-E explicitly includes provisions for 
the advancement of nuclear energy. The perils of nuclear energy are 
numerous. Indeed, in March 2002, workers at the Davis Besse nuclear 
power plant discovered a deep cavity in the head of the nuclear 
reactor, leaving only a thin stainless steel lining. Experts have 
concluded that if the hole were not discovered, the reactor could have 
ruptured within the next year of operation. Furthermore, the lack of a 
long-term solution to dispose of nuclear waste necessitates that we 
dump tons of highly toxic waste on several generations to came. 
Finally, the economics of nuclear power requires billions of dollars in 
Federal subsidies, which would be far better spent on development of 
truly renewable energy technologies.
  For these reasons, I voted against H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES 
Act.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to strongly 
support the conference report for H.R. 2272, the America Creating 
Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, 
Education and Science, COMPETES, Act of 2007.
  Science, technology, engineering, and math STEM, research and 
education are the key to much of our country's success for the last 200 
years. America has long been a center for science and engineering 
discovery--in the last few decades alone, American ingenuity has 
transformed our Nation and the world with the personal computer and the 
internet. Going forward, new innovations will continue to be critical, 
both in maintaining a solid industrial and economic base and increasing 
our standard of living.
  Federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, NSF, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and the 
Department of Energy's Office of Science, play a key role by funding 
cutting-edge research and training the next generation of scientists 
and engineers. And nothing will occur without federal investment in 
STEM research and education--we must continue this strong Federal 
support to reinforce our global competitiveness and our prosperity.
  As a cosponsor of H.R. 2272 and a House conferee, I am proud to say 
that this legislation will set us in the right direction. It will help 
strengthen and improve research and education efforts at NSF, NIST, 
DOE's Office of Science, and the Department of Education, as well as 
update the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 and recognize the 
important role that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 
NASA, plays in STEM education and research. This bill will help to 
ensure that the United States continues to be a science and technology 
leader.
  H.R. 2272 includes a needed funding increase for overall laboratory 
research at NIST. As part of the American Competitiveness initiative, 
NIST will use these funds to expand upon its world-class research, 
ensuring that the United States will continue to be globally 
competitive in many industries.
  NIST is particularly important to me because one of its key 
laboratories is located in Boulder, Colorado, in my district. The 
Boulder labs employ more than 350 people and serve as a science and 
engineering center for significant research across the Nation. The 
increase in research funding will help the scientists here expand our 
knowledge about topics ranging from nanotechnology to material science.
  A critical component of this legislation is that it includes funding 
for construction at these laboratories. NIST's Boulder facilities have 
contributed to great scientific advances, but they are now over 50 
years old and have not been well maintained. Many environmental factors 
such as the humidity and vibrations from traffic can affect the quality 
of research performed at NIST. In fiscal year 2007, NIST-Boulder will 
begin an extension of Building 1 to make room for a Precision Metrology 
lab. This new facility will allow for incredibly precise control of 
temperature, relative humidity, air filtration and vibration to advance 
research on critical technologies, such as atomic clocks 
telecommunications, and nanomaterials. To complete this extension, NIST 
will need further funding in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. H.R. 2272 
authorizes this critical funding.
  I am also pleased to see that the legislation reauthorizes and 
gradually increases funding for key technology transfer programs like 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and the 
Technology Innovation Program, TIP, formerly known as the Advanced 
Technology Program, ATP.
  For NSF, H.R. 2272 will continue the effort to double its funding 
over a 10-year time period by authorizing almost $22 billion for fiscal 
years 2008-2010. The bill will also encourage the participation of more 
scientists who have not received NSF funding in the past through 1-year 
seed grants. By targeting these grants toward these new recipients, the 
legislation will help support early career researchers and encourage 
higher-risk research.
  As co-chair of the STEM Education Caucus, I am also pleased that H.R. 
2272 contains

[[Page 22498]]

support and funding for NSF's STEM education programs. These programs 
include the Math and Science Partnerships program and the Noyce 
Scholarships Program, as well as several STEM education grants that 
focus on teacher professional development. These programs will help 
increase the number of well-qualified science and math teachers across 
the country, both through creating more teachers from current college 
students and by providing better training for the teachers already in 
our schools.
  The bill will increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office 
of Science, providing nearly $17 million over fiscal years 2008-2010. 
The Office of Science funds much of our country's physical science and 
has helped advance our knowledge about energy, a critical issue of both 
national and economic security. This increase will keep the Office of 
Science on track to double its funding over 10 years.
  As chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, I am pleased that H.R. 2272 
contains a number of provisions that highlight the important role that 
the NASA can and does play in promoting innovation and competitiveness. 
To that end, the conference report includes language to ensure that 
NASA will be a full participant in all interagency innovation and 
competitiveness initiatives as well as STEM initiatives. That's 
important, because the record shows that past NASA R&D activities have 
contributed to the vitality of today's economy through NASA's 
development of a host of innovative technologies. In addition, NASA 
still has a ``brand'' that can inspire young people to pursue careers 
in science and engineering, and we should capitalize on that fact by 
involving NASA in interagency STEM initiatives whenever appropriate. 
The conference report does just that, and it also encourages NASA to 
use its undergraduate student research program to more directly engage 
college and university students in NASA-related research.
  In addition to NASA's basic science and research programs, H.R. 2272 
recognizes and endorses the significant role that NASA's aeronautics 
programs play in ensuring America's competitiveness. However, I think 
it is clear that investing in aeronautics is critical not only to our 
competitiveness, but also to our quality of life, the safety and 
efficiency of our Nation's air transportation system, and our military 
strength. We need to ensure that NASA continues to maintain its 
commitment to a meaningful and robust aeronautics R&D program.
  Finally, H.R. 2272 notes the role that the International Space 
Station, ISS, if properly utilized, can play in helping to promote 
interest in math and science. It thus directs NASA to make concrete 
plans to implement at least some of the innovative educational projects 
proposed by an interagency task force that looked at the contributions 
that the ISS could make to STEM education. In addition, the conference 
report also directs NASA to come up with a clear plan to identify and 
support ISS research that can contribute to innovation and 
competitiveness. As was made clear at a recent hearing held by my 
subcommittee, NASA needs to do much more than it has been doing to get 
a good return on the sizeable investment that the Nation has made in 
the ISS. As was further pointed out at the hearing, the ISS offers a 
unique capability for research in a number of disciplines that could 
benefit both NASA as well as our citizens back here on Earth--but NASA 
needs to step up to the challenge of making sure that research is 
adequately supported.
  I would like to thank House Science and Technology Committee Chairman 
Gordon and Ranking Member Hall, Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici, House 
Education and Labor Committee Chairman Miller and Ranking Member 
McKeon, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman 
Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens, and the other conferees, for their 
work on this critical bipartisan legislation.
  I think we all recognize that investing in basic research and STEM 
education is critical for a strong economy and national security, and 
H.R. 2272 will help us improve the critical support for STEM education 
and research. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this 
important legislation.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act.
  I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
working together on this important legislation that responds to the 
global economic challenges our country faces. This bill ensures that 
American students, teachers, businesses, and workers are prepared to 
continue leading the world in innovation, research, and technology well 
into the future.
  In order for the United States to remain competitive in the global 
economy, we must invest in education. This bill will allow more 
students to be trained in math, science, engineering, and technology 
education through quality, innovative teacher-training programs. As a 
result, our future generation will be able to transform ideas into new 
technologies that will boost our economy and create good jobs here at 
home.
  Sadly over the last decade, U.S. Federal funding for research and 
development has declined steadily. H.R. 2272 makes a renewed commitment 
to independent scientific research by increasing funding for the 
National Science Foundation, NSF, the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, NIST, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. 
This bill provides grants for outstanding researchers and coordinates 
research ideas and infrastructure needs between universities, national 
labs, and Government agencies.
  In addition, creating a new energy policy is a top priority for the 
new Democratic majority. Clean energy technologies will create high-
paying American jobs, strengthen our national security, lower costs for 
consumers, and reduce global warming. The 21st Century Competitiveness 
Act strengthens our national commitment to energy research and 
innovation by creating a new Advanced Research Agency for Energy, ARPA-
E.
  Finally, H.R. 2272 increases support for innovative entrepreneurs. 
Small businesses are often the catalyst for new innovations; however 
these businesses face significant obstacles that limit their efforts to 
transform ideas into reality. This bill increases funding for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, and also creates the 
Technology Innovation Program, TIP, that supports small businesses that 
are developing technologies that will benefit our country and world.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this critical 
legislation that ensures the United States' global competitiveness.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Shimkus

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Shimkus moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill, H.R. 2272, with instructions to the managers on the 
     part of the House to:
       (1) insist on the lower overall authorization level as set 
     forth by the House in H.R. 2272; and
       (2) insist on the language of subsection (a) of section 203 
     of the House bill, relating to prioritization of early career 
     grants to science and engineering researchers for the 
     expansion of domestic energy production and use through coal-
     to-liquids technology and advanced nuclear reprocessing.
  Mr. SHIMKUS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  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.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199, 
nays 227, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page 22499]]



                             [Roll No. 801]

                               YEAS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     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
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     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)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     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
     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
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     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
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     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
     LoBiondo
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dicks
     Johnson, Sam
     Schakowsky


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1812

  Mr. HALL of New York, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas and Mr. LANGEVIN changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. McKEON and Mr. SPACE 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 conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 367, 
noes 57, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 802]

                               AYES--367

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert

[[Page 22500]]


     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--57

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Granger
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Issa
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Poe
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boyd (FL)
     Clarke
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Johnson, Sam
     Reyes
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Speaker

  The SPEAKER (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in the vote.
  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

                              {time}  1818

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________